Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » I take personal responsibility for... (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: I take personal responsibility for...
Matteo522
Member
Member # 3103

 - posted      Profile for Matteo522   Email Matteo522   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Bastard's killing people, directly and indirectly, through his commanding of our military.
Emphasis mine.

Now, come on, do you really think that Bush has directly killed anybody? I'm just having a hard time imagining him sticking a gun in someone's mouth a la South Park. Clearly he has indirectly killed thousands... but don't you see it really destroys your case when you say something like that?

I know that I'm sounding an awful lot like a Bush apologist in this thread. That's not my intent. My intent was to point out a lot of the ridiculous, blanket, unprovable statements that I hear so often. It's completely unconstructive to say things like that. It just makes you come off as a looney.

I can't help it, but when somebody says something like that, it really makes me roll my eyes and not want to listen to the rest of the statements.

I imagine you didn't mean that he literally strangled somebody... and if that's the case, don't say it. Your point was perfectly valid otherwise.

Matt

Posts: 54 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Matteo, orders Bush has given as Commander in Chief have directly (as in through the direct chain of command) resulted in the deaths of thousands. They have indirectly resulted in the deaths of tens, and possibly hundreds of thousands. It's ironic, given the thread title, that you would trip up on so minor a point.
Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What TOm C said. Acommander in chief ORDERS people killed, and a vast bureacracy endeavors mightily to see the execution through. Direct chain of command, not direct finger on triggwer. I thought about thgis when I wrote it but figured you'd understand 'directly' in the context of commander in chief.

Truman ordered the bombing of Nagasaki. Without his order, it wouldn't have happened. No one else had the authority. Capisch?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thrasymachus
Member
Member # 3090

 - posted      Profile for Thrasymachus   Email Thrasymachus       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kenmeer,
Like I've said three or four times now, the message was intended to inspire people who AREN'T taking action on there end to step up and do something. I'm already engaged in my own action, although it may take years for anyone to see tangeable results. What I'd like to do is see someone suggest an ACTIONABLE remedy for the abuses they claim are taking place in the highest offices.

I don't know, maybe do some research and see if you can sue the president for breach of contract by violating his oath of office (a binding verbal contract that is usually made in front of one or two witnesses) or look at historical precedent for a means of removing your demon from the whitehouse. (I'm guessing your not Catholic, or I'd recomend seeking out an exorcist)

Meanwhile, can you tell me one thing that has been resolved by two equally immovable opinions being bashed against one another? In my view, trying to change a hardliners opinion is a lot like that old trick with cornstarch and water. The harder you push, the more it resists.

As far as being embarasseed on my behalf, don't be. I don't care if you're impressed with my rhetoric or appalled by it. See the argument about hardliners above, of which you seem to be one. If you want to actually discuss some ideas then I'll be more interested in the conversation, but if you want to harp on your pet peeve, so me a favor and take it to another thread. As I've said repeatedly, the big question I started this thread with wasn't "Is George bush a complete wanker?" The question is when did we give up on holding our politicians accountable for their actions and how do we make them accountable again. Or at least that was the intent.

I've already apologized twice for even mentioning Bush in the opening of the thread. Can we cut loose the useless argument over Bush and try to do something constructive with our verbage or should I go somewhere else to play with my ideas?

Posts: 199 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anytime you want to stop arguing about Bush, you can. You can, um, do something about it or just bitch about it.

But you can't have my red wagon. Family heirloom.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And here I was so pleased to read this:

"WASHINGTON - In a somber, pre-election review of a long and brutal war, President Bush conceded Wednesday that the United States is taking heavy casualties in Iraq and said, "I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation" there.

"I'm not satisfied either," he said at a speech and question and answer session at the White House 13 days before midterm elections."

It seemed to me an honest concession of a mistake. But then I read:

"We're winning and we will win, unless we leave before the job is done," he said."

ANd then I read this:

"At another point, Bush said that "a fixed timetable for withdrawal in my judgment means defeat."

Bush sought a middle ground in terms of pressing the Iraqis to accept more of the responsibility for their own fate.

"We are making it clear that America's patience is not unlimited," he said. "We will not put more pressure on the Iraqi government than it can bear."

And I wonder if the Iraqis ever thought we had infinite patience and what the implicatons of our finite ptience are.

Peace with honor?

Nuke the ****ers?

???

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You leave out two key points. "Accountability stops here" said the President. & the fact that if we do withdraw before Iraq's government is even 6 months old, we will defeat all of our efforts.

Peace with honor was forced upon America by the extremely self centered baby boomers who hijacked the Democratic Party. The exchange with the boomer's parents went something like this....either you convince the Republicans to withdraw immediately, or we will use the Democratic Party to tear apart the country.

The Greatest Generation caved to their spoiled rotten children. The South Vietnamese government went from solvency to insolvency overnight, as the world withdrew all pending support. Kissenger suddenly had no hand to play in Paris, and he followed Nixon's campaign slogan prematurely.

There was neither peace nor honor after we withdrew.

I love watching history repeat itself.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" "Accountability stops here" said the President. & the fact that if we do withdraw before Iraq's government is even 6 months old, we will defeat all of our efforts."

Truman said the busk stopped at his desk too. Sounded good when he said it too. Truman was also a lying bastard. But you can keep that point; I'll cede it to you on face value.

As forthe other one, I don't see us pulling out the day after the November elections. I DO think that the ONLY way to conceivably wrest victory from the jaws of self-created defeat is to a) acknowledge that defeat and then b) emulate Sun Tzu and plan a strategic retreat the cumulative effect of which will produce something much closer to the original goal of this invasion than the *ahem* plan for stabilization has accomplished to date.

Hell, man, even my blind-eyed brainless pecker knows that to get off it has to pull back half the time... that is to say, IF it wants to be able toi withdraw with mission accomplished [Wink]

[ October 25, 2006, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Peace with honor was forced upon America by the extremely self centered baby boomers who hijacked the Democratic Party"

Crap. It was *forced* on America by the "self-centered" Vier Nam vets returning home to tell us it was a despicable human travesty on America's soul.

THEY were the heart and soul of the peace movement. Kent State kinda did the rest (even as it put a serious *chill* on actual demonstrations against the war, since we self-centered baby boomers now knew we might get shot for doing so).

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Peace with honor was forced upon America by the extremely self centered baby boomers who hijacked the Democratic Party
Nixon was in his second term riding the crest of a 49 state rout of McGovern. He campaigned on a promise of victory and peace with honor, so it's not fair to blame the defeat he oversaw on the hapless Dems, who had little control over the war policy. It seems sometimes that everything bad that has happened in the last 64 years has been because of what Dems either did or didn't do. The Vietnam War was the wrong war fought for the wrong reasons. Maybe we could have achieved a military victory in the end, but other than hanging a banner that said "Mission Accomplished", what would it have gained us, and what have we lost as a nation by not "winning" other than our pride?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Peace with honor was forced upon America by the extremely self centered baby boomers who hijacked the Democratic Party. The exchange with the boomer's parents went something like this....either you convince the Republicans to withdraw immediately, or we will use the Democratic Party to tear apart the country.
Well, they wouldn't have had to do that if the jingoistic Republicans hadn't forced the Democrats to start the war in the first place... [Wink] [Razz]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Hell, man, even my blind-eyed brainless pecker knows that to get off it has to pull back half the time... that is to say, IF it wants to be able toi withdraw with mission accomplished "

Yeah but it doesn't fully retreat until mission is accomplished. Ever pulled out to far and upon return find a wall (of no-man's land) blocking your way?

THAT'S what will happen in Iraq.


I think your metaphor works better for reorganizing our efforts. You just have to be careful. [Wink]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TS: if a woman crosses her legs the moment you pull it out for a second... you haven't been getting it on with her, you been RAPIN' her.

If the woman was diggin' what you were piggin', a bit of withdrawal only heightens her desire for you to reinsert and increases her pleasure upon reentry.

Yo mama taught me this... [Wink]

[ October 26, 2006, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh yeah. Johnson is to blame for starting the Nam mess. Well, the main escalation aspect, anyway. But NIxon/Kissinger get all the credit for those wonderful illegal bombing campaigns and th Peace With Honor meme.

Nixon was sworn in 6 months after the Tet offensive concluded in June of '68. We're told that media negativity against the Tet killed the war. But Nixon didn't declare thw war ver until FOUR YEARS later (January 15, 1973)

So while Johnson was definitiely a cut'n'run Democrat, I can hardly blame we baby-boomers for wanting an end to a war that cost Viet Nam an estimated 2-4 million civilian lives between '54 and '75. That's one to two hundred thousand per annum. Add soldier casualties and... whew!... y'all can gogle an it please ye. The numbers are, after all, so many strings of zeroes, "mere necklaces of nothings" as John Updike once said of astronomical numbers.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"TS: if a woman crosses her legs the moment you pull it out for a second... you haven't been getting it on with her, you been RAPIN' her.

If the woman was diggin' what you were piggin', a bit of withdrawal only heightens her desire for you to reinsert and increases her pleasure upon reentry."

If she's on top, KL [Wink]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Had we attacked full force in the wake of the Tet offensive, when our enemy was at his weakest, why...we could have turned Ho Chi Mhin City into what Bahgdad is today!!!

What a shame that we missed that amazing chance.

The South Vietnamese Government watched whatever capital it had torched by flaming monks years before the Tet Offensive. It was a brutal regime, not democratically elected, and detested by the majority of its people.

In Korea, in contrast,ROK forces, outnumbered and heavily outgunned, fought like freaking demons to defend their country for nearly three weeks before the US managed to get troops in to back them up. Yes, they were pushed back, but they maintained the toe-hold their allies needed, and they did it under whithering fire while sustaining massive loses.

Even as the war progressed, with their Allies bearing the brunt of the fighting, the ROK forces continued to show courage and dedication, many of the 8,000 of them that landed with us at Inchon having suffered gunshot wounds mere weeks before.

Ask anyone who served in Vietnam about ARVN (marvin) troops. Not their elite squads, not our Montainard allies, but the actions of standard ARVN infantry. Ask if they were reliable and brave troops dedicated to the Liberation of their country.

Vietnam, like Iraq, wasn't ours to win.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If she's on top, KL"

I've experienced no positional bias. Coitus occurs in a sort of free-fall whose only gravity is that of the groins.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Another closet Democrat comes out of hiding.
quote:
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki continued his open dispute with American officials Thursday, blaming the United States-led coalition for Iraq's chaos and faulting its military strategy.

His sharp comments, in an interview with Reuters, came as the White House and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld sought to play down the idea of a growing rift between the United States and the Iraq government.
...
According to a partial transcript of the interview distributed by Reuters, al-Maliki said he thought that Iraqi troops, left to their own devices, could re-establish order in Iraq in six months, not the 12 to 18 months that top U.S. commander Gen. William Casey had predicted Tuesday.

Al-Maliki offered a different set of priorities for fighting violence than U.S. officials, who've said the greatest threat to Iraq comes from death squads aligned with Shiite Muslim militias. In recounting a meeting with the head of one of those militias, cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, al-Maliki said he and al-Sadr agreed "that the efforts for all political groups should be focused on the most dangerous challenge, which is al-Qaida and the Saddam Baathists." Both those groups are made up primarily of Sunni Muslims.

Al-Maliki also said U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad was "not accurate" when he said Tuesday that the Iraqi government had agreed to a timetable for dealing with Iraq's problems.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1