Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

    Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
    During the Middle Ages, the nobility's kids weren't exempt from fighting, they were there right with the commoners. The difference between them at the time was that the upperclass had the latest armor and weaons while the commoners had a leather jerkin, if they were lucky, and a pike, pitchfork, low quality sword or something similar, and the commoners were part of the first wave of the attack while the nobility would either be further back in the pack or part of the cavalry.
    You need not go back that far. The British upper class was decimated by WWI (and no, I didn't learn that from Downtown Abbey) and in WWII FDR's son fought in Guadalcanal I believe.

    With the possible exception of Jim Webb, I'm not aware of any Senator or House member over the past decade or so who's had a child see combat overseas. I'd be happy to know if anybody else has, but again I haven't seen it reported.
    Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

    Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

    "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

    Comment


    • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

      Originally posted by Old Pio View Post
      Dressing your bull sh*t up in the reassuring balm of lefty equivocation doesn't change what it is: advocating death (or at least the risk of death) for the sons of people who disagree with you.
      Listen you miserable old POS, I'm advocating that every member of this godd@mn government, not just the Republicans, would benefit from some perspective. After all, plenty of Democrats voted for land wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, so culpability for those military blunders hardly rests solely with conservatives.

      Arguing with you is like arguing with a sack of potatoes - dense and insipid.

      Comment


      • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

        Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
        Listen you miserable old POS, I'm advocating that every member of this godd@mn government, not just the Republicans, would benefit from some perspective. After all, plenty of Democrats voted for land wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, so culpability for those military blunders hardly rests solely with conservatives.

        Arguing with you is like arguing with a sack of potatoes - dense and insipid.
        Hardly rests? Bush lied. It's the most impeachable offense ever perpetrated by a sitting President to lie to go to War and yet he skated through. Just goes to show that War is easy for the country while sex is not.
        **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

        Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
        Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

        Comment


        • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

          Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
          Offspring of the wealthy and privileged have been playing the role of "fortunate son" since medieval times, and probably before.
          The three Medieval orders were "those who pray, those who fight, and those who work." Aristocratic prestige and power lay in battlefield strength and heroics. They actually did fight, and quite often died, in their wars. Likewise, their descendant families, powerful because they held on to the land that was originally granted them by the sovereign for their military service, had a consuming need to keep up at least the trapping but often the substance of an honor culture, and populated the officer corps of their respective nations with their sons right up through WW1. Even in WW2 it was not unusual for wealthy families to lose sons on the battlefield.

          There have been "fortunate sons" in all periods, sure -- in the Civil War wealthy people paid surrogates to fight for them -- but American conservative leaders' overtly cynical combination of preaching for endless war while curled up in the protected womb of unearned multi-generational privilege is a marked contrast to the way the wealthy have approached "la gloire" in the past. It's as if the conservative movement took as its model the most cowardly, weaselly people of the past and made that their central operating plan.
          Cornell University
          National Champion 1967, 1970
          ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
          Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

          Comment


          • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

            Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
            If that is Kepler's intent, he's not so sharp after all. Politicians would make sure their kids got high numbers, or a safe spot at home in the National Guard, just like the old days.
            Kepler's intent was obvious from Kepler's statement. Pio's bizarre interpretation is fascinating and a window onto whatever festering sore remains of his soul. Or it's just the desperate projections of an aged schoolyard bully, feebly fighting off the final forays of dementia. That isn't evil; it's just sad.
            Last edited by Kepler; 09-15-2014, 09:23 AM.
            Cornell University
            National Champion 1967, 1970
            ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
            Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

            Comment


            • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

              So - universal conscription or not? Is that the question?
              CCT '77 & '78
              4 kids
              5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
              1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

              ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
              - Benjamin Franklin

              Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

              I want to live forever. So far, so good.

              Comment


              • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

                Originally posted by joecct View Post
                So - universal conscription or not? Is that the question?
                That is the question.

                My inner pragmatist says yes, it would lead to better policy outcomes if the pols had to calculate mass protest when deciding whether to throw our military dick around.

                My inner civil libertarian says no, that power is too strong to be granted to the state which, as we've recently seen, is so readily hijacked by the grifter or the criminally insane.

                So my answer is no, but a bracing public debate would sure be healthy and would expose a lot of the hypocrisy of our ruling class.
                Cornell University
                National Champion 1967, 1970
                ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                Comment


                • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                  There are about 42 million people in their 20's in the U.S. right now. I think the casualty figures for Iraq/Afghanistan are probably somewhere in the 5000-6000 range. If the wounded figures follow historical averages, they're probably 3x or 4x the number of dead. Obviously tragic for those involved, but I'm pretty sure your "generation" is going to survive the carnage.
                  Actually the age range you want to look at is 26-27 to about 35-36, that's the best age range of those who served in Afghanistan and Iraq. And way to completely wash over things like PTSD, like a good politician!

                  And say what you will about the British nobility but at least their sons seem to head to war zones, even Prince Andrew and Prince Harry have served in wars. Sons of Congress seem to not.
                  U-A-A!!!Go!Go!GreenandGold!
                  Applejack Tells You How UAA Is Doing...
                  I spell Failure with UAF

                  Originally posted by UAFIceAngel
                  But let's be real...There are 40 some other teams and only two alaskan teams...the day one of us wins something big will be the day I transfer to UAA
                  Originally posted by Doyle Woody
                  Best sign by a visting Seawolf fan Friday went to a young man who held up a piece of white poster board that read: "YOU CAN'T SPELL FAILURE WITHOUT UAF."

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

                    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                    Hardly rests? Bush lied. It's the most impeachable offense ever perpetrated by a sitting President to lie to go to War and yet he skated through. Just goes to show that War is easy for the country while sex is not.
                    Gotta push back on this too. The idea that Dems are as much to blame as Republicans for Iraq is like saying Madoff's victims are as much to blame as he is for his fraud. Its absurd. Dems, like the American people, were lied to about Saddam's possession of WMD and possibly nukes. No sh !t they voted to go to war because of the imminent danger. They weren't the ones doing the lying and anybody who thinks they share equal blame has their head so far up their @ ss they need a crowbar to free it.
                    Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

                    Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

                    "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

                      The Dems are culpable to the extent that they personally opposed the war but were afraid to be labeled Jeannette Rankin (a label which, BTW, anyone should be honored to have -- talk about the courage of one's convictions. It's no wonder the people who are impressed when an actor fakes courage are the very people who despise it when they see the real thing.)

                      {I'll say this for the GOP -- they would never be bullied into voting against their (juvenile, simplistic, ethically questionable) principles. It even took the Dems to save Dubya's bacon on TARP.}

                      Dems like Hillary understood that PNAC always had the Iraq war on the drawing board and were just waiting for any pretext, but she didn't have the courage to vote no and deal with the "these colors don't run" herpa-derpism. Plenty of her Dem colleagues share the same guilt.

                      The GOP was Sandusky, but the Dems were Paterno.
                      Cornell University
                      National Champion 1967, 1970
                      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

                        Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                        Hardly rests? Bush lied. It's the most impeachable offense ever perpetrated by a sitting President to lie to go to War and yet he skated through. Just goes to show that War is easy for the country while sex is not.
                        The Bush administration beat the war drums, and a majority of spineless Democrats ate it up without much, if any, hesitation because they didn't want to appear 'weak' or 'anti-Murica' to constituents in swing states beating their chests to "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue" during the 2-3 year period of mass blood lust that swept the country following 9/11. Yes, they are equally culpable.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

                          Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
                          The Bush administration beat the war drums, and a majority of spineless Democrats ate it up without much, if any, hesitation because they didn't want to appear 'weak' or 'anti-Murica' to constituents in swing states beating their chests to "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue" during the 2-3 year period of mass blood lust that swept the country following 9/11. Yes, they are equally culpable.
                          No, they are not equally culpable. Your moral equivalency argument does not fly with me. The man in the Oval Office knew and didn't care and that's all I need to know.
                          **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                          Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                          Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

                            Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                            No, they are not equally culpable. Your moral equivalency argument does not fly with me. The man in the Oval Office knew and didn't care and that's all I need to know.
                            Hey, if it helps you sleep at night...

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

                              Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
                              Hey, if it helps you sleep at night...
                              There is nothing in existence today that helps me sleep at night.
                              **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                              Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                              Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

                                Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                                The Dems are culpable to the extent that they personally opposed the war but were afraid to be labeled Jeannette Rankin (a label which, BTW, anyone should be honored to have -- talk about the courage of one's convictions. It's no wonder the people who are impressed when an actor fakes courage are the very people who despise it when they see the real thing.)

                                {I'll say this for the GOP -- they would never be bullied into voting against their (juvenile, simplistic, ethically questionable) principles. It even took the Dems to save Dubya's bacon on TARP.}

                                Dems like Hillary understood that PNAC always had the Iraq war on the drawing board and were just waiting for any pretext, but she didn't have the courage to vote no and deal with the "these colors don't run" herpa-derpism. Plenty of her Dem colleagues share the same guilt.

                                The GOP was Sandusky, but the Dems were Paterno.

                                Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
                                The Bush administration beat the war drums, and a majority of spineless Democrats ate it up without much, if any, hesitation because they didn't want to appear 'weak' or 'anti-Murica' to constituents in swing states beating their chests to "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue" during the 2-3 year period of mass blood lust that swept the country following 9/11. Yes, they are equally culpable.


                                Again, this line of reasoning makes zero sense, and its dangerous for the country. Giving one party cover with the trite "oh they both do it" allows the offending party to do the same thing again, with the knowledge they won't be held accountable. I didn't think anybody watched CNN anymore, but several posters out here seem to be brainwashed by their relentless false equivalency.

                                Perhaps Bernie Madoff's victims could have watched their investments better or questioned the returns. However, no sane person would say they deserved what they got and are equally to blame in the fraud. Likewise, no sane person who isn't a GOP party hack would say that Dems deserve blame for the faked intelligence reports of the Bush admin. That's ridiculous.
                                Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

                                Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

                                "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X