slept2long

What about if the food editor for local paper asked a server what the server thought of the food at your restaurant? Would you fire him for answering that he thought you served food of less than stellar quality? What if he went into detail about how your kitchen staff broke food handling rules all the time?

slept2long

Actually you'd have to be a fucking idiot NOT to secure your supply lines before you advance into a country.

Holdouts? We drove right thru the cities. Those are cities we never secured in the first place.

Why would anyone be surprised by these?

Exactly. Why would they want us in there country?

Citizens fighting to keep there country from becoming another US controlled state. Another province in the empire. Are you saying that the US' history with regard to "creating democracy" is one that should make the Iraqis welcome us?

Yeah. Why don't we fire all the damned protesters.

I heard on NPR this morning that Rommel was defeated in North Africa because he outran his gas trucks. If you don't have supplies you can't fight. Supply lines are a big deal IMO. If your supply lines aren't secure that's a big problem, also my opinion.

The military is surprised. Where is the link were the cololnel or whatever his rank said they didn't war game against this type of enemy?

No they won't. They will go along with the official line. Give them a day or two.

Fr.Andrew

(slept2long): The military is surprised. Where is the link were the cololnel or whatever his rank said they didn't war game against this type of enemy?
(Fr Andrew): Even worse news.

ybnormal

markstake:

Yep, I'm speaking my mind. Which is beside the point. No matter my opinion or who I speak it to, it isn't going to get people killed. Peter Arnett is supposedly a "serious" journalist who showed an incredible lack of judgement, not to mention intelligence, and has used his credibility as a means to make a bad situation worse.

But you are attempting to insert your own timeline here, my Friend. This chronology did not begin when Arnett went on Iraqi TV. I suggest you should look at the bigger picture. I suggest that folks like yourself, who support this travesty of justice, not only will get people killed, but you/they have already had people killed.

Had not a few powerful men, for their own self aggrandizement, shamelessly shoved this travesty down the world's throat, NO ONE to date would have been killed in Iraq on your/our/my account.

Had the ignorant and bloodthirsty 70% who egged Bush on, instead spoke up like Peter Arnett and MOST of the folks on this forum, NO ONE would be dying on your/our/my account as we speak.

So please don't chide me, OR most folks on this forum for what Bush and his/your 70% have brought down on your own conscience. I dare say that Peter Arnett owns NO part of it. I know damn well that I own NO part of it. Can you make the same not guilty statement?

As for that bigger picture I mentioned... Bush has openly stated that there will be more wars, and at this point, we have every reason to think they will ALL be without the approval of the UN. He and his handlers are openly threatening and bullying other countries all over the world. If Iraq turns out to be the often-predicted "cakewalk", then there is every reason to believe these New American Century zealots will indeed be encouraged to invade other countries, again, without the world's approval. Thus, there is an argument to be made against this pretense being just another "cakewalk".

If Peter Arnett played a small role in making this less than a cakewalk, thus possibly preventing Bush's "many" threatened future wars, then Arnett maybe saved many more people's lives today, than the mere hundreds or thousands that you are currently trying to escape personal responsibility for.

Can you, with a clear conscience, tell us that you wholly trust this administration, and its military leadership, to deal with the nuclear threat of North Korea, with Bush's recent record of international diplomacy?


More people will die because of this, and we're arguing about whether he was right, and whether he was within his rights. I think a reality check is in order.

I ain't arguing whether he was right or not... I don't consider it any of my business. I would never be so hypocritical as to exercise my Free Speech rights to criticize someone else's Free Speech rights. I speak out against your type of silencing anytime, anywhere.


People are still going to die.

And since I would stop it this instant if I could, not to mention that I would have NEVER unleashed this totally out of control killing machine in the first place, I have reason to have a much clearer conscience than its pushers will have. So again, please stop trying to shift your personal responsibility for these innocent deaths on to nice, peaceful folks like me. Other than my accepted guilt by association, I am an innocent in this thang.

Peace!

christ-on-a-stick

Great post, ybnormal. A point not to be forgotten.

It reminds me of the several times recently I've heard people express the sentiment that "now that the war has started, the time for protest is over and we need to support our troops" (blowhard Bill O'Reilly just the other day). Excuse me? What could be more supportive of our men and women in uniform than to try to get them home sooner rather than later, unharmed, by ending this insanity NOW?

Viti

Freedom of speech? Freedom of the press? No...Freedom Fucking Fries. I feel like the whole world has lost their damn minds. The Daily Mirror hired Arnett so he can continue his work and tell the truth.

Michael Savage is calling him "Benedict Arnett"

Oh and Gurdur, since Vicesboy is my husband can I come live with you too? I am more than happy to share with COAS though

emphryio

I could probably live off potatoes and sleep in a corner somewhere.

vicesboy

weeeeeeeee

freedom of speech, cool internet news feeds and I get to be shared by ladyshea and christ-on-a-stick!!!!!

I am loving Europe already!!!

vb

markstake

ybnormal says:
Can someone please tell me where I said I was pro-war in this thread? Does the observation I made depend on a pro-war or anti-war stance? Nope, not at all. Does it even depend on whether Arnett was right? Nope, not at all.

ybnormal goes on and on about my alleged pro-war stance, and then:
You support Arnett saying things that will get people killed, but rail against my voice saying he was wrong to do it? And you say you would stop the killing if you could? You are an advocate of behavior that's leading to more death.

ybnormal then goes on to sayThis is truly one of the funniest things I have read in a long time. The very sad thing is I believe you were serious. By the way, can you show me where I said Arnett should be silenced? Hmm. In fact, I'm a staunch defender of his/your rights. Earlier in this thread, I posted:I have yet to see anyone refute my argument that Arnett will get more people killed.

markstake

Ummmm...

You can fire people for that. Whether it's ethical or not is another matter. It's legal.

It wouldn't be legal if he were talking to the board of health, the police, or other legal entity where he is legally obligated to speak up.