Printable View
I type fast.Quote:
Originally posted by Pam
Well Liz this was a pretty long response, so I guess you have a little time on your hands today. I think you pretty much find time to post what you want. Hmm.....
I didn't start this thread.Quote:
Originally posted by Pam
Sorry that you feel maligned but it is you, after all, who has been starting the threads. If you can't stand the heat, as they say, ....
You didn't start the thread and I didn't post in it before now, but that didn't stop you from naming me on your "list" of people that egg you on!
Just in case you're wondering where my lack of respect for you started, just remember the following post, and I think your memory will return.
(It is on Page 7 of The Presidential Election thread). I think any of our Democrat friends were probably ashamed of you too for making a statement like that, even if you meant it differently than it came across!Quote:
Can't wait until the 1,000th American casualty in Iraq is named (http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit..._casualties.htm).
Healthy debate is ok (I still wonder why it happens on a Pet forum and why I continue to read it and respond on occasion), and also the "fun" postings, jabbing at either side are ok too, but continuous argumentative and smearing type behavior gets old and fast. You say that you aren't going to change any minds, and you probably aren't going to. I am not going to either, and I don't even try to. So state your opinion, then sit back and watch what happens instead of getting all defensive about everything! Lighten up, for goodness sake, and if you can't take a little jabbing from the other side, you definitely don't need to be posting in any political topics, anyway! For goodness sake, your responses have been much more frequent and MUCH stronger than anything Christa, Pam or I have said, and many of the other posters at Pet Talk, who happen to be on the opposite side of me, who I happen to respect for their well informed opinions, regardless of whether I agree or not.
Whew! Enough from me on this subject!
Logan
That quote is taken out of context. It was completely sarcastic in meaning. If you can't pick up on sarcasm - and you were the only person who didn't - then I really don't care what you think.
Re: Here's what I think about the whole thing.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lizzielou742
[url]Can't wait until the 1,000th American casualty in Iraq is named
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ignorance of that statement is unbelievable! And I wonder why I have pretty much stopped posting....
Stupid statements like this one give anti-war people a bad name.
I think I was NOT the only one to take offense to what you said and how you said it. You must have missed the response from Molly (Mugsy) that I have copied over for you. I'm sorry if I didn't catch your "sarcasm" right away, but who in their right mind, who is a troop supporting American would EVER say something like that, even in jest??
lizzielou said: No response about the draft because I'm at work and my boss has been in the past two days (a rarity), so I can't get on the internet as much - and I haven't had much time to read anything and respond like I'd like to. I would like to say that it is painfully clear our armed services are in need of more troops, and maybe bringing back the draft would be a good idea. Maybe people would actually think about getting out to vote if the draft was re-instated.
So why would you say this, now, lizzielou, when I had such a vehement response from you about my response on the draft issue earlier? Which way do you want it to be? Are you for the draft or against it? Really?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Logan
According to statements from President Bush, himself, this not true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, right, because that's not a biased source. Neither is Rumsfeld, right?
At the time I made that statement, the 1,000th troop death had already occured. I think it is horrible and awful and sad that so many Americans have died in Iraq. there was sarcasm and sadness that was inherent in that statement. The fact that you are questioning my patriotism deeply offends me, and I would suggest to you that you drop the subject. The statement was made, and maybe because I didn't place little "roll-eyes" next to it, you read it wrong. Sorry about your mistake.
I think drafting would suck, but I could also see the positive outcomes of it. I think, like I said before, that it would make people think more critically, and it would probably get more young people interested in politics and voting. I don't want to be drafted (who does?) but I think if we're going to be able to handle the situations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and protect our homeland, as well as consider the genocide going on in Sudan, then we need more troops. I wish National Guardsmen weren't being shipped out, and that Reservists weren't being called up, and that active members of the armed forces weren't being asked to serve multiple tours. Obviously, we need more troops in Iraq to secure the peace, and I don't understand how we are going to get more troops if we don't bring in more support from other countries or reinstate the draft.
I did not respond to this thread in the first place not only because I didn't have time in the past few days, but when I did have time, I wanted to avoid an argument like this one. Seems I have been drawn into one anyway. I suggest we leave it alone now.
I just wish people would be a little more open minded and start paying attention to both sides and not continually snipe about how wrong the Republicans (Conservatives) and how right the Democrats (Liberals) are. Personally I think if you narrow your mind to believing one side and one side only, then you no longer are a viable source of information and should be ignored. And actually the same goes for the Republicans saying how right they are and how wrong the Democrats are. That's why I'm an INDEPENDENT.
As far as sarcasm goes.....there was nothing sarcastic in your statement. You made a statement with no explanation....how else are we to interpret it? You were spewing hate of the Republicans and your venom was clear, your sarcasm was not.
I don't understand why a healthy political debate always has to turn to name calling and snide remarks.
I'm also not trying to change anyone's beliefs. All I'm asking for is for acceptance of beliefs whether you argree or not. You are entitiled to your opinion just like everyone else and yours is no better or no worse than anyone elses.
And for the draft. I think it's wrong, but, I also think the whole selective service thing is wrong too.
Quote:
Originally posted by lizzielou742
I think drafting would suck, but I could also see the positive outcomes of it.
If you were behind the leader you'd think drafting is the best thing in the world.
I can see you are no NASCAR fan.
Hee hee Richard!
Thanks. :)
Actually, I do watch a little Nascar. My dad's g.f. LOVES Dale Jr. I don't really have a favorite. :D
Oh Liz . . . where do I start?
I was a little shocked to see your posts when I got home today. And a little disappointed. When we first started this, we decided to agree to disagree. We both know that there is NO way we can change each other's political opinions. I know that, you know that.
With that said . . . did you EVER stop to think that I might enjoy having an "intelligent" discussion with you??? A LOT of people are voting for John Kerry for the mere fact that he's NOT George W. Bush. That makes me soooooo mad! They have no political opinions what so ever, they know no facts, they have no intelligent ideas of their own . . . just that he's not what we have now. Although I completely disagree with your views, I enjoy our conversations. We are both well informed young women with strong convictions.
I wasn't egging you on when I asked why you hadn't commented on the draft. I started the thread about the draft and you completely turned it around and turned it into a FoxNews BASH!!! THAT is why I asked why you weren't commenting about the TOPIC OF THE THREAD! Just seemed a little strange to me. Trying to spin it a little?
Now, what's even stranger is that you support the draft...but shouldn't surprise me since it's out now that it wasn't the GOP pushing the bill. Hmm . . .
OK, Liz . . . I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt. But I have NEVER intentionally posted something to egg you on. And I have never been RUDE to you personally.
However, I am NOT sorry for defending my positions or my President.
This is getting ugly, and it wasn't suppose to.
I'm going shopping . . . this is giving me a headache.
Hmm...
I sent the draft news links to the person who told me there might be a draft if Bush becomes president, and this was the reply I got:
Quote:
Diana, my understanding is that the houses voted to halt debate on the floor on two resolutions introduced at the start of the Iraq war to bring back the draft. What that means is that the draft issue remains up in the air and may be taken up again at a later date such as after the November election. The vote was in the interest of Bush supporters so that a pre-election draft issue would not scare potential Bush voters from voting for Bush because a lingering draft issue may give them the impression that the draft may be eminent or likely should Bush get elected. Nevertheless it is my opinion, that the draft is more likely to be enacted under Bush than under Kerry, particularly if the war in Iraq drags on and the situation gets worse and worse and less and less people sign on to the armed services. Bush has no adequate plan for getting out of Iraq and may resort to pushing for the draft, Kerry won't.
I'm sure "the person" is a credible source . . .Quote:
Originally posted by BCBlondie
Hmm...
I sent the draft news links to the person who told me there might be a draft if Bush becomes president, and this was the reply I got:
So this bill was presented by DEMOCRATS and yet "the person" still believes that it's a plot by the GOP?
Give me a break!
(sorry in advance if this thread offends anyone) ;)
1) the US Military is a professional, all volunteer force. Reinstating the draft would cause numerous morale issues.
2) It takes an average of two years to train and integrate a soldier into a unit from the time they start basic training. The normal draft term is two years. This would help us how?
3) The modern military is not the military of the past. An infantry soldier no longer just needs to learn how to shoot and move on the battlefield. Infantry soldiers now operate high tech equipment that takes time to train and become proficient on, unlike the vietnam era draftees. Again, it takes an average of two years for a soldier to become completely proficient and integrated into a unit, and that time is for a volunteer soldier who wants to be there. I shudder to think how long it would take to accomplish the same with an unwilling draftee.
The draft is not going to happen.
I agree with you Ladys Human. Looking at it from a purely tactical perspective, having a non-voulenteer military handling VERY dangerous and complex equipment is a bad idea. About the only Draft that worked was for WW II and most people voulenteered to go into the military. This, like vietnam is a war many people do not support. People will try to get out of it. How will that help? If you draft people and half of them weasel out of it, you still have the problem of inssufcient strength. History has proven that conscripting unwilling people loses wars.Quote:
Originally posted by Lady's Human
1) the US Military is a professional, all volunteer force. Reinstating the draft would cause numerous morale issues.
2) It takes an average of two years to train and integrate a soldier into a unit from the time they start basic training. The normal draft term is two years. This would help us how?
3) The modern military is not the military of the past. An infantry soldier no longer just needs to learn how to shoot and move on the battlefield. Infantry soldiers now operate high tech equipment that takes time to train and become proficient on, unlike the vietnam era draftees. Again, it takes an average of two years for a soldier to become completely proficient and integrated into a unit, and that time is for a volunteer soldier who wants to be there. I shudder to think how long it would take to accomplish the same with an unwilling draftee.
The draft is not going to happen.
Thank you LH....a voice of reason and experience. When ever you post on a thread about the military, I always take what you say with more credence than I would from anyone else....you are in the middle of it after all...
I also listen to my husband and BIL since they are both former military. Hubby Desert Storm vet and BIL Vietnam and Desert Storm vet.
Btw...in case you haven't heard it in awhile....Thanks for doing what you do and defending us!