Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Attacking the critics is easy than defending the war

  1. #1

    Attacking the critics is easy than defending the war

    It's easy to take a woman like Cindy Sheehan and rip her to shreds. She's a pawn. She's a foul mouthed ranter. She's a mouthpiece for the liberal media. She has an agenda.

    There's no question we can look at the anti-war protestors and be disgusted. These people are not perfect, and in many cases they are not even what we could call good contributing members of society. It's easy to point at a patchuli smelling pot smoking hippie and rip him a new you know what.

    But here's my point.

    It's easy to rip the critics. It's easy to slander those who protest. Nixon knew that and it was a vital part of his re-election strategy, which worked to perfection when he won in a landslide. He never explained the war strategy, he never spoke of reachable goals, he never talked of the feasibility of victory. And it worked like a charm. Nixon won re-election. The USA lost Vietnam.

    It's easy to bash the people against the war. What I am waiting for is someone to defend the war itself. That's something we as Americans should all be concerned about.

    Guess what bashing the critics is not the same as defending the war.

    Can anyone defend this war?

    Was it well planned? Does it have a goal? Is this goal feasible? Will Iraq be better off as a democracy? Is there any real connection between Iraq and 9-11? How can we prevent civil war? How can democracy survive without law and order? How can Iraq form an economy? How can we protect foreign investors? How can we secure the borders from foreign fighters? How can we provide infrastructure? How can we rebuild when the fighting hasn't stopped?

    these are the questions that should be answered, by everyone. The characters in this play are side-shows to the real issue which is the war itself and whether it was/is a smart move. That's what we should be talking about.

    But here's a little secret the war itself is the last thing the right wants to talk about - because it's reasons are indefensible and it's outcome is ultimately doomed.

    I've thought this through and this is what I think will happen. If anyone would like to talk about what I am about to say it would be a refreshing change from talking about the character of protesters.

    Mark my words: it might be 10, 20, even 50 years from now - but sooner or later there will be a power struggle between the ethnic groups and there will be a theocracy that results from this struggle. Whoever emerges from this struggle will make the Taliban look like day care center teachers and make the citizens of Iraq pine for the good old days of Saddam.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    I'll talk all you want about the war and any specifics related to it, if YOU refrain from bashing Bush or anyone who supports the war, or generally posting in an immature, know-it-all fashion. If you want to have a calm, rational discussion, I am willing and able to help you. You "bash" those with whom you disagree as much as anyone here.

  3. #3
    The reason it's so easy to rip Cindy Sheehan and the rest of the far left is because all they do is protest without offering any solutions. If your against the war, fine. But how do we fix the problem ? Yes, Bush has done an awful job of communicating the things Bit mentioned, and much of the critisism against him is valid. But give me some kind of plan. Bush's plan may be flawed, but it's still a plan. Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy, Byrd, Moore, Sheehan, Sorros, etc. bring nothing to the table. Can anyone tell me what anyone of them would do to fix Iraq cuz I have no idea ?

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:

    dude- you're a broken record.......

  5. #5
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    38,336
    Bit, were you even alive during Nixon's reelection? How can you make claims like...

    "It's easy to rip the critics. It's easy to slander those who protest. Nixon knew that and it was a vital part of his re-election strategy, which worked to perfection when he won in a landslide. He never explained the war strategy, he never spoke of reachable goals, he never talked of the feasibility of victory. And it worked like a charm. Nixon won re-election. The USA lost Vietnam."

    Nixon won in a landslide because McGovern was a disasterous candidate. How do you know what Nixon's strategy was regarding Vietnam?

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=jetswin]Bit, were you even alive during Nixon's reelection? How can you make claims like...

    "It's easy to rip the critics. It's easy to slander those who protest. Nixon knew that and it was a vital part of his re-election strategy, which worked to perfection when he won in a landslide. He never explained the war strategy, he never spoke of reachable goals, he never talked of the feasibility of victory. And it worked like a charm. Nixon won re-election. The USA lost Vietnam."

    Nixon won in a landslide because McGovern was a disasterous candidate. How do you know what Nixon's strategy was regarding Vietnam?[/QUOTE]

    Nevermind the fact it was liberal-democrats who got us firmly entrenched in 'Nam...

    oh, yeh- let also forget about the fact that thousands of Vietnam Vets protested Nixon daily before the '72 election, at the WH and at the RNC Convention in Miami...but that didn't matter...

    of course when speaking of Vietnam libs forget we never sent troops into NV and we never made Ho Chi Mihn a target and we let the NVA freely use Cambodia as a supply route for almost a half-dozen years and so on and so on and so on.....

    Sadly, libs like bitonti need to keep referring back to Vietnam as that is all they have to hang their hat on yet this is nothing like Vietnam at all....
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 08-19-2005 at 10:47 AM.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]I'll talk all you want about the war and any specifics related to it, if YOU refrain from bashing Bush or anyone who supports the war, or generally posting in an immature, know-it-all fashion. If you want to have a calm, rational discussion, I am willing and able to help you. You "bash" those with whom you disagree as much as anyone here.[/QUOTE]

    5ever it's a new day, i will try to act more mature - as for discussion you can start by addressing any of the question or my final paragraph the prediction.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=jetswin]Bit, were you even alive during Nixon's reelection? [/QUOTE]

    jetswin i wasn't alive for alot of things that doesn't mean one can't be a student of history. Yes mcgovern was unelectable but nothing I said was untrue. Nixon attacked his critics rather than defend the war... and it worked for re-election... and we lost Vietnam. What did I say that was inaccurate?

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]
    oh, yeh- let also forget about the fact that thousands of Vietnam Vets protested Nixon daily before the '72 election, at the WH and at the RNC Convention in Miami...but that didn't matter[/QUOTE]

    It did matter - Nixon was able to present a question to the people of America who you do believe - me or the hippies? and America trusted Nixon over the hippies. Polls from that reelection year said 50% of Americans didn't agree with the war in Nam but 77% of Americans didn't like the protesters.

    That's my point. It's easier and more productive for the incumbent party and it's supporters to bash the critics than it is to defend the war. I want to talk about the war not the critics. If you would like to join me in this discussion that would be nice. If you want to call me a broken record and put up blah blah blah icons that's not unexpected either.

  10. #10
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    38,336
    [QUOTE=bitonti]jetswin i wasn't alive for alot of things that doesn't mean one can't be a student of history. Yes mcgovern was unelectable but nothing I said was untrue. Nixon attacked his critics rather than defend the war... and it worked for re-election... and we lost Vietnam. What did I say that was inaccurate?[/QUOTE]
    "He never explained the war strategy, he never spoke of reachable goals, he never talked of the feasibility of victory"

    I was young, but still tuned in to politics because I had friends with older brothers in Vietnam. As I recall part of Nixon's campaign was to remove ourselves from that war.

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=bitonti]It did matter - Nixon was able to present a question to the people of America who you do believe - me or the hippies? and America trusted Nixon over the hippies. Polls from that reelection year said 50% of Americans didn't agree with the war in Nam but 77% of Americans didn't like the protesters.

    [B]That's my point. It's easier and more productive for the incumbent party and it's supporters to bash the critics than it is to defend the war. I want to talk about the war not the critics.[/B] If you would like to join me in this discussion that would be nice. If you want to call me a broken record and put up blah blah blah icons that's not unexpected either.[/QUOTE]


    Of course it is more productive for the minority party to present ideas and alternatives to the American people as to why their way is better (see the GOP prior to the mid-term election).....based on what we've seen the one can only come to the conclusion that the rats will be in the minority for a long time to come....

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=jetswin]I was young, but still tuned in to politics because I had friends with older brothers in Vietnam. As I recall part of Nixon's campaign was to remove ourselves from that war.[/QUOTE]

    yes that was part of his campaign and it did eventually happen - but still the US put pressure on North Vietnam - 8 weeks after he beat mcgovern, Nixon ordered Linebacker II aka the "christmas bombing." the Nixon pre-reelection and the Nixon post-reelection were somewhat different people.

    but that's not my point - my point is that during re-election he didn't really take on the essential problems of the war he took on his critics on a personal level.

    Also i only brought that up as a similar example - there are obviously many differences between what happened then and what happened now.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]Of course it is more productive for the minority party to present ideas and alternatives to the American people as to why their way is better (see the GOP prior to the mid-term election).....based on what we've seen the one can only come to the conclusion that the rats will be in the minority for a long time to come....[/QUOTE]

    this is further proof of my point. You, like the GOP would rather talk about the critics (or in this case the minority party) rather than the war itself. Just because the democrats are incompetants that doesn't justify the President to run a failing war.

  14. #14
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    38,336
    Bit you are generalizing....Nixon was a paranoid man, do not group every Republican in that light.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=jetswin]Bit you are generalizing....Nixon was a paranoid man, do not group every Republican in that light.[/QUOTE]

    when did I do that?

    The only reason i brought up Nixon was because of his public relations tactics (which are similar to today's right wing tactics) and the failing war he presided over (which is similar to today's war). I will not argue the point that LBj was a bigger failure!

    I think Reagan was a great president. I think Bush I was underrated. This thread is not about any hatred people perceive I have for all things republican.

    I want to talk about the war itself not the critics of the war. Every other thread around here is about how Cindy Sheehan is the devil - my point is that if this war was justified and made sense no one here would have even heard of Cindy Sheehan.

    Or to put it another way evaluating the message is more productive than shooting the messenger. We are all American citizens and we should be concerned for the welfare of our country, regardless of political affiliation.

  16. #16
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    38,336
    [QUOTE=bitonti]I want to talk about the war itself not the critics of the war. Every other thread around here is about how Cindy Sheehan is the devil - my point is that if this war was justified and made sense no one here would have even heard of Cindy Sheehan.

    Or to put it another way evaluating the message is more productive than shooting the messenger. We are all American citizens and we should be concerned for the welfare of our country, regardless of political affiliation.[/QUOTE]
    You have started numerous threads looking for justification of this war, I'm fairly certain that in at least one of those threads posters here (left or right) have stated their stance, and defended it accordingly.

    As far as Cindy...well, she is the devil( :cool: ) or has been part of a circle jerk in which all parties have been used. Her dead son by her, herself by lefties.

    Not shooting the messenger, however I'm not usually a fan of your message.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=jetswin]You have started numerous threads looking for justification of this war, I'm fairly certain that in at least one of those threads posters here (left or right) have stated their stance, and defended it accordingly.
    [/QUOTE]

    not for years. Not since the days of WMD have we had a real discussion about the motivations for this war.

    These days getting a right winger to talk frankly about the war and it's chances of success is like going after fingernails with a pair of pliers. Everyone wants to talk about SHeehan or Clinton or Michael Moore or Air America - no one wants to talk about what's happening in Iraq and that conflict's inevitable failure.

    Talk about the protesters? sure no problem!

    Talk about the mainstream media's handling of the war! oh absolutely!

    talk about the war itself? uh-uh. No way jose.

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=bitonti]not for years. Not since the days of WMD have we had a real discussion about the motivations for this war.

    These days getting a right winger to talk frankly about the war and it's chances of success is like going after fingernails with a pair of pliers. Everyone wants to talk about SHeehan or Clinton or Michael Moore or Air America - no one wants to talk about what's happening in Iraq and that conflict's inevitable failure.

    Talk about the protesters? sure no problem!

    Talk about the mainstream media's handling of the war! oh absolutely!

    talk about the war itself? uh-uh. No way jose.[/QUOTE]

    who is not talking about the war?? More talking points and a new strategy from the ultra-leftist sites you hang around??

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]who is not talking about the war?? More talking points and a new strategy from the ultra-leftist sites you hang around??[/QUOTE]

    why is it no one has even attempted to answer any of the questions or my prediction in post 1 of this thread?

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Attacking Bush is the only reason to be anti-war.

    If you really cared about the lives lost in these wars, you'd should really be pissed that it probably could've been prevented by a little effort known as Operation Able Danger.

    Say it with me again,bit...Able Danger.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us