Controversy surrounding VW suicide bomber ad
- Thread starter NateTDI
- Start date
- Status
whitedog
Veteran Member
Maybe if we got really rude with each other, they would lock it.
Here, let me try.
"You liberals/conservatives are all alike. Stupid comments supporting/degrading (insert current Presidents name) that have no connection to (insert current topic).
You are so brainwashed that you believe that (insert current Presidents name) is doing everything just to please/tick-off your rightwing/leftwing radical agenda.
Also, you can't speel and your momma dresses you funny."
There. Your basic internet political rebuttal with enough room in there to fit whatever your agenda is.
You can thank me later.
Here, let me try.
"You liberals/conservatives are all alike. Stupid comments supporting/degrading (insert current Presidents name) that have no connection to (insert current topic).
You are so brainwashed that you believe that (insert current Presidents name) is doing everything just to please/tick-off your rightwing/leftwing radical agenda.
Also, you can't speel and your momma dresses you funny."
There. Your basic internet political rebuttal with enough room in there to fit whatever your agenda is.
You can thank me later.
dieseldorf
Top Post Dawg
cptmox
Veteran Member
As a very recent returnee from Camp Caldwell, Iraq, where I spent 10 months of my life, I would like to bring up some points. All of which are only my opinion - not the official viewpoint of the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Army.
1. Not a war for oil. However, if it weren't for oil, we would not be over there. Oil focuses the entire world's attention on that region, and it finances and enables all the bad guys to do their thing. Osama Bid Laden did not become a millionaire by farming or sheepherding.
2. We aren't there because of civil rights violations. If we were invading countries according to that criteria alone, we would be in Africa for decades before we finally got to Iraq. However, I had many people, especially the Kurds, tell me they will forever be thankful for the Americans and George Bush.
3. Going into Iran would be a huge mistake, and I don't think we will do it. The uberliberals in Vermont will throw more than rocks at marching soldiers if we do that. We were at the border crossing outpost in Munthryia, Iraq visiting with the Iraqi Border Police, and I was talking to and shaking the hands of some Iranians who were on the other side of the fence. They asked me through my interpreter when we were coming to Iran. Granted they were Kurds, but they wanted us to do to Iran what we did to Iraq. I told them never.
4. How many 9/11 like plots do you think we have squashed in the last few years? When we catch them, do you think the govt. finds it necessary to alarm the public?
1. Not a war for oil. However, if it weren't for oil, we would not be over there. Oil focuses the entire world's attention on that region, and it finances and enables all the bad guys to do their thing. Osama Bid Laden did not become a millionaire by farming or sheepherding.
2. We aren't there because of civil rights violations. If we were invading countries according to that criteria alone, we would be in Africa for decades before we finally got to Iraq. However, I had many people, especially the Kurds, tell me they will forever be thankful for the Americans and George Bush.
3. Going into Iran would be a huge mistake, and I don't think we will do it. The uberliberals in Vermont will throw more than rocks at marching soldiers if we do that. We were at the border crossing outpost in Munthryia, Iraq visiting with the Iraqi Border Police, and I was talking to and shaking the hands of some Iranians who were on the other side of the fence. They asked me through my interpreter when we were coming to Iran. Granted they were Kurds, but they wanted us to do to Iran what we did to Iraq. I told them never.
4. How many 9/11 like plots do you think we have squashed in the last few years? When we catch them, do you think the govt. finds it necessary to alarm the public?
POWERSTROKE
Top Post Dawg
Thank you.
TDISTER
Member
take a peek at http://www.thepowerhour.com/news/director_cut.htm
get the DVD "911 In Plane Site: The Director’s Cut"
i think you might be suprised at what you will see in that video.
P.S. Thanks for serving!!
POWERSTROKE
Top Post Dawg
Hey, anything is possible. But do you actually believe this? What would the underlying reason actually be? (For this to be an inside job?)
lojasmo
Veteran Member
Was he talking about Saudi Arabia? IIRC, 17/19 of the hijackers were from there.
Women don't have basic civil rights there.
Of course, they lined GWB's pockets when they bailed out Arbusto, so our business with them is A-Okay.
POWERSTROKE
Top Post Dawg
When I see people driving bicycles to work. I will believe the sincerity of statements like the one above.
POWERSTROKE
Top Post Dawg
BTW. If the thread does get locked, you can come here and we will discuss this no-holds-barred.
pghPAtdi
Veteran Member
ditto
First, to those of you who have served, and are serving, thank you for your service. We owe you an incredible debt.
So... yes, this should be locked, but let's face it... that's not going to stop anyone from posting.
Frank, I appreciate your willingness to see both sides of this issue. I do think there's too much knee-jerk going on, especially when it comes to questioning government decisions in times of war. People do tend to view it as an affront to those serving, and I can understand why, I just don't agree with them.
Now, as for this intelligence thing - I've heard the idea thrown around before that Iraq would serve as a stronghold for a military and intelligence presence for the US in the middle east. And it makes sense - it'll let us pull out of Saudi Arabia, which is long overdue, and Israel won't be our only secure, trusted path into the region. Let's face it, neither side of the Israel/US pair has done a great job of respecting the relationship - and yes, I AM a practicing jew, and a card-carrying liberal - but it's been better than nothing at all. I'm sure Israeli intelligence has aided us in thwarting numerous things i'd rather not think about, both at home and abroad.
But, this war was not sold to the public under the pretenses of spreading freedom and liberty to the world, as the state of the union would have one believe, nor was it sold as a way to overcome human rights abuses, nor as a means towards suring up our security by providing an intelligence center for the middle east.
Instead, we were sold through fear - a fear that we would be victims of dirty bomb plots. A fear that biological/chemical weapons - anything that would fall under the WMD umbrella, was a significant threat. And I agree - those are very real threats. But by invading Iraq, we haven't dealt with those threats. Our borders are still porus, we don't do anywhere near as good of a job of scanning cargo coming into this country (both by sea and by air) and all of this extra security that is required at the state and local level is presenting a huge burden to those governments, who aren't getting the financial support they need at the federal level. (And Frank - being from NYC, I'm sure you know what i'm getting at - we're getting the shaft, and that extra money has to come from somewhere) Instead, we're $hitting cash left and right, and that money could be used to sure up our defenses here. And I'm sure many of you will think that this is just me thinking of the defensive, instead of the offensive, and that's probably true - i'm cautious like that, but - these domestic security measures need to be taken, badly - and they aren't.
So, fact of the matter is, the story we were told before the invasion is not the truth. Is that alone cause for questioning the president and his choices? Well, IMO - yes. absolutely. Again - i'm not saying we shouldn't be there, but I am saying that this dialogue - the one about WHY we are there, and whether or not the cost is too great to bear, given that the original reasons proved to be a lot of bull, is one we need to have publicly. We need to properly understand the cost of this war, and I don't think we do.
At present, invading Iraq has done little to enhance our security here at home. I don't doubt that it can - but the country is not exactly in great shape. If we had established control properly - if we had a big enough force on the ground to do that, such as a true international coalition, with significant deployments from numerous countries, as we did the first time around, we could have had the security necessary to properly rebuild and "win over the hearts and minds..blah blah". Instead, the violence over there is unimaginable, and clean water and electricity are apparently very hard to come by. This is not a normal standard of living, by any stretch. Yes, these people have been freed from Saddam, and that's important, but they aren't free yet - the threat to personal security, and the lack of bare necessities is an enormous burden, and IMO, just as significant. How are we supposed to get them to trust us and help us when they can't get the basics? I guess we can do it by force, with coercion, or with a little top-down political hijinks, but is that really what we want? And no, that doesn't mean we should just bail out, we have a duty to see this through, but I don't think our present approach is the right way. Too many people are dying, both our own troops and iraqui civillians. While I'm not going to point fingers regarding the prison scandal, I will say that it has done more to endanger our troops than I could ever think possible. We basically threw the geneva convention out the window (thanks to our soon-to-be attorney general) and that will inevitably encourage others do the same with our soldiers.
Again, I'm not saying this is black and white - there are plenty of merits to being in Iraq, but we are not meeting those goals - i can't concieve of how we can bring this to a positive end, and that's frightening. If someone else knows, please enlighten me. Political candidates are getting assisinated left and right - that's not a good sign in terms of having a fair election with good participation.
One last thing - I read a letter to the Editor yesterday. You can read it here - i think it speaks to my concerns about our troops quite well. No surprise that 12 Generals, Admirals, and the like are more eloquent than I.
Stars & Stripes - Letters to the Editor - Jan 25
Anyways, to bring this full circle - the commercial was cute, but in poor taste, and while some might say that people are over-reacting, certain people take offense to that sort of thing, and they're entitled to do so. I hope that even those who think the people who are sickened by such commercials are, well... "soft" is the only word I can think of at the moment, would understand that the commerical has the capacity to offend.
So... yes, this should be locked, but let's face it... that's not going to stop anyone from posting.
Frank, I appreciate your willingness to see both sides of this issue. I do think there's too much knee-jerk going on, especially when it comes to questioning government decisions in times of war. People do tend to view it as an affront to those serving, and I can understand why, I just don't agree with them.
Now, as for this intelligence thing - I've heard the idea thrown around before that Iraq would serve as a stronghold for a military and intelligence presence for the US in the middle east. And it makes sense - it'll let us pull out of Saudi Arabia, which is long overdue, and Israel won't be our only secure, trusted path into the region. Let's face it, neither side of the Israel/US pair has done a great job of respecting the relationship - and yes, I AM a practicing jew, and a card-carrying liberal - but it's been better than nothing at all. I'm sure Israeli intelligence has aided us in thwarting numerous things i'd rather not think about, both at home and abroad.
But, this war was not sold to the public under the pretenses of spreading freedom and liberty to the world, as the state of the union would have one believe, nor was it sold as a way to overcome human rights abuses, nor as a means towards suring up our security by providing an intelligence center for the middle east.
Instead, we were sold through fear - a fear that we would be victims of dirty bomb plots. A fear that biological/chemical weapons - anything that would fall under the WMD umbrella, was a significant threat. And I agree - those are very real threats. But by invading Iraq, we haven't dealt with those threats. Our borders are still porus, we don't do anywhere near as good of a job of scanning cargo coming into this country (both by sea and by air) and all of this extra security that is required at the state and local level is presenting a huge burden to those governments, who aren't getting the financial support they need at the federal level. (And Frank - being from NYC, I'm sure you know what i'm getting at - we're getting the shaft, and that extra money has to come from somewhere) Instead, we're $hitting cash left and right, and that money could be used to sure up our defenses here. And I'm sure many of you will think that this is just me thinking of the defensive, instead of the offensive, and that's probably true - i'm cautious like that, but - these domestic security measures need to be taken, badly - and they aren't.
So, fact of the matter is, the story we were told before the invasion is not the truth. Is that alone cause for questioning the president and his choices? Well, IMO - yes. absolutely. Again - i'm not saying we shouldn't be there, but I am saying that this dialogue - the one about WHY we are there, and whether or not the cost is too great to bear, given that the original reasons proved to be a lot of bull, is one we need to have publicly. We need to properly understand the cost of this war, and I don't think we do.
At present, invading Iraq has done little to enhance our security here at home. I don't doubt that it can - but the country is not exactly in great shape. If we had established control properly - if we had a big enough force on the ground to do that, such as a true international coalition, with significant deployments from numerous countries, as we did the first time around, we could have had the security necessary to properly rebuild and "win over the hearts and minds..blah blah". Instead, the violence over there is unimaginable, and clean water and electricity are apparently very hard to come by. This is not a normal standard of living, by any stretch. Yes, these people have been freed from Saddam, and that's important, but they aren't free yet - the threat to personal security, and the lack of bare necessities is an enormous burden, and IMO, just as significant. How are we supposed to get them to trust us and help us when they can't get the basics? I guess we can do it by force, with coercion, or with a little top-down political hijinks, but is that really what we want? And no, that doesn't mean we should just bail out, we have a duty to see this through, but I don't think our present approach is the right way. Too many people are dying, both our own troops and iraqui civillians. While I'm not going to point fingers regarding the prison scandal, I will say that it has done more to endanger our troops than I could ever think possible. We basically threw the geneva convention out the window (thanks to our soon-to-be attorney general) and that will inevitably encourage others do the same with our soldiers.
Again, I'm not saying this is black and white - there are plenty of merits to being in Iraq, but we are not meeting those goals - i can't concieve of how we can bring this to a positive end, and that's frightening. If someone else knows, please enlighten me. Political candidates are getting assisinated left and right - that's not a good sign in terms of having a fair election with good participation.
One last thing - I read a letter to the Editor yesterday. You can read it here - i think it speaks to my concerns about our troops quite well. No surprise that 12 Generals, Admirals, and the like are more eloquent than I.
Stars & Stripes - Letters to the Editor - Jan 25
Anyways, to bring this full circle - the commercial was cute, but in poor taste, and while some might say that people are over-reacting, certain people take offense to that sort of thing, and they're entitled to do so. I hope that even those who think the people who are sickened by such commercials are, well... "soft" is the only word I can think of at the moment, would understand that the commerical has the capacity to offend.
TDISTER
Member
actually I believe somethings up. If you watch the video its all too clear that there is just NO WAY a plane hit the pentagon. There is no plane debris anywhere to be found & there is only a small hole where the building was penatrated. for $20 its really worth getting to see for yourself.
volle_pulle
Well-known member
You can see it here for free...and then some.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/resources.html
Go to "Pentagon" for some photos.
For those of you intersted in some real unbiased reporting, go here for some very interesting reports!
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/resources.html
Go to "Pentagon" for some photos.
For those of you intersted in some real unbiased reporting, go here for some very interesting reports!
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/
POWERSTROKE
Top Post Dawg
Who made that video? Let's be real. I saw the planes go right into the trade center buildings. C'mon. I know you are talking about the Pentagon, but this is junk. For that matter, I guess with the reasoning you are using, the Holocaust never happened either. I never saw 6 million bodies. Let's get real.
volle_pulle
Well-known member
Personally, I'm not buying the conspiracy theory, however, given the evidence, one has to wonder. No parts of the plane to be seen...anywhere!! Now that is odd!
POWERSTROKE
Top Post Dawg
http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Bullet points:
Plane went all the way into the third ring... it did extensive damage.
Pentagon had just been reinforced with a steel and kevlar matrix. This is what kept the upper floors intact after the initial impact.
No pieces of plane? Try some basic physics... momentum. The thing's going 300 mph... all the pieces will go INSIDE, not OUTSIDE the building. It penetrated into the third ring, but not all the way through the fifth ring, so it makes complete sense that pretty much all the debris would remain inside, between the first and third rings.
Oh and how about eyewitnesses who saw the plane?
This happened during rush hour, and for those not familiar with D.C., the Pentagon is right next to a major expressway.
Bullet points:
Plane went all the way into the third ring... it did extensive damage.
Pentagon had just been reinforced with a steel and kevlar matrix. This is what kept the upper floors intact after the initial impact.
No pieces of plane? Try some basic physics... momentum. The thing's going 300 mph... all the pieces will go INSIDE, not OUTSIDE the building. It penetrated into the third ring, but not all the way through the fifth ring, so it makes complete sense that pretty much all the debris would remain inside, between the first and third rings.
Oh and how about eyewitnesses who saw the plane?
- Status