A “Test” of their Yellow Badge of Courage

You didn't answer any of my questions TC!!!

Why is that???

Because they weren't worth answering.

I don't think the troops should leave right this second. Do you think they should stay forever, though.

That is what it will take to "stablize" Iraq.

So, should we stay forever as an unjustified occupying force. Will you sign up to be in it?

I answered your combative, chickenhawk question, now answer mine.

ziggy wrote:I was twelve years old when the frog and fishing creek that ran through our property was ruined by acid water and siltation from strip mining.

So, you were 12 years old, huh, ……. and it was a “fishing creek”, right, …… and that was about 1958, right, …. to wit:

ziggy wrote:(SOURCE) I was born and grew up along a small brook called Cool Spring Branch, a tributary of Tuppers Creek, in northern Kanawha County. It was a quiet little community until about 1958.

So Zigster, now it was a “fishing creek” where before it was a “small brook”. If you want to refer to it as “a small brook” that is fine with me Ziggy ……. but very few if any people living in WV at that time (1958) and living in such a place would call it “a brook”. Now a run, creek, branch or fork, …… but never a brook.

ziggy wrote:Then the Akers Coal Company moved into the head of the hollow, sent its bulldozers down the hollow to plow out farmers' fences, including my father's fences, in a vigilante "widen the road" project, …..

Ah so, Zigster, nice description at “painting” the Coal Company as “The Villian”. But me thinks it was your stated father and the other farmers who were “The Crooks”. It appears to me they all must have been “stealing” County property by having “fenced in” County Right-of-Way to use for their own gain.

ziggy wrote:….. (the Coal Company) turned the narrow but serviceable public road into but two deep muddy ruts in wintertime and a dust generating coal truck raceway in the summertime,

Now Ziggy baby, Stephanie will probably believe “that crap” …… but your BS doesn’t impress me in the least. If the Coal Company used bulldozers to “widen the road” to the width of the Right-of-Way, …….. then it was nothing but “a narrow dirt road up a hollow” to begin with. A “dirt road” that each and every year became slipery, sloppy, muddy, pot-holed and rutted in the winter and spring time …… and dust generating and pot-holed in the summer and fall. And the County would have to “grade it” ever so often to keep it passable.

ziggy wrote:….. and sent acid laden water down that peaceful little brook. The rocks turned red and the fish all died. The cattle wouldn't drink the stinky water. Finally even the mud turtles disappeared. Akers Coal Company strip mined the watershed at the head of that hollow, which turned a formerly year 'round, rocky bottom frog gigging, fishing and livestock watering stream into a raging, muddy river when it rained for only an hour or so and into but a dry bed of stinky silt when it didn't rain for even a few days.

Wowee, now it was a “peaceful little brook”, huh? Zig, “brooks” are not generally peaceful, ya know, …….. they are generally “cool n’ babbling”.

And Ziggy, maybe it was because you were so young and little …….. you just thought they were “fish” …… where in fact they were only chubs and minnows.

And Ziggy, just “how quick” in 1958 did ……. all the rocks in that “peaceful little brook” turn red, …. or the “fish” died, …. or the water got stinky, …. or fore the cows quit drinking the water? A week, a month, what?

Zigster, maybe best you study up on “natural chemical reactions” before making any more “wild claims”. Zig, any such “coloring” or “stinking” is a result of, to wit:

Acid mine drainage results from the reaction of pyrite (iron disulfide) with oxygen and water, producing iron hydroxide and sulfuric acid. Pyrite is frequently found in high concentrations in coal and bedrock in anthracite and bituminous producing regions of the Appalachians.

Zig, I’m sure that “reaction” is a result of rainwater leaching through the terra firma and I’m pretty sure that it takes several years before there has been enough rainwater to leach out enough iron hydroxide to “turn the rocks in the creek red”.

.

TerryRC wrote:because TRC, Ziggy and the other Bush Haters encouraged the insurgents and terrorists to start making IEDs and using Cell phones to detionate them when our Military was least expecting it.

Like I previously stated, neither Rumsfeld or our Military personnel EXPECTED you all to "join in with the insurgents and terrorists".

Classy, Sam. Call anyone that speaks out against the war in Iraq a "terrorist".

Nothing like a little jingoism to stifle free speech.

Asshats abound.

Terry, as long as you all keep refusing to "speak the truth" whenever you are speaking out against something, ....... the I will continue calling you "what you are".

And I don't mean "half truths" ...... or "quarter truths" ...... or "partial truths", ........ or "partially associated truths".

.

TerryRC wrote:Because they weren't worth answering.

I don't think the troops should leave right this second. Do you think they should stay forever, though.

That is what it will take to "stablize" Iraq.

Ha, put out a new "Deck of Cards" with al Sadar's picture on the Ace of Spades.



.

TerryRC wrote:Because they weren't worth answering.

I don't think the troops should leave right this second. Do you think they should stay forever, though.

That is what it will take to "stablize" Iraq.

So, should we stay forever as an unjustified occupying force. Will you sign up to be in it?

I answered your combative, chickenhawk question, now answer mine.

If the question (no, it's not combative or chicken hawk so don't get sissified now and try to stay focused-sheesh ) is not worth answering then the conversation's not worth having!!!

So you think we have to stay there forever to stabilize Iraq, huh!!! I don't agree with that piss poor assessment of the current situation. Of course I didn't agree with you libs 2 years ago when you said Iraqi forces would never stand on there own yet, here they were in Basra a couple of weeks ago at least trying. That's a damn sight better then they were doing a year ago before the surge, which by the way you libs claimed would never work but did, began.

I think I'd trust the judgment of Gen. Petreaus over that of one of you libs that has no idea what you're talking about and using a combat situation that include American soldiers as a political talking point.

Is that a good enough answer for you or should I elaborate?

Terry, as long as you all keep refusing to "speak the truth" whenever you are speaking out against something, ....... the I will continue calling you "what you are".

I did speak the truth, Sam. You just don't like it. Saying that the war in Iraq is wrong is not even remotely giving aid to terrorists.

To imply it is tells volumes about you and your ethics.

Is that a good enough answer for you or should I elaborate?

You didn't answer it. That is OK, I suspect that you can't.

The Iraqi forces are not holding (trying is not succeeding). There are more refugees pouring out of the country than there was under Hussein.

If you pay attention to Petreaus' speech, not much has been gained by the "surge" and even those are tenuously held.

By the way, "libs" believe in things like welfare, affirmative action, hate crime laws, and universal health care. I believe in none of those things. Better find another name to call me, you fascist.

TerryRC wrote:The Iraqi forces are not holding (trying is not succeeding). There are more refugees pouring out of the country than there was under Hussein.

YADA, .... YADA, ..... YADA, ...... http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-02/2008-02-19-voa7.cfm?CFID=224742610&CFTOKEN=77967329



.

Aaron wrote:

So you think we have to stay there forever to stabilize Iraq, huh!!! I don't agree with that piss poor assessment of the current situation. Of course I didn't agree with you libs 2 years ago when you said Iraqi forces would never stand on there own yet, here they were in Basra a couple of weeks ago at least trying. That's a damn sight better then they were doing a year ago before the surge, which by the way you libs claimed would never work but did, began.

Aaron, those "you libs" were saying that because they figured their "Bush Hating rhetoric" would force President Bush to "cave in" to their demands, ........ but some of us knew damn well that if Bush wavered any on his promised support of "backing" the Iraqi Forces that they would not attempt to "make a stand on their own".

Me thinks the Iraqi Forces are smart enough not to repeat a "Jewish Masada" thingy.

But those "you libs" are only interested in "getting Bush", ..... no matter what the cost is to them or anyone else.

.

cheers

TerryRC wrote:
By the way, "libs" believe in things like welfare, affirmative action, hate crime laws, and universal health care. I believe in none of those things. Better find another name to call me, you fascist.

Whatever...



du....errrrrrrr

wait, Ziggy's the dude here...

lib!!!

SamCogar wrote:

Aaron wrote:

So you think we have to stay there forever to stabilize Iraq, huh!!! I don't agree with that piss poor assessment of the current situation. Of course I didn't agree with you libs 2 years ago when you said Iraqi forces would never stand on there own yet, here they were in Basra a couple of weeks ago at least trying. That's a damn sight better then they were doing a year ago before the surge, which by the way you libs claimed would never work but did, began.

Aaron, those "you libs" were saying that because they figured their "Bush Hating rhetoric" would force President Bush to "cave in" to their demands, ........ but some of us knew damn well that if Bush wavered any on his promised support of "backing" the Iraqi Forces that they would not attempt to "make a stand on their own".

Me thinks the Iraqi Forces are smart enough not to repeat a "Jewish Masada" thingy.

But those "you libs" are only interested in "getting Bush", ..... no matter what the cost is to them or anyone else.

.

cheers

They'll do anything they can to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory Sam simply because they hate GWB. We know that.

They'll do anything they can to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory Sam simply because they hate GWB. We know that.

What would be victory for you Aaron? I would consider it to be something other than "tenuously" holding "erratic" gains (I think that was how the good general put it).

"Damn those peacenicks. If it weren't for them we'd still be winning in 'Nam."

How about victory in Afghanistan? Do I get credits because I want victory in that JUSTIFIED war?

TerryRC wrote:They'll do anything they can to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory Sam simply because they hate GWB. We know that.

What would be victory for you Aaron? I would consider it to be something other than "tenuously" holding "erratic" gains (I think that was how the good general put it).

"Damn those peacenicks. If it weren't for them we'd still be winning in 'Nam."

How about victory in Afghanistan? Do I get credits because I want victory in that JUSTIFIED war?

Victory is putting together any sort of stable government that doesn't have the country isn't embroiled in a civil war, terrorist aren't given free reign and the oil is produced and shipped out at acceptable levels.

Peaceniks had very, very little to do with us leaving Nam.

A full scale war in Afghanistan would make Iraq look like a small scale exercise and is likely not winnable without the use of nuclear weapons. You guys can mistakeningly think Iraq is why we're not in Afghanistan but all your doing is showing your military ignorance.

"Peaceniks had very, very little to do with us leaving Nam.

A full scale war in Afghanistan would make Iraq look like a small scale exercise and is likely not winnable without the use of nuclear weapons. You guys can mistakeningly think Iraq is why we're not in Afghanistan but all your doing is showing your military ignorance."

Why did we leave Nam? Why are we not "in" Afghanistan?

SFCraig wrote:"Peaceniks had very, very little to do with us leaving Nam.

A full scale war in Afghanistan would make Iraq look like a small scale exercise and is likely not winnable without the use of nuclear weapons. You guys can mistakeningly think Iraq is why we're not in Afghanistan but all your doing is showing your military ignorance."

Why did we leave Nam? Why are we not "in" Afghanistan?

I've taught the Nam thing before. You guys don't want to learn.

What is your objective in Afghanistan?

Craig, you may not be aware of this, but one of the many degrees Aaron has awarded himself is PhD in history.

Also, I was unaware you had some personal objective in Afghanistan. Apparently our government's plan for that nation was to dramatically increase poppy production.

Stephanie,

It doesn't take a PhD to understand history Stephanie. Just that ability to undserstand which requiers a little logic, reasoning and common sense. You have to open your ears to hear and your eyes to see.

I've posted links to this many, many times but you've not once addressed the cold war which tells me you've never read about it. If you had, you might actually understand a little more then you do. At the very least, you might have some idea of my point of view whether you agreed with me or not.

But you are so clouded by your hatred for me that you automatically take the opposite side of any stance I do. You would rather agree wit the most liberal of posters then admit I am right. That's pretty sad and I feel sorry for you. Sam is right. You are ruled by your emotions. You should really try to work on that.

As for Afghanistan, I've seen many, including you I believe, who are propants of escalating the war there. Why and what can we hope to achieve there?

I remember the Cold War very well. I grew up, became a mother etc during this period of time.

I don't hate you. I don't like you and have a low opinion of you, there is a big difference.

After reading your final paragraph a couple of times, I think by "propant" you mean proponent. I still believe we were correct to send troops to Afghanistan. The problem in Afghanistan is we didn't invest the troop levels required to weed out the terrorists and stabalize the nation, instead we invaded Iraq. We can't send the troops required to do what needs to be done in Afghanistan because of Iraq. We were justified in our actions then and we are justified in staying, but we need more troops there.

Finally, I'd like to point out something from that wiki article you so admire.

By the late years of the Cold War, Moscow had built up a military that consumed as much as twenty-five percent of the Soviet Union's gross national product at the expense of consumer goods and investment in civilian sectors

This was one of the major factors that lead to the fall of the Soviet Union. We are headed on this path ourselves.

Just as the Soviets had currency problems, so too our we. Their's was linked to a fall in the price of oil, because they exported so much of it. Ours is linked, in part, to the sharp increases in the price of oil recently and we are a major oil importer. Coupled with our fiat money, this is a recipe for disaster.

You don't understand what fighting in Afghanistan entails and what would be required to achieve victory in that country. It’s ironic though that what is desperately needed and is achievable in Iraq is what you propose for Afghanistan at ten times the effort.

No, we shouldn’t have sent in troops to either country. Iraq was contained and Afghanistan should have been bombed flat.

No, we shouldn’t have sent in troops to either country. Iraq was contained and Afghanistan should have been bombed flat.

I sure hope Ziggy reads this because he jumped my butt for calling you despicable.

Endless occupation of Iraq and carpet bombing a nation full of innocent children........these are your brilliant solutions.

Stephanie wrote:

No, we shouldn’t have sent in troops to either country. Iraq was contained and Afghanistan should have been bombed flat.

I sure hope Ziggy reads this because he jumped my butt for calling you despicable.

Endless occupation of Iraq and carpet bombing a nation full of innocent children........these are your brilliant solutions.

Where exactly do I call for endless occupation of Iraq smart lady? Put up or shut up!!!

And you want to send in enough ground troops to win in Afghanistan but you don't want to bomb them. Thing is, you have NO IDEA how many troops would be required to win a ground war and what the consequences would be yet that's what you propose.

Doesn't make much sense to me.

Aaron,

I'm sure people here remember what you said about the occupation of Iraq in the old forum. I won't shut up about it. You think it is perfectly acceptable to occupy that nation indefinitely, you said so yourself.

I am absolutely opposed to leveling Afghanistan or any other country. You said last night

Afghanistan should have been bombed flat

.

Those are your words, not mine. You find these tactics acceptable, I do not.

We just can't seem to learn from our mistakes. We have stirred the pot in that region of the world to the point it has become a bubbling cauldron of violence and untold misery. The turmoil in so many of those nations has been exacerbated by our interference yet we just can't cut the shit. Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, just to name a few have suffered so much unrest as a direct result of US intervention in their affairs.

We demand democracy and then fail to recognize the democratically elected leaders of Pakistan and Gaza. We prop up military dictators like Hussein and Musharef whenever it suits us for as long as it suits us.

So now you're saying Afghanistan is unwinnable. We can't possibly know that because our government has never committed the resources necessary to achieving victory there. We are there.......we certainly upset the apple cart there. Are you suggesting we "abandon" Afghanistan? Do you see it as an either/or situation? Level them or leave them?

We had a legitimate reason to go into Afghanistan and we have legitimate reasons for staying. I don't want to "abandon" Iraq. I want to give Iraq back to the Iraqis. I want our government to assist the victims of US aggression in that nation by providing necessities like food and medical supplies and money to reputable relief agencies with good track records of helping refugees and victims of war etc.

Stephanie wrote:I still believe we were correct to send troops to Afghanistan. The problem in Afghanistan is we didn't invest the troop levels required to weed out the terrorists and stabalize the nation, instead we invaded Iraq. We can't send the troops required to do what needs to be done in Afghanistan because of Iraq. We were justified in our actions then and we are justified in staying, but we need more troops there.

Steph, there is hardly any difference between the terrorist "problems" in Afghanistan and the terrorist "problems" in Iraq and the number of "troop levels" has very little to do with said "problems" ......... unless you want to send a couple million to each of those countries with orders to "shoot on sight".

And neither is hardly any difference than the illegal immigrant "problems" here in the US. GEEEZUS Steph, you could deploy a million US troops to "weed out" the illegal immigrants here in the US but it would achieve no success if way more illegals are permitted to cross the border to this side than the troops are weeding out and throwing back across.

Steph, the major problem that keeps the other three (3) "problems" from being solved is that the bleeding hearts, lefty liberals, Bush Haters, etc., ........ "Want their cake and eat it too".

They all demand those "problems" be solved, ...... but at the same time they demand that "no forceful actions whatsoever be taken to solve them".

And as a MATTER OF FACT, ....... anyone who employs a "forceful act" to help solve said "problems" in the US, Iraq or Afghanistan, ....... said bleeding hearts, lefty liberals, Bush Haters, etc. will DEMAND that said perpetrator of said "forceful act" be prosecuted and sent to prison ........ and that the illegal/terrorist that was harmed by said "forceful act" be paid a MILLION DOLLARS or so for their pain and suffering.

Steph, there ain't no way in hell you can think up two (2) better incentives that are the "root cause" of the exacerbation of said "problems" in all three locales.

cheers

ps: and the same goes for Law and Order here in the US.

The rule breakers and criminals don't give a damn about any Rules or Laws that prohibit their actions ........ because they know there are a lot more Rules and Laws that protect their arses from being prosecuted if they are caught violating the aforementioned ones.

Stephanie wrote:
We had a legitimate reason to go into Afghanistan and we have legitimate reasons for staying. I don't want to "abandon" Iraq. I want to give Iraq back to the Iraqis. I want our government to assist the victims of US aggression in that nation by providing necessities like food and medical supplies and money to reputable relief agencies with good track records of helping refugees and victims of war etc.

And you really think that will have greater success than our own 40 years of War on Poverty here in the US.


HA, .... HA, ..... HA ............

.