Why A Yes Vote For The Iran Nuclear Deal Is A No-Brainer

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

And as the Gloryhole Guru of Arkansas and Professor of Peter-Puffing , YOU would be the sites expert on SUCKING, right woomby ! And the sites expert on how to live life as a EUNUCH, practitioner of ATM, fudge packing, bukakke and golden showers !

No wonder San Antonio is such a shithole, if it's full of idiots like you.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

No wonder San Antonio is such a shithole, if it's full of idiots like you.

Says the second generation gloryhole operator . Not every place is like those 'holes that YOU inhabit woomby !

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Says the second generation gloryhole operator . Not every place is like those 'holes that YOU inhabit woomby !

Anywhere you are is worse for it.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Anywhere you are is worse for it.

You're just upset that you and your familia where run out of here by the Tejano gente that didn't go for you mariconas Y putas Y tu gloryhole plans, pobrecita puta ! You lower the property values and cleanliness standards of every place that you are located, chapete.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by DSK

HFC has won me over as a pretty good debater, though I still think any war outside the United States is a waste of time, and leads to horrible loss of human life for no gain for either mankind, the lives of the US servicemen, or the Treasury of our once great and rapidly declining economic consortium that exists to benefit the rich and minorities.

Thanks.

Even in the Revolutionary war, we had to take the fight to areas beyond the maritime borders of the United States. This included battles taking place close to the United Kingdom, and in the waters of South America. During the war of 1812, we deployed our forces into Canada unsuccessfully. In the previous decade, we engaged in our first war on terror. That period is known as the Barbary Wars in history textbooks. Our history has examples where our military have gone on expeditionary deployments beyond the borders of the United States.

Now, the Chinese have tried to go that route. They did not engage in major wars or major activities well beyond China's borders. Prior to them making that decision, they were well on their way to blowing past Europe in maritime exploration and technological development. Instead, they turned inward and focused on China instead. This ended up biting them in the rear. The Europeans continued on with their maritime exploration, and empire building. This brought about major technological innovations that propelled the West well ahead of China.

By the time the 19th century rolled around, the same Western powers, seen as "barbarians" by the Chinese, were carving pieces of China up like pieces of cake. This is an example of history frowning on powers that neglected foreign engagements in areas that enhanced their interests. This policy has ended badly in the past.

Much of the surface of the earth is covered by water. This happens to be the same medium that the majority of our trade goes through. But, without secure areas on land, this trade would not happen. Our well-being, as a country, as the United States, depends heavily on free trade. This puts a requirement on securing the trading lanes and the oceans, guaranteeing free movement through the seas. This also entails secure areas from which these trades begin. We have to secure the resources needed which contribute to this free trade.

We cannot do that if we are not willing to fight outside of the United States. Gone are the days when we were a provincial periphery of a superpower that managed overseas affairs. We learned that the hard way from the get-go.

Let's take a look at today's threats. We are dealing with an asymmetrical threat consisting of an entity that is both visible and invisible. We are dealing with one that has parts that are "invisible" to those who do not truly understand the true nature of this war. Key religious leaders, from the region, have blatantly came out and spelled out their plans to spread Islam throughout the world. They talked about how, one day, Islam will rule the Americas and Europe and the rest of the world.

If we ignore what is going on overseas, and just focus on what is happening in the United States, we just facilitate the opposition achieving their objectives. The attacks against the cartoonists in France, as well as the attacks against a contest in the United States, are not separate events. They are coordinated events designed to further the objectives of the entity that the West, and the rest the world, are at war with.

Anybody that insists that we should not be engaged overseas, because of the "loss of life" for the service members, does not speak for my comrade-at-arms or me. We joined the military, and continue to serve in the military, knowing full well that we could get into the fight/get back into the fight. We know full well that we train for what could potentially be us being called upon to apply our training in an engagement where people will die.

When it comes to the consequences of doing nothing, in this case allowing the radical Islamists to achieve their manifest destiny, we will gladly lay down our lives. The alternative to our doing that is worse, and will result in a greater loss of lives on US soil and elsewhere.

Take a look at what ISIS is doing overseas. Look at their colossal crimes against humanity being perpetrated over there. Thousands of people dying in the hands of a bunch of thugs wanting to take control of territory. This is an echo of what happened in the past in that region when radical Islam spread. A LOT more people will die in this alternative. This alternative becomes reality if we just hunker down and not fight a war outside the United States.

Speaking of which, if we stopped waging war on the enemy over there, a war in the United States is inevitable.

History has consistently frowned on those who have taken up a defense only posture. We are over there to fight against a potential momentum that could bring that crap over here.

By insisting that we not fight a war outside the United States, in order to prevent "loss of lives", you're inviting this reality to come to our shores, and into our country. Pulling out of the world, and just staying in the United States, invites a future where the daughters of America risk getting dragged out, raped, and taken away to be sold into slavery and raped repeatedly again. It would lead to a future to where American males, of war fighting age, being dragged out of their homes, out of the lineup, into an open area, just be gunned down. Kids would not be free from rape and abuse either.

Married? Insisting that we don't fight a war outside of the United States, at the expense of engagement overseas, makes reality a future where husbands would get murdered in front of their wives, followed by these wives being taken away as slaves... To be sold to the very murderers and thugs that killed thousands of husbands and teenage males. Or, one where wives and daughters get raped in front of their families before the husbands and war fighting age sons get murdered.

I'm just scratching the surface of the atrocities that they are committing over there. They have that planned for their battle with us here in the United States and elsewhere in Western civilization.

This tactic, post conquest, has played out repeatedly for thousands of years. The weapons and technology have changed, but what is done has been consistent. It's partly designed to exert control and spread fear. By doing what you suggest in your post, you are inviting a holocaust to come to the United States. The cold hard reality is that we are fighting over there to avoid a future where we are fighting a defensive war for the survival of what makes us America.

Now, one could say, "Well, if they come here we could just fight them."

That's easier said than done. Historically, civilians without military background tend to lose steam as a militia movement. Guaranteed, if a bunch of private militias try to take on an invasion, they would not last long. They would not have the stomach, discipline, or experience to conduct sustained coordinated resistance. The headaches, that George Washington had with the militia, would repeat themselves again. The enemy that we are dealing with already knows our psychological makeup. They will fight accordingly, indefinitely.

As a veteran of this war, I know for fact that the most effective way we could deal with them is to keep on the offense in their area. This war continues. To pick up and redeploy our forces back into the United States is to abdicate our part of this war. The enemy will continue to have a vote, and the enemy will cast it in a way that benefits them. Their ultimate goal is to spread their version of Islam throughout the world.

If they accomplish their goals here, in the United States, North America, Europe, and elsewhere, whatever debt/deficit we incur fighting them would not matter. This entity is predominantly tribal and don't care about the kind of state existence that we grew up in. Our Constitution, and our concept of democracy, are violations of their law. This would not be a fight for the "military-industrial complex". The long term, continued existence, of the United States, as it is, hangs in the balance of our successes overseas.

Rome did not fall until her freed men gave up the will to fight.

Yes folks, the barbarians are not only at our gates, they have infiltrated. The modern-day legions are still willing to fight, but will not be able to continue to do so if America's men and women lose the will to fight. When the majority of the American population believes that we should just focus on the United States, that we should not fight wars outside the United States, at the expense of foreign engagements, we will know that America has lost the will to fight. It will be a matter of time before we also go by way of the Romans.

Also, America benefits everybody. If we have been limited in our ability to "succeed" as we see it, it was not due to any active effort to prevent us from succeeding. It was due to our own limitation, failures to take action as an electorate between elections, and other factors.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

[Deflecting his own traits onto the opposition.]

He's not a debater, he's a propagandist. There is no talking sense to him. He "wins" by boring his opponents to death. If you engage with him, you're wasting your time. Let him have his three or four pages per thread, and move on.

Wrong, as usual. I've presented a fact-based, logical, reasoned counterargument to your propaganda screeds. What have you done? Spewed your opinion about the so-called military industrial complex and its "control" over the government. You did not present a fact base, logical, argument. You did not even provide credible sources of information to back your screeds. All you've done was push an opinion and insinuated that I embrace it.

THAT is what you call spreading propaganda. There is no valid or credible basis to your argument on this thread. It's a conspiracy whack job opinion, a perfect form of propaganda. I know, my MOS involves PSYOP, which also involves recognizing and countering propaganda during a deployment. If I were to see similar works, coming from the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, or other hostile groups I would rightfully label such works as propaganda.

No, I don't "win" by "boring" the opposition to death. I win the debate by effectively taking the opposition's arguments apart using a fact-based, logical, reasoned argument. It speaks volumes when the opposition continues to refuse to answer simple, yes/no, questions per the parameters that I set. It speaks volumes when the opposition consistently builds strawmen arguments in response to me instead of addressing what I said, or answering the question that I asked. That's a clear indication that the opposition lost.

Also, since you claimed that engaging with me is a waste of time, what are you doing commenting in a way that you should know would cause me to respond? However, by lamenting that people are wasting their time by debating with me, you're suggesting that your intent here is to get the opposition to change their minds. Again, I don't debate to change the opposition's mind, nor to change my position. I debate for the sake of debating the opposition indefinitely.

By now, it should be evident that what I said earlier is applicable. A reply from me is almost as guaranteed as death and taxes.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

This sums it up. He's on ignore. Huge time suck.

Hmmm, and how many times have you said that? I say that you are full of shit, and that you do not have me on ignore. I know that I am right about this.

You "claim" that I'm on "ignore". I say that you do not have me on ignore. Which one of us is right? I predict that you will prove me right about your actions via your response to me. That response will prove that you are lying as usual. Your own actions will prove me right about you, and will prove you wrong about what you said you've done. By extension, if you cannot get straight what you have done, anything else you say lacks credibility.

You're only agreeing with him because I destroyed you in debate just like I destroyed him in debate. You're not saying that based on any logical reasoning at all. Speaking of which, my side of the argument destroyed you in debate on this thread as well as on other threads. Even when it comes to the flaming, you continue to get your arse handed to you.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Using the oil profits to fund the war was one of the biggest lies they ever told. What a crock of shit.

That never was an official consideration within the Bush ministration. But they did consider allowing those oil fields to be used in a way that benefits the Iraqis. It was intended to be ran by the Iraqi government/people. This became a reality. When I was deployed to Iraq, I saw evidence of massive economic progress relative to what they were used to seeing over there. Reconstruction wasn't the only thing happening, new construction was happening on the large scale over there. The Iraqi government contributed to this partly with funds from their oil operations. Oil profits contributed from the private sector involvement in this as well.

The only lie, in this equation, that I see is a lie from the opposition claiming that the Bush administration intended to use the funds, from the oil fields there, to fund the war effort. Again, this was to be done in the hands of the Iraqis.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

[STRAWMAN]

Half disapprove... half the people never agree on anything. That means absolutely nothing. He's no interested in a debate, but it isn't a debate with you people. He doesn't need to listen to you shitstains. He's the motherfucking president and you should approach him on your goddamn knees.

You're deliberately missing the point. For example, if they show a survey showing people's disapproval of the Iran deal, that speaks volumes. If he continues to argue in favor of a deal that a large percent of Americans disagree with, he is not adequately representing them. This isn't the case where he knew something that the American people didn't, and that this is "in the best" interest of the United States. The vast majority of his initiatives are not in the best interest of the United States.

His job, as the president, is to act in our best interest within the left and right limits set on him by the Constitution. Not only has he refused to remain within those limits, he has attempted to legislate from the White House. This is an example of usurping the will of the people. I hate to break this out to you, but he is not a king. His duties, as listed in the Constitution, identifies him as something else. Not a king.

The president works for the American people. The president is a servant of the people. We will do no such thing with regards to approaching him.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

And as the Gloryhole Guru of Arkansas and Professor of Peter-Puffing , YOU would be the sites expert on SUCKING, right woomby ! And the sites expert on how to live life as a EUNUCH, practitioner of ATM, fudge packing, bukakke and golden showers !

BWAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAA! He walked right into that one, didn't he? He deserved that. Good one.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Thanks.

Even in the Revolutionary war, we had to take the fight to areas beyond the maritime borders of the United States. This included battles taking place close to the United Kingdom, and in the waters of South America. During the war of 1812, we deployed our forces into Canada unsuccessfully. In the previous decade, we engaged in our first war on terror. That period is known as the Barbary Wars in history textbooks. Our history has examples where our military have gone on expeditionary deployments beyond the borders of the United States.

Now, the Chinese have tried to go that route. They did not engage in major wars or major activities well beyond China's borders. Prior to them making that decision, they were well on their way to blowing past Europe in maritime exploration and technological development. Instead, they turned inward and focused on China instead. This ended up biting them in the rear. The Europeans continued on with their maritime exploration, and empire building. This brought about major technological innovations that propelled the West well ahead of China.

By the time the 19th century rolled around, the same Western powers, seen as "barbarians" by the Chinese, were carving pieces of China up like pieces of cake. This is an example of history frowning on powers that neglected foreign engagements in areas that enhanced their interests. This policy has ended badly in the past.

Much of the surface of the earth is covered by water. This happens to be the same medium that the majority of our trade goes through. But, without secure areas on land, this trade would not happen. Our well-being, as a country, as the United States, depends heavily on free trade. This puts a requirement on securing the trading lanes and the oceans, guaranteeing free movement through the seas. This also entails secure areas from which these trades begin. We have to secure the resources needed which contribute to this free trade.

We cannot do that if we are not willing to fight outside of the United States. Gone are the days when we were a provincial periphery of a superpower that managed overseas affairs. We learned that the hard way from the get-go.

Let's take a look at today's threats. We are dealing with an asymmetrical threat consisting of an entity that is both visible and invisible. We are dealing with one that has parts that are "invisible" to those who do not truly understand the true nature of this war. Key religious leaders, from the region, have blatantly came out and spelled out their plans to spread Islam throughout the world. They talked about how, one day, Islam will rule the Americas and Europe and the rest of the world.

If we ignore what is going on overseas, and just focus on what is happening in the United States, we just facilitate the opposition achieving their objectives. The attacks against the cartoonists in France, as well as the attacks against a contest in the United States, are not separate events. They are coordinated events designed to further the objectives of the entity that the West, and the rest the world, are at war with.

Anybody that insists that we should not be engaged overseas, because of the "loss of life" for the service members, does not speak for my comrade-at-arms or me. We joined the military, and continue to serve in the military, knowing full well that we could get into the fight/get back into the fight. We know full well that we train for what could potentially be us being called upon to apply our training in an engagement where people will die.

When it comes to the consequences of doing nothing, in this case allowing the radical Islamists to achieve their manifest destiny, we will gladly lay down our lives. The alternative to our doing that is worse, and will result in a greater loss of lives on US soil and elsewhere.

Take a look at what ISIS is doing overseas. Look at their colossal crimes against humanity being perpetrated over there. Thousands of people dying in the hands of a bunch of thugs wanting to take control of territory. This is an echo of what happened in the past in that region when radical Islam spread. A LOT more people will die in this alternative. This alternative becomes reality if we just hunker down and not fight a war outside the United States.

Speaking of which, if we stopped waging war on the enemy over there, a war in the United States is inevitable.

History has consistently frowned on those who have taken up a defense only posture. We are over there to fight against a potential momentum that could bring that crap over here.

By insisting that we not fight a war outside the United States, in order to prevent "loss of lives", you're inviting this reality to come to our shores, and into our country. Pulling out of the world, and just staying in the United States, invites a future where the daughters of America risk getting dragged out, raped, and taken away to be sold into slavery and raped repeatedly again. It would lead to a future to where American males, of war fighting age, being dragged out of their homes, out of the lineup, into an open area, just be gunned down. Kids would not be free from rape and abuse either.

Married? Insisting that we don't fight a war outside of the United States, at the expense of engagement overseas, makes reality a future where husbands would get murdered in front of their wives, followed by these wives being taken away as slaves... To be sold to the very murderers and thugs that killed thousands of husbands and teenage males. Or, one where wives and daughters get raped in front of their families before the husbands and war fighting age sons get murdered.

I'm just scratching the surface of the atrocities that they are committing over there. They have that planned for their battle with us here in the United States and elsewhere in Western civilization.

This tactic, post conquest, has played out repeatedly for thousands of years. The weapons and technology have changed, but what is done has been consistent. It's partly designed to exert control and spread fear. By doing what you suggest in your post, you are inviting a holocaust to come to the United States. The cold hard reality is that we are fighting over there to avoid a future where we are fighting a defensive war for the survival of what makes us America.

Now, one could say, "Well, if they come here we could just fight them."

That's easier said than done. Historically, civilians without military background tend to lose steam as a militia movement. Guaranteed, if a bunch of private militias try to take on an invasion, they would not last long. They would not have the stomach, discipline, or experience to conduct sustained coordinated resistance. The headaches, that George Washington had with the militia, would repeat themselves again. The enemy that we are dealing with already knows our psychological makeup. They will fight accordingly, indefinitely.

As a veteran of this war, I know for fact that the most effective way we could deal with them is to keep on the offense in their area. This war continues. To pick up and redeploy our forces back into the United States is to abdicate our part of this war. The enemy will continue to have a vote, and the enemy will cast it in a way that benefits them. Their ultimate goal is to spread their version of Islam throughout the world.

If they accomplish their goals here, in the United States, North America, Europe, and elsewhere, whatever debt/deficit we incur fighting them would not matter. This entity is predominantly tribal and don't care about the kind of state existence that we grew up in. Our Constitution, and our concept of democracy, are violations of their law. This would not be a fight for the "military-industrial complex". The long term, continued existence, of the United States, as it is, hangs in the balance of our successes overseas.

Rome did not fall until her freed men gave up the will to fight.

Yes folks, the barbarians are not only at our gates, they have infiltrated. The modern-day legions are still willing to fight, but will not be able to continue to do so if America's men and women lose the will to fight. When the majority of the American population believes that we should just focus on the United States, that we should not fight wars outside the United States, at the expense of foreign engagements, we will know that America has lost the will to fight. It will be a matter of time before we also go by way of the Romans.

Also, America benefits everybody. If we have been limited in our ability to "succeed" as we see it, it was not due to any active effort to prevent us from succeeding. It was due to our own limitation, failures to take action as an electorate between elections, and other factors.

While our best men waste time and treasure and their lives fighting logistically hopeless wars spurred on by deceptive and evil and/or greedy propagandists, the Muslims our quietly massing inside our country to set the stage for the takeover. However, at least they will kill all the faggots and feminists, then hopefully the liberals. If they come to my house to kill my wife or daughters, I'll kill them til I run out of bullets, then I'll stab as many of the invaders as I can.

Empire building has ruined every country that ever became an empire, and it will bury us, also. We are being fucked over by our own government - why do you want to die or kill for the government that hates you? How would you even define victory over there?

[herfacechair]

DSK: While our best men waste time and treasure and their lives

As an Iraq War Veteran, I can confidently say that you don't speak for us. You don't speak for my comrades-at-arms. This is not a waste of time, or treasure, nor is this a fight of a logistically "hopeless" war. Do realize that what I've argued here is reflective of the philosophy of the majority of the people who have combat deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Understand that the majority of people that have combat deployed to either country wanted to combat deploy there again. They would not have wanted to do that if this were a waste of time. It wasn't, and it never was. We saw the results of our efforts over there. They were predominantly positive. We won every major battle in those two countries. It was plainly obvious, when I was there, that we won the Iraq War with a straight cut victory.

It was up to the Obama Administration to build on that, it didn't.

DSK: fighting logistically hopeless wars

Wrong again.

Not only were we successful in the battlefield, we were also successful when it came to logistics. We had major forward operating bases that served as logistics hubs for the combat theater. Flights came in consistently providing supplies needed to continue to war. We conducted refit missions to these FOBS to resupply, to do advanced maintenance, and to do other things. We were never short on what we needed to carry out the mission. Albeit, there were times when we needed replacement for our tactical gear, but couldn't get it because the fobbits purchased the last set before we rolled in. That, however, did not stop the mission.

DSK: spurred on by deceptive and evil and/or greedy propagandists,

Wrong again. This is a real threat. Our enemies are real. This is not a conspiracy theory inventing a threat. In fact, this threat existed against the West since the beginning of the dark ages. It has changed faces, organization, location, but it is the same threat that existed for centuries. This threat is engaging in perpetual war against those that are not Islam. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, this threat is embarking on a manifest destiny. This manifest destiny calls for bringing the entire world under the banner of Islam.

Listen to them speak, and watch the videos from the Islamists from that area. They have blatantly came out and announced what they intend to do. It speaks volumes that, during a Friday sermon, a key religious leader would talk about how Islam ruled the world once, and how it will rule the world again. I lost count of how many times I've seen a video showing someone talking about how Islam will dominate the United States and other parts of the West.

This is real.

DSK: the Muslims our quietly massing inside our country to set the stage for the takeover.

This is part of asymmetrical warfare. Even Qaddafi talk about how they could use population to take over a region. The onus is on us to culturally assimilate as many of these folks possible. Not all of them come here as a conqueror. The majority of them come here for a better life. However, if liberal/progressive policies have their way, they will form areas that would form the nursing ground for the radical Islamic movement in this country. If liberals/progressives keep getting their way, all we have to do is look to Europe to see what our future would be like.

DSK: However, at least they will kill all the faggots and feminists, then hopefully the liberals.

Never assume that they think like you. The radicals do not think in Western terms, but in their terms. In their eyes, it does not matter if you are gay, feminist, liberal, conservative, hetero, pro-man law, religious, atheist, etc. In their eyes, if you are not their brand of Islam, you are a target. They will NOT initially make the distinctions that you hint that. Bottom line, if you are not their brand of Islam, you face either forced conversion or death.

If they're nice, you will have an option to convert to Islam. If you choose that route, you'll be required to join the fight. If you choose not to, and if they're nice, you would be required to pay an extra tax. That's if they're nice.

DSK: If they come to my house to kill my wife or daughters, I'll kill them til I run out of bullets, then I'll stab as many of the invaders as I can.

That's easier said than done. In fact, you're speaking from pride and not from reality.

If you are not part of the militia unit fighting against him, it would be you against a certain number of them. You may think, like in the videogame, that you could rapidly react to kill all of them. I guarantee you; however, that as you are pointed towards one of them, another one of them will have a clear shot of your side. You will go down LONG before you use up all of your rounds.

Hopefully, you have trained your wife and daughters to continue the job that you left off. Or, to even fight alongside you. If they do not go down fighting, they will suffer the consequences that their counterparts in the Middle East are suffering. Oh yeah, don't expect to be effective at stabbing anybody if you're injured by multiple rounds in your body.

DSK: Empire building has ruined every country that ever became an empire, and it will bury us, also.

Wrong again. What we're doing is not Empire building. Not once, during my military career, have we conquered territory for the purpose of annexation in the same sense that the Romans did. The arrangement that I talked about in my earlier post, with regards to freedom of movement at sea, and securing the areas that resource come from, is an arrangement that multiple countries get involved with. In fact, it's an arrangement that the majority of the countries cooperate in.

This arrangement came about through actions of each of those countries consumers. That's right, you, everybody posting on this board, everybody related to everybody posting on this board, and anybody else that has gone out shopping and bought something. If you have ever purchased anything from any establishment, you have played a role, collectively with other buyers, to create the situation I talked about earlier.

If you look at the movement of goods all around the world, you'd find that the global economy is set up to support the United States economy. That was not done by force, but by actions of consumers in this country, as well as consumers in other countries. This is all done voluntarily, on the side of the civilians.

So, if you are opposed to "empire building", you had best stop purchasing things. You need to start growing your own food and to start making your own clothing and materials. Because, the moment you start purchasing things from a store, you end up playing a role that will influence foreign policy. Your counterparts, living overseas, doing similar purchase actions, are doing the same thing.

The arrangement that I talked about earlier is consumer driven. Look in the mirror and point the finger at the person staring back at you.

DSK: We are being fucked over by our own government

If the government is "fucking" us over, it is because we, as the electorate, have failed in our constitutional duties. Far too many of the electorate think that their duties stop at the voting booth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We, as an electorate, are responsible for governing ourselves through our local, state, and federal representatives. Congress works for the people. The people that we vote to become Congress personnel work for us. We, as an electorate, are supposed to leverage our will through them. Unfortunately, we have failed to do that repeatedly. Consequently, as with any other group, or person for the matter, left unsupervised, Congress has gotten away with doing what it is doing.

Saying that the government is screwing us over is nothing more but shifting the blame. Again, look in the mirror and you will find who is screwing us over. This is not just you, but the majority of the electorate.

DSK: - why do you want to die or kill for the government that hates you?

Go back and read my replies on this thread, I've provided extensive explanation as to why I do what I do. Your assumption, about what the government is, is erroneous. By extension, your assumption, that I want to do this for the government, is erroneous. If you have read my posts, as you've indicated above, you would realize I do this for cause. I've explained a part of that cause on this thread.

This is not about the US government or any other government for the matter. This is about fighting an entity that has every intention of remaking the United States, its philosophy, its culture, its people, etc. This is about fighting an entity that has every intention of eradicating Western civilization and any other civilization that does not abide by their brand of radical Islam.

On a strategic level, this is about the American people, and about the United States. By extension, the rest of Western Civilization and the world that does not want with the radical terrorists have in mind for the world.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

By now, it should be evident that what I said earlier is applicable. A reply from me is almost as guaranteed as death and taxes.

Yes. It is. It is also guaranteed to spout the party line for the corporatists. God, you are boring.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

God, you are boring.

And you are a Welshing Idiot. Pay up Bitch!

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

andymarksman: General Sada was relieved of his command right after the end of the First Gulf War, and has not been employed again by Saddam thereafter.

Serving out your command tenure, then being relieved, does not indicate the end of a career. Being retired does not mean that you are out. Not by a longshot. Being "retired" in the military puts you in a "reserve" status. You are always working for the Commander-In-Chief, whether you are actively involved in military, or in one of the reserve components. The retired reserve is one of those components. You also have to be careful about how you word how someone was relieved. There are two different ways that they are relieved. One way is by serving out their tenure, to being transferred to another position. Another way is being fired. The way you worded it indicates that he was fired, I found no indication from credible sources that indicate that he was fired.

He was "fired" by Saddam. Actually Saddam almost had him shot for his "alleged" refusal to carry out the "criminal orders," by which all downed allied pilots were to be summarily executed. Thus Sada was fortunate enough to even live as a private Iraqi citizen under Saddam afterwards.

http://www.luke.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123135270