-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Controversal Cartoon
- Thread starter jagges84
- Start date
- Status
graymatter
Registered User
Its kinda hard to do that when the paper is free.
jagges84
Semper Gumby "Always Flexible"
well, if you look into it, we are actually paying for it as part of the tuition and fees. So we are actually paying for it. The whole paper is extremely liberal, I mean the nickname for the paper by lots of students is the "Communist Manifesto Daily". They have the right to write what they want, that is their freedom. But I think that some of the stuff they put in there, as well as other newspapers around the world, is very in appropriate.
graymatter said:
Yeah, I ran into the same thing in college with the Daily Comedian . . . er . . . Collegian. USA Today is the only decent news source on the Penn State campus, unless they've changed something since I left. :icon_tong
cricechex
Active Member
Wow, nice job putting out a fire before it destroyed the entire thread. ROFL! Feldman, people do look at where the message is coming from more often than not. A MCPO isn't going to accept criticism from a seaman, EVER. He won't even take correction from an Ensign, unless it is given with the upmost respect because that MCPO has earned his position many times over while the EN is fresh out of college without any real experience in the Navy. That is just another way to describe what Fly Navy was saying.
Absolutely correct. You guys think this cartoon is the most offensive in the world? The only thing wrong with it is that it uses the death of American servicemen to further their agenda. Trust me, there are MUCH worse. Check out the people in my post "More Crazy Socialist Protestors". THAT is sick sh!t.
livefast said:
akamifeldman
Interplanetary Ambassador
Really now?
And exactly who's agenda is that? The people who think we should have had an exit strategy before we went into Iraq? The people who realize all 19 of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis, not Iraqis? The people who realize Saddam didn't have any WMDs, or a working relationship with OBL? The people who realize that going into Iraq destabalized (sp?) the region more than not at all? (I know, I'm watching the tone, but really now!).
Eh, Democrats, they're all the same, right?
Fly Navy said:
And exactly who's agenda is that? The people who think we should have had an exit strategy before we went into Iraq? The people who realize all 19 of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis, not Iraqis? The people who realize Saddam didn't have any WMDs, or a working relationship with OBL? The people who realize that going into Iraq destabalized (sp?) the region more than not at all? (I know, I'm watching the tone, but really now!).
Eh, Democrats, they're all the same, right?
akamifeldman
Interplanetary Ambassador
...but it deserves a slap in the face.
I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again:
The main justification for war was WMD.
No WMD, no justification for war.
Or let's try Colin Powell, our Secretary of State, who admits that our pre-war intelligence was shaky and less than reliable (you don't go to war based on unreliable intel).
We all agree that Saddam was a ruthless murdering ******* who deserved to be taken out of power. But that's not what the debate is about. Its about how we went into Iraq (President's near disregard for international diplomacy to take its due course - - speeches made to the UN on the eve of war don't count) and how what we are doing is effecting the world and breeding a new, even more viscious breed of terrorists.
The President phrased (and still does) Iraq as a theater in the overall "War on Terror." It is not. There was no imminent threat to US civilians from Saddam's non-existent WMDs. But, that was how the WH billed it, as some sort of threat, that they were stopping another 9/11 by taking out Saddam now. Simply untrue. If Bush were serious about attacking the heart of terrorism, we'd be knee deep into Saudi Arabia by now. But instead, we got a President who was fixated upon Iraq days after his inaguration, and used 9/11 as rationale to go there. This was about settling old scores, not the noble act the WH proclaims it to be.
As to how you got from that to the former Soviet Union, that's anybody's guess. Yes, I understand your point about bringing freedom to oppressed peoples, but again, if that was how the President phrased the war from the beginning, this would be a whole different story. Iraq is not a legitamate theater in the war on terror, and the President has done more to destabalize the region than to heal it.
I'm in the eleventh (11) grade, actually.
Remember, patriotism can mean more than identifying with any random leader who wraps himself up in the flag, playing on your fears and sympathies, all to suit his personal agenda. (Look, I even tried to watch the tone this time!!!)
EDIT--Actually, I watch MSNBC sometimes, and the Fox'Faux'News Channel when I'm feeling adventurous .
I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again:
The main justification for war was WMD.
No WMD, no justification for war.
Let's try David Kay, our chief weapons inspector in Iraq.
Or let's try Colin Powell, our Secretary of State, who admits that our pre-war intelligence was shaky and less than reliable (you don't go to war based on unreliable intel).
We all agree that Saddam was a ruthless murdering ******* who deserved to be taken out of power. But that's not what the debate is about. Its about how we went into Iraq (President's near disregard for international diplomacy to take its due course - - speeches made to the UN on the eve of war don't count) and how what we are doing is effecting the world and breeding a new, even more viscious breed of terrorists.
The President phrased (and still does) Iraq as a theater in the overall "War on Terror." It is not. There was no imminent threat to US civilians from Saddam's non-existent WMDs. But, that was how the WH billed it, as some sort of threat, that they were stopping another 9/11 by taking out Saddam now. Simply untrue. If Bush were serious about attacking the heart of terrorism, we'd be knee deep into Saudi Arabia by now. But instead, we got a President who was fixated upon Iraq days after his inaguration, and used 9/11 as rationale to go there. This was about settling old scores, not the noble act the WH proclaims it to be.
But why would he? Wouldn't he use them? Put yourself in Saddam's shoes for a second: You know you're facing the world's best equipped, trained, and funded armed fighting force in the history of the world. You know your chances of capture or death are very high. *And, as Patmack wants you to believe, you've got scores of missiles, mobile weapons labs, and flasks of toxic gases.* If you know you're goin down in flames, (and remembering that sociapathic (sp?) killers like Saddam have little respect for anyone's life) why not use what little you *have*? If he had 'em, he woulda used 'em.
As to how you got from that to the former Soviet Union, that's anybody's guess. Yes, I understand your point about bringing freedom to oppressed peoples, but again, if that was how the President phrased the war from the beginning, this would be a whole different story. Iraq is not a legitamate theater in the war on terror, and the President has done more to destabalize the region than to heal it.
Because we live in a Representative Democracy. Because although we elect people to make our governmental decisions for us, they still ultimately answer to us, the people. And finally, because I hold a sincere distrust of anyone who freely admits to not reading a daily newspaper (I'm referring to our President, of course).
I'm in the eleventh (11) grade, actually.
Remember, patriotism can mean more than identifying with any random leader who wraps himself up in the flag, playing on your fears and sympathies, all to suit his personal agenda. (Look, I even tried to watch the tone this time!!!)
EDIT--Actually, I watch MSNBC sometimes, and the Fox'Faux'News Channel when I'm feeling adventurous .
akamifeldman said:
When Mr. Kay announced that there were no WMDs in Iraq, only 8% of ALL weapons depots in Iraq were inspected. EIGHT PERCENT. Not only that, but take a look at the 8 years of the Clinton presidency. Take a look at how many times his government and the Democrat congressmen and senators mentioned WMDs in Iraq and why sanctions and actions are necessary to keep Mr. Hussein in check. Now, all of a sudden they don't exist? Gee, that was fast.
akamifeldman said:
So you know this for sure eh? You know positively that Saddam had zero ties to terrorism and had no WMDs? Jeez, you must be the omnipotent intelligence being in the USA, the CIA and NSA should hire you, because you ahve all the answers don't you? Attacking Saudi Arabia? Well I'll DEFINITELY agree with you that Saudi Arabia needs a serious whipping, but it's never going to happen. Not anytime soon, and DEFINITELY NOT by a Democrat president.
akamifeldman said:
He sure as heck had them in Operation Desert Storm and he didn't use them. Why? Because we told him Bagdad would "glow". He also knew the Israelis had nukes and they would SURE AS HECK use them. He's an *******, but he's not stupid. He successfully manipulated the world for 12 solid years.
- Status