The Faces of War

Darla said:
Let's do away with all of the nonsense about white men vs scary over there men in your post, as well as your ridiculous assumption that I'm an idiot who needs to be instructed on third world suffering. I am interested in the bolded.

You believe that afghanistan is a clear and present threat to our national security? So do you believe we are better off fighting them over there than over here?
Click to expand...
Sorry but that was the justification for Iraq and not Afghanistan. Afghanistan harbored the people responsible for the 911 attacks and were thus a clear and present danger to our national security.....but that was then and this is now, it would be legitimate to claim that Bush fucked up the Afghanistan mission beyond all recognition and that it's highly debatable that Afghanistan is currently a clear and present danger. Conversly one can argue that we didn't accomplish our mission there and that Afghanistan is still a land of anarchy that would be prime potential for terrorist bases, etc, etc.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Agreed and I also agree that Afghanistan has become a FUBAR situation but keep in mind when we went in there they did represent a clear and present danger to our national security and our military response, at that time, was warranted and justified. Is our current presence there justified? Now that's a sticky question that goes well beyond the issue of an entrenched military industrial establishment being propagated.
Click to expand...

I feel in retrospect, the invasion itself was wrong. I did support it, and I regret that now. I know there are people wanting to do us harm, but I feel that there must be a better way to deal with them than this insanity which only begets more hate and more violence.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Sorry but that was the justification for Iraq and not Afghanistan. Afghanistan harbored the people responsible for the 911 attacks and were thus a clear and present danger to our national security.....but that was then and this is now, it would be legitimate to claim that Bush fucked up the Afghanistan mission beyond all recognition and that it's highly debatable that Afghanistan is currently a clear and present danger. Conversly one can argue that we didn't accomplish our mission there and that Afghanistan is still a land of anarchy that would be prime potential for terrorist bases, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

I am not sure they harbored anyone though, after the fact. I think they would have given Bin Laden up, but I don't think we wanted him. We were going in there no matter how they reacted to 9/11.
 
Darla said:
Oh well, kids die in swimming pools sometimes too. What are you going to do? That's the secret about children no one wants to tell you; sometimes they die.

And really it's all worth it because American white men* need to feel manly and confident. And everyone knows that men who are against wars are effeminate and too scared shitless to scream pro-war slogans at their televisions and call people faggots on the internet.

And their wives need to feel protected. How are the white women** going to feel protected if the white men in America aren't pro-war? What kind of women can get hopped up and feeling sexy over some guy too scared to call anti-war men faggots on the internet???

Edit: Also as Mott has pointed out, not only do American white men need erections, and their wives need something to get excited over when their bottle of KY intense effects is empty and it's easier for their husband to sign on to a message board and type 'FAGGOT" at some feminized anti-war p*ssy than it is to go to the store, but, Afghan women sometimes get killed trying to get an education and I don't care what you say, murdering a woman's child will sure give her one of those!

*It's a fact that blacks don't support wars, period.
**Goes double for black women.
Click to expand...


LOL... its a fact that blacks dont support wars... yet who is our CiC?

Or did you mean that most blacks don't support wars?

Also... its good to know that a white woman speaks for all black people.
 
Superfreak said:
LOL... its a fact that blacks dont support wars... yet who is our CiC?

Or did you mean that most blacks don't support wars?

Also... its good to know that a white woman speaks for all black people.
Click to expand...


Because it's normal to read a general statement as an absolute statement.
 
Darla said:
Okay so for the white men here who seem to have a problem understanding what I write:

White guys: I am obviously, referring to keyboard warriors.
Black guys: I am referring to African Americans here, and whether you understand this or not, there is NO demographic more anti-war than American blacks.
Fundamentalist Muslim men: The idea that I am in any way referring to them when I talk about black guys or white guys, is just beyond stupid. I do not defend them, and if any of you took the time to notice I am the only liberal woman here who does not get involved in the Muslim threads, by and large. There is a reason for this.

That is your cheat sheet. Write it on your hand if you must!
Click to expand...

I was a frontline infantryman and I know what dead kids look like.

And those kids don't look dead to me.

Maybe you should be a little more selective when you choose a photo off the internet.

And how do you know white men supposedly killed them? You don't know who supposedly killed them as much as your race card fluff about blacks and killing innocents.
 
Darla said:
I feel in retrospect, the invasion itself was wrong. I did support it, and I regret that now. I know there are people wanting to do us harm, but I feel that there must be a better way to deal with them than this insanity which only begets more hate and more violence.
Click to expand...
Well that's said with 20:20 hindsight. How were to know that W would so throughly fuck up the Afghanistan situation?

I agree, I wish we never had to go to war and Afganistan is so particularly difficult in that it is a midevil culture which does not want to change and accept modernity. That leaves them highly susceptable to anarchy and state terrorism which in term destabilizes the entire region and we saw on 911 what the potential outcome of that can be. So it's a tough situation. Do we get out and risk a return to state sanctioned terrorism or do we stay and get bogged down in an unwinnable war?

I vote that we get out but that we stay prepared to return quickly.
 
Darla said:
I am not sure they harbored anyone though, after the fact. I think they would have given Bin Laden up, but I don't think we wanted him. We were going in there no matter how they reacted to 9/11.
Click to expand...
Oh I don't agree. Now on Iraq I'd agree that Bush has made up his mind on that after the 911 attacks but if the Taliban had promptly handed over Bin Ladin to the US I don't think we would have gone into Afghanistan. Having said that when the US government issued it's ultimatum to the Taliban to turn over Bin Ladin and his colleague or risk war, there wasn't a snow balls chance in hell that they would do that.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well that's said with 20:20 hindsight. How were to know that W would so throughly fuck up the Afghanistan situation?

I agree, I wish we never had to go to war and Afganistan is so particularly difficult in that it is a midevil culture which does not want to change and accept modernity. That leaves them highly susceptable to anarchy and state terrorism which in term destabilizes the entire region and we saw on 911 what the potential outcome of that can be. So it's a tough situation. Do we get out and risk a return to state sanctioned terrorism or do we stay and get bogged down in an unwinnable war?

I vote that we get out but that we stay prepared to return quickly.
Click to expand...

It is hindsight. But it's also a lesson learned because I didn't change my mind because Bush effed it up (though that's a legit point), but rather because I realize now that it was wrong. A nation did not declare war on us, which would be one thing. I'm not saying I have become a pacifist, I do believe in defending one's self, or one's country. But a group of fanatics attacking us is not a reason to bomb the crap out of, and invade, the country that a couple of them were living in. Think of all of the innocent people we killed doing that. What had they done to us? Nothing. It is not the right way to respond. I would not respond that way again ever.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh I don't agree. Now on Iraq I'd agree that Bush has made up his mind on that after the 911 attacks but if the Taliban had promptly handed over Bin Ladin to the US I don't think we would have gone into Afghanistan. Having said that when the US government issued it's ultimatum to the Taliban to turn over Bin Ladin and his colleague or risk war, there wasn't a snow balls chance in hell that they would do that.
Click to expand...

I am not sure they would not have turned him over or even whether they offered and were rejected. They are all liars, so it's impossible to know who to believe. Bush is as big a liar as anyof them, but that does not make them honest, so who knows.
 
Darla said:
It is hindsight. But it's also a lesson learned because I didn't change my mind because Bush effed it up (though that's a legit point), but rather because I realize now that it was wrong. A nation did not declare war on us, which would be one thing. I'm not saying I have become a pacifist, I do believe in defending one's self, or one's country. But a group of fanatics attacking us is not a reason to bomb the crap out of, and invade, the country that a couple of them were living in. Think of all of the innocent people we killed doing that. What had they done to us? Nothing. It is not the right way to respond. I would not respond that way again ever.
Click to expand...
Naa I don't agree with that. With over 3,000 innocents killed on our side the Talibans refusal to turn over Bin Ladin and Al Quada leaders was an act of war.
 
Darla said:
It's as if you stay up nights thinking up ways to look stupid.
Click to expand...

Funny, because your entire OP was nothing but another attempt by you to demean the evil white men, blah blah blah... quite funny you would in turn comment on the stupidity of someone else's post.

But again... good to know that you speak for black people. You are truly delusional.
 
Superfreak said:
Funny, because your entire OP was nothing but another attempt by you to demean the evil white men, blah blah blah... quite funny you would in turn comment on the stupidity of someone else's post.

But again... good to know that you speak for black people. You are truly delusional.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of white men that I like, even love. When I reference them here I mean the majority of American white males, who do seem to support wars. I made a cheat sheet and everything for you.

I am speaking about black people not for them. Stating the fact that African Americans are the largest anti-war demographic, is speaking about them.

Okay whitey?
 
Just thought I'd note for the record that making an observation about a group of people isn't purporting to speak on behalf of that group of people.


What she said.
 
Dungheap said:
Just thought I'd note for the record that making an observation about a group of people isn't purporting to speak on behalf of that group of people.
Click to expand...

Thanks, it seems a no-brainer? But I will bet that Superfreak will go 100 posts on this if I continue to respond. I bet you're too smart to take that bet though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top