The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[Old Pio]

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

So us not wanting to send troops to Iraq means we were waving North Vietnamese flags in 1970? Ok... Beyond the fact I wasn't born until 1985 I don't see any of us wishing our country loses, traveling to Iraq (or Vietnam for that matter), or wishing for our troops to die. In fact I think we want the opposite.
Well crazy is sometimes best countered with crazy so here's a pony:
<img src="http://pinkie.mylittlefacewhen.com/media/f/img/mlfw10895-download_1.gif"></img>

I'm trying to decide whether anyone could really be as stupid, ignorant and superficial as this post indicates.

 

[Old Pio]

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

and so the war on terror takes a hiatus while we go to war with each other instead.....



Frankly, I find it breathtakingly hypocritical for people to get all worked up about a so-called "war on women" inside the US when those same people are totally silent about the real-life atrocities inflicted upon women in some Muslim countries. How outrageous to ask for a woman to pay for her own birth control! Oh, the horror! yet clitorectomies are given a complete pass. Women who are caught committing adultery have stones thrown at them until they keel over dead. no big deal. we have to understand how those men are working through years of western oppression.


I guess I'm just old-fashioned.

Or to work themselves into a lather about Clarence Thomas but issue a lifetime pass for that Arky p.o.s. Bill Clinton.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

But have't you heard? If you don't jump every time JPod says jump, you love the terrorists and hate 'Murica.

FF and Pio are daily reminders that the people who brought us Iraq didn't learn a thing. They're never going to get it, and no matter how much misery they bring it will always be somebody else's fault. An ideology can never fail, it can only be failed.

This, so much this.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

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

Perhaps you're quoting the general incorrectly. Perhaps he's an idiot. It's hard to tell. "Making no more veterans" would mean eliminating the millions of opportunities taken advantage of by young people for generations to improve their educational and fiscal standards. Maybe he meant "combat" veterans. Maybe you don't know the difference. Maybe we should just do away the DOD altogether. That would certainly eliminate future PTSD and traumatic blast injury cases.

I find it funny you go through the trouble of using "" to "quote" me but change the wording and defeat a strawman. Good work.

 

[Old Pio]

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

But have't you heard? If you don't jump every time JPod says jump, you love the terrorists and hate 'Murica.

FF and Pio are daily reminders that the people who brought us Iraq didn't learn a thing. They're never going to get it, and no matter how much misery they bring it will always be somebody else's fault. An ideology can never fail, it can only be failed.

"Somebody else's fault?" From one of the principal soloists in the Amen Chorus that six years into the Cheap Suit's administration is still blaming Bush. . .for everything? You got guts, I'll give you that. I assume if this war (no, it's not a war) against ISIS goes south, you'll have the familiar denunciations of Bush and Neocons handy.

 

[Old Pio]

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

I find it funny you go through the trouble of using "" to "quote" me but change the wording and defeat a strawman. Good work.

It's possible I misread what you wrote. Did you or did you not quote the general as saying the best way to honor veterans is to make sure we make no more of them? And if that's what he said, he's an imbecile. And if he meant (as I suspect) no more wounded vets, then you're an imbecile. Either way, to make absolutely certain no more GIs are ever hurt (we've recently lost some pilots in accidents) is to do away with DOD altogether.

 

[Rover]

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

The only service about which you're an expert is bringing your customers their Grand Slams.

Opie I'm 99.9% sure I could buy and sell you six days a week and twice on Sunday despite being half your age, so I'm not sure a contest measuring success (or measuring anything else...) is in your best interests.

Also - Try to base some of your arguments as if you were dealing with people who were born after Vietnam ended, 'kay? Because this Hanoi Jane and Abbie Hoffman stuff just makes you look like a dinosaur.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

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

"We can best honor veterans by trying hard to make no more of them."

It's possible I misread what you wrote. Did you or did you not quote the general as saying the best way to honor veterans is to make sure we make no more of them? And if that's what he said, he's an imbecile. And if he meant (as I suspect) no more wounded vets, then you're an imbecile. Either way, to make absolutely certain no more GIs are ever hurt (we've recently lost some pilots in accidents) is to do away with DOD altogether.

I am no humanities major but I think "trying hard" vs, as you changed it, "must" or "make sure" have very different meanings. Especially in a nuanced issue like armed conflicts and their consequences.

Although you clearly appear to be an expert in every military subject, I personally would yield to his expertise and experience. Granted I am making the assumption that you are far less experienced with dealing with "wounded" veterans than he. I think this assumption is warranted, however, given that he has 30+ years of experience in rehabilitation medicine within the military and you string sentences and slurs together like a drunk Clint Eastwood.

I would also add that most "wounds" veterans suffer from are not visible. Those who dedicate their lives to healing those wounds try to stress the careful thinking needed before exposing more men and women to those conditions.

 

[burd]

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

Opie I'm 99.9% sure I could buy and sell you six days a week and twice on Sunday despite being half your age, so I'm not sure a contest measuring success (or measuring anything else...) is in your best interests.

Also - Try to base some of your arguments as if you were dealing with people who were born after Vietnam ended, 'kay? Because this Hanoi Jane and Abbie Hoffman stuff just makes you look like a dinosaur.

Rover, you can be half Pio's age and still be a relic.

It's true, Pio's age is magnified because he hasn't accepted a new idea since hula hoops. There is no WD-40 for a mind that rusted shut.

 

[Old Pio]

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

I am no humanities major but I think "trying hard" vs, as you changed it, "must" or "make sure" have very different meanings. Especially in a nuanced issue like armed conflicts and their consequences.

Although you clearly appear to be an expert in every military subject, I personally would yield to his expertise and experience. Granted I am making the assumption that you are far less experienced with dealing with "wounded" veterans than he. I think this assumption is warranted, however, given that he has 30+ years of experience in rehabilitation medicine within the military and you string sentences and slurs together like a drunk Clint Eastwood.

I would also add that most "wounds" veterans suffer from are not visible. Those who dedicate their lives to healing those wounds try to stress the careful thinking needed before exposing more men and women to those conditions.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Hide behind the general's credentials all you want. But the vets he deals with are the ones who are damaged in one way or another. Not the vast majority who aren't. And slather on a layer of boiler plate for good measure. But you were ignorantly imprecise and too childishly stubborn to admit it.

 

[Old Pio]

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

Rover, you can be half Pio's age and still be a relic.

It's true, Pio's age is magnified because he hasn't accepted a new idea since hula hoops. There is no WD-40 for a mind that rusted shut.

Look in a mirror, princess.

 

[Gurtholfin]

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

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Hide behind the general's credentials all you want. But the vets he deals with are the ones who are damaged in one way or another. Not the vast majority who aren't. And slather on a layer of boiler plate for good measure. But you were ignorantly imprecise and too childishly stubborn to admit it.

So what's an acceptable number of veterans who are "damaged in one way or another?"

 

[Old Pio]

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

So what's an acceptable number of veterans who are "damaged in one way or another?"

That's not up to me. And is entirely beside the point. My preference would be zero. However, even in times of peace we still have GIs injured and killed. So I'll repeat for the special ed students: the only way to ensure none ever are injured or killed is to do away with the military altogether. Is that what you and that other clown are suggesting? Because that's the logic of his (and apparently your) position.

The president wants to send 3,000 GIs to Africa to help fight ebola. Any chance in that primitive part of the world a few of them will be injured or killed? And if the answer is yes, do you advocate not sending them?

 

[Gurtholfin]

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

That's not up to me. And is entirely beside the point. My preference would be zero. However, even in times of peace we still have GIs injured and killed. So I'll repeat for the special ed students: the only way to ensure none ever are injured or killed is to do away with the military altogether. Is that what you and that other clown are suggesting? Because that's the logic of his (and apparently your) position.

The president wants to send 3,000 GIs to Africa to help fight ebola. Any chance in that primitive part of the world a few of them will be injured or killed? And if the answer is yes, do you advocate not sending them?

The logic of my position is that we need to be choosey about when and where we deploy our military. Cost/benefit. And I'm not referring to just dollars. I'm actually quite Hawkish compared to most who lean left.

As far as sending some to Africa, I'm not thrilled. If it were me, I'd only send them when we have a reserve of the drug that saved those doctors in sufficient quantity to take care of any that catch the virus. But that's just me - I'd want to do the best I could to prepare for a positive outcome for each soldier and protect them from the dangers that we can. For instance, I don't think our troops should be searching junkyards in Iraq to armor their vehicles - we should have moved heaven and earth ahead of the war to take care of that.

To me, that's our government's responsibility (and ours through funding) when they deploy our forces. Troops are no longer pawns and the days of the infantry charge are long gone - especially for a country of our stature.

You wear your flag on your lapel (figuratively) around here and pretend to give a crap about our military personnel but just like the politicians who send them to war under false pretenses and without the proper equipment and then don't take care of them when they get home, you are a fake. A Poseur.

If this was important to you and you weren't just a pathetic partisan, you'd spend your time posting links to stories about our men and women who served and their current plight and the plight of their families who have lost someone in a needless war. Instead, you worry about skillets and shootings in Chicago.

Like I said, you are a fake of the lowest order.

And your "service" which makes you an expert on all things military and a member of the broherhood? You were a desk jockey? Lol. What, no positions open at the recruiting office tough guy?

Loser.

 

[Kepler]

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

No one said it was, Patrick Henry. But it is anti-American to display the flags of our enemies (sop during Vietnam anti-war demonstrations), to root for a North Vietnamese victory and to travel to the capital city of our enemies to collaborate with them. Hanoi Jane was neither the first nor the only in that regard, just the most famous.

I've already served on active duty and am a little too old to do so again. So I'm not entirely certain where "chicken hawk" is coming from except from an inability to argue intelligently.

You'd be better off sharing your concerns about American ground troops with the Community Organizer in Chief, since he seems unable to make up his mind.

Old Pio: The Film.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

What is the point of going to war somewhere where no stable government (sans a dictatorship) can exist?

The Iraq (and Afghanistan for that matter) experiment has proven that these folks want to live in the 12th century. Let them.

 

[Kepler]

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

What is the point of going to war somewhere where no stable government (sans a dictatorship) can exist?

The Iraq experiment has proven that these folks want to live in the 12th century. Let them.

The Echo Chamber and its followers is in the perpetual state of mental and emotional development of a 13-year old boy, for whom the answer to any question is fists. For them, the "point" of war is war. That's why it's incomprehensible to them that we might want to think through the situation and its consequences before acting. Middle schoolers don't consider consequences, they simply yell, close their eyes, and swing.

We had an administration of those people between 2000-08 and it did more damage to America than any since James Buchanan. But middle schoolers also don't accept personal responsibility -- they can't even conceive of it -- so they merely parrot the same thing now, and become impatient and howl and threaten and blub when the adults say no, before we do anything we'll think it through.

The fanatic regards thoughtfulness as indecision because he is not capable of it.

 

[Rover]

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

We had a guy like Opie and Fishy in my hometown. Every parade he's decked out in full uniform like he's been kicking @ ss overseas. Problem was he was a lawyer in the national guard who wrote wills for the soldiers actually doing the fighting. Now its good of him to provide this service, so thanks for that, but there comes a point when you start laying it on way too thick. Anyway, he tried to run for state rep and got crushed. It kinda reminded me of Scott Brown's campaign ads insinuating he's over in Afghanistan doing the fighting when he was some legal beagle in the Guard nowhere near any danger.

 

[Kepler]

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

Nice serious article by a usually funny guy, Drew Magary, on the stupidity of whuppin' your kid. Submitted here because the type of knuck who preaches war is also inevitably the kind of gorilla who espouses "spare the rod, spoil the child." In the immortal 4-word summary of an entire character by Ring Lardner, "'Shut up,' he explained."

 

[Old Pio]

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

The logic of my position is that we need to be choosey about when and where we deploy our military. Cost/benefit. And I'm not referring to just dollars. I'm actually quite Hawkish compared to most who lean left.

As far as sending some to Africa, I'm not thrilled. If it were me, I'd only send them when we have a reserve of the drug that saved those doctors in sufficient quantity to take care of any that catch the virus. But that's just me - I'd want to do the best I could to prepare for a positive outcome for each soldier and protect them from the dangers that we can. For instance, I don't think our troops should be searching junkyards in Iraq to armor their vehicles - we should have moved heaven and earth ahead of the war to take care of that.

To me, that's our government's responsibility (and ours through funding) when they deploy our forces. Troops are no longer pawns and the days of the infantry charge are long gone - especially for a country of our stature.

You wear your flag on your lapel (figuratively) around here and pretend to give a crap about our military personnel but just like the politicians who send them to war under false pretenses and without the proper equipment and then don't take care of them when they get home, you are a fake. A Poseur.

If this was important to you and you weren't just a pathetic partisan, you'd spend your time posting links to stories about our men and women who served and their current plight and the plight of their families who have lost someone in a needless war. Instead, you worry about skillets and shootings in Chicago.

Like I said, you are a fake of the lowest order.

And your "service" which makes you an expert on all things military and a member of the broherhood? You were a desk jockey? Lol. What, no positions open at the recruiting office tough guy?

Loser.

Your prejudices are not evidence, a*shat. Maybe nobody will notice your hebephrenic ad homonym temper tantrum didn't address the issues I raised.