<p>this may be an inappropriate forum for this, but, eh. its interesting</p>
<p>discuss</p>
<p>Treasonous imbeciles. /discussion</p>
<p>Keep in mind that what they are against is the invasion of Iraq, not the "War on terror". To many in this country the two are not the same. While I don't agree with much of what they post on the website, I think that distinction is often not made in either the press or public discourse. The argument can be made that Iraq wasn't a part of the war on terror until the invasion happened which created a vacuum in which terrorists would come in. Whether that WAS the real goal of the planners in Washington I don't know, but it certainly wasnt the stated objective. Again, I think much of the website is wrong, but I doubt a group of West Point grads, and retired generals, (and people like Murtha) can be accurately described as "treasonous imbeciles." I would suspect most of them to be loyal patriots with a different point of view.</p>
<p>Or they're idiots looking for their 15 minutes of fame.</p>
<p>I keep hearing about these six retired generals that came out against the conflict in Iraq and Rumsfeld, but has anyone else realized that there are thousands of retired generals out there and only six came out to bash Bush and his administration.</p>
<p>/\ That's what we call a common-sense analyzation of the issue, something of which the media is not capable.</p>
<p>Just by the law of probabilities you're almost guaranteed to have a few losers in the bunch.</p>
<p>It's interesting to note that only 1 of the 3 graduates lists Vietnam service, while they all graduated in 1962, just 3 years before the war really kicked off. One of them was commissioned into the Air Force.</p>
<p>I believe that those 6 retired generals spoke out about the conduct of the war, not the basis for the war itself. Rumsfeld was/is not popular with a lot of leadership.</p>
<p>Don't call others idiots for their opinions on something. They are perfectly entitled to their opinion on the War in Iraq, and to be quite honest, (whether I agree with them or not is not my place to say), I admire their courage in speaking out.</p>
<p>I agree 100% with marines4me. I much prefer to hear all informed and thoughfully considered sides of a discussion; otherwise what's the point? Name calling when you disagree with someone else's opinion is one of the fundamental errors in debate, and doesn't speak highly of one's process of reasoning.</p>
<p>And I'm perfectly entitled to my opinion that they are stupid.</p>
<p>Plus, their ghetto-HTML website sucks. And that makes it worse.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Treasonous imbeciles.
[/quote]
[quote]
Or they're idiots looking for their 15 minutes of fame.
[/quote]
[quote]
Just by the law of probabilities you're almost guaranteed to have a few losers in the bunch.
[/quote]
[quote]
Plus, their ghetto-HTML website sucks. And that makes it worse.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>After reading this and other things you've posted, I have one question for you.</p>
<p>TacticalNuke, is it possible to be just a little bit more polite?</p>
<p>i don't get why all of you are so hostile to them! if you disagree with a war are you automatically a bad person? does the government ever make mistakes? it's good to be a soldier who follows orders but it's also good to be a person who doesn't have blind faith!</p>
<p>We also need to remember that we do not know everything that the big guys in the gov't know, and for good reason. There is a tradeoff for not running the country under true democracy. A democratic republic is dependent on some amount of blind faith - we wouldn't need to elect leaders if the public knew everything and made all decisions themselves. Of course the government makes mistakes but there are hardly any decisions they've made that would be lauded by all American citizens. This makes 'mistake' a subjective title.
I don't believe anyone is saying they're bad people because they oppose the war, but I believe that the way they presented their case lacks tact, and they're trying to give themselves a position of higher authority by using West Point's name. If they really had a strong case it should stand on its own and they should leave WP out of it.</p>
<p>tactical nuke, are you a curent cadet, candidate, or parent? i'm just asking because i always like your posts.</p>
<p>Links broken. I don't like protesting/complaining/picketing/"blah against blah". Most people involved in such don't know what they are complaining about. This friend of mine was in New York a month ago and participated in a protest that she thought was Anti-war and turned out to be Gay Rights. May I add that she hadn't planned on rallying, and just had been passing by. Liberal colleges and the liberal media fuel this obvious lack of common sense. Stop complaining and blaming the leaders YOU elected!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stop complaining and blaming the leaders YOU elected!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>not everyone voted for them.</p>
<p>Thats the beauty of our system of government. We have the freedom to vote our conscience. When the results are in we have a peaceful transition of power. During the time following we have the freedom to discuss and debate the results and the performance of the elected gov't. When the time comes to elect new leaders if you like the job the current ones did you vote likewise, if not you "throw the bums out". Simple. Effective. The ultimate check and balance in our system of government isnt necessarily the 3 branches--it is the people.</p>
<p>Right now I vouch that its the liberal media. When they say war is good, war is good, when they say its bad, its bad. Remember the Dixie Chicks? We attacked them for attacking Bush. Why? Cause the media made a huge deal out of it. Now when the media despises Bush, even his own party is forced to distance themselves, not because they differ in policy, but to save their own political careers. I think thats a mockery. One could claim the media reflects the views of the people, but thats hardly the case. </p>
<p>Its like my Government teacher always said, a conservative, the ultraconservative religious section of the Republican party may not be the largest but they sure scream the loudest, and so all the Democrats believe we are such. I think the media represents the people the same way. They don't represent the majority but they sure do make the most noise. People fail to develop their own points of view mindlessly attacking political leaders without any basis. I may not like Bush's policies, but I certainly acknowledge the positives and recognize that he is the President of the United States and should be respected as such. </p>
<p>//End rant</p>
<p>I've been a republican for 26 years. The party was hi-jacked by it's ultra-conservative religious section in the early 90's. The "liberal media" is a myth propagated by those who don't like to hear news or opinion they don't agree with.</p>
<p>Interesting piece on the "liberal media" myth</p>
<p>there is also a link to an interesting discussion on Rush.</p>