Gathering of Eagles support our troops and outnumbers Cindy Sheehan's protest 3 to 1

[mdwh]

Ok so they are allowed to kill civilians that are there to rebuild but we are not alllowed to kill civilians that house and protect fighters?

Quite the liberal hypocrisy once again.

Who said that "they" are allowed to kill civilians?

I'm not sure what this has got to do with being liberal, anyway.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

no disagreement there except the war isn't lost yet.

Which war isnt lost yet? Is it the war to to get Saddams WMDs, and stop his nuclear weapon program, which was an imminent threat? Is it the war after that one, where we were fighting to bring the blessings of democracy to the Iraqi people? Or do you mean the current war, where we're fighting to stop the Sunni and Shia Islamic world from fighting over chunks of the country we obliterated?

again, your correct. We were pretty much losing the war up until 2007. Now we have the new security plan and "surge". Theres still a chance the surge could work, we've already seen some progress coming from it.

Can you explain to me how an extra 20,000 troops in Bagdhad will resolve the Sunni/Shia split in Islam?

Not that that matters at all to you since you just want to declare defeat no matter what happens.

This is a stupid war, concieved by stupid people, planned stupidly, executed stupidly, and the same stupid people are doing the stupid things theyve been doing all along. No amount of thinking happy thoughts is going to change any of that.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

Despite that there has been several answers to that post, you have not bothered to read them, rushed in seemingly oblivious to the comings and goings of this forum, posted a congratulations and ran off.

Or, I started at the beginning of the thread, Einstein.

Millions have protested this war year in year our all acrss the globe.

Pro-war advocates get off their butts once in fours years and expect the world to rush over and slap tem on the back.

And now you are pwned.

 

[colontos]

Could you point out where I said she never used the term freedom fighters?

I said that claims that she doesn't "support the troops" or said "freedom fighters have a right to kill Americans" as such espoused by Bill O'Reilly and other conservative commentators are untrue. As I said earlier, the term freedom fighters is entirely subjective, and no matter how you try to be a smartass and deny it, you would support such people if the tables were turned, don't even bother to deny it. If your country was under occupation and hundreds of thousands had been killed, you would ally yourself with people who were fighting back, no matter what they did to the occupiers. If they tortured, maimed, killed and tossed into shallow unmarked graves, you would not care as long as you were fighting back against an occupier.

Thanks for playing, though. Don't expect an invite next year.

Poor Pasi. He just gets so mad when anyone disturbs his little sactuary!

Don't you think that if Sheehan called them freedom fighters, then that implies that she thinks they have the right to kill Americans? After all, as you so virulently maintain, true freedom fighters are allowed to do whatever they want to the occupiers. It stand to reason that Sheehan believes they have the right, even if she'd rather they didn't exercise that right.

It also seems that you would agree. Come on, Pasi. Tell us: are they insurgents in Iraq "freedom fighters" and do they have the right to kill Americans? Answer the question. Do Afghanistani fighters have the right to kill Canadians?

Sheehan never said "I don't support the troops," obviously, but many would argue that doing the things she has done has only served to undermine a) this country and b) consequently, the troops.

And no, Pasi, I wouldn't support "freedom fighters" in my country if they were abducting and beheading reporters, missionaries, and other non-combat personnel. I wouldn't. Would you? I think you would, Pasi.

And by the way, Pasi, the "thanks for playing" thing was funny...the first fifty times.

 

[JollyRoger]

Tell us: are they insurgents in Iraq "freedom fighters" and do they have the right to kill Americans? Answer the question. Do Afghanistani fighters have the right to kill Canadians?

Foreign occupiers and their sympathizers are fair game. Don't want to be killed? Get out of the country.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

This is a stupid war, concieved by stupid people, planned stupidly, executed stupidly, and the same stupid people are doing the stupid things theyve been doing all along. No amount of thinking happy thoughts is going to change any of that.

You, sir, win a million internets.

30,000 pro-war idiots mocking the 5,000 that turn out to protest this war on any given day, unaware that the rest of the country is increasingly of the opinion that you have to be ******** or comatose to still be supporting this war.

 

[FriendlyFire]

64 percent:

The “record high” number of Americans who believe the Iraq war was not worth fighting, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll. “Two-thirds oppose George W. Bush’s troop surge; most oppose it strongly.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2905762&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

 

[Bozo Erectus]

You, sir, win a million internets.

Thanks, I'll donate most of them to the poor.

30,000 pro-war idiots mocking the 5,000 that turn out to protest this war on any given day, unaware that the rest of the country is increasingly of the opinion that you have to be ******** or comatose to still be supporting this war.

Yeah, I dont see why anyone would shout from the rooftops that we have so many stupid people in this country. Its something to be embarrassed about, not proud of.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

We all know that the Republicans support the war, not the troops.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Yeah, I dont see why anyone would shout from the rooftops that we have so many stupid people in this country. Its something to be embarrassed about, not proud of.

Putting all that aside, you'd think they could come up with a better slogan than "Gathering Of Eagles." I mean, huh?

 

[Alvaro da Luna]

From the OP article:

All manner of patriots gathered in D.C. to protect the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial from vandals and express the opposition of the once "silent majority" to a repeat of the self-induced defeat of the Vietnam War.

Isn't that somewhat of a contentious statement? The civil rights and anti-war movements in the 60s/70s certainly probably played a minor role in inducing American pullout from Vietnam, but it is my understanding that a majority of the people in Washington saw the war as untenable (financially or militarily) by the early seventies anyway, including politicians and business-leaders/lobbyists.

 

[Irish Caesar]

There should have been MILITARY RECUITERS there.
on second though no, people should be allowed to support the war without having to do the actual fighting.

Yep, what we need in Iraq is Vietnam veterans!

Incidentally, still waiting for an answer to my question of why 30k people is news when you can stick more than that in a decent football/soccer stadium.

We fit a lot more than that!

Isn't that somewhat of a contentious statement? The civil rights and anti-war movements in the 60s/70s certainly probably played a minor role in inducing American pullout from Vietnam, but it is my understanding that a majority of the people in Washington saw the war as untenable (financially or militarily) by the early seventies anyway, including politicians and business-leaders/lobbyists.

I think to dismiss protest movements in the time period would be a mistake; many factors led to the end of American involvement in the Vietnam conflict.

The contentious statement would be that anyone carries the torch of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's. The people of these days are gutless pretenders compared to people of the 1960's.

 

[Evie]

You, sir, win a million internets.

Stop feeding the internets inflation!

 

[Bugfatty300]

American Military Contractors are "civilians" in name only. They're mecenaries and certainly valid targets.

Civilian contractor, Nick Berg, was a mercenary?

 

[GenMarshall]

What so special, it still proves nothing except trying to pull out more desperate propaganda .

 

[MobBoss]

We all know that the Republicans support the war, not the troops.

Most silly statement of the week.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Most silly statement of the week.

[e-sarcasm] Republicans are in favor of sending wounded troops back to continue a war that the Democrats (and half the Repubs by now) oppose. My statement stands. [/e-sarcasm]

It is no less silly than the constant demonizing of "libruls". My statement still stands, albeit for other reasons.

 

[MobBoss]

[e-sarcasm] Republicans are in favor of sending wounded troops back to continue a war that the Democrats (and half the Repubs by now) oppose. My statement stands. [/e-sarcasm]

Sorry, Erik...I debunked this completely. You must have missed the thread. Perhaps some more research (and a bit more balanced thinking) needed.

For starters, the MDRB (medical duty review board) process has nothing to do with politics what-so-ever. Nada. No. Not.

Dont believe every blog you trip over.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

You're debunking sarcasm that's MARKED as sarcasm. Congratulations!

 

[MobBoss]

You're debunking sarcasm that's MARKED as sarcasm. Congratulations!

No, I am debunking allegations that its a republican ideal to send wounded troops back into combat.

Thats just an inane and false accusation. Try something that at least makes a little more sense.