I stand by the "kill people and break things". Not that it's their primary purpose (I was rushed when I wrote that) but it is their primary method of achieving their mission.
Some people on here do not seem to understand how the military works, it is not a democracy. There are rules of engagement and behaviour (Geneva Convention) but, if your commander tells you to "take that hill" you take it. You don't question the order unless you have a damn good reason to! As a grunt you are not privy to the big picture. If you stall and start thinking up excuses not to take that hill the other squad of soldiers who are performing their mission expecting you to have taken that hill are going to find themselves in serious jeopardy if they get where they are going and you have not taken that hill.
If G.I.'s could vote on the mission they would never leave the barracks!
No, I will not retract or apologize for the earlier "look, only those warmonger soldiers want to be over there. All of us civilians want peace!" because it is true by definition. If all of the pro-war people were in the military than only the 'warmonger' soldiers would be pro-war. It would be a 100% legitimate argument. If you parse the statement (you know about parsing, it was one of Bill Clinton's favorite tactics and is also one of Obama's) you would see that I did not say all soldiers were warmongers, you inferred that on your own.
Besides, I'm still waiting for you to respond to your accusation about lobbyists...
I stand by the "kill people and break things". Not that it's their primary purpose (I was rushed when I wrote that) but it is their primarymethodof achieving their mission.
Some people on here do not seem to understand how the military works, it is not a democracy. There are rules of engagement and behaviour (Geneva Convention) but, if your commander tells you to "take that hill" you take it. You don't question the order unless you have a damn good reason to! As a grunt you are not privy to the big picture. If you stall and start thinking up excuses not to take that hill the other squad of soldiers who are performing their mission expecting you to have taken that hill are going to find themselves in serious jeopardy if they get where they are going and you have not taken that hill.
If G.I.'s could vote on the mission they would never leave the barracks!
No, I will not retract or apologize for the earlier "look, only those warmonger soldiers want to be over there. All of us civilians want peace!" because it is true by definition. If all of the pro-war people were in the military than only the 'warmonger' soldiers would be pro-war. It would be a 100% legitimate argument. If you parse the statement (you know about parsing, it was one of Bill Clinton's favorite tactics and is also one of Obama's) you would see that I did not say all soldiers were warmongers, you inferred that on your own.
Besides, I'm still waiting for you to respond to your accusation about lobbyists...
I NEVER implied that all soldiers were warmongers. You did, Sir. I have friends that have served in Iraq and did not support the war ethically, but they fulfilled their contractual duty. I do not blame the soldiers (no matter their political beliefs) for the actions and decisions of the President and/or Congress. The point I was making, was that anyone that supports this war should lay their life on the line for it, in addition to those that already are, and you know that. I was essentially saying "put your money where your mouth is." You are the one that is making the case that soldiers' primary goal is to kill people and break stuff, and that shows that YOU, Sir, have a flawed understanding of the military's goals and functions. What you described is the purpose of mercenaries like Blackwater, they have drastically different objectives than enlisted troops. NEVER PUT THESE WORDS IN MY MOUTH AGAIN. If you will not retract them, even though I have clearly stated that I did not say NOR imply such ideas is preposterous. You DO NOT speak for me. Never do so again. I have not seen your post about lobbyists, and it has NOTHING to do with what we are discussing at the moment. It has nothing to do with a retraction/apology for putting such abhorrent words into my mouth.
If a soldier disagrees with a particular mission, he's still obligated to follow orders. This is the way it should be, or else the military wouldn't work.
If the majority of soldiers, and their commanders, and even some higher-ups, disagree with a war, they still have to follow the orders of the chief.
The problem arises in that it is the responsibility of the military to protect the interests of the nation. The interests of the nation (should) reflect the interests of its PEOPLE. If the people disagree with the war, it shouldn't be fought. Soldiers know this. Soldiers are people too, and try as hard as you might to turn them into machines, the military cannot make someone no longer be a person.
If the majority of soldiers and Americans have stopped supporting a war, the leadership of the warring nation has no choice but to stop. To do less amounts to psychologically torturing the soldiers, well past the normal pressures placed on them by military service. I'd like my friends and family to come back in a mostly functional form, and not, say, a heroin-addicted wreck, like some people I know.
If the troops don't support the war, support them by bringing them home. They don't want to be there, and most people agree that they shouldn't be there. Perhaps if there were some ACTUAL threat to the US, more people would support it, and more soldiers would be willing to fight.
If G.I.'s could vote on the mission they would never leave the barracks!
. . . and that would be bad because? Tell me one thing that has been accomplished by this war that has been worth the cost of one human life. One thing.
If the troops don't support the war, support them by bringing them home. They don't want to be there, and most people agree that they shouldn't be there. Perhaps if there were some ACTUAL threat to the US, more people would support it, and more soldiers would be willing to fight.
Did anyone see McClellan on Countdown with Keith Olberman last night? I find it incredibly interesting that he stops short of stating that willfully cherry picking their "facts" from what the administration new to be bad information to sell the public on the Iraq War was not an act of willful deception. When Olberman pressed him on how it could be anything except willful deception, all he could do was stammer and talk about his "permanent campaign mindset" defense. Isn't that just stating that they were selling us bad intelligence (as he admits that the administration knew it was bad intelligence)? How can that be anything except willful deception?
We had an impeachment hearing about a blow-job, but outing a CIA operative to scare people into towing the line as they lie their way into the Iraq war that not only injures and kills our soldiers, but also destroys the economy (that was in a surplus when GWB took office)... nah, we will let that slide. This is just disgusting.
Keith Olbermann had the #1 rated show on MSNBC with an 0.8 rating, with 877,000 total viewers, and 334,000 viewers in the 25 to 54 demo. Copy and paste this url into a new browser window to see all the ratings:
STEWERT: BTW, O'Reilly claims the reason Keith Olbermanns ratings are so low is that he is liberal, and nobody wants to watch liberals. The facts show a different story. Keith has the #1 rated show on MSNBC, and the 3 lowest rated shows in all of cable news are Republicans. Joe Scarborough is dead last with 269,000 total viewers, Tucker Carlson is next to last with 332,000 total viewers, and Glenn Beck is right above Tucker with 387,000 total viewers.
Funny how O'Reilly claims nobody is watching Olbermann because he is liberal, when he has the #1 show on MSNBC, and the 3 lowest rated shows in all of cable news are all hosted by Republicans. It's funny how Billy never mentions the 3 worst rated shows in all of cable news are all Republican shows.
The facts show that the only cable news shows that get over 1 million viewers are all on FOX, and that if a Republican does a cable news show on any other network they are dead last in the ratings, or next to last. What that shows is the only people who want to watch Republican news are the people who watch the FOX news channel. What a shocker, Republicans like to watch Republican biased news shows.
But when you take those Republicans off the FOX network nobody watches them. That kills the O'Reilly myth that people only watch Republicans. It also shows that if a liberal does a good news show like Keith Olbermann does people will watch. And if Olbermann was on CNN he would probably get over 1 million viewers and be in the top 5 in ratings, his ratings are limited because he is on MSNBC, which is not on in as many households as CNN and FOX are.
Keith Olbermann had the #1 rated show on MSNBC with an 0.8 rating, with 877,000 total viewers, and 334,000 viewers in the 25 to 54 demo.
If he is the best thing on MSNBC they must really suck!
14 of the 18 shows above him are on FOX NEWS? I thought no one watched Fox News?
If you compare percentages of households that have access to MSNBC with households having access to Fox News does he have a higher slice of viewership? IOW: what percentage that have access watch?
Keith Olbermann had the #1 rated show on MSNBC with an 0.8 rating, with 877,000 total viewers, and 334,000 viewers in the 25 to 54 demo.
If he is the best thing on MSNBC they must really suck!
14 of the 18 shows above him are on FOX NEWS? I thought no one watched Fox News?
If you compare percentages of households that have access to MSNBC with households having access to Fox News does he have a higher slice of viewership? IOW: what percentage that have access watch?
If you want to talk about this on another thread or something, I might bite. Otherwise, you're just showing how little you have left to argue about. The ratings of the various pundits have little or nothing to do with the topic of this thread, namely that your boy Chimpy lied, is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, and has nearly single-handedly destroyed the credibility of both the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
Keith Olbermann had the #1 rated show on MSNBC with an 0.8 rating, with 877,000 total viewers, and 334,000 viewers in the 25 to 54 demo.
If he is the best thing on MSNBC they must really suck!
14 of the 18 shows above him are on FOX NEWS? I thought no one watched Fox News?
If you compare percentages of households that have access to MSNBC with households having access to Fox News does he have a higher slice of viewership? IOW: what percentage that have access watch?
It's not that no one watches Fox News. The viewers of Fox are in one of two camps IMHO: Liberals who have shows who create counter-arguments or point out glaring lies and fallacies in Fox's heavily biased 'reporting', or people who actually buy the bullshit and take it as the word of god despite the gross lack of evidence presented on any show or the obvious slanted journalism. I can't watch Fox because the filth they espouse is like steel wool on my brain.
Comparing a non-cable network and a cable network is also an apples/oranges situation. Also consider that a growing number of people get news from alternative sources.
However, I still say ratings should be unimportant to anyone but entertainers. That's what FOX is - a bunch of trained hate-mongers lying for the entertainment of their knuckle-dragging viewership.
MSNBC is reporting that an arsonist burned down the Texas governor's mansion. I don't think it's a stretch to speculate that it was politically motivated.
MSNBC is reporting that an arsonist burned down the Texas governor's mansion. I don't think it's a stretch to speculate that it was politically motivated.
However, I still say ratings should be unimportant to anyone but entertainers. That's what FOX is - a bunch of trained hate-mongers lying for the entertainment of their knuckle-dragging viewership.
I don't watch any cable news so I don't know. The only quasi-cable news I watch is the occasional Daily Show and Colbert Report.
I don't know if I would call the folks that work at Fox News as you call them but I do consider their shows to be nothing more than the Enquirer on TV.
Bush administration propaganda notwithstanding, Al Qaeda was not a factor in Iraq before the U.S. invasion. But it is now—and any withdrawal plan needs to deal with the demons we helped create
I would not agree 100% with that statement. I would go so far as to say that any Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq was (for all intents and purposes) powerless to do anything and very small in number.
I would not agree 100% with that statement. I would go so far as to say that any Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq was (for all intents and purposes) powerless to do anything and very small in number.
Funny, because the Bush administration used that as one of their pathetic excuses for the invasion. Remember them shouting about the supposed links between Saddam and Bin Laden? Yeah, funny how that ended up. Also, just because you disagree with it doesn't make it false. Facts are facts, like 'em or not.
Also, just because you disagree with it doesn't make it false. Facts are facts, like 'em or not.
That's just typical conservative arrogance. They actually think that if they believe something, then that belief is the fact, no matter what the fact might be in the reality-based world.
I would not agree 100% with that statement. I would go so far as to say that any Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq was (for all intents and purposes) powerless to do anything and very small in number.
Funny, because the Bush administration used that as one of their pathetic excuses for the invasion. Remember them shouting about thesupposed linksbetween Saddam and Bin Laden? Yeah,funny how that ended up. Also, just because you disagree with it doesn't make it false. Facts are facts, like 'em or not.
Are you saying there was not one single Al-Quada agent in Iraq prior to the US invasion?
Comments
Some people on here do not seem to understand how the military works, it is not a democracy. There are rules of engagement and behaviour (Geneva Convention) but, if your commander tells you to "take that hill" you take it. You don't question the order unless you have a damn good reason to! As a grunt you are not privy to the big picture. If you stall and start thinking up excuses not to take that hill the other squad of soldiers who are performing their mission expecting you to have taken that hill are going to find themselves in serious jeopardy if they get where they are going and you have not taken that hill.
If G.I.'s could vote on the mission they would never leave the barracks!
No, I will not retract or apologize for the earlier "look, only those warmonger soldiers want to be over there. All of us civilians want peace!" because it is true by definition. If all of the pro-war people were in the military than only the 'warmonger' soldiers would be pro-war. It would be a 100% legitimate argument. If you parse the statement (you know about parsing, it was one of Bill Clinton's favorite tactics and is also one of Obama's) you would see that I did not say all soldiers were warmongers, you inferred that on your own.
Besides, I'm still waiting for you to respond to your accusation about lobbyists...
I have not seen your post about lobbyists, and it has NOTHING to do with what we are discussing at the moment. It has nothing to do with a retraction/apology for putting such abhorrent words into my mouth.
If the majority of soldiers, and their commanders, and even some higher-ups, disagree with a war, they still have to follow the orders of the chief.
The problem arises in that it is the responsibility of the military to protect the interests of the nation. The interests of the nation (should) reflect the interests of its PEOPLE. If the people disagree with the war, it shouldn't be fought. Soldiers know this. Soldiers are people too, and try as hard as you might to turn them into machines, the military cannot make someone no longer be a person.
If the majority of soldiers and Americans have stopped supporting a war, the leadership of the warring nation has no choice but to stop. To do less amounts to psychologically torturing the soldiers, well past the normal pressures placed on them by military service. I'd like my friends and family to come back in a mostly functional form, and not, say, a heroin-addicted wreck, like some people I know.
If the troops don't support the war, support them by bringing them home. They don't want to be there, and most people agree that they shouldn't be there. Perhaps if there were some ACTUAL threat to the US, more people would support it, and more soldiers would be willing to fight.
We had an impeachment hearing about a blow-job, but outing a CIA operative to scare people into towing the line as they lie their way into the Iraq war that not only injures and kills our soldiers, but also destroys the economy (that was in a surplus when GWB took office)... nah, we will let that slide. This is just disgusting.
14 of the 18 shows above him are on FOX NEWS? I thought no one watched Fox News?
If you compare percentages of households that have access to MSNBC with households having access to Fox News does he have a higher slice of viewership? IOW: what percentage that have access watch?
Republican party destroyed by Bush? Yeah, I can see that. Conservative movement? No, I don't consider Bush a Conservative anymore.
Comparing a non-cable network and a cable network is also an apples/oranges situation. Also consider that a growing number of people get news from alternative sources.
However, I still say ratings should be unimportant to anyone but entertainers. That's what FOX is - a bunch of trained hate-mongers lying for the entertainment of their knuckle-dragging viewership.
I don't know if I would call the folks that work at Fox News as you call them but I do consider their shows to be nothing more than the Enquirer on TV.
Also, just because you disagree with it doesn't make it false. Facts are facts, like 'em or not.