• esselle said on Jun 09, 2006....

  Bush doesn't make sense. Maybe he'll choke on a pretzel again.

• SOLDIERCIPSWIFE said on Jun 09, 2006....

  LOL-Thank goodness..for a second I thought it was just me..

• bloc said on Jun 09, 2006....

  The bush crew never wanted to leave Iraq. You can read all of their thoughts, which they wrote before coming to power, and the ||{1}||. They planned on invading Iraq a long time ago then using it to "restructure" the middle east. However, they sort of thing doesn't play well to the American Public especially when people are getting killed everday in Iraq. So he has to talk about coming home and maybe we will once those guys realize their project is a failure. Too bad it had to ruin so many lives.

• GumpyJumptooth said on Jun 09, 2006....

  I'm kinda confused myself. What caliber of handgun was put to your husband's head that forced him to join the military? Seems to me that if you sign up and accept all the benefits, you pretty much should have considered that you could go to war at any time for any reason. President Bush? What's he have to do with your husband having to follow the orders of ANYONE who was elected by the people? If you don't want to worry about having to go to war, don't sign up for the totally voluntary military. That way, you won't be at the mercy of their thinking. FYI, the US military is not a shop class or extension of DeVry. It's a fighting force that kills people, and occassionally gets killed themselves. As for YOUR confusion, the Iraqi government and military standing on their own and us leaving are mutually exclusive concepts, although the second won't happen till the first one does, and it's a long way away.

• bloc said on Jun 09, 2006....

  "What's he have to do with your husband having to follow the orders of ANYONE who was elected by the people? " This simply isn't true. You only have to follow the order if it's lawfull. "If you don't want to worry about having to go to war, don't sign up for the totally voluntary military." As a veteran I think I can speak to this. Joining the military does not mean that you lose the right to have an opinion. It also does not mean that you lose the right to have ethical and moral beliefs. If we take your logic and follow it out we get nazi germany where people simply followed orders. Our military is not and should never be like that. We also believe in freedom here in America right? Don't soldiers have the right to speak their mind?

• GumpyJumptooth said on Jun 09, 2006....

  >>You only have to follow the order if it's lawfull.<< Why certainly. Have it your way. I believe the President is WELL within his rights to have lawfully ordered troops to fight in Iraq. If you want to get all legal, the soldier signing up VOLUNTARILY for the VOLUNTEER army is also LEGALLY obligated to follow the lawful orders of the Commander-in-Chief. Do you know of any unlawful orders that the current President has handed down to this or any other soldier? Didn't think so. <<"If you don't want to worry about having to go to war, don't sign up for the totally voluntary military." As a veteran I think I can speak to this. Joining the military does not mean that you lose the right to have an opinion. It also does not mean that you lose the right to have ethical and moral beliefs. If we take your logic and follow it out we get nazi germany where people simply followed orders. Our military is not and should never be like that.<< I know the sentence I wrote may be difficult for you to read, what with you apparently receiving treatement for your uncontrollably bleeding heart, but try and sound out the words. I didn't state anything regarding a person having an opinion. No, no. Far from it. I said if you don't want to WORRY about having to go to WAR, don't VOLUNTARILY join the VOLUNTEER army, whose chief function in times of war is to fight in the war. You have extrapolated that into some sort of First Amendment issue. Incidentally, since you have so kindly been technical regarding lawful and unlawful orders, I'll point out that, yes, you surrender your right to criticize your Commander-in-Chief when you're in the armed forces. It's called subordination, and you'll hear servicemen and women state so on all sorts of opinion shows. They can state their experiences, sure. But they're not allowed to criticize command decisions publically. Sorry. People have been prosecuted for it, even. Maybe some of the people treating the military as a division of Xerox or a training school should look into what they're actually joining? Then they wouldn't be so confused by the President. Do I agree with the war or the decision to go to war? Hell, no. Completely retarded. But what I agree with even less are the people who joined the service of their own volition and now want to carp about disagreeing with politics or agendas. >>We also believe in freedom here in America right? Don't soldiers have the right to speak their mind?<< No, soldiers don't have the right to totally speak their mind while in the service, while we're at war. Sorry. But that was never my point. That's simply something you've made up out of whole cloth, non sequitur style, and then attributed to me in order to prop up a shaky point having nothing to do with mine. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO WORRY ABOUT HAVING TO GO TO WAR--OR WHY--DON'T VOLUNTARILY JOIN THE VOLUNTEER ARMY.

• bloc said on Jun 09, 2006....

  "Do you know of any unlawful orders that the current President has handed down to this or any other soldier? Didn't think so." It's debatable that the order to not follow the Geneva conventions and torturing people is illegal.

• bloc said on Jun 09, 2006....

  [quote]I said if you don't want to WORRY about having to go to WAR, don't VOLUNTARILY join the VOLUNTEER army, whose chief function in times of war is to fight in the war.[/quote] Everyone worries about going to war. [quote]I'll point out that, yes, you surrender your right to criticize your Commander-in-Chief when you're in the armed forces. ... They can state their experiences, sure. But they're not allowed to criticize command decisions publically. Sorry. People have been prosecuted for it, even.[quote] ||{1}|| Can one criticize without being contemptuous. I think so and a court hasn't said otherwise. [quote]But what I agree with even less are the people who joined the service of their own volition and now want to carp about disagreeing with politics or agendas.[/quote] This is simply dumb. Let's play a word game. I'll use your own words. But what I agree with even less are the people who joined the German SS of their own volition and now want to carp about disagreeing with politics or agendas such as executing jews. Atrocities happen when people are turned into robots. I firmly believe that everyone has the right to state their opinion and to worry about their loved ones. I also think that a person that joins the military to defend our great country and then gets sent to an immoral war that isn't defending us in any way would have a negative reaction. Btw, your the one with the non sequiturs. Where in this post did SOLDIERCIPSWIFE's husband complain about joining the military? Where did he criticize the president? I'm replying to your points, but your the one coming out of left field

• GumpyJumptooth said on Jun 09, 2006....

  >>"Do you know of any unlawful orders that the current President has handed down to this or any other soldier? Didn't think so." It's debatable that the order to not follow the Geneva conventions and torturing people is illegal.<< Not to get in the way of your revisions, but the above is a simple yes or no question. Do you know of any unlawful orders the current President has handed down to this or any other soldier? You bring up torture and the Geneva convention. So are you saying you know the President has ordered torture? Or are you just using more non sequitur rhetoric to avoid answering the actual question? It's a "yes or no" thing. >>Everyone worries about going to war.<< Wrong. I don't. Thus everyone doesn't. I would imagine that many millions of other people who didn't volunteer also do not worry about having to go to war. >>http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/military_law/military_freedom_speech.htm Can one criticize without being contemptuous. I think so and a court hasn't said otherwise.<< Forgive me if I don't consider the "freeadvice" section of a law site as binding as the Military Code. >> This is simply dumb. Let's play a word game. I'll use your own words. But what I agree with even less are the people who joined the German SS of their own volition and now want to carp about disagreeing with politics or agendas such as executing jews.<< No, you see, those would be YOUR words. You seem completely incapable of the discussion at hand. You want to bring in the First Amendment and comparisons to Nazis, which is considered amateurish in even the most amateur debate. However, making up such lunacy and then attributing it to me? Sorry, you don't get to invent analogies for other people and then consider them binding. I wrote what I believe to be a very understandable sentence. Swapping out nouns only changes the meaning in a way that is transparently self-serving for you. >> Atrocities happen when people are turned into robots. I firmly believe that everyone has the right to state their opinion and to worry about their loved ones.<< Sure they do. But when their loved ones voluntarily entered the military, it's highly hypocritical to whine about a politician and their policies. They signed on. They weren't joining the Rotary Club or Welcome Wagon. >> I also think that a person that joins the military to defend our great country and then gets sent to an immoral war that isn't defending us in any way would have a negative reaction.<< Ah, so if I am correct, your position is that military personnel should only feel good about the "moral" wars? Which wars would those be? And in addition, they should only feel good about the wars they happen to agree with? I must have missed that part when I signed on. What did they think they were signing up for? An encounter group? A "share your opinion" poll? No. The US military goes to war when the Commander In Chief legally orders it to do so, and soliders don't get a say in who that is other than the balloting box. Whining about it won't change that. Soldiers have been in the same position since Roman times. >> Btw, your the one with the non sequiturs. Where in this post did SOLDIERCIPSWIFE's husband complain about joining the military? Where did he criticize the president? I'm replying to your points, but your the one coming out of left field<< The original poster wanted to know if Bush is for REAL. They were complaining about what they believed to be an illogical course of action. Naively, but complaining. As if removal of troops happens the instant someone judges the Iraqis competent? Not realistic. My point is that Bush is for real, and that her husband signed up to be there whether he, or you, or she agrees with the politics, the policies or anything else. You may now either make something up and attribute it to me, or simply insert Jeffrey Dahmer verbiage in sentences I had written to convey my message quite succinctly. I'm sure you'll enjoy your handmade self-serving analogies much more, though.

• kelly said on Jun 10, 2006....

  GumpyJumptooth, with your excellent written and personal skills have you ever thought of a career in diplomacy?

• SOLDIERCIPSWIFE said on Jun 10, 2006....

  GumpyJumptooth- Please let's get this straight. My husband joined the "Volunteer" Army to defend his country and serve. He is an excellent soldier who takes his job very seriously, and is incredibly great at what he does. I don't appreciate your rude comments about him whining-I don't think I ever said that...I merely said he didn't agree...ME-HIS WIFE- Yes, I am the one who doesn't want him to go to war. I am the one who is terrified. He just holds me and tells me this is what he signed up for. Just because my husband believes that this war should have long been over and believes the strategies are less than acceptable, in no way makes him a whinny soldier who never should have joined. Our country is so lucky to have a soldier that is as dedicated and bright as my husband. His view on the war in no way affects the job that he does or the effort he puts forth. HE IS LOOKING FORWARD to trying to make a difference, to some how do his part. I have no problem with you pointing out your view to me, but DO NOT in any way infer that my husband believes he joined some rotary club. My husband is fully aware of what he joined and prepared to do whatever orders come down. My husband is no less of a soldier NOT AGREEING WITH YOU and the rest of the " Let's start a war with every GODDa%* country" club! Don't put words in my mouth, and don't degrade my husband for a lack of understanding of my Post.

• GumpyJumptooth said on Jun 11, 2006....

  Oh, but I never claimed YOUR HUSBAND was whining. It's YOU who are whining. You claim the soliders are no closer to coming home? Which is ludicrous. They're far, far closer than they were on the first day of the war. Or do you disagree. I know it kinda messes with your weepy rhetoric when you actually have to back up such brainless claims, but do try. You claim your husband is an excellent solider. Ah, so you have deep insight to the military? Have you served yourself? You're in his unit, obviously, and have observed him while he performs his duty? Or maybe perhaps is your bias as his wife interfering with your vaunted assessment of his skills? As for putting words in people's mouths, you've done so by claiming I accused your husband of whining. Try re-reading. Never happened. Let's continue on the "putting words in people's mouths" trend, shall we? You have lumped me into the "Let's start a war every..." group. This shows how hypocritical you are. Your husband thinking the strategies aren't acceptable is so funny I might just laugh forever. Your husband isn't a member of the joint chiefs of staff is he? If he's SUCH a GREAT solider, perhaps he would be in a command position so that his amazing military brain could solve the war for us all? And you claim his belief that the strategies of war are incorrect and the war has gone on too long have no effect whatsoever on his performance? Wow. Almost any psychologist would disagree with you, but your fishwife insights into the military, I'm sure, trump fact and trends and statistics on such matters, don't they? I don't need to degrade your husband. His meaningless and non-binding opinions do that for him, since he joined the military knowing that his meaningless opinion wouldn't sway anyone above him in rank. Your whining is just icing on the cake. I'll go back to the original point. If people don't VOLUNTARILY join the VOLUNTEER ARMY, they (and their families) don't have to worry about the war. By the way, are you spending the money your husband is being paid for fighting the war, or returning it to show just how much you believe in your opinion?

• bloc said on Jun 11, 2006....

  "I wrote what I believe to be a very understandable sentence. Swapping out nouns only changes the meaning in a way that is transparently self-serving for you." Wrong, changing the nouns changed the context but the logic, your logic, remained the same. It was a very clear and straightforward rebuke of your logic which you failed to respond to. As to the rest of your post, it isn't work resonding to.

• bloc said on Jun 11, 2006....

  work = worth

• GumpyJumptooth said on Jun 11, 2006....

  Oh, the laughs just keep coming!!!! You, CLEARLY, have never taken a course in LOGIC. By your LOGIC, changing the nouns keeps the logic in tact, right? "Water is very good for people and they should drink as much of it as possible." "Hydrocloric acid is very good for people and they should drink as much of it as possible." Wow. Same logic applies here, doesn't it? Oh. Ooops. I guess it DOESN'T. No, you don't get to change the words (known as CENSORSHIP) and then claim logic for the other party in a debate. Clear? Straightforward? Anything but. It's obfuscation when you don't have a thread of an argument. Bringing Nazi Germany and Hitler into the argument is a classic sign of having no intellectual ammo. Your third grade insistence that you can liberally reword someone's statement as a test of "logic" doesn't even remotely pass the smell test. A retarded kid with a head trauma has better understanding of "logic" than your shaky, self-serving, redacted, and moronic approach to the concept.

• bloc said on Jun 12, 2006....

  Your point was that soldiers should shut up and follow orders. I pointed out that doing that is what lead to the holocaust. It's the exact same logic and you have yet to address it. Calling me names does not make your point or did you not learn that in the logic courses you took?

• GumpyJumptooth said on Jun 12, 2006....

  >>Your point was that soldiers should shut up and follow orders. I pointed out that doing that is what lead to the holocaust. It's the exact same logic and you have yet to address it. Calling me names does not make your point or did you not learn that in the logic courses you took?<< Here's a lil' tip for ya. The OTHER person gets to define what their point was. In the rare event when you restate it, it helps to actually be accurate, rather than restate it in self-serving terms. This seems to be your chief strategy in communication. My point was NEVER "soldiers should shut up and follow orders." I never asserted any such thing. Of course, since it helps you prop up your shaky argument, it is no mystery to me why you liberally try to state someone else's point FOR THEM. As for soldiers shutting up and following orders, that's not my point. That's their job description. My point, for the fourth time, is that "People who don't VOLUNTARILY join the VOLUNTEER army don't have to worry about the war." Now, the fact that people--soldiers--in Nazi Germany didn't overthrow the holocaust, well you could pull that example for the people who aren't objecting to higher prices for toner. "IF one of us is silent, soon it will be Nazi Germany." Jesus. Talk about melodrama. You go play in the sandbox of analogies. Please liberally bring in Nazi Germany. That won't make you look like a knee-jerk extremist. Nooooooooooooo. Never! Me? I have an actual factual currently existing situation that is easily examined. I'll stick to that. Original question of the post. IS BUSH FOR REAL? Answer: Yes. He is. As are all the presidents those who VOLUNTARILY join the VOLUNTEER army will have to follow. Whether the wars the fight are the "good, moral kind" or whether they agree with them or not. As to your Holocaust assertion, that is not LOGIC. That is history. LOGIC is when you figure something out in a deductive manner. Water freezes at 32 degrees. If it is 10 degrees out, it is logical to assume that water is frozen. When you point to a trend in history and try to compare it to a current situation, that's just history. Not logic. In addition, are you saying that you feel the US in Iraq is equal to the holocaust? Those who suffered during the holocaust are diminished by your comparison. Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state. The US isn't. All it would have taken to get George Bush out of office was winning the election. Apparently, all the bleeding hearts couldn't get that done. Nazi Germany also had concentration camps. Are you asserting that the US has these in Iraq? Or anywhere else? Ah. That wacky analogy of yours has no wheels on the wagon, does it? Shall I continue? Does the state control all the media? Ah, they did in Nazi Germany. Are we, individual citizens, allowed to criticize the President? Protest? Write scathing letters to the Editor? Ah. ANOTHER difference from Nazi Germany. There are several hundred others. Your analogy, like your "logic", is crap. What names did I call you? I challenge you to find a single one. Another lil' tip? There's a thing called the English language. Try to brush up on it. Pointing out that your approach is moronic--which it is--is not calling you a name. That would be "You are a moron." Saying that a retarded kid with a head trauma has a better grasp? That's not calling you a name, either. You just keep swinging and missing on the fact.

• bloc said on Jun 13, 2006....

  Was Bush for real when he kept using the mushroom cloud analogy? Answer: No, not in the sense that he was being honest. "As for soldiers shutting up and following orders, that's not my point. That's their job description." and your point :)

• SOLDIERCIPSWIFE said on Jun 21, 2006....

  Gumpy- "President Bush? What's he have to do with your husband having to follow the orders of ANYONE who was elected by the people? If you don't want to worry about having to go to war, don't sign up for the totally voluntary military." -1. President Bush is the one who sent us to war-that is what he has to do with it 2. We aren't worried about going to war-we are merely opposed to a war that is based on lies and after 3 years still has no clear cut plan on getting us out. "Why certainly. Have it your way. I believe the President is WELL within his rights to have lawfully ordered troops to fight in Iraq." -1.Because of the WMD that we never found? Yes, you see the insurgents were not in Iraq until we decided to go there..good plan "You claim your husband is an excellent solider. Ah, so you have deep insight to the military? Have you served yourself? You're in his unit, obviously, and have observed him while he performs his duty?" -1. I would say his medals, promotions, superior monthly counceling statements, awards for his performance, and praise from his First SGT while in my presence would be more than enough for me to come to that conclusion. "Your husband thinking the strategies aren't acceptable is so funny I might just laugh forever. Your husband isn't a member of the joint chiefs of staff is he? If he's SUCH a GREAT solider, perhaps he would be in a command position so that his amazing military brain could solve the war for us all? -1. And the thought of you believing that the strategies are acceptable make me want to hurl. You don't have to be in a command position to see that the way we have gone about this war is a joke. "My point was NEVER "soldiers should shut up and follow orders" -1. That was exactly your point. Volunteer army, volunteer people-take orders that is what you sign up for...that is what you said. I think you are seriously confused and you yourself don't have a clue. You see I am not the one who said we were not closer to coming home. The point of this Blogg was the fact that Bush tells us all the progress that is supposedly being made and then immediately follows with " But we are no closer to coming home...there is still a lot of work to be done." My point was if we are doing so well, making so many strides then logically we should be closer to bringing the troops home. Perhaps it is not I and Bloc that should learn English, but rather you. You seem more confused on what is going on than anyone.

• GumpyJumptooth said on Jun 23, 2006....

  >>1. President Bush is the one who sent us to war-that is what he has to do with it<< And my point is that any President has the power to take us to war. And this President was specifically allowed by a resolution voted by CONGRESS. The point, which you conveniently seem to keep overlooking is that soliders don't get a choice whether they like how the President does this, regardless of who the president is. >>2. We aren't worried about going to war-we are merely opposed to a war that is based on lies and after 3 years still has no clear cut plan on getting us out.<< Consider Vietnam. Lasted much longer than 3 years without an exit plan. More than one President. Yet no one got a choice, did they? Perhaps history books with Vietnam in them weren't readily available when your husband made a commitment to the military? >>-1.Because of the WMD that we never found? Yes, you see the insurgents were not in Iraq until we decided to go there..good plan<< Firstly, WMDs WERE found. Perhaps you missed out on that. AND, the WMDs and other reasons were just that. Reasons. The POWER to do so, came BEFORE the reasons with the Congressional resolution. I guess you're giving the almost 100% vote in Congress a pass on the situation? >>-1. I would say his medals, promotions, superior monthly counceling statements, awards for his performance, and praise from his First SGT while in my presence would be more than enough for me to come to that conclusion.<< So, in answer to my question, you haven't seen him personally perform any of these duties and although you are unwilling to accept the judgement and strategies of the US military, you're more than willing to accept their praise? >>-1. And the thought of you believing that the strategies are acceptable make me want to hurl. You don't have to be in a command position to see that the way we have gone about this war is a joke.<< Again, politics and military strategy are two different things. And, once again, if your husband is such a GREAT SOLDIER, why isn't he in a command position, able to solve the war for us in five minutes? >>"My point was NEVER "soldiers should shut up and follow orders" -1. That was exactly your point. Volunteer army, volunteer people-take orders that is what you sign up for...that is what you said. I think you are seriously confused and you yourself don't have a clue.<< I find it amazing that someone ELSE can state my position FOR ME and then consider it binding. My point, once again, is that if you don't want to be bound by military decisions, and political ones by the Commander-In-Chief, don't VOLUNTEER for the VOLUNTEER army. That is my point, no matter how many times you conveniently incorrectly attempt to re-state my position in a self-serving manner. >>You see I am not the one who said we were not closer to coming home. The point of this Blogg was the fact that Bush tells us all the progress that is supposedly being made and then immediately follows with " But we are no closer to coming home...there is still a lot of work to be done."<< What is so difficult about this for you to understand? If you're building a skyscraper, and you get the girders up, you've made a lot of progress, but you still have a lot of work to be done. These concepts are not mutually exclusive. >>My point was if we are doing so well, making so many strides then logically we should be closer to bringing the troops home.<< Again, are we closer to having the troops home than we were three years ago? ANSWER: Yes. >>Perhaps it is not I and Bloc that should learn English, but rather you. You seem more confused on what is going on than anyone.<< I think the people trying to attribute self-serving opinions they've made up out of whole cloth (yourself and bloc) shouldn't really be lecturing others on the use of English. Confused? No. I'm not the one complaining because a spouse VOLUNTEERED for the VOLUNTEER army and didn't realize they might be fighting a war they don't believe in for longer than they really wanted to. Again, the military isn't the Rotary Club. Anyone with a brain cell would have realized this when they swore an oath when entering the military. It's pretty obvious to anyone with an ounce of common.

• bloc said on Jun 24, 2006....

  "Firstly, WMDs WERE found. Perhaps you missed out on that." This is a gross exageration. Perhaps this is what you are refering to. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/23.html#a8825 These are not WMD by any stretch of the imagination. We were told that Saddam was working on nukes and that his WMD were a threat to america. These clearly are neither. If you refering to something else then please link. " if your husband is such a GREAT SOLDIER, why isn't he in a command position, able to solve the war for us in five minutes?" Obviously you don't know how the military works and are just making personal insults. Being promoted in the military is based on time and who you know and having not fucked up too badly. that is all. "What is so difficult about this for you to understand? If you're building a skyscraper, and you get the girders up, you've made a lot of progress, but you still have a lot of work to be done. These concepts are not mutually exclusive." Again your trying to use abstract logic in place of reality. Bush keeps saying we're making great progress, but in reality the situation appears to be getting worse. Using your analogy this would be akin to Donald Trump saying that we've made a lot of progress on the skyscrapper when in reality no work has been done and the unions just went on strike. He's lying over and over again. soldiercipswife's point is valid. Your point that you shouldn't join the volunteer army if you can't accept going to war is valid. But, you said a lot more than that. Everyone can read what you said, and on top of it she never said that her husband couldn't accept it. Not liking something and not accepting it are two very different things.

• GumpyJumptooth said on Jun 24, 2006....

  Yes, the "crooks and liars" website is just about as objective as your "freelaw" site regarding insubordination. Heavily onesided. And also incorrect. Crooks and liars. Gee, that sounds like a really objective website. The "free law" site? Gosh, I know that most people want a free lawyer when they are in legal peril. That free legal advices is really good stuff. So YOU now get to determine what a weapon of mass distruction is? I'll state this again. Weapons of mass destruction were found. This is simply a FACT. Since Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, and Alan Combes agree with this fact, I'm going to stay in their camp on this issue. Not to mention that LOTS of weapons in violation of the UN sanctions placed on Iraq during the last Gulf War were found. LOTS. That was also one of the reasons we went to war. Also the fact that our planes were being fired on, which was a violation of the UN sanctions from the last war. Bush also listed this as a reason. So WMDs were not the only reason listed for going to war. It really doesn't matter, however, as he could have gone to war for whatever reason. THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES PASSED A NEARLY UNANIMOUS RESOLUTION GIVING HIM PERMISSION TO DO SO. Argue the REASONS all you want. The FACTS are that he has, and had, the power to do so--whether the VOLUNTEER members of the VOLUNTEER army like it or not. Maybe they don't have history books in certain part of the world, but I can point to more than one US military action that the soliders haven't necessarily agreed with. It's just that some people are smart enough to know that if they enter the military they don't get to choose A) the wars the fight, B) how long the stay there, and C) if they conform to their own personal opinions. Whining about it at that point is whining in ignorance. And how you can extrapolate WMDs were found into a HUGE EXAGGERATION is the stuff of science fiction. TONS AND TONS OF EVERY TYPE OF WMD WERE FOUND. That is a huge exaggeration. WMDs were found is simply a fact. >>Obviously you don't know how the military works and are just making personal insults. Being promoted in the military is based on time and who you know and having not fucked up too badly. that is all.<< Nah, only you know how the military works. If you're going to VOLUNTARILY join the VOLUNTEER army and then start having all sorts of personal objections to things, it would help to be a command position, wouldn't it? If you're not, then you're VOLUNTEERING for the VOLUNTEER army with the foreknowledge that you will have no say or control or personal choice in how long, how far, or against whom you will be fighting. Secondly, a personal insult is this: YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE. Asking a question like "If your husband is such a GREAT SOLDIER, why isn't he in a command position, able to solve the war for us in five minutes?" is a question. YOUR HUSBAND SUCKS AS A SOLDIER OR HE WOULD BE IN COMMAND is a personal insult. Try to learn the difference. If you wish, I will resort to personal insults to demonstrate the difference to you. >>Everyone can read what you said, and on top of it she never said that her husband couldn't accept it. Not liking something and not accepting it are two very different things.<< Hmmmm...what have we here? "Just because my husband believes that this war should have long been over and believes the strategies are less than acceptable, in no way makes him a whinny soldier who never should have joined." He believes that the strategies are less than acceptable? Sounds pretty damn much like he can't accept it to me. But you may have skipped over that part in your rush to find links to totally one-sided inaccurate shill websites for liberal causes. Vietnam. I assume she and her husband have heard of it. Did those soliders get to pick how well they liked the war? Is this a clear example to all who VOLUNTEER for the VOLUNTEER army that fighting unpopular wars without an exit strategy has happened in the past and could happen again? I think it is. In the meantime, we'll all wait for the "good, wholesome, moral, everybody agrees on it" war. Then maybe there won't be as much whining.

• bloc said on Jul 03, 2006....

  "It's just that some people are smart enough to know that if they enter the military they don't get to choose A) the wars the fight, B) how long the stay there, and C) if they conform to their own personal opinions. Whining about it at that point is whining in ignorance. " This sums up your point of view. Giving your opinion is not whining. A soldier who has risked far more than you ever will has earned the right to give their opinion. Everyone reading this knows that this is the truth.

• GumpyJumptooth said on Jul 03, 2006....

  >>>>Everyone can read what you said, and on top of it she never said that her husband couldn't accept it. Not liking something and not accepting it are two very different things.<< Hmmmm...what have we here? "Just because my husband believes that this war should have long been over and believes the strategies are less than acceptable, in no way makes him a whinny soldier who never should have joined." He believes that the strategies are less than acceptable? Sounds pretty damn much like he can't accept it to me. But you may have skipped over that part in your rush to find links to totally one-sided inaccurate shill websites for liberal causes.<< Did this just blaze by you like a third strike? Or did you conveniently overlook it? You know, with the same self-serving way you conveniently overlook all your glaring errors in logic and fact. Here, very plainly, you first claim that someone else didn't say something. Then, when presented with them saying that exact thing you claim they DIDN'T, it just kind of doesn't make a dent. Here's a lil' tip. Free of charge. Try to know what the fuck you're talking about and pay attention. Now, as for this... >>A soldier who has risked far more than you ever will has earned the right to give their opinion.<< ...wow. Where do I begin here? Do you know, exactly and specifically, precisely what the ALLEGED soldier (this IS an ANONYMOUS blog site, you know) has risked? Do you know, exactly and specifically, precisely what I may have risked during my life? And for what cause? And if I was ever in the military service of our country? Do you realize that accusing someone of WHINING IN IGNORANCE (which is exactly what any fucking moron who joins the US military and then is suprised and upset that they find military practices LESS THAN ACCEPTABLE--BUY A HISTORY BOOK) is in no way an allegation that someone doesn't have a right to their opinion? Please continue your modus operandi. This is normally the part where you restate someone else's opinion and then treat it as fact. AFTER, of course, completely overlooking MAJOR refutations of your previous allegations. You'll find that you will be able to read more clearly, and therefore see things like someone stating her husband finds the war less than acceptable (unacceptable) if you remove your head from your ass. (See above.)

Comment on "IS Bush for REAL"

Currently tagged	politics Abu Musab al-Zarqawi politics iraq war manque iraq war (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously