Good Answer

[Stan Shannon]

I have no problem with that. Fire away and be damned. The principles promoted by the modern democrat party are as alien and destructive to the American way of life as were those of any enemy we have ever fought. There is nothing about them that even remotely incorporates any of the principles the nation was founded to achieve. They are the enemy of all of those founding principles. Thanks to all the people who voted for Obama and company, every life ever sacrificed to defend this country was a complete waste. It achieved nothing.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

RichardM1 wrote:

The problem is that you assume they are all motivated by the same thing, and that makes you prone to mistakes in understanding how to deal with them.

The only thing I assume is that once our military forces have been committed to combat by a constitutionally valid process, it is the duty of every American citizen to not publically promote arguments which justify why those troops should be killed.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[RichardM1]

You are not willing to answer whether you would defend the country against the Russians if they invaded? So far, it sounds if they passed a law making it legal, you would be totally OK with it, since it would be legal and all.

Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.

[RichardM1]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Thanks to all the people who voted for Obama and company, every life ever sacrificed to defend this country was a complete waste. It achieved nothing.

And yet, the right to vote for Obama is one of the things they died defending it for. Funny, that.

Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.

[Tim Craig]

RichardM1 wrote:

Well than, when people like me finally win it back from the invaders, we would have you shot as a collaborationist

Well, Stan by his own definition, is a traitor so he should have no problem with that. ;P

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

[Mustafa Ismail Mustafa]

I applaud the volumes of logic, truth and reality in that post regardless of whether or not it was wasted on Stan.

RichardM1 wrote:

There are Iraqis who believed their country was being run correctly prior to the US entering it.

The bulk of Iraqis hated Saddam like the pox that he was, but every Iraqi I know without exception was against the US invasion for 2 reasons. 1. Everyone knew that a power vacuum would result which will cause everyone and their cousin to try and stake claims to "ruling" Iraq and cashing in on it. 2. The advocated concept of that change must come from within. I personally lay the loss of every American, so called coalition of the willing, and Iraqi that died or was maimed as a direct or indirect act of the war at the feet of the Bush administration. I don't know what the intent of purposely lying to the American public and the world at large by stating that they had incontrovertible evidence that he had WMDs and was planning on using them to harm the US. Why the lie? Oil? That certainly might be one objective, but I doubt its the only one. I do not claim to know what other advantage they might have gotten. Many will argue against my thoughts, particularly Stan.

Don't forget to vote if the response was helpful

---

Sig history "dad" Ishmail-Samuel Mustafa Unix is a Four Letter Word, and Vi is a Two Letter Abbreviation

[Stan Shannon]

RichardM1 wrote:

And yet, the right to vote for Obama is one of the things they died defending it for.

I never suggested otherwise - except to the extent that we can any longer consider our democratic processes fair. They are not. Our system is as heavily propagandized as any thing the old soviet politboro could have organized. But, still, the people voted for a set of political principles that are far closer in nature to those our country has always tried to remain free of - collectivism, centralized planning, a society controlled from the top down by a single, government managed, social/moral agenda.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:

1. Everyone knew that a power vacuum would result which will cause everyone and their cousin to try and stake claims to "ruling" Iraq and cashing in on it. 2. The advocated concept of that change must come from within.

Actually, thats why I also opposed the invasion.

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:

I personally lay the loss of every American, so called coalition of the willing, and Iraqi that died or was maimed as a direct or indirect act of the war at the feet of the Bush administration. I don't know what the intent of purposely lying to the American public and the world at large by stating that they had incontrovertible evidence that he had WMDs and was planning on using them to harm the US. Why the lie? Oil? That certainly might be one objective, but I doubt its the only one. I do not claim to know what other advantage they might have gotten.

And I have no problem with a non-American making such ludicrous alligations - aside from the fact that they are ludicrous, of course.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

RichardM1 wrote:

You are not willing to answer whether you would defend the country against the Russians if they invaded?

I have spent most of my adult life in uniform defending this country against the USSR - so blow me. But one of the reasons I finally quit the service in 1990 was because I had already begun to question my patriotism to a nation clearly controlled by a leftist agenda. Even a man like Reagan could not make much head way against it, and was forced to compromise with it.

RichardM1 wrote:

So far, it sounds if they passed a law making it legal, you would be totally OK with it, since it would be legal and all.

I believe that the invasion and conquest of the United States of American is already a foregone accomplishement. It is a done deal. There is nothing left to defend against.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Mustafa Ismail Mustafa]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Actually, thats why I also opposed the invasion.

So we agree on something.

Stan Shannon wrote:

And I have no problem with a non-American making such ludicrous alligations - aside from the fact that they are ludicrous, of course.

Pray, do tell as to why you consider them ludicrous? Also, you're implying that an American would not sound ludicrous. This in itself is ludicrous.

Don't forget to vote if the response was helpful

---

Sig history "dad" Ishmail-Samuel Mustafa Unix is a Four Letter Word, and Vi is a Two Letter Abbreviation

[Lost User]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I have no problem with a non-American making such ludicrous alligations

Just non-Americans. There have been postings here from CP member citizens of the good old US of A condemning those "flawed" reports of WMD and the assumption that oil was the primary reason for GulfWarII. Are all these American CP members putting or agreeing a "ludicrous allegations" charge without a foundation to base their charges upon?

[Mustafa Ismail Mustafa]

Stan Shannon wrote:

so blow me

Oh wow Stan, you resort to insults when you have no responses that can actually be made into an argument and then you start considering the insults as valid argument responses.

Stan Shannon wrote:

I have spent most of my adult life in uniform defending this country against the USSR

That still doesn't answer Richard's question, clearly in confusion because you said you'd actually assist them.

Stan Shannon wrote:

one of the reasons I finally quit the service in 1990 was because I had already begun to question my patriotism to a nation clearly controlled by a leftist agenda. Even a man like Reagan could not make much head way against it, and was forced to compromise with it.

Stan Shannon wrote:

I believe that the invasion and conquest of the United States of American is already a foregone accomplishement. It is a done deal. There is nothing left to defend against.

That is defeatist and akin to throwing down your arms and running away naked from battle. To me, a soldier who served his country with pride and honor, would not do such a thing. You quit because you had your reasons, don't cite extremely petty and useless ones at that. If you had said "I got sick of it all", that would have carried more weight than what you said. Also, how on Earth can you consider the US "invaded" by leftists?

Don't forget to vote if the response was helpful

---

Sig history "dad" Ishmail-Samuel Mustafa Unix is a Four Letter Word, and Vi is a Two Letter Abbreviation

[Lost User]

Stan Shannon wrote:

except to the extent that we can any longer consider our democratic processes fair.

No good you saying that unless you can suggest an alternative system that would have universal approval from the American Electorate.

[Lost User]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I believe that the invasion and conquest of the United States of American is already a foregone accomplishement. It is a done deal. There is nothing left to defend against.

So you advocate "Rolling over and dying". I'm sure that is a very minority view.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Reagan

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he largely the reason the USSR collapsed.

[Mustafa Ismail Mustafa]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Are all these American CP members putting or agreeing a "ludicrous allegations" charge without a foundation to base their charges upon?

It seems that in The TheWayTheUSAndDemocracyShouldBe Republic of Stanshannonia, they are making ludicrous allegations.

Don't forget to vote if the response was helpful

---

Sig history "dad" Ishmail-Samuel Mustafa Unix is a Four Letter Word, and Vi is a Two Letter Abbreviation

[Lost User]

Stan Shannon wrote:

it is the duty of every American citizen to not publically promote arguments which justify why those troops should be killed

But that should not mean that if a policy - political or military - appears to be wrong or harmful, that you should not give your views. It is quite possible that a view may not previously have been considered thus you would be doing a good service by making your comments/views known rather than doing a dis-service by keeping mouth firmly shut. The political or military breed don't always get it right, and that costs needless losses of life.

[Stan Shannon]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

So you advocate "Rolling over and dying". I'm sure that is a very minority view.

No, I'm advocating fighting back - but against the enemey that already has occupied our country.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Lost User]

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:

how on Earth can you consider the US "invaded" by leftists

They have been hiding under his bed, now they want to join him in his bed.

[Mustafa Ismail Mustafa]

That sir smacks of leftist hanky panky and is not acceptable by the true blue Republicans for Democracy like Stan!

Don't forget to vote if the response was helpful

---

Sig history "dad" Ishmail-Samuel Mustafa Unix is a Four Letter Word, and Vi is a Two Letter Abbreviation

[Stan Shannon]

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:

Oh wow Stan, you resort to insults when you have no responses that can actually be made into an argument and then you start considering the insults as valid argument responses.

No, I'm considering an insult a valid response to being asked if I am willing to do something that I have, in fact, already done.

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:

clearly in confusion because you said you'd actually assist them.

Than let me state it more clearly - if an foreign army invaded my coutnry for the purpose of liberating me from the democrat party and the principles it promotes, I would fight along side that army against the democrats. I see no reason why I should prefer rule by the modern democrat party to be preferred to rule by anyone else. I have no patriotic attachements to a single principle they stand for.

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:

That is defeatist and akin to throwing down your arms and running away naked from battle. To me, a soldier who served his country with pride and honor, would not do such a thing. You quit because you had your reasons, don't cite extremely petty and useless ones at that. If you had said "I got sick of it all", that would have carried more weight than what you said.

I had practical reasons for quitting the service, but none that could not have been overcome if I had felt sufficient motivation to continue serving. I didn't. My patriotism to a dead ideal was insufficient to motivate me. But I stand ready to rejoin the real fight if the opportunity ever presents itself, and, of course, I will continue to participate politically in the forelone hope that it will make any difference at all.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.