Yep. I can't help but wonder why that kind of stuff doens't make the news. Well OK, I think I do know why, but all the same it would be nice if they would - just once in a while - show something inspiring.
I'm not a strict liberal/conservative on anything, but even so, I don't see how a picture of a few good hearted individuals changes the fact that we're fighting a war. Of course there are good people out there. I was under the impression everybody knew that. Am I supposed to feel positive about the Iraq situation because of this?
How about I show pictures of our dead soldiers, civilian casualties, and destruction. I'll call it 'Pics that Conservatives Hate'
This picture, while I understand it shows the war in a more positive light, doesn't change anything. You show me a picture of Bush jr kissing baby, and I'll be damned if I suddenly think "He really is a good president."
Just my 2 cents.
Sorry, I very well might be overthinking this, but you directed it toward liberals.
I don't know where you get your title ideas from... ?
I got the pic from a conservative talk radio site.
How is it that you NEVER hear of any liberal...be it entertainment or commentary...support the troops by having a rally...fundraiser for military families...or giving time to the USO? They SAY they admire the job our military does...but you NEVER hear of them doing anything to show support for the military. Why is that I wonder??
Never show support?
Wes Clark has been to more Enduring Freedom funerals than Bush has, don't give me that.
There's a difference between not supporting the war and being anti-troop. If anything, wouldn't people who are against the war be pro-troop? Doesn't peace mean...no war, and therefore no troop death? Seeing as they're fighting a war that puts them in a tight situation because the men up top didn't think it through, I don't think any citizen is anti-troop. Oh yeah, and what are the headlines? 300 Iraqis killed? No. It's 10 Marines killed in firefight. You really lack justification for this point.
Doing a search shows the Dixie Chicks being criticized for wanting to do a USO thing.
How fair is this? First, you criticize Bush opponents for showing no support but when they do the conservtives criticize them anyway. Typical.
Anyhow, doesn't this baloney belong in the politics area so normal people don't have to read biased political garbage unless they really want to?
Sort of like someone attacking Bush because he was supposed to be "friends" with Ken Lay. They then claim Lay will never be prosecuted. Then when Lay is prosecuted they still attack Bush because he does not comment on it. You can bet if he commented on it they would say that his words were not harsh enough. If his words were harsh they would say that he is using harsh language to cover up how he really feels, or they would say "it's about time." where was he before. He can't win.
And yes both the right and left do this. It's sick.
You know what is disturbing to me??...
People who think like mother Hienze-Kerry stated on Larry King Live the other night, "Europe has lived with terroist threats for years, we will have to learn to live with them too", not an exact quote but you get the picture. I guess we should sit on our laurels and wait for another 911 to take place, then ask the murdering Jhiadist if there is any thing we can give them to appease them, Oh wait, that won't work. They want our total and complete extinction. No! No! No! we have to take the fight to them before they get a chance to do it again.
War is an ugly business. But a very needful one. Some times unintended targets are hit. We will at least try to rectify our mistakes.
These pictures show what great commpassion we have and the sacrifices that these men and women are making on OUR BEHALF. Praise GOD we have a man in the White House who understands that and not one who served and then accused all his fellow troops of war crimes. No! the Democrats have nothing to give our country but a bunch of female anatomy whipped men who have no back bone and desire nothing more but to make this great nation an experiment in socialisim...hasn't that already been tried in EUROPE?
Thanks for letting me rant, and as stated by one in the 80's "Can't we all just get along".
- sigh *
-- "Europe has lived with terroist threats for years, we will have to learn to live with them too"--
Terrorism has existed since the beginning of time, and is nothing new. Yes, even in the US. However, the US has been VERY lucky that it avoided the large-scale, well-organized religious and political terrorism that has afflicted the rest of the world for years ie IRA, Red Brigades, ELA, Baader Meinhof, Shining Path etc etc. Why? There are many reasons but now our "comfort zone" is over and we are facing the reality most other countire deal with.
--Praise GOD we have a man in the White House who understands that---
Separation of church and state thank you very much, written by those wise old white men, not a "pussy whipped liberal'
--not one who served---
and has BALLS and a spine, not to mention a brain
-- and then accused all his fellow troops of war crimes--
- sigh *
--but a bunch of female anatomy whipped men---
Clinton was pussy whipped, not by his wife's pussy but by all the other pussy he was getting (whether it was quality poontang is another issue)
-- who have no back bone and desire--
John Kerry did 2 tours of Nam, thank you very much
--nothing more but to make this great nation an experiment in socialisim...hasn't that already been tried in EUROPE---
Most other 1st world countries are socialist to one degree or another, even the US has socialist programs. unfortunately, most of them are pro-industry rather than pro-the people but still...
--80's "Can't we all just get along"--
that was 1991
--They want our total and complete extinction. No! No! No! we have to take the fight to them before they get a chance to do it again.--
But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
And Iraqis have never done anything to us, ever.
And we had been supporting Saddam since the 70s, BTW.
And Osama is almost surely in Aghanistan or Pakistan. If anything, we should have unleashed our military on Afghanistan and squeezed Pakistan to join in the hunt.
I'm not saying it should have been done, but hey, if we are going to attack those who attack us, let's go right to the source.
Where did you get the weird idea that anyone at all would hate those photos?
I don't like Bush because he's a fool, and I don't mind photos showing the gentler side of our troops. My best friend is serving in Iraq now, and he often sends pics of daily life and what they actually do over there. Most of it simply isn't that heart-warming, but a little bit of it is.
Am I pro-troops? You bet your ass I am. I want my buddy and his friends to get back to their wives and families in one piece. I'm kinda pissed that they haven't been issued better body armor, and that they have to patrol on foot or in HumVees instead of their armored personnel carriers.
More than that, I'm pissed that they are in the wrong country for the wrong damn reasons. My friend and his unit believe they are there for oil, and they're furious. They see everyone getting their tours extended, and the only light on the distant horizon is the slowly growing presence of the as-yet-incompetent Iraqi forces.
You want to support the troops, right?
If the troops want to see Rumsfeld run out of office, shouldn't we support them by seeing it happen?
If the troops ask us to vote against Bush, shouldn't we support them in that request?
This will be my first and last political post on this or any site...
Speaking as a political independent, it is stunning to me to see ignorance of this magnitude...Do you really believe that 'liberals', who by any definition make up a massive chunk of our population, wish ill on our military? Do you really think that it makes the 'liberals' as a group happy to see photos of torture? I can only guess at what kind of life someone must have suffered through to harbor such a cartoonishly simplistic worldview as that which you display with your post heading. Remember that political balance, a concept borne out of a political culture wherein opposing viewpoints, in the sense of Hegelian synthesis, are weighed against each other, is a key to the success of our government...would you have us be a single-party state? And does it contribute anything to label 'liberals' who again, by any definition, constitute a huge chunk of our population, as bad people? Clearly this is what your post heading intimates; 'liberals' = unpatriotic, immoral, we're better off without 'em...What a childish, bankrupt philosophy! If there's any use for a mind like yours, it's in making those of us with some perspective and intellectual maturity feel a lot wiser, so thank you for that.
Agreed. Hopefully we will deal with it more successfully than others have tried in the past. Or would you not agree that it's in our best interest to defeat terrorism?
I don't see your point here. Does separation of church and state not allow for an individual to be grateful to the God that he believes in for a circumstance that he finds favorable? And if you were alluding to Bush's piety, is the freedom to worship however you choose not one of the freedoms that those very founders fought to protect?
Agreed on both counts, but not on the inference that Bush lacks either. It's never been proven that Bush was a "deserter," and the stupidity argument is just an ad hominem attack that isn't grounded in fact and can't really be proven anyway.
Are you tired? Certainly you wouldn't be dismissing another person's opinion so flippantly? That would be rude, and certainly not open-minded and tolerant; character traits that most liberals extol as fundamental.
I see, so cheating on your wife with a lot of women is something to be admired then. I always felt it exposed weakness of character and lack of integrity or honor, but maybe that's just me.
Gotta give Kerry props for that. No doubt about it.
Yeah, there are plenty of socialist countries out there. Too bad they're irrelevant, and their policies have no impact on the world at large. I suppose that should be our goal as a nation now?
Kind of nitpicking a tad, don't you think?
Well, the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee looking into the Bush administration's post-911 response found that there was no deception on their part whatsoever, but that they were given bad intelligence that suggested Saddam was hiding and possibly developing WMDs. Intelligence that was also shown to John Kerry and John Edwards which persuaded them to vote YES to authorize the war to liberate Iraq. (Only later did they vote no on the $87 billion to help fund it.)
I never understand this sort of argument. This country has a history of supporting bad regimes in order to damage worse regimes. It happened when we helped Afghanistan repel the Soviets. Hey, this is one of the policies that helped us to win the Cold War. Or is that not a cause that you feel was worthwhile?
Pakistan has nukes. "Squeezing" them requires a hell of a lot more diplomacy than going into Afghanistan does. I don't know how I would have handled things differently, but hindsight is 20/20. Bill Clinton himself has said that he wouldn't have conducted the war much differently than George Bush has. What do liberals say to that?
"Or would you not agree that it's in our best interest to defeat terrorism?"
-No sarcasm please
" written by those wise old white men, not a 'pussy whipped liberal'
I don't see your point here."
-THere isn't one. I misunderstood jahwarrior's post.
"never been proven that Bush was a "deserter,"
-everything points to it, and how convenient that the records are now "permanently" lost for the same time period in which w served.
""* sigh *"
Are you tired? Certainly you wouldn't be dismissing another person's opinion so flippantly?"
-No, I dismiss all ignorant opinions flippantly, not just one person's. One of the most revolting facets of this election is the right-wing spin that Kerry is a traitor and Bush is a hero who served his time in the military.
Criticizing a war, as Kerry did, and many people do now re Iraq, does not equal criticizing troops. Unfortunately, many Americans are ignorant enough to follow that line of thinking.
"I see, so cheating on your wife with a lot of women is something to be admired then."
-I didn't say that and you know it.
"I always felt it exposed weakness of character and lack of integrity or honor, but maybe that's just me."
-Probably, but I don't want to know about someone's sex life, especially a politician's. What you do in the bedroom does not reflect how well you perform your job. Many religious people will dispute that (on a moral basis) but 'tis true.
Everyone has weaknesses btw.
"Yeah, there are plenty of socialist countries out there. Too bad they're irrelevant, and their policies have no impact on the world at large. I suppose that should be our goal as a nation now?"
-Germany, UK, France, Italy, Canada, hell almost every country in Western Europe, are relevant and are close allies of ours. And their policies are just as far reaching as ours, if not more thanks to the EU.
-- "that was 1991"
Kind of nitpicking a tad, don't you think?
"win the Cold War. Or is that not a cause that you feel was worthwhile? "
-Again, no sarcasm please. Who says we "won"? What was there to "win"? We are now on friendly terms with many of the former USSR countries, thank G_d.
The threat of nuclear war between those nations and us is, for now anyway, small.
reagan did not "end" the Cold War, he just happened to be prez at the time.
"This country has a history of supporting bad regimes in order to damage worse regimes."
-Too bad life isn't as simple as bad and worse. Who are you to decide-or rather, who is the CIA, NSA etc- who is morally worse. The US has a long and sordid history of overthrowing democratically elected governments.
We have overthrown governments with OUR form of government.
"Pakistan has nukes. "Squeezing" them requires a hell of a lot more diplomacy than going into Afghanistan does."
-Pakistan is on friendly terms with us, and would have to help in some way to maintain these relations, especially since we are very friendly with India.
It seems plausible they would help search for that pos osama on their border with Afghanistan. It would be in their own best interest.
" Bill Clinton himself has said that he wouldn't have conducted the war much differently than George Bush has. What do liberals say to that? "
-So all of a sudden Clinton's opinion matters? Nice try.
"Separation of church and state thank you very much, written by those wise old white men, not a "pussy whipped liberal'"
Separation of church and state, as noted above, was written by one old white man, and he was in France during the Constitutional Convention.
Moreover, invoking God is not unusual or radical: Lincoln did it frequently, as did FDR and Kennedy.
"And Iraqis have never done anything to us, ever."
You are aware that Saddam tried to have George HW Bush assassinated, I assume? Iraq was also labelled a threat to international peace by the UNSC and Saddam harbored terror elements.
"And we had been supporting Saddam since the 70s, BTW."
The US was responsible for less than 1% of armaments going to Saddam during the period he was being used as a pawn against Iran. The primary suppliers of Saddam were Russia, France, and China.
Just a mention IRA ....IS NOT a religious terrorist organization....
or at least no more than the english parlament. They just want their entire country back. Yes there are alot of English loyalist in Northern Ireland, but it is Ireland still. They have done things as an organization that I would not advocate, but when you cant get fair elections, but can rather get false inprisonment, what are you to do.. fight ...b/c the US wont say a word. All they'll talk about is thing that have something to do with their pocket book.
"No, I dismiss all ignorant opinions flippantly."
"Critizing a war, as Kerry did.....does not equal critizing troops."
"Germany, UK, FRANCE.... are close allies of ours. And their policies are just as far-reaching as ours, if not more thanks to the EU."
"reagan did not end the Cold War, he just happened to be prez at the time."
On Kerry- read the transcripts- he did too critize the behavior of US troops- he basically called them war criminals from top to bottom.
France, a "close ally"- are you f'in' kidding? That statement on the EU- "far reaching"- how do you fit so much ignorance in such little text?
Trust you or the opinions of those stuck behind the Iron Curtain on the Gipper and the Cold War, which, by the way, ended after he left office. Tough choice, really tough.
Sonny S- you need to "flippantly dismiss" your own "ignorant opinions."
The fact that so many are giving their two cents only to demoralize the integrity of the individual who are merely exercising thir God given right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression as appauling at best. There is no autonomy in the government for there is non among the proliteriates. Why are we so adoment that our opinions are more right than anyone elses. That is intellectual arrogance of an alarming degree. The objective here is to ascertain a better civilization that we may all enjoy for generations to come. When we begin to insult the intelligence of an individual than there is merely descension void of any possibility of resolve. We need diverse extremes of thought so that concession may lead us to objective outcomes.
First and formost, I believe that everyone would look at this picture with a great reserve for compassion and support. Now, whether there is unanimous support for an enlonged engagement in Iraq is an entirely different argument. The propblem lies only in the arguing of subjectively emotive opinions which are unarguable. Since there are opinions concerning the war on both sides, anyone can slant the opinions to allow the appearance of a consensus of the masses.
Please tell me if I am wrong but there is such a thing as Checks and Balances in this country and Bush can not go to war without the support of congress. The fact of the matter, both Republicans and Democrats supported the war which is why it was voted into action and Bush was given Billions of dollars for said war.
It is just appauling to see the threads that are in here. I have lived in Europe and here in the States and whenever I see the arrogance and the pompous attitude so many of you have demonstrated, this is the reaon why America is disliked. Not that we are overglobalizing, They love the products we bring over. They love the Facets of our contry but what they dispise i the mindse. The divisiveness of our people and our government.
So i propose that we all just begin to respect the opinions of the ones posting their ideas rather than cowardicely lashing out from behind a computer screen flexing muscle which ought not to be flexed in such a forum. This argument is not about us ut about this country. So why make it so personal. Whether you believe that are the stupidest person on the planet just remember, a broken clock is still right twice a day so there could be truth to the statements of the ignorant as well.
Just everyone get off your high horse and understand that both parties are flawed and that we need both in order for the peopl eo fthis country to be represented. Do I believe this is a flawless government? I would be an idiot to say yes but it is what we have so we might as well make use of it while we have it bcause it is too far gone to make any great reform.
About the IRA not being a religous terror group. I'm sorry to say vut the IRA came from the Irish Protestant Group Of Belfast which sought the destruction of Roman Catholicism. Than they turned against the English Government. I also would like to say that the Majority of the Northern Irish don't mind the fact that they are part of England because they are well taken care of. The reason why there is so much violence in Belfast is that the city has been seperated into two part with a large retaining wall seperating them ( Catholic v. Protesent) The Ira also look like Girl Scout troops compared to the other groups that are over there.