(Sorta OT, maybe not) Just a quick link and a question...

DarkDragonReborn · Post by **DarkDragonReborn** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 10:53 am

A war of politics?

Now, I'm not a huge member of this forum, I know... but there do seem to be a lot of politically minded people here. Anyone mind going over this and telling me if any of my thoughts/arguments need work?

Admittably, some foul language, but I feel very strongly about this.

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:40 am

All I can say is "Nuff said."

Thanks for sharing what desperately needs to be heard.

DarkDragonReborn · Post by **DarkDragonReborn** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:43 am

Oh, wow... I really wasn't expecting the first reply to be you...

I post in your livejournal occasionally as an anonymous... I was going to post a link in one of your ones about Saddam or Iraq, but I figured I'd just post it here.

Anyways, thanks muchly!

Kerry Skydancer · Post by **Kerry Skydancer** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:49 pm

Y'need a spell check at a few points, but ... that's exactly what needs to be said to a lot of idiots. Unfortunately, they won't listen, but you still need to say it.

DarkDragonReborn · Post by **DarkDragonReborn** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:59 pm

Heh, thanks. I just showed one of my friends... the only thing he would say is 'Bush lied, so it doesn't matter'.

The point is, it *does* matter! Who cares about a mistake the president made if it's irrelevant to the point?! If there's no direct link to Al Queda, WHO CARES?! I'm willing to accept an indirect link. And if someone has proof of a direct link, I would LOVE to see it.

Shyal_malkes · Post by **Shyal_malkes** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 6:29 pm

I don't know what to say. I mean I agree with his sentiments but I hate the negativity from BOTH sides. that's probably why I hate election years around here.

still, more power to him I guess.

The JAM · Post by **The JAM** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 8:08 pm

Well said.

IronFox · Post by **IronFox** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 10:41 pm

Hear hear, and well spoken. I'll be joining the armed forces when I graduate college (if I don't get medically discharged, god forbid). I think it's despicable what the sorts of idiots here at the university (Faculty and the approximately 200 idiots who protest EVERYTHING included) say about our armed forces. My grandpa was in the navy, and I'll be damned if some ass-faced ivorty tower person will compare him or any other member of our armed forces unfavorably with Adolf Eichmann.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:11 am

Those who want Iraq to become another Vietnam are certainly doing their bit to make their dreams come true here. Is there anyone in Congress with the cajones to suggest making it a crime to spit on a member of the Armed Forces?

JakeWasHere · Post by **JakeWasHere** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:02 pm

rangers wrote:Those who want Iraq to become another Vietnam are certainly doing their bit to make their dreams come true here. Is there anyone in Congress with the cajones to suggest making it a crime to spit on a member of the Armed Forces?

Well, neither protesting the war nor burning the flag is an infringement of free speech; in the latter case, the Supreme Court's made it fairly clear that the First Amendment's freedom-of-speech clause includes the freedom to piss off other people. (Which is something the hypocrites of the Left whine about when THEY get pissed off, but that's another post entirely.)

I would suggest we make it S.O.P. to arrest anyone who spits on a soldier, and charge the perp with assault. The best part is, on the rare chance that they've got AIDS or herpes or some other disease that can be transferred through saliva, you can push the charge up to 'assault with a deadly weapon'.

Maxgoof · Post by **Maxgoof** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:07 pm

What is needed is not really a new law, but a means of enforcing existing ones.

Spitting on someone is, indeed, assault. It is usually not prosecuted, because it is not a type of assault that results in injury.

So, all congress should need to do is pass a resolution, with the full weight of law, which basically says that spitting on a member of the armed forces is a form of assault and should be enforced as such.

NydaLynn · Post by **NydaLynn** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:23 am

maxgoof wrote:What is needed is not really a new law, but a means of enforcing existing ones.

Spitting on someone is, indeed, assault. It is usually not prosecuted, because it is not a type of assault that results in injury.

So, all congress should need to do is pass a resolution, with the full weight of law, which basically says that spitting on a member of the armed forces is a form of assault and should be enforced as such.

Concievably, couldn't a member of the armed forces sue a person for assault if they spit on them?

Labrusca · Post by **Labrusca** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:12 pm

JakeWasHere wrote: I would suggest we make it S.O.P. to arrest anyone who spits on a soldier, and charge the perp with assault. The best part is, on the rare chance that they've got AIDS or herpes or some other disease that can be transferred through saliva, you can push the charge up to 'assault with a deadly weapon'.

If the spitter has AIDS, it can be classified as "assault with intent to murder" in some places.

LoneWolf23k · Post by **LoneWolf23k** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:58 am

On a related subject, Canada has taken up the role of "main occupation force" in Afghanistan, and so far we've had 11 casualties..

...That's all so far: 11.

And there are many Canadians who are already calling it a quagmire, and proclaiming we need to pull out of there right now.

In fact, they go on the record saying stuff like "The Americans started that mess, then they should clean it up." ...In spite of the fact we Canadians were part of the original coalition that went into Afghanistan in the first damn place.

We're over there, trying to keep the Taliban from taking over and trying to help the Afghani rebuild their country, and the only thing some people can think of doing is complaining about how "dangerous" it is and how we're "throwing away" the lives of our soldiers doing this. Never mind the fact that most Canadian soldiers currently posted over there have gone on to say they're proud of what they're doing..

Quite frankly, I think the only reason why people have begun protesting about Canada's presence in Afghanistan is because our new Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is an old-school Conservative.

People call us Conservatives adversarial.. ...But that's because a lot of people try to be our adversaries to begin with.

UncleMonty · Post by **UncleMonty** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:10 pm

DarkDragonReborn wrote:Heh, thanks. I just showed one of my friends... the only thing he would say is 'Bush lied, so it doesn't matter'.

The point is, it *does* matter! Who cares about a mistake the president made if it's irrelevant to the point?! If there's no direct link to Al Queda, WHO CARES?! I'm willing to accept an indirect link. And if someone has proof of a direct link, I would LOVE to see it.

There's been indirect evidence for a link between Al Qaeda (by whatever spelling) and Iraq for a very long time. That evidence is why Clinton (for all his many crimes and foolishness, even he recognized a deadly enemy... eventually) had cruise missiles launched into Khartoum, Sudan.
A chemical plant there had ties to Al Qaeda, and was funded in part by Saddam Hussein.
The soil around the plant was polluted with precursor chemicals for VX nerve gas.

About this whole "Bush Lied" thing. He didn't...

If someone tells me something that later cannot be proven true, and I then tell someone else that the first person told me that thing, I have spoken the truth.

Thus, when Pres. Bush told the American people that British Intelligence had reported an attempted purchase of fissionable material by Iraq... It was not a lie.

When Pres. Bush told the American people that an Al Qaeda member, a prisoner being held in Egypt, had testified that Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda. It was not a lie.

The JAM · Post by **The JAM** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:12 pm

Did anyone notice that Iraq and Afghanistan were the only countries who did not condemn 9-11?

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:38 pm

LoneWolf23k wrote:On a related subject, Canada has taken up the role of "main occupation force" in Afghanistan, and so far we've had 11 casualties..

...That's all so far: 11.

And there are many Canadians who are already calling it a quagmire, and proclaiming we need to pull out of there right now.

In fact, they go on the record saying stuff like "The Americans started that mess, then they should clean it up." ...In spite of the fact we Canadians were part of the original coalition that went into Afghanistan in the first damn place.

We're over there, trying to keep the Taliban from taking over and trying to help the Afghani rebuild their country, and the only thing some people can think of doing is complaining about how "dangerous" it is and how we're "throwing away" the lives of our soldiers doing this. Never mind the fact that most Canadian soldiers currently posted over there have gone on to say they're proud of what they're doing..

Quite frankly, I think the only reason why people have begun protesting about Canada's presence in Afghanistan is because our new Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is an old-school Conservative.

People call us Conservatives adversarial.. ...But that's because a lot of people try to be our adversaries to begin with.

Welcome to it. You've got my sympathy - and Canada my love. We'll stand on guard for ya, too.