BF2S Forums Can anyone honestly say...

The_Mac wrote:

Tdog2007 wrote:

bush is a fag. end of story. what my uncle said is we're doin the same damned thing we did in vietnam

Thanks for sharing your uncle's opinion on BF2s.

his uncle speaks the truth.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

Tdog2007 wrote:

bush is a fag. end of story. what my uncle said is we're doin the same damned thing we did in vietnam

Thanks for sharing your uncle's opinion on BF2s.

his uncle speaks the truth.

...about how the democrats in the legislative branch hamstring the republican president every chance they get.
...about how our rules of engagement prevent us from getting the job done
...about how the hipsters on the homefront cry for the enemy dead and hate our great soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and coasties.

yup...pretty much the same

what's different is that this is a life and death struggle for western society vs 5th century barbarians hell bent on destroying our way of life

By the way, how many people were killed by communist regimes?  Stalin, Mao?  upwards of what...50 million?  amazing.  nice ideology there.  Check this out http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

Last edited by CaptainSpaulding71 (2007-06-27 01:27:33)

i dont think bush is completely at fault for america's problems. a president has to take decisive action when terrorists kill 2000+ americans. however, CONGRESS failed, they could have stopped the Iraq War, recognized the flawed intelligence beforehand by reading the report instead of the misleading summary, actually read NCLB, MCA, and the Patriot Act before voting for them, and asked tough questions to help the president improve his goals/plans. Instead, many of our elected officials sat there dumbly saluting the flag and not acting in the interest of their country because they were afraid of being labelled unpatriotic and not getting reelected. in fact, we are all at fault for some of america's problems. many, myself included, did not speak out early on prior to the repealing of elements of the constitution and the many questionable changes in america's domestic and foreign policies.

Blind faith in bad leadership is not patriotism.

san4 wrote:

Actually, the Democrats in congress failed to hamstring the President when he proposed massive tax cuts and they passed them. Now the government is going deep into debt to pay for Iraq and the broader struggle against radical Islam. And China has purchased a huge amount of US debt.

One could argue that the tax cuts are an orthogonal issue to the war.  they were used to stimulate an economy that was failing due to the internet bubble of the late 90s.  i would say that this has worked (at least for me and my quality of life).  others may disagree.  I agree with your statement however that the democrats did not speak up and started saluting just like everyone else.  If they were so vehemently opposed to going into Iraq at the time and did not voice this, then i would chalk that up to doing what it takes to get reelected.  Now, if they changed their mind somewhere along the way - i say that is ok also - to be fair.  i mean if you make a mistake, you should be given the opportunity to do what you can to fix or address the situation.  i guess this is what the democrats are attempting to do.  the republicans strongly believe that this is a real struggle against radical islam and we need action now instead of little piddly things that were done from time to time in the past (like in 70s-80s).  i tend to agree with republicans on this because i think it needs to be 'stopped entirely' instead of 'appeased' or 'contained'.

san4 wrote:

How could we change our "rules of engagement" to prevent the Shiite majority from running Iraq? They are friends of Iran and I don't consider it "getting the job done" if the result is creating a new oil-rich ally for Iran.

This isn't what i meant.  when i meant rules of engagement, i was addressing the rules that prohibit our military from elminating the enemy just because they 'hide' in a historical area or you can't shoot unless someone is shooting at you first.  I've read numerous first hand accounts of what the ground pounders have to do over there and it's startling.  You know, i bet if the USMC in Lebanon in 1983 were allowed to have bullets in their rifles at the checkpoint that that suicide bomber in the dump truck wouldn't have made it through and killed 240 of our brave Marines and Navy personnel.  That's what i meant.

san4 wrote:

Has any member of congress suggested they hate US soldiers? Any prominent Democrats? Please provide a link to any non-fringe expression of hatred for American soldiers in Iraq.

uhhh...google 'John Kerry'.  Also, it's one thing to just come out and say it which no 'smart' politician will do.  It's another thing to continually undermine every effort to be successful militarily.  Some others you might want to look at are John Edwards, Bill Clinton (for his halving of the US military and forcing soldiers to shout 'bang' on training exercises because we didn't have the $$$ to buy bullets or even sim-munitions). 

san4 wrote:

Both sides in the conflict between the West and fundamentalist Islam want to destroy the other's way of life. Military action isn't going to win that battle.

The West doesn't want to destroy Islam.  We don't want to kill them because they pray to allah or won't convert to Christianity.  We don't choose to strap on bomb belts and go into farmers markets and kill innocent people to 'further our cause' of our freedom of expression.

Honestly i could care less what they do as long as they don't force me to submit to the will of allah (yeah...lower case allah) and kill me.  when they attack my country, when they kill innocent people, i'm sure as hell gonna get pissed though.  I would say that the West if anything wants to bring these cultures into the 21st century.  Of course you can say that this is wanting to destroy their backward culture.  i would say that it would be for the actual benefit of their people though - and they can still pray to their god.  i'm a capitalist pig - whatever - but i think that these countries might be better off if they concentrated on rebuilding their infrastructures, empowering their people to be productive, and focus on peaceful solutions to better their lives.  call me crazy.

One may however argue that the Western values are 'corrupting' fundamentalist islamic culture.  I actually agree that this is very true.  Their culture is VERY conservative.  The thing about it is, that they want to force their people to behave a certain way.  In my culture you don't force but you can use other ways.  eg:  dry up interest for a market and it doesn't make money - hence it will die out.  So another way to look at it is why is there a market for US culture in these lands that hate the US so much?  kind of ironic isn't it?

For that matter, why has the West sunk deep into a culture that promotes 'sleaze'?  Why are some so enamoured of the exploits of Lindsay, Paris, and Britney?  Why do we purportedly love to see 'scandal'?  i claim that THIS is what Islamic fundamentalists don't want in their culture.  I can see their point. 

So, is it perhaps the Liberal media that is ultimately at fault for our problems with Islam?