Moore, Nugent & Wilson Sound off about Detroit

[4Oranges]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090404/ap_en_mo/final_four_detroit_spotlight

I generally like Ted Nugent and enjoy hearing his thoughts on various topics, even if I don't always agree with him. I would love to see these two men in a room on this topic. Much respect to Mary Wilson, but her ideas on what Detroit needs now is (or seems to me to be) a return to the past, which is never gonna happen. It is never going to be like it was. Even WHEN the US Auto Industry comes back, it is not going to come back like it was and we need to be thinking beyond factory work.

[PurpleHeart]

Ah yes, my favorite coward who failed to eat properly for two weeks prior to his induction when his draft number was called! Yes this is the same Ted who pooped in his pants for a week straight and let it get crusty and dry in order to show the medical examiner that he was crazy! And after everything was over (Viet Nam) in the early 70's said he had a college deferment (a total lie to cover his cowardice) And then had sex with underage girls and should have spent the rest of his life in prison!

Thing is he is not a Detroiter, yes his mother might have dropped him out of her uterus here in Detroit but he went to school and was raised in Chicago. Then he came back to Michigan and bought a large piece of land over by Jackson to offer "Canned Hunts" to people with money! He played a lot of concerts in Detroit but that doesn't make him a Detroiter!

And good Ole' Mikey Moore, he's from Flint! Ever hear anybody from Flint say anything nice about Detroit? If he was so great why doesn't he bring his production company down to Flint and give those people jobs! Instead he lives the life of luxury in Traverse City like the rest of those snobs. Mike's in it for himself and doesn't care who he bad mouths and who he has to step over.

But then there is that sweet sound of Nancy Wilson. Did God create a more beautiful and better sounding woman? I think not! I was fortunate to have met her and even stole a kiss from lips I have never felt so soft, so sweet again! If heaven gave us an angel on earth she surely is!

[jjw]

Ok--I am confused. Is it Nancy Wilson or Mary Wilson?

[jiminnm]

Actually PurpleHeart, Ted Nugent was raised in Detroit. His family moved to Chicago when he was 16. He moved back to Detroit when he was 19.
The comments are from Mary Wilson (formerly of the Supremes, not Nancy Wilson.

[Bobl]

I generally leave it up to the veterans who served to point out the "chicken hawks" out there. PurpleHeart has done so. I thank you for serving, sir.
Ted Nugent made some good rock'n'roll music. I still listen to Great White Buffalo and other gems from time to time. He wisely avoided the drug scourge that claimed many of his contemporaries. But his obnoxious tone and chickenhawk mentality really piss me off! People like Mr Nugent, Dick Cheney, and others made career moves as "hawks" despite their record of draft dodging, sending and encouraging other people's children to go off to war. Hell, Mr Cheney dodged the draft no less than five times, and when asked about it years later, replied: "I had other priorities."
War is terrible. It is not good for anyone. It is sad that it is necessary, in some cases, for self defense. There is no glory in empty words that end up sending others to fight them.
Ted Nugent should just play his guitar, go hunting, and keep his silly vitriol to himself.

Sorry for the rant, people, but this is a forum and that's how I feel!

Thanks again, PurpleHeart, and other vets....

[Lorax]

Couldn't agree more with the rest of the posters- Nugent is nothing more than a coward, and a repugnican political hack.

"Tough" guys like him run screaming like little girls when the chips are down.

[East Detroit]

I will respect him once he hunts a bear with no weapons...

[Flanders]

Perhaps Nugent should have been more forthcoming about his political leanings early in his career, instead of hypocritically performing and singing songs implying the benefits of youthful sexual deviancy, drug use, and pre-marital coitus. For some reason I just can't picture him performing songs like "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang" "Wango Tango" & "Cat Scratch Fever" in front of a captive RWer audience.

I was never a big fan, and never bought any of his music, but I did attend one of his Whiplash Bash concerts in the late 90s, but it was more so to see his opening act, another "closet"conservative by the name of Alice Cooper.

[MoparDan]

My oldest brother was drafted during Vietnam. His opinion of ol' Ted & the chickenhawk brigade follows Purpleheart's almost verbatim.
Nugent is an okay guitarist but I never cared for his music to begin with. Guys like him that HAVE to be on all the time are usually trying to make up for something. Like dodging the draft for instance.
Looks like a few others share Purple's sentiments as well.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://froogle.google.com/base_image%3Fsize%3D2%26q%3Dmusic/image/0/0WOyr2EP7M6I.jpg&imgrefurl=http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/672198221/m/8590063341001&usg=__CRPwyY5OY1ABh7EnIkD1fjbwZ4Q=&h=90&w=90&sz=3&hl=en&start=16&um=1&tbnid=52fIvhSaIgsYSM:&tbnh=78&tbnw=78&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dted%2Bnugent%2Bdraft%2Bdodger%26hl%3D en%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

[MrJones]

Regardless of what you think of Ted Nugent's political views, why do you spew your hatred out in the open?
You're a hypocrite, because you hate on those with the opposing view you have, and that is the core of what your disliked about the 60s conservatives. It's an ugly characteristic.
BTW, while both honorable, there is no comparison between youthful objection to a draft and an all- volunteer army. Draft should only be implemented in the most dire of circumstances.

[PurpleHeart]

Yes I always get the two names mixed up

Ted went to grade school and high school in Chicago, while there he formed the Amboy Dukes from a garage band and played his local Chicago bars for quite some time. He didn't move back to Michigan till he got his "Canned Hunt Farm."

He got his nickname "Motorcity Mad Man" after he broke up the Amboy Dukes and started to pursue his own music. Purists say he isn't that great of a guitar player and for his philosophy well it's out there, "women should stay barefoot and pregnant, making cookies."

This is neither a role model (anti-drug message or not) nor a spokesman for the conservative cause.

[quote] "Journey to the Center of the Mind", which Nugent, an ardent anti-drug campaigner, claims to this day he did not realize was about drug use [end quote]

[FlyingJ]

n Nancy Wilson's defense, Woodinville s pretty nice
with my favorite(existing) Brewery Tour, easily;
http://www.yelp.com/biz/forecasters-pub-redhook-brewery-woodinville

[MickeyMac]

Michael Moore is an idiot. I agree what Ted Nugent has to say about him. He should give back his academy award and make a real documentary.

[Lloyd]

[quote=MrJones;2958]Regardless of what you think of Ted Nugent's political views, why do you spew your hatred out in the open?
You're a hypocrite, because you hate on those with the opposing view you have, and that is the core of what your disliked about the 60s conservatives.quote]

Wow, talk about missing the point. The point was that, when the chips were down, Ted Nugent did all he could to avoid serving his country and, that sir, has nothing to do with being a 60s conservative unless you want to advocate that being a 60s conservative meant having a yellow streak a yard wide down your back.

As far as spewing hate in the open, I suppose you would rather it be kept inside where it can't offend anyone? For me, I'd rather see it in the open where I know where people are coming from.

Further, as far as hating people with opposing views, I got none of that from the previous posts, what I got was a factual evaluation of the cowardly actions of a man who now, that he no longer has any chance of being put on the front lines, advocates strongly for our young to go fight in war. That, sir, is wrong. It was wrong for Nugent. It was wrong for Chaney. It was wrong for the second Bush <remember the first Bush was a bonifide hero in WWII>. It is wrong for anyone who refused to serve when called to now advocate that other server. Simple. Not hate. Just fact.

[MoparDan]

Spot on Lloyd!
Another interesting point where Bush Sr. is concerned is that he was never comfortable being labeled a "hero" & haunted by the loss of his two crewmen. His biggest problem politically was not being a Reagan clone & never a believer in supply-side economics calling it "Voodoo Economics".
While no fan of Moore, I have utter contempt for people such as Nugent hiding behind the shield of "Patriotism" while they cheerlead for someone else to do the fighting. There's a word for people like that: chickensh*t.

Maybe someone should ask Bob Seger what he thinks of what's going on up there. You'd probably get a more sensible response.

[diver1369]

I went to Henry Ford High School with Dave Palmer, original drummer of the Amboy Dukes so I don't know about PurpleHearts claim that Ted Nugent put them together in Chicago.

[mikeinmotown]

Purpleheart's facts are a little off. The poop incident is supposedly true, Ted actually braged about it in the 70's. The Amboy Dukes were part of the Detroit/Ann Arbor scene, but they formed in Ann Arbor. Once Ted left the Amboy Dukes he sucked and I never could understand why people liked him. Ted is a lier when he tells people he never did drugs. His first wife had a serious drug problem and I think might of died of a drug overdose but I cant confirm that. I know too many people who partied with Ted and the Amboy Dukes in the late 60's early 70's who said he did drugs. So what, everyone did. I agree with Purpleheart, Ted is a coward. Not because he didn't want to go to Viet Nam but because he hides behind his new found conservtive views and pretends he is all American and if you dont' agree with him you are not an American. Screw him!

[Bobl]

As I recall, Ted moved from Redford to Chicago with his family for a short time, then returned. His first band, The Lourds, was actually pretty good, considering his age (my guess: 15), and played Cobo. Amboy Dukes followed.
He has a right to his opinions. My beef is his arrogance and tone, and that he has encouraged other people's children to go to war, while he avoided it. War is not glorious, and it is cowardly to encourage others to go while one stands at the sidelines, as Nugent, Cheney, and so many others have.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Ted Nugent did all he could to avoid serving his country and, that sir, has nothing to do with being a 60s conservative unless you want to advocate that being a 60s conservative meant having a yellow streak a yard wide down your back."

Monday morning quarterbacking. Having grown up in the period in which you speak and damn near rounded up and shipped off to that hellhole myself, Ted was not the only one evading service at that time. "Hell no, we won't go" being the mantra of the day; it was definitely a different period in time. To call these folks unpatriotic is to misunderstand our system of rights and liberties altogether.

Now back to bashing Ted, just wanted to call that foul.

[rb336]

I dislike Nuge for a number of reasons - his hypocrisy chief among them, marketing himself as a great hunter/outdorsman when he never hunted a thing he didn't bait for months before killing them, etc. but the guy DID give lots of venison to soup kitchens

[Sstashmoo]

He's a celebrity, they're all phonies to some degree. Read the Enquirer :D

[MoparDan]

Quote: Monday morning quarterbacking. Having grown up in the period in which you speak and damn near rounded up and shipped off to that hellhole myself, Ted was not the only one evading service at that time. "Hell no, we won't go" being the mantra of the day; it was definitely a different period in time. To call these folks unpatriotic is to misunderstand our system of rights and liberties altogether.

Now back to bashing Ted, just wanted to call that foul.

So anyone who scooted off to Canada or faked a medical condition in avoiding the draft is fine with you?
My brother & his friends protested the war; but when his & a few other's numbers were called, they reported. He was fortunate in being sent to the DMZ in Korea, but some people he knew weren't as lucky. The point is, despite being against the war, he showed up when the draft notice arrived. He wasn't the only one who did so & by no means unique. Our dad was a hardcore career military man; he had reservations about why & how the war was being conducted & yet he volunteered for two tours because he felt the country needed him. He was already an E-9, so it wasn't to pad his record for promotion. If he were still alive, I'd bet my paycheck he'd have no problem dressing down the chickenhawk brigade.
I'd never deny Mr. Nugent(or anyone else) his right to free speech, however....I find it interesting that such a "Patriot" & believer in the Constitution has no problem calling anyone who disagrees with him every name in the book. So perhaps he has a complete misunderstanding of our systems & rights.

As for Michael Moore, his "documentaries" have their moments(very few I might add) but I wouldn't trust him to take out the garbage. He is the flipside of the same coin as Nugent: they cannot stand anyone not agreeing with their opinions or views. Moore comes across as too much of a whiner. Not to mention the guy should've gotten into a training program before making Sicko...another case of hypocrisy there.
Let me know if bashing on Michael is a foul as well.

Still waiting for Bob Seger to weigh in...

[4Oranges]

I had no idea about his antics to evade serving. Listening/watching his antics now on any given subject I find it easy to believe that sitting cross-legged in park somewhere chanting "hell no we won't go" is not his style......everything he does he does for the shock value and the attention it brings.

There are things I stood behind 20 years ago that I no longer agree with....with age comes reason, or something like that, right? His opinions now are not necessarily disingenuous just because they differ from his opinions 30 years ago.

I do not mean to suggest that his many years have made him a perfectly reasonable man...I put him in the same class as Ann Coulter. Both are fun to watch in a debate situation for a little while (even tho just talking louder than your opponent does not a real debate make), but both manage to let the vitriol completely overshadow any legitamacy their opinion/message may carry.

[4Oranges]

I put Michael Moore in the same category.....message gets lost by the antics used to convey said message. He might have more support if he wasn't such a d-bag about how he presents his opinions & arguments.

Oh, and if he developed & presented some real ideas for positive change.

[Bobl]

I see a significant difference between Nugent and Moore. Mr. Moore has not made a career move of persuading other people's children to go to war, as Nugent, Cheney and the chickenhawks have.

[Sstashmoo]

""So anyone who scooted off to Canada or faked a medical condition in avoiding the draft is fine with you?""

Knowing the circumstances? Absolutely. It was war there was no winning. There has been a 4o year debate whether it was even a "war" at all. Being patriotic does not mean submit blindly to your government. You know people that went to VietNam? So do I. And I know many that are F'd up till this day because of it.

Had your relation went to VietNam like mine did, you'd probably have a different take on it. The malaria, the jungle rot, The heat, humidity, monsoon rains, deployment without ammo, people dying for no reason, the Agent orange and all the other deadly shit our government was subjecting our troops to. No, I have no ill will for anyone who could think for themselves.

[MoparDan]

""So anyone who scooted off to Canada or faked a medical condition in avoiding the draft is fine with you?""

Knowing the circumstances? Absolutely. It was war there was no winning. There has been a 4o year debate whether it was even a "war" at all. Being patriotic does not mean submit blindly to your government. You know people that went to VietNam? So do I. And I know many that are F'd up till this day because of it.

Had your relation went to VietNam like mine did, you'd probably have a different take on it. The malaria, the jungle rot, The heat, humidity, monsoon rains, deployment without ammo, people dying for no reason, the Agent orange and all the other deadly shit our government was subjecting our troops to. No, I have no ill will for anyone who could think for themselves.

Uh, my dad was there for two tours & last I remember, we were related at the time. His name is on my birth certificate so I'll assume it's legal.
I grew up in a military community & lots of fathers/sons went. Some came back screwed up while others survived it. My sister's first husband came back whacked out & they divorced shortly after he returned to the states. He disappeared never seeing his daughter grow up; none of us saw him again.
You're completely missing the point: Avoiding war while cheerleading others to go fight.
Bill Clinton is good in your book for avoiding service at that time? Anyone who disagreed with or protested the Iraq invasion are patriots?

[BShea]

"It is wrong for anyone who refused to serve when called to now advocate that other server. Simple. Not hate. Just fact."

That would include William Jefferson Clinton, correct?

Funny, the "chickenhawk" nonsense didn't get much use on the Left in the 1990s.

And I'd add that those who advocate that only those who have served have some moral authority to call for war, the other side of the coin is that only those who have served can call for not going to war. That's a dangerous precedent I don't want us to find ourselves in.

[pffft]

I don't think that most of those here are saying that only people who served in the military have the moral authority to "call for" war, however, the strident tone taken by Nugent, disparaging anyone who doesn't agree with him as "un-American" and blasting those who didn't support the war in Iraq as unpatriotic ...that kind of guy leaves himself open to the charge of "chickenhawk" by those of us in Michigan who know his real history, which was anything but heroic.
Lots of people did not choose to serve and either found other ways, or frankly, fled. But they didn't set themselves up as a moral authority, passing judgment on others...

[Ravine]

Just chiming in:
All of this talk is much more attention than Ted Nugent deserves. Ted is a self-adoring asshole with a big mouth, and he's not even a very good guitar player.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Anyone who disagreed with or protested the Iraq invasion are patriots?"

Absolutely.

[MoparDan]

Quote: "Anyone who disagreed with or protested the Iraq invasion are patriots?"

Absolutely.

Bill Clinton skirting the draft is fine with you too?

[MoparDan]

Just chiming in:
All of this talk is much more attention than Ted Nugent deserves. Ted is a self-adoring asshole with a big mouth, and he's not even a very good guitar player.

Maybe next time Stevie Wonder or Bob Seger could be hit up for their opinion. Just sayin'. :D

[oldredfordette]

We're talking about Ted Nugent, if you want to talk about Bill Clinton, start another thread.

[BShea]

Quote: "Anyone who disagreed with or protested the Iraq invasion are patriots?"

Absolutely.

The only thing as silly as people who think dissent should be stifled thinking themselves patriots is the dissenters thinking they're patriots because they're just because they're dissenting.

Both sides think they're right. Doesn't make 'em any more patriotic. Jingoism and dissent aren't the bedrocks of patriotism.

"I'm against the war, so I'm a patriot!" is isn't patriotism. It's egotism. Why? Because a helluva lot of people support the war and think they're right, too. No one has a monopoly on patriotism.

[Sstashmoo]

"Bill Clinton skirting the draft is fine with you too?"

Considering there has been no legitimate need for a selective service draft since 1945, anyone who has objected to surrendering their freedom since to be forced in to some abstract geopolitical squabble, or less, is understandable.

Having said that, I'm not a fan of Bill Clinton.

[BShea]

"Bill Clinton skirting the draft is fine with you too?"

Considering there has been no legitimate need for a selective service draft since 1945, anyone who has objected to surrendering their freedom since to be forced in to some abstract geopolitical squabble, or less, is understandable.

Having said that, I'm not a fan of Bill Clinton.

So it's up to individuals to decide when there is a legitimate need for a draft? Can I decide which laws I'm going to obey?

As citizens, we have a moral obligation to do our duty to the nation when it calls, even if we're not gung-ho about it. That's part of the deal in being an American.

Not everything is black and white, and many people considered Japanese and German actions in the 1930s to be nothing more than "some abstract geopolitical squabble."

People seem plenty ready to bitch about "surrendering their personal freedom" than actually defending it. And that defense is more than just repelling an invasion of these shores. I'd like to think people have more foresight than that.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "So it's up to individuals to decide when there is a legitimate need for a draft?"

This is a democracy "by the people". As much as some would like this to be a socialist country, it isn't. A quick check of recent politicians and their records on decision making, most aren't qualified to instate a draft or even declare war. Alqueda members attacked and destroyed the World trade center, Bush and his cabinet invaded Iraq on lies. 100 thousand people have died, they continue to die. You want blind allegiance to this sort of government? Forget it.

Quote: "Can I decide which laws I'm going to obey?"

Sure can, people do it all the time.

Quote: "As citizens, we have a moral obligation to do our duty to the nation when it calls"

We also have a duty to the constitution to not allow an oppressive government to seize absolute power and surrender our liberty and freedoms. Or do you just do what you're told?

Quote: "I'd like to think people have more foresight than that."

Me too.

[cheddar bob]

You want blind allegiance to this sort of government? Forget it.

Quote: "Can I decide which laws I'm going to obey?"

Sure can, people do it all the time.



Wow, such a reversal of opinion on if you can break laws and who can break them...



Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 2435
Registered: 02-2007


Posted on Friday, September 12, 2008 - 9:57 pm:


21 million, 10 million? 500? Who cares the number, the fact is we cannot have people with total disregard for our laws treating our borders as though they do not even exist. As citizens we must abide by the laws of our land. I have little compassion for anyone that would enter here unlawfully and knowingly break our laws and refuse to leave.



Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 2987
Registered: 02-2007


Posted on Monday, December 08, 2008 - 1:02 am:


Quote: "labor of those I demonize as subhuman."

From the freedictionary.com

il·le·gal (-lgl)
adj.
1. Prohibited by law.

What part of the above complicated definition are you having trouble with?

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 3457
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 6:04 pm: This country is due for a renaissance to patriotism. Long over due. Our country and IT's interests need to be put first always. Love it or get the f*ck out.


So, you act all patriotic except for when you don't feel like it, and people can break our laws except for the people you say can't break them. What happened to "As citizens we must abide by the laws of our land."? What hypocrite.

[Sstashmoo]

What a garbled mess.

This is not my quote: "Quote: "labor of those I demonize as subhuman."

Why don't you try telling the truth?

[RJ_Spangler]

I had the pleasure of meeting Mary Wilson once when I was playing on the Mitch Albom Show. She was very nice and quite beautiful! Another time doing Mitch's show I met Steven King, who was very cool! Mitch seems okay but NEVER says anything to us.

[BShea]

Sure can, people do it all the time.

And then you deserve the punishment for breaking those laws.

In the case of dodging the draft in wartime, I'm of the belief that it's treason and you should be executed. In public.

We also have a duty to the constitution to not allow an oppressive government to seize absolute power and surrender our liberty and freedoms. Or do you just do what you're told?

Well, then that happens, we'll talk about it. But there is no draft, and the hyperbole about Bush et al as Constitution-killing bogeyman of the Left is nothing but dodging the issue we're talking about. You have no fewer rights now than you did on Sept. 10, 2001, unless you got your rocks off on take box cutters on planes and checking out "Car Bombing For Dummies" at the Library of Congress while talking to known terrorists on your cell phone in Waziristan and not expecting to draw FBI interest.

You don't get to freely pick/choose what laws you obey. You can, but you then deserve the scorn and punishment for doing so.

This is a democracy "by the people". As much as some would like this to be a socialist country, it isn't.

Well, let's check out a few countries that today have compulsory military or national service: Finland, Russia, Germany, Greece, Turkey, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Columbia, Georgia, Brazil, Bolivia, Estonia, Mexico, Taiwan, Switzerland, Bermuda, Philipines, South Korea, China ... and a host of others.

Yep, some socialist countries in there. Some really crappy places. But quite a few Western democracies, too.

And "the people" of the United States consent to laws enacted by our represtatives in Congress. Those reps set the laws and punishment for failure of "the people" to obey them. All part of the social contract, etc.

I'm well aware there are plenty of people that value their individual freedom far more than any obligation to serve when the nation calls, or they want to pick and choose when they obey that obligation, and they allow better men to go to war. Nothing new. The Left in wartime tends to scorn those who serve as simple sheep blinding willing to follow proganda of the military-industrial conplex and other Smedley Butler claptrap. Let's just say I've got a bit of experience on this one ...

[cheddar bob]

What a garbled mess.

This is not my quote: "Quote: "labor of those I demonize as subhuman."

Why don't you try telling the truth?

That was you quoting someone else. So it was your words, you were just repeating what someone else said. I know that the previous forum's quote function was well beyond your capabilities, so I never begrudged you for not using it. This new forum has a quote button, so even you should be able to figure it out. Try it sometime.

Faced with undeniable proof of your hypocrisy, spelled out for you in black and white, and that is your response? One sentence that wasn't yours, but was in fact, your feeble-minded way of quoting other people? How about if you comment on the crux of the post, that is that you are demonstratively a hypocrite?

[Lloyd]

Wow, this post sure went far afield since I put in my two cents worth yesterday. I am, however, willing to comment on Bill Clinton's skirting of the draft.

My comments were directed at those who avoided going to Viet Nam at all costs but who now strongly advocate fighting the current wars. This is, in my opinion, just wrong. If you are not willing to serve, then you should just shut up and not burden others with your armchair generaling.

Yes, Bill Clinton skirted the draft but I do not recall him ever once advocating going to war. He gave Bush the benefit of professional courtesy by remaining mostly silent about Iraq, even though I would speculate that Clinton feels as I do about that travesty. How anyone can, then, lump him with the chickenheart, yellowbellyed, lilly livered who so strongly advocate others going to fight is beyond me; that is, I believe it shows an ignorance of the basic facts that is beyond the scope of my understanding.

Now, back to the real subject of the thread. Everyone is totally entitled to their opinion. I don't personally care whether Moore, Nugent or Wilson are from Detroit or not as long as they have the best for Detroit in their hearts when they talk. Yes, Nugent is compromised, not by his actions in avoiding the draft <which I, incidently, agree with>, but by his subsequent rabid pro war stance. Moore is compromised by this inability to make a true documentary <although I personally agree with the slant of all his shows> as that highlights his inability not to let his highly liberal leaning get in the way. Wilson, on the other hand, seems to speak purely from the heart, a bit hopeful, or maybe naive, but from the heart. All this to the side: this is America still so each of them is entitled to their opinion, as we are entitled to pick and choose whose opinion to lend credence to.

[MoparDan]

My aim is to point out the hypocrisy of people wanting to play both sides of the fence while claiming to have principles. We're all hypocrites to a certain extent, some are just much more blatant & shameless.
I certainly wasn't old enough for Vietnam or the draft, but yet directly affected by it; a father already there, one brother drafted with the possibility of the next one going, a brother-in-law who snapped after doing his tour then disappeared after my sister divorced him, not to mention several in our neighborhood who, while against it, still showed up when called. This isn't anything unique to me or anyone else. If some were able to avoid it legally by student deferments, actual medical conditions or hardships, then that really shouldn't be held against them. My take on a draft is that no one, regardless of class, should be excluded; otherwise it's mainly the poor or less-than-well-connected kids who wind up doing the fighting, suffering & dying.

The only reason I even mentioned Clinton is because how often he's called a draft dodger, yet Cheney, who received several deferments, is considered a great American. For Nugent to go to the extent he did to avoid the draft then have the audacity to urge others to join up to fight is deplorable; he needs to unwrap himself in the flag & put on a cheerleader's skirt. What I have found amazing/incredible during my active duty & reserve military service is how the majority will defend the likes of a Nugent without question. I've encountered younger members who think more critically & will to listen to different sides without name calling or getting in someone's face. However, they make up a small minority & will probably not make the military a career which is unfortunate for the country.

The only reason why Nugent or Moore were even asked to chime in is because they are polarizing figures. You'll rarely find anyone famous with a true thought process being asked what they think; there probably aren't that many, but no one will take the time or energy to seek them out. So, stuck with Nugent/Moore from the D-List, we get what we deserve.

[BShea]

Yes, Bill Clinton skirted the draft but I do not recall him ever once advocating going to war.

No, he just sent American troops into combat as commander in chief.

He gave Bush the benefit of professional courtesy by remaining mostly silent about Iraq, even though I would speculate that Clinton feels as I do about that travesty.

Um, the Clinton administration was the architect-in-chief of the movement to topple Hussein and the Baathists. Were you around in the 1990s? Who do you think coined "regime change" in relation to Iraq? That country didn't just suddenly spring up on the radar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us." -- Bill Clinton

Maybe Iraq was only a threat when a Democrat was in the White House? When a Republican does something about it, it's a bad thing. OK to talk about the threat, bad to do something about it. Got it.

[CountrySquire]

I put Michael Moore in the same category.....message gets lost by the antics used to convey said message. He might have more support if he wasn't such a d-bag about how he presents his opinions & arguments.

Oh, and if he developed & presented some real ideas for positive change.

I like Micheal Moore's message; is he over the top and prone to hype? Sure! But in a media market that has Rush Limbaugh, Bill O' Reilly and Ann Coulter in it, he needs to be.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "That was you quoting someone else. So it was your words,"

So, following that same logic, if I copy and paste a Detroit News article, those become MY words as well? Sheesh...

Quote: "This new forum has a quote button, so even you should be able to figure it out. Try it sometime."

No thanks.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Faced with undeniable proof of your hypocrisy,"

Translated: Since I made up a bunch of bullshit, I'd like to see you refute it anyway.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "In the case of dodging the draft in wartime, I'm of the belief that it's treason and you should be executed. In public."

First we have not been involved in a "War" since World War II. Everything since has been labeled a "conflict" or "operation". Anyone who thinks we are involved in a "war" now, is pretty clueless to any sort of reality.

We also have a duty to the constitution to not allow an oppressive government to seize absolute power and surrender our liberty and freedoms. Or do you just do what you're told?

Quotes: "Well, then that happens, we'll talk about it."
"You have no fewer rights now than you did on Sept. 10, 2001"

Total nonsense, the suspension of Habeus Corpus, the Patriot Act allowing unbridled invasion into our privacy by the government, wire taps, video surveillance, etc.


"This is a democracy "by the people". As much as some would like this to be a socialist country, it isn't."

Quote: "And "the people" of the United States consent to laws enacted by our represtatives in Congress. Those reps set the laws and punishment for failure of "the people" to obey them. All part of the social contract, etc.""

"Social Contract" is a theory, not law. I think you're confusing our democracy with a dictatorship. And freedom is a gift depending on one's political beliefs.

Quote: "I'm well aware there are plenty of people that value their individual freedom far more than any obligation to serve when the nation calls, or they want to pick and choose when they obey that obligation, and they allow better men to go to war. "

By that logic, WORSE men refuse to involve themselves with travesties of diplomacy like Iraq and VietNam?

I'm not a gambler, but I would have loaded up on the outcome if Bush and Rumsfeld would have started a draft. It would have been an all-out revolt, Guaranteed.

[cheddar bob]

Quote: "Faced with undeniable proof of your hypocrisy,"

Translated: Since I made up a bunch of bullshit, I'd like to see you refute it anyway.
I didn't make anything up. It's all your words, copy and pasted. You quoted someone and I left it in the paste, but it's got nothing to do with my point. I'll remove it if it'll make you feel better and make you stay to the point, and that point is that you're a hypocrite. Let's narrow it down. You said,

This country is due for a renaissance to patriotism. Long over due. Our country and IT's interests need to be put first always. Love it or get the f*ck out.
Then you said,

You want blind allegiance to this sort of government? Forget it.

So which one is it?

[Lloyd]

Maybe Iraq was only a threat when a Democrat was in the White House? When a Republican does something about it, it's a bad thing. OK to talk about the threat, bad to do something about it. Got it.

This is so far off base it isn't even funny. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

[BShea]

Quote: "In the case of dodging the draft in wartime, I'm of the belief that it's treason and you should be executed. In public."

First we have not been involved in a "War" since World War II. Everything since has been labeled a "conflict" or "operation". Anyone who thinks we are involved in a "war" now, is pretty clueless to any sort of reality.

We also have a duty to the constitution to not allow an oppressive government to seize absolute power and surrender our liberty and freedoms. Or do you just do what you're told?

Quotes: "Well, then that happens, we'll talk about it."
"You have no fewer rights now than you did on Sept. 10, 2001"

Total nonsense, the suspension of Habeus Corpus, the Patriot Act allowing unbridled invasion into our privacy by the government, wire taps, video surveillance, etc.


"This is a democracy "by the people". As much as some would like this to be a socialist country, it isn't."

Quote: "And "the people" of the United States consent to laws enacted by our represtatives in Congress. Those reps set the laws and punishment for failure of "the people" to obey them. All part of the social contract, etc.""

"Social Contract" is a theory, not law. I think you're confusing our democracy with a dictatorship. And freedom is a gift depending on one's political beliefs.

Quote: "I'm well aware there are plenty of people that value their individual freedom far more than any obligation to serve when the nation calls, or they want to pick and choose when they obey that obligation, and they allow better men to go to war. "

By that logic, WORSE men refuse to involve themselves with travesties of diplomacy like Iraq and VietNam?

I'm not a gambler, but I would have loaded up on the outcome if Bush and Rumsfeld would have started a draft. It would have been an all-out revolt, Guaranteed.

Feel free to lecture me on war. Been there, done that. And I'm uninterested in semantic debates on "war" versus military conflicts authorized by Congress. Bullets and death aren't interested in such debates, either.

You don't have the right to habeaus corpus? You do. Maybe not if you're rounded up trying to kill American troops out the mountains of Afghanistan. But I can live with that. Don't fight U.S. forces overseas. Simple, no? And the government has "unbridled" ability to spy? Pffffft. Your tin-foil hat is too tight, son.

No one wants or needs a draft, lease of all the military. But you sprinted away from your point about compulsory military service, which is as common in Western nations as not.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "So which one is it?"

Which argument? The topic we are debating now. You're taking things out of context and trying to assemble them into some sort of point, which you still haven't made. The two quotes that you dug up in an attempt to make a point, are based on two totally different subjects.

It's looking as though reading comprehension is not on your A list of qualifications.

My quote: "This country is due for a renaissance to patriotism."

Was in regard to people that hate the USA, but choose to live here anyway.

And

My quote: "You want blind allegiance to this sort of government?"

Was in regard to the "Bush regime" type of Government.

I can draw you pictures if it will help.

I would say "Nice try", but it really wasn't.

[cheddar bob]

So, "Our country and IT's interests need to be put first always" is a true statement or it isn't? Our country's interests need to be put first always, or always except when you don't want to go to war? You're a hypocrite and I have proven it.

You've said that our laws need to be followed, but then you say that sometimes you can break them. I guess you can break them if you're trying to dodge a patriotic duty, but not if you're brown and trying to feed a family. There's a whole archive of you ranting about how people need to obey the law, but now you say there's times when you don't need to obey them. Should we delve into the archives and pull out more quotes from you ranting on about obeying laws?

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "So, "Our country and IT's interests need to be put first always" is a true statement or it isn't? Our country's interests need to be put first always, or always except when you don't want to go to war? You're a hypocrite and I have proven it."

Our Country and our Government are two different entities. You sound like BShea here, no matter who is in charge or their agenda, be ready to sacrifice your life if they so desire it for whatever reason. March off a cliff? Sure, no problem.

Quote: "You've said that our laws need to be followed, but then you say that sometimes you can break them."

No, BShea asked "Can I choose which laws to obey?" and my response was "Sure can", of course be ready to take responsibility for your actions. And we all break laws and probably every day. Do you go over the speed limit? Thats breaking the law. Of course he immediately in O'reillian fashion alluded that I was somehow an enemy of the state.

Quote: "I guess you can break them if you're trying to dodge a patriotic duty, but not if you're brown and trying to feed a family. There's a whole archive of you ranting about how people need to obey the law, but now you say there's times when you don't need to obey them. Should we delve into the archives and pull out more quotes from you ranting on about obeying laws?"

You're talking about illegal aliens and trying to apply something I said in regard to US citizens. It wouldn't apply. Another bizarre straw argument from you.

[cheddar bob]

Of course everybody breaks laws. When I tried to tell you that, you just ignored that fact, but are now using it to divert attention from the fact you're a hypocrite.


You're talking about illegal aliens and trying to apply something I said in regard to US citizens. It wouldn't apply. Another bizarre straw argument from you.
Yes, it would apply. Laws apply to everybody regardless of immigration status. In fact, everyone has rights in this country, not just citizens. Are you trying to say that it's okay for US citizens to break US laws, but it's not okay for non-citizens to break US laws?

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "you're a hypocrite"

That would be classified as name calling, wouldn't it? Weren't you, in teachers pet fashion just a few days ago, admonishing someone for starting a thread with a derogatory label for others in it? Now who is the "hypocrite"?

[cheddar bob]

Here's some more instances of sstashmoo denouncing breaking laws...




Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo


Post Number: 1377
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2008 - 2:24 pm:



Yeah thats just what Detroit needs. A huge demonstration of lawlessness. That'll help our image..not.



Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo


Post Number: 1379
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2008 - 3:40 pm:



I wasn't addressing the legalize weed issue. Rather the "let's all get together and break the law" crowd.


Mortking, I strongly disagree. Further, I'd bet 80% of the people that were there, don't live in Detroit.

How about we all get together and break the law by dodging the draft?





Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 1380
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2008 - 6:40 pm:


Sure take your son or daughter and explain to them that this activity against the law, but it's ok because you think it should be legal. And then when they break the law, what will you say?

(Message edited by Sstashmoo on May 04, 2008)

This is pretty hypocritical. Maybe you should tell your kids that it's okay to dodge the draft.




Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 1392
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2008 - 12:48 am:


Is it against the law or not? Just because it was peaceful doesn't mean it was legal. Illegal Pot-party's will never rebuild Detroit.

I could care less about the drugs, I'm challenging the notion that it's a positive thing in regards to a city's image for people to amass and engage in an illegal activity.

Umm, like illegally refusing to serve when required?




Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 2435
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Friday, September 12, 2008 - 9:57 pm:


Cheddar Bob, I know common sense is not at the top of your abilities either. You think it's perfectly fine for people to trespass illegaly. Sounds to me that your loyalty is elsewhere.

21 million, 10 million? 500? Who cares the number, the fact is we cannot have people with total disregard for our laws treating our borders as though they do not even exist. As citizens we must abide by the laws of our land. I have little compassion for anyone that would enter here unlawfully and knowingly break our laws and refuse to leave.


"As citizens, we must abide by the laws of our land", huh? Except the draft. We, as citizens, don't have to abide by that.





Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 834
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Thursday, January 03, 2008 - 11:57 am:


Thankfully, the sarcasm of people like barnes and Cheddar have put forth a bit of a challenge to the American people. They tout trespassing and reply with "nothing you can do about it". I don't know if you have noticed, but the issue is being talked about much in the upcoming presidential race. Americans are p'd off about it, Politicians are making it an key election issue and I think we can all expect some major changes in the way the US handles it's borders.

Good luck thinking the American people or Government doesn't care. Hope it pans out for you.

The very fact these two advocate trespassers into our country proves they have not assimilated and have zero respect for our nation's laws.
(Message edited by sstashmoo on January 03, 2008)

In addition to being wrong about immigration being a key election issue (we now know it wasn't-that's some pretty shitty foresight), I wonder who has "zero respect for our nation's laws" now?

[cheddar bob]

When asked what he would do to feed his family he says he would "Obey the law of the land",


Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 2193
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Friday, August 15, 2008 - 8:47 am:
Obey the law of that land, plus get a strong feeling that maybe my family doesn't care if they see me or not. Work on making my own country a better place so people (family included) want to stay. Thats what I'd do.

I guess the draft doesn't apply to obeying "the law of the land".





Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 2430
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Friday, September 12, 2008 - 7:01 pm: Why worry about eligibility when it can be had by simply breaking our meaningless laws. Go to the hospital, stiff them for the bill. Get in a car accident and simply go back home. etc etc

Meaningless laws like the draft? Oh, I think I get it now...It's only a bad thing when other people break the law.




There's a difference between arbitrarily calling someone a name and using an adjective to describe proven facts. You have been proven to be a hypocrite and the truth is an absolute defense.

[cheddar bob]

Quote: "you're a hypocrite"

That would be classified as name calling, wouldn't it? Weren't you, in teachers pet fashion just a few days ago, admonishing someone for starting a thread with a derogatory label for others in it? Now who is the "hypocrite"?
More deflection away from the subject. Notice that sstashmoo has done nothing to deny the fact that he's a hypocrite. It's not name calling if it's a demonstrated truth.

[BShea]

Of course he immediately in O'reillian fashion alluded that I was somehow an enemy of the state.

If you avoid the draft, then you are an enemy of the state. That's why there are laws against it, and punishment. Are you really that stupid? It's a crime. And during wartime, I think it's worthy of execution. To me, it's moral and physical cowardice. I'm uninterested in sophist arguments about your moral beliefs about war, etc., and am unmoved by catcalls that willing draftees are witless cannon fodder for the evil war machine police state or whatever limp-dick straw-bogeyman who wish to construct. I'm familiar with the impotent sneers of the eunuchs on this subject.

You want to treat our laws like a buffet from which you pick and choose, and will serve only when it fits your own guidelines, fine. There are punishments for that, and the ire of those of us willing to serve the United States. And that's not a might-is-right, my country-right-or-wrong allegiance. I'm not going to serve in some obviously illegal effort, such as a coup or mass murder. But I don't have to like or be gung-ho about a conflict to serve my nation when it calls. It's served me, so I'm willing (and have) served it. And not every conflict is cut/dry in terms of righteousness.

Those who argue in favor of draft dodging and the like are typically those who belittle the military as the last refuge of the otherwise unemployable, and have never served their nation. First to criticize, last to fight.

Of course, this is an academic argument. There is no draft and the all-volunteer military serves us just fine. And there won't be a draft short of a land war with China.

And FYI: Why was Vietnam a travesty? My belief it was akin to saving a prostitute from rape. Just because of what she does, is she less worthy of help? South Vietnam was no prize partner, but the overall conflict had value in showing the Soviets and Chinese that the West was willing to fight against the spread of communism rather than let it flow willy-nilly. The conflict in South Vietnam was mismanaged, but that's not surprising since we'd never experienced that before. Our limited counter insurgency experience in the Philippines had been somewhat successful, but that was different circumstances.

The real shame is that the bungled political response to Tet in 1968 wasted the slow gains we had made. After Tet, the conflict was steadily a conventional war. The insurgency was, for all intents and purposes, defeated in 1968-69. Saigon fell in 1975 not to agrarian guerrillas, but the tanks and uniformed troops of North Vietnam.

[Sstashmoo]

Cheddar,

You're wasting webspace.

The original point was, many dodged the draft in the 60's and I understand. Many went AWOL during that same period and I understand. Now go away.

Let me ask you this BShea. According to you, anyone that evades the draft is guilty of treason and should be publicly hung. All the guys that went AWOL during that period were given discharges and amnesty. Why do you think our Government did that?

[Pam]

If you avoid the draft, then you are an enemy of the state. That's why there are laws against it, and punishment. Are you really that stupid? It's a crime. And during wartime, I think it's worthy of execution


Would you support alternative service for conscientious objectors? Or should people like those "limp dick" Quakers and Mennonites be executed too?

[lilpup]

I think a distinction needs to be made between supporting those who serve and those who initiate conflict. It is possible, imho, to support those who serve and treat them with respect while at the same time protesting the political decisions causing the conflict.

Personally, I wish service was mandatory for all - not a random draft, not full of loopholes for people to jump through. Many countries require it. Perhaps if more of our politicians served they would govern differently.

[lilpup]

Would you support alternative service for conscientious objectors? Or should people like those "limp dick" Quakers and Mennonites be executed too?There is conscientious objector status available for those who truly live that way and don't use the status merely to avoid duty. It's amazing how many c.o.s pop up out of the blue when things get hot.

Devout Quakers, Mennonites, and the Amish are some of the strongest people around.

[Tripper]

While Michael Moore's documentaries present a clear point of view they are always well researched and the facts are documented. To compare them to the lies presented on Fox News is ridiculous.

[cheddar bob]

"Cheddar, You're wasting webspace....Now go away"
Translation: Please stop using my own words to make me look foolish.



The original point was, many dodged the draft in the 60's and I understand. Many went AWOL during that same period and I understand.
You understand when someone willingly abandons their duty, commits potential treason, and basically flips off their own American flag, but you don't understand and have no sympathy for when a Mexican crosses the border to be with or feed their family. And that is what makes you a hypocrite.

[BShea]

Would you support alternative service for conscientious objectors? Or should people like those "limp dick" Quakers and Mennonites be executed too?

People who's entire lives are lived by a certain position such as the Society of Friends and others -- there are specific laws for them. Many of them chose to serve in official alternatives. But when the lead flies, there seem to be an awful lot of people who suddenly have deep, life-long religious convictions about serving.

They don't even rise to the level of the "sunshine soldiers and summer patriots" that Thomas Paine belittled. They simply cowards who have to be protected by better men and women, in war and peace. And I'm not talking about fear of war, but moral, spiritual and physical cowardice. There's plenty of 'em now, and they took their cue from the Boomers who said it was OK to run away.

Let me ask you this BShea. According to you, anyone that evades the draft is guilty of treason and should be publicly hung. All the guys that went AWOL during that period were given discharges and amnesty. Why do you think our Government did that?

Because our government is not infallible (not even today, with The Anointed One in charge). Not every case of AWOL is someone shirking duty. But if it's cowardice in combat (and I don't mean shell shock and other combat stress cases), then punish to the full extent, which can be death. But AWOL covers members of the military. This nation also forgave those who left the U.S. to avoid the draft. They should have been stripped of their citizenship and never allowed back. Canada and others should have kept 'em. We're too forgiving of a nation sometimes, and it sends the messages you can spend a couple years in Windsor if you prefer to serve your nation du jour.

Christ, we'd never have won our independence with the attitudes I see around here. The Continental Army managed to stay together despite fighting over what amounted to middle and upper-class dissatisfaction over excise fees. If Washington had to put together an army from today's populace, he would have given up.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "have no sympathy for when a Mexican crosses the border to be with or feed their family."

You have some sort of weird obsession with this topic. Might want to get it checked out.

[Sstashmoo]

BShea,

Your glowing, albeit skewed view on the matter of patriotic duty is somewhat laughable. You have how you thought it was, what you're missing is how it really was.

I remember vividly the latter part of the 60's during the VietNam era. I remember the way we left, you and your ilk to this day, thought there was someway to win that over there. There was no winning it. Just like there is no winning Iraq. We will leave there the same way we left VietNam. And the very same thing is going to happen, only a more unstable situation will evolve. Your spin about good men objecting to our government involved in conflict we had no business being involved in is unfair to say the least. You want to wave your flag when our government sends our sons and daughters to some god forsaken locale on some ill-concieved corporatist scheme, go for it. The rest of us that can think past our nose will question it. Like our constitution says we should.

Your last bit about assembling a military force is based on apples and oranges correlation. If someone were to attack our shores, the turnout for service would be immense, I believe that.

You know what is really sad? We've been in this Iraq debacle for seven years, 100 thousand people have lost their lives, over 4000 of our own fine fighting men and women, spent a Trillion dollars we had to borrow and our government has not provided us ONE legitimate reason for us being there. Lies, that's all they have offered.

Lie #1 Saddam had WMD's - hardcore debunked
Lie #2 Saddam had the means for producing nuclear weapons and possesed yellow cake uranium - Not true
Lie #3 Saddam had ties to Osama bin Laden- Not true

All debunked and proven false over and over by every credible source the world over.

[BShea]

BShea,

Your glowing, albeit skewed view on the matter of patriotic duty is somewhat laughable. You have how you thought it was, what you're missing is how it really was.

I remember vividly the latter part of the 60's during the VietNam era. I remember the way we left, you and your ilk to this day, thought there was someway to win that over there. There was no winning it. Just like there is no winning Iraq. We will leave there the same way we left VietNam. And the very same thing is going to happen, only a more unstable situation will evolve. Your spin about good men objecting to our government involved in conflict we had no business being involved in is unfair to say the least. You want to wave your flag when our government sends our sons and daughters to some god forsaken locale on some ill-concieved corporatist scheme, go for it. The rest of us that can think past our nose will question it. Like our constitution says we should.

Your last bit about assembling a military force is based on apples and oranges correlation. If someone were to attack our shores, the turnout for service would be immense, I believe that.

You know what is really sad? We've been in this Iraq debacle for seven years, 100 thousand people have lost their lives, over 4000 of our own fine fighting men and women, spent a Trillion dollars we had to borrow and our government has not provided us ONE legitimate reason for us being there. Lies, that's all they have offered.

Lie #1 Saddam had WMD's - hardcore debunked
Lie #2 Saddam had the means for producing nuclear weapons and possesed yellow cake uranium - Not true
Lie #3 Saddam had ties to Osama bin Laden- Not true

All debunked and proven false over and over by every credible source the world over.

Ah, the usual Leftist lies and distortions. Do you get all your talking points from Daily Kos?

Here's a little reading for you: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

That's the authorization from Congress for the war. Plenty of other stuff besides WMD in there. For me, violation of the 1991 ceasefire was more than enough to finish the job, but the WMD evidence built up by the Clinton administration and handed over to the Bush folks formed the backbone of the public argument.

If there were lies, they were bipartisan lies that originated in the 1990s.

The Duelfer Report also clearly states that the Baathist regime sought to end sanctions so that it could restart its WMD program ... and prior to 9/11 there was growing consensus driven by the Left and nations such as France, Germany and Russia and China to end the sanctions.

In the end, if you believe WMD was the sole reason for taking out what amounted to a second-rate Nazi party of the Mideast, you're a simpleton.

And you also believe we'll be abandoning Iraq from the Baghdad embassy by helocopter, which illustates a vivid misunderstand of the situation. The Vietnam comparison is the refuge of the intellectually lazy. An agrarian peasant civil war in Southeast Asia that was funded and supplied by the communist super powers as a proxy war against the West isn't quite the same thing as Iraq, which is its own set of difficult circumstances.

Your defeatist belief that every ragtag with a rifle and cause can best the United States is noted. And it's good to know those in charge ignore such nonsense. We've faced far longer odds in our history, and there's always the doomstruck chorus -- in which you appear to sing soprano -- that says we can't possibly win against (insert enemy here). We did it in 1783, 1815, 1865, 1918, 1945 and are doing it now.

Native political and religious insurrections can be put down. History is literred with examples. The only thing more difficult to win than a counter-insurgency war is an insurgency. But obviously you think the conventional army of some other power is going to topple the Iraqi government and force us to leave from the embassy rooftop. Um ... riiiight. The Iraqis have no interest in becoming a theocratic nation of the anti-Western Iran mold, and they're not Persians. They know on which side their bread is buttered, and it ain't by the Iranians. Iraq has almost always had a pro-Western bent, especially since it's a Western construct.

Corporatist scheme ... do you have a Smedley Butler tattoo on your ass, too?

I can only imagine what you think of Obama's new Afghan war ... he's going to enter a hornet's nest that makes Iraq look like a kid's war game.

Open your eyes. War is a geopolitical chess match. Bush's people knew that, even if they hamfisted the presentation and implementation of much of it until the past couple years. I think Obama's people know it, too. And in Afghanistan they might be willing to make the tough decisions on waging a full regional religious was that Bush wasn't.

Just know in doing so it could end up sparking car bombs and more attacks here. We're about to enter the heart of the problem (aside from the brain of it in Saudi, which is another complex problem that will require a different approach).

[Lloyd]

I have been lurking on this site for years, mostly for the fabulous ruins pictures, and have paid very little attention to these forums. Now I know why. Can anyone answer me why forums like this seem to always digress into flame fests?

Oh, I understand about the differing opinions and stuff like that, what I'm talking about is the name calling and petty bickering. The truth about differing opinions is that it is not the result of differing intelligience or anything like that, but only that we look at things in different ways. The reason we look at things in different ways is that each of us comes for our own unique set of circumstances, experiences and background. It is, therefore, very uncool to attack someone <like has been going on here> based solely on said difference of opinion.

This thread has been very illuminating in that regard. It started with a conversation about three Michiganders asked their opinion of Detroit and it's troubles, and has digressed into a wild and varied nonproductive argument between forum members. Come on guys, get a grip. If there's a solution, it's not tearing others down to build yourself up, it's finding common ground to work toward a common goal.

Unless, of course, the only reason you are here is to act tough while hiding behind your keyboard.

[BShea]

I have been lurking on this site for years, mostly for the fabulous ruins pictures, and have paid very little attention to these forums. Now I know why. Can anyone answer me why forums like this seem to always digress into flame fests?

Oh, I understand about the differing opinions and stuff like that, what I'm talking about is the name calling and petty bickering. The truth about differing opinions is that it is not the result of differing intelligience or anything like that, but only that we look at things in different ways. The reason we look at things in different ways is that each of us comes for our own unique set of circumstances, experiences and background. It is, therefore, very uncool to attack someone <like has been going on here> based solely on said difference of opinion.

This thread has been very illuminating in that regard. It started with a conversation about three Michiganders asked their opinion of Detroit and it's troubles, and has digressed into a wild and varied nonproductive argument between forum members. Come on guys, get a grip. If there's a solution, it's not tearing others down to build yourself up, it's finding common ground to work toward a common goal.

Unless, of course, the only reason you are here is to act tough while hiding behind your keyboard.

"Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Oh lord, kumbaya"

Thanks for the lecture. And welcome to the Internet, where flame wars are about as old as online porn. Maybe older. Some people enjoy debates, even if they're mud-slinging fests sometimes. Do you rent the supposed moral high ground by the hour or by the thread? :D

I also prefer to debate and hold opinions based on facts, not talking points issued to me by bomb-throwers on any portion of the ideological spectrum. And I'll chose to respond to petty forum tyrants and their witless sneers in the manner I choose. Lazy and intellectually bankrupt rhetoric gets my blood boiling on certain subjects.

And who's hiding? My screen ID is my real name. My profile is me. I've nothing to hide, and I'll back up what I have to say in person, too.

[Lloyd]

Whatever. It's not productive is all I'm saying. It is, however, instructive that even a post like mine can draw a flame from you. I hope at some point in your life you will be able to come to grips with your anger and move past it.

[4Oranges]

CheddarBob....shouldn't you be on a honeymoon right now? I hope you aren't spending TOO much time in here, and ignoring the new Mrs. Bob......;)

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Leftist lies and distortions."

The plain truth. Sorry it doesn't fit your world view, but the truth is what it is.

The rest of your post is nothing more than neocon tripe. Apparently you missed a few memos, they lied to us on numerous points, they even admitted they lied about it. In the words of Dick Cheney when asked about it, his reply was "So". If this is your idea of a free republic and democracy complete with your remedies for disobedience via public executions and stripping people of their citizenship, stay tuned. Iraq will be shopping for a leader like that very soon. You can carry the torch for Saddam.

Quote: "Just know in doing so it could end up sparking car bombs and more attacks here"

Hey, you aren't completely delusional.. What if we got our ass out of there? Think that would help the hatred toward us? Let me guess, they hate our western ways? We aren't the worlds police force. As much as you and yours like to rub one out to the thought of spreading "democracy" at the point of a gun, it doesn't work. "The Iraqi's want this, and the Iraqi's want that" The Iraqi's want us the hell out of there, and nothing else. Every one of them ever interviewed, has said the same thing. They hated us and they still hate us.

You are aware that 90% of the American public does not agree with you? You're in a very small minority that still believes all the BS propogated by the Bush administration.

[BShea]

The plain truth. Sorry it doesn't fit your world view, but the truth is what it is.

So you're going to ignore the facts? Eight years of what Clinton and Co. had to say? The F-ing regime change law he had passed? You're too far gone, blinded by partisan hatreds. The truth doesn't fit with your intellectual sloth and spite. I'd wager you're a Truther, too.

Did Iraq violate the 1991 ceasefire over and over again? Yes or no?

As much as you and yours like to rub one out to the thought of spreading "democracy" at the point of a gun, it doesn't work.

Just like it didn't work in Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, France, etc., eh? And at last check, our democracy here was purchased and preserved at the end of a gun from 1775-83. No thanks to the likes of you, of course.

The Iraqi's want us the hell out of there, and nothing else. Every one of them ever interviewed, has said the same thing. They hated us and they still hate us.

Rarely do I come across someone to spectacular wrong, hyperbolic and distortionist in everything they write.

For all practical purposes, the Iraq was is won. Major combat is over and troops are moving to Afghanistan. The insurgency is defeated and our troops primarily provide security and train the Iraqis. The nation is never going to be a calm, peaceful nation like ours, but none in the Mideast are. What it won't be is a destabilizing force in the region, one that ferments terror and wages war on its neighbors and thumbs its nose at the world.

You are aware that 90% of the American public does not agree with you? You're in a very small minority that still believes all the BS propogated by the Bush administration.

I believe what I see. You might take your marching orders from Obama (unless he needs to draft you, then you'll skedaddle to a hidey-hole and claim to be a Quaker or something), but I base my opinions on empirical evidence ... and that includes the reports and statements of the Clinton administration and other governments prior to Bush even being elected. And the post-war reports are pretty revealing, too. Of course, you've never read 'em. Wouldn't fit with the trademarkDaily Kos narrative you've swallowed. And feel free to live your life by opinon polls, too. Why doesn't that surprise me?

Silly old Leftist with tired old canards and complaints, with nothing more to offer than limp "If we just leave, they'll leave everyone alone! We're a bad people! We need the world to love us!" and whatever else you crib from The Nation.

[rb336]

funny wingnuts, still trying to blame it all on reagan lite (clinton) after having total control of the government for nearly eight years, and being the most obstructionist congress in history when they lost control in '06.

"but I base my opinions on empirical evidence"

oh, really? link to some. No, I don't like Clinton much, yes, he had some of the same intelligence about Iraq, but that was heavily contradicted by new evidence before the chimp invaded. (see the actual reports that came from US inspector Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html) The Bushies chose to mislead Americans by discounting all evidence except that conveniently provided by a guy they had tortured

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "So you're going to ignore the facts?"

You mean accept the bullshit from the Bush administration? No.

Quote:"Did Iraq violate the 1991 ceasefire over and over again? Yes or no?"

Do you really want to discuss violation of UN sanctions including violations of cease fire agreements by other countries as well? Is this a legitimate basis for military intervention? If so, we got a few more that need an ass-whippin'. Or would you just execute them all? Your hatred and vitriol is apparent.

Quote: "Just like it didn't work in Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, France, etc., eh?"

Difference being, they wanted to be liberated. We were not invited to Iraq. Remember "we will be greeted as liberators"? Never happened, another lie.

Quote: "Rarely do I come across someone (s)o spectacular(ly) wrong, hyperbolic and distortionist in everything they write"

Translation: So this is what it's like, to NOT listen to Limbaugh, Hannity and O'reilly.

Quote: "For all practical purposes, the Iraq wa(r) is won."

"Won"= We give up. We have lost the faith of the American people and the the support we anticipated from the rest of the world, never came because they could see through our BS.

Quote: "What it won't be is a destabilizing force "

What it will be according to anyone who knows anything about that region, is all out civil war when we leave, and it will fall into control of one of the three or four tribal factions.

[Lloyd]

Dang BShea, you should just call it a day. Your indefensible positions have been dogged time and again while all you have to offer is the last refuge of the desperate, the personal attack.

[BShea]

You mean accept the bullshit from the Bush administration? No.

Or the Clintons, and every other Western nation that said Saddam was up to no good. But hey! If we're not going to topple every destabilizing murderous dictator, then we can topple any! Nice logic.

Do you really want to discuss violation of UN sanctions including violations of cease fire agreements by other countries as well? Is this a legitimate basis for military intervention? If so, we got a few more that need an ass-whippin'. Or would you just execute them all? Your hatred and vitriol is apparent.

No, not sanctions. Violations of the agreement that halted -- but did not end -- the 1990-91 war. That's call a "cease fire" for the many slow learners that appear to be on here. How many other nations have targeted and fired upon American aircraft and engaged in actions that repeatedly required the U.S. to move brigades and divisions of troops to the region? NONE. How many U.N. ceasefire agreements are in place of the scope of the 1991 cease fire. NONE. (Except North Korea, which does need a beat down). And nice trying to dodge the question by the most childish of strawmen: "Well, other countries violate stuff, and we don't punish them, so we should have left Saddam alone!" Jesus, you're hopeless.

Difference being, they wanted to be liberated. We were not invited to Iraq. Remember "we will be greeted as liberators"? Never happened, another lie.

Nazi Germany, facsist Italy and Imperial Japan wanted to be liberated? Are you fucking kidding me? Are you genuinely that ignorant? I could have sworn millions of Allied troops were killed and wounded fighting them. Seriously, I'm done with you. You're simply a distortionist liar that makes Baghad Bob look honest.

And again, you try to deflect the point with some stupid Cheney statement. Son, that doesn't mean my point wasn't valid. It was. You need to go back to debate class.

Translation: So this is what it's like, to NOT listen to Limbaugh, Hannity and O'reilly.

Except that I don't. The last time I listed to Limbaugh was a MNF broadcast years ago. I don't want television news, nor listen to talk radio. Nor am I a Bush-Cheney fan by any means, nor was I ever. But I'd bet you're a Daily Kos reader, aren't you?

"Won"= We give up. We have lost the faith of the American people and the the support we anticipated from the rest of the world, never came because they could see through our BS.

How is a broken insurgency us giving up? Are there any cities occupied by insurgent forces? No. Did the Awakening movement and Surge turn the tide? Yes. Your boy Obama isn't going to let Iraq go South Vietnam on his watch because he knows that would be electoral poison for the Dems. Hence, he wouldn't shift 30K troops to Afghanistan is it was going to lead to a military problem.

Face it: We won.

What it will be according to anyone who knows anything about that region, is all out civil war when we leave, and it will fall into control of one of the three or four tribal factions.

American combat troops now aren't deployed in large numbers outside their immediate staging areas. We're completely out of almost all provinces. So are the Brits. And yet those provinces haven't fallen into civil war. Odd that, isn't it?

I'd wager that you were among those in 2003 who breathless predicted Baghdad would be the U.S. Stalingrad. </eyeroll>

Why do you think so poorly of Iraqis and their ability to government themselves? Is it some sort of closeted belief that only Westerners can do so without resorting to dictatorship?

I guess "anyone" in your book is Markos Moulitsas and Michael Moore. Obama and his administration, both civilian and military, disagree. Take it up with them, bud.

Up your game.

[oldredfordette]

This looks like a good place to announce this month's Women In Black is in Hamtramack. Wear black if possible, men and children welcome, prepare for a silent vigil. Noon.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "and every other Western nation that said Saddam was up to no good."

Sure he was up to no good, and with our help. Like when we supplied him with mustard and sarin gas to use against the Iranians, he instead used it on the Kurds. Slaughtering 300 thousand of them. Oops! you forgot that one didn't ya? That's what Colin Powell meant by "WMD's UNACCOUNTED for". We gave it to ya, where the hell is it? Saddam was our boy, remember that? Hell, we even supplied the AG crop duster planes to dispense the stuff on civilians.

Quote: "Violations of the agreement that halted -- but did not end -- the 1990-91 war."

Total nonsense. This is the first time ever have I read "OPERATION Desert storm" referred to as a "war". And it was indeed over. You and your ilk have been trying to link the two incursions in to one. Nice try, but it don't hunt. A 10 year break in fighting? Please, you can't be serious. The reason your ilk has effectively brainwashed you into believing this is they have no reason for the 2001 invasion, linking it to Iraq invading Kuwait gives it purpose. Very Weak..

Quote: "Nazi Germany, facsist Italy and Imperial Japan wanted to be liberated? Are you fucking kidding me?"

My sentiments exactly. The majority of the people that were liberated wanted to be.

Quote: " And again, you try to deflect the point with some stupid Cheney statement. Son, that doesn't mean my point wasn't valid. It was."

It wasn't. The point made was that our government lied to us repeatedly and their flippiance regarding it was apparent. They even admitted it. It's a proven fact they ignored intelligence that did not support their agenda of invading Iraq, a sovereign nation. The truth. Do you use Google? Maybe it's your search engine.

Quote: "Face it: We won."

I think that was said in 91 regarding Iraq as well. Oops again. "We won"? We'll see.

Quote: "Why do you think so poorly of Iraqis and their ability to government themselves? "

Does it sound as though I think poorly of them? I've mentioned the 100 thousand of them that have died by our hands in the last 5 years, twice. Are you even aware of how many have died. Are you aware how many have been tortured by us and our independent "contractors", Are you aware the trauma and hatred we've planted in the youths of Iraq as our squads march families out in the middle of the night at gunpoint doing house to house searches? Better yet, do you even care? This is far from being over and it is anything but "won".

Bush 1 knew there was no exit strategy and even told his idiotic dumbass son. Here we are.

[cheddar bob]

Bshea, I'm about as left, and opposite from you as I can get and would probably rather chew on tin foil than to spend more than five minutes with you, but this was about the most correct statement I've seen around here in awhile...


Rarely do I come across someone to spectacular wrong, hyperbolic and distortionist in everything they write.


Tip of the cap, sir. Even with the missing verb part.

[Sstashmoo]

"Tip of the cap, sir."

Yawnnn...







Yawwwnnnn....

[BShea]

Sure he was up to no good, and with our help. Like when we supplied him with mustard and sarin gas to use against the Iranians, he instead used it on the Kurds. Slaughtering 300 thousand of them. Oops! you forgot that one didn't ya? That's what Colin Powell meant by "WMD's UNACCOUNTED for". We gave it to ya, where the hell is it? Saddam was our boy, remember that? Hell, we even supplied the AG crop duster planes to dispense the stuff on civilians.

So that means he shouldn't have to account for it? That he's free to do whatever he pleases? Did we give him weapons to commit crimes with them? No. Nice logic on your part, tho. And you fail to mention the WMD and conventional weapons the Baathists bought from other nations.

Quote: "Violations of the agreement that halted -- but did not end -- the 1990-91 war."

Total nonsense. This is the first time ever have I read "OPERATION Desert storm" referred to as a "war". And it was indeed over. You and your ilk have been trying to link the two incursions in to one. Nice try, but it don't hunt. A 10 year break in fighting? Please, you can't be serious. The reason your ilk has effectively brainwashed you into believing this is they have no reason for the 2001 invasion, linking it to Iraq invading Kuwait gives it purpose. Very Weak..

Show me the peace treaty. If the war was "over" as you claim, why were there UN no-fly zones? Why were we bombing them throughout the 1990s?

Did you read the Congressional authorization for the 2003 invasion? No, you didn't. If you did, you're lying here then, because the U.S. Congress noted right from the start that Iraq was violating the ceasefire.

Do I need to define ceasefire for you? Are you genuinely that stupid?

My sentiments exactly. The majority of the people that were liberated wanted to be.

Well, those Nazis that wanted to be liberated sure put up a helluva fight against it, didn't they? You are amazing. I've never seen such a fundamental failure to grasp basic history in an adult.

It wasn't. The point made was that our government lied to us repeatedly and their flippiance regarding it was apparent. They even admitted it. It's a proven fact they ignored intelligence that did not support their agenda of invading Iraq, a sovereign nation. The truth. Do you use Google? Maybe it's your search engine.

Bullshit. You dodged something I pointed out by offering up the "greeted as liberators" nonsense. My point was that you were completely wrong about how democracy is born, and I pointed out to you some obvious examples of countries that become democratic only through war. Your response to that was the Cheney stuff. And now you're dodging again. Christ, you're not very good at this ...

Quote: "Face it: We won."

I think that was said in 91 regarding Iraq as well. Oops again. "We won"? We'll see.

We won the war within the limited aims it had in 1991 - liberating Kuwait. And I'm sorry, as much as you lust after an American defeat on the battlefield, it's not going to happen today. We won, and for all his many flaws, Bush accomplished it. Sticks in your craw, obviously.

Does it sound as though I think poorly of them?

Yes, it does. You believe them incapable of sustaining Western democracy and you believe their central government will fail to hold the country together. I have greater faith in 'em.

I've mentioned the 100 thousand of them that have died by our hands in the last 5 years, twice. Are you even aware of how many have died. Are you aware how many have been tortured by us and our independent "contractors", Are you aware the trauma and hatred we've planted in the youths of Iraq as our squads march families out in the middle of the night at gunpoint doing house to house searches? Better yet, do you even care? This is far from being over and it is anything but "won".

War is hell. Sherman did far, far worse in 1864-65. Far worse. Yet not many Georgians are car bombing the Yankees these days. And it's evident you don't know much true history, otherwise you'd know what our occupying forces did in Germany. The Iraqis have gotten off lightly.

Bush 1 knew there was no exit strategy and even told his idiotic dumbass son. Here we are.

Bush 1 didn't have a mandate to topple Hussein. The allied coalition was fragile, and several nations said they would not commit troops if the goal was to occupy Iraq. In retrospect, a mistake. We had an Army then of more than 1 million troops, and could have pulled it off a lot easier than today. A missed opportunity.

The exit strategy is a simple one: Ensure the freely elected Iraqi government can hold the country together, ensure human rights, etc. We're closer to that goal than ever. But you choose to ignore progress because it doesn't fit your ideological narrative. I bet you thought the surge would result in something like the Tet offensive and massive U.S. and iraqi deaths. Wrong then and you're wrong now.

Our troops have accomplished something that will look very different in the history books in 100 years. That is, if Obama doesn't abandon our ally.

[BShea]

Click on this:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

That's the joint Congressional resolution authorizing the Iraq invasion.

Three times it references the violations of the 1991 cease fire.

Three.

I guess my ilk included Congress and the U.N.

Not the company I prefer to keep, for the sake of this current argument, I'll take 'em over your lies and distortions.

Again: Three times.

How bad does it turn to be this wrong?

[Sstashmoo]

BShea,

I'll give you credit, at least you post my actual words and respond to them, unlike the underhanded skulduggerous trickery that Cheddar employs by copy and pasting the words of others when quoting me.

Back to the debate:

There was no war going, period. You are really discrediting yourself by saying this. We were at war in the late 90's? If we were at war why did it take an act of congress to get involved in 2003? Is it a double war. Is there such a thing? Your argument is disintegrating.

Quote: "Bush accomplished it."

Conjecture, but if you are referring to the destruction of our economy. Yes he did. Anything that guy ever touched, failed.

Quote: "The exit strategy is a simple one:"

Oh really? Smarter men than you have been trying to figure it out for the last 6 years and have not. Maybe you need to send them your "simple" plan, I'm sure they can't wait to hear from you. We are just going to leave slowly and hope for the best. That's the strategy. The same way...

[cheddar bob]

469
I tried to copy and paste everything in your posts so they would not be taken out of context. It's not my fault you somehow can't figure out something simple as a quote function.

[PurpleHeart]

See that's the problem with Ted

Everytime he (topic) comes up it is not his music that we (or anybody else) talk about, it's about his politics.

When it comes to Ted, he is mutually exclusive.

He can't play guitar for crap

And his politics stinks

enough with Ted and the horse he rode in on