Welcome to PatsFans.com

BadAss Marine

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PonyExpress, Aug 13, 2007.

  1. PonyExpress

    PonyExpress Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,658
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

  2. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    I saw that, was gonna post it....... Figured I'd get lambasted for posting war Porn........... I'll I can say is.

    Semper Fidelis Brother......... You are the {next} Greatest Generation.




    to all you haters out there: doesn't look quite like the war dogs that stormed the sands of Iwo, does it?.......... It's okay though, his courage is in his heart, and his soul. He'll keep you safe at night as well.
  3. PonyExpress

    PonyExpress Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,658
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    Now's not the time to back down from a fight, at home, or abroad. What you jokingly call "war porn" represents the greatness of our nation, personified in this one talented and courageous jarhead. If people have a problem with a patriotic call to duty, they can go f themselves. Time to man up.
  4. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    fukcing AMEN, brother, I did {in a different time of course} and I'd do it now {cept I'm too old and ugly for them to accept :( }

    notice how the p*ssy haters who masturbate to the deaths of just such heros avoid this thread. Telling huh..................
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2007
  5. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,067
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +331 / 1 / -9

    There are plenty of people out there just like this guy but the scummy lefty media doesn't want you to know anything about them.

    When Pat Tillman joined the military and said he wanted to serve and help his country the Lefty Liberal Democrat Haters made fun of him, called him "brainwashed, crazy and worse.

    Now they think he was murdered by GW Bush he is suddenly "their hero", the same people that are whailing and slobbering over his death are the same people that called him an a$s hole when he signed up.

    A Black Marine Proud Of His Country Proud Of His Military, lefty liberals want nothing to do with this guy, they have their own heros, Murtha, Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi, Sean Penn, Obooma, Hugo Chavez, Pant Suit, and Striesand.
    :bricks:
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2007
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,730
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +160 / 4 / -4

    Who would have thought you guys like poetry. The guy should be in a poetry slam. He's quite good. It's interesting, but he seems to list many different religious groups, but strangely leaves out Jews, and does he insult Democrats? I can't quite understand him. At any rate, let's hope he's not fighting in Iraq, where he's merely being exploited thanks to lies by which the administration launched that sad war.
  7. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,730
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +160 / 4 / -4

    I don't think that's true. In general, liberals supported our Afghanistan efforts because that was directly linked to the WTC. Where we differ is on Iraq.
  8. PonyExpress

    PonyExpress Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,658
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    Patters,
    Many intellectual icons of the left were conflicted about 9/11. On the one hand, their instincts deplored so heinous an act of violence. On the other, their ideological bias embraced this barbarism as a blow delivered against their principal enemy, American "capitalism" and "imperialism". Many liberals remained conflicted afterwards, overwhelmed by a tidal wave of popular support for retribution, but looking for an opportunity to reverse the "imperialistic" trend sweeping the country. They were uneasy partners throughout the Afghanistan operation, but for political expediency sided with the predictable victors. Those on the left today who claim support for "Enduring Freedom" as proof of their hard edge against our enemies, are IMO being disingenuous. IMO they would never have launched such a campaign had they been at the helm of the ship of state. Rather, they would have engaged in the usual rigmarole which has defined Leftist foriegn policy since 1969: appeasement, accommodation, sprinkled with lofty rhetoric, with the entrenched media covering their tracks to make defeat seem like victory, weakness seem like strength and cowardice like courage.
  9. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,730
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +160 / 4 / -4

    I think you're talking about the far left, where among some, WTC was seen more as the result of American imperialism than the barbarism of radical fundamentalists. But, let's remember that right after 9/11, Bush's approval rating was close to 90%, with the rest split between disapprove and "don't know." I think that's as good an indicator as any of the sentiment of all Americans. We stuck together until many of us became convinced that Bush was exploiting 9/11 for an unnecessary invasion of Iraq, and that truly disgusted us.

    Going after Al Qaeda has full support of most leftists, with the likely exception of pacifists and radicals (left and right) who are anti-Israel. The fact is most leftists understand that religious fundamentalism in all its forms is a right-wing movement. Had Clinton been President, I think we would have used all our energy to go into Afghanistan and to enhance our intelligence capabilities. It's foolish to think that any president would not take very strong action against an attack like 9/11, but might have done say in a way that created fewer enemies for us, not more.

    Where you see weakness, I see strength. What you see as strength, I see as insecurity. Rarely has the world been changed through means of war. The problems in much of the world are the result of wars and occupations. While war is sometimes necessary, it wasn't necessary in Iraq where containment was working reasonably well and could have been made to work better.

    What I think people like you need is a lot more patience. A nation does not evolve in a year anymore than a family does. It evolves by having stability, education, health care, etc. Those things take away the desperation that fuels radical movements. War makes people more desperate. And again, the Iraq war was not necessary. It has nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

    Tell me something, If an entity you were indifferent about accidentally killed your family, destroyed your country, and cost you your livelihood, would you still be indifferent? That's the phenomenon that's going on in Iraq, and one of the main reasons we cannot win. The other reason is the fact that none of the regional powers in the ME want a strong Iraq; it's in their economic and security interest to keep Iraq weak.
  10. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Very astute Pony.

    I'd add that, if (never happen, but if), the Administration said "Know what guys, you're right..... Iraq's done. We're out and we're gonna REFOCUS on Afghanistan and the Taliban and quadruple our military assets and commitment there and in he lawless Pakistani frontier". The left's "support" for "that front" would rapidly dissipate.

    They've just been in unique position that there are 2 fronts for them to play with. One they can morally (in their minds) oppose, while still having another front (that's more difficult to openly oppose) to say, "see, we're strong militarily, we support this part of the war, it's only Iraq that's bad".

    Before, you discount that immediately, let me qualify it and say, not all liberals feel that way and it's not across the board, but THERE IS a significant part of the progressive movement that is doing that.

    There is a sizable contingent of folks that DO NOT beleive that there is a threat, or at least feel it's a minimal one. Some even say we need "more diplomacy". Those folks are out of touch.

    It's like this in so many areas.
  11. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,067
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +331 / 1 / -9

    Right, if we sent everything we have into Afghanistan and started to WIN in Afghanistan the Liberal Democrats would be screaming and whailing about the casualty's and they would want us to surrender there as well.

    The Left Wing Liberal Sore Loser Democrats don't want any type of victory for America while the Hated Bush is the President, their Hatred consumes them.
  12. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    I disagree with some of that.
    Your definition of those who oppose the invasion and occupation of Iraq as "left" is simplistic and disengenuous (sp?). I'm a Goldwater conservative (from way back) who saw the "effort" in Iraq as wasteful and confounding. Lots of conservatives like me are CONSERVATIVE when it comes to the use of the military and the ability to trust the government. The Iraq invasion was political and had nothing to do with the attacks on the WTC, finding Bin Ladin and AQ, or punishing the governments of the world who support the terrorists who want to kill our kids. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, our worst enemies even if their dictator pretends to like us, have been let off the hook, IMO. No big fan of Hussein, but I'm also no big fan of the military junta in charge of Burma. Both had about as much to do with 9/11 as Lichtenstein did.

    You need to know that there are plenty of real conservatives who think the US has lost its way (Pat Buchanan) and that we aren't doing enough to protect the borders and ports or rooting out foreign terrorists that are already in this country. The resources being spent in Iraq are being wasted. Spending billions and the lives of our troops to "stabilize" a complete sh-thole like Iraq is not conservative by any stretch of definition.

    Whadaya think of that?
  13. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    I'd agree, but I would up the radical element of the left to 20%. I'd also agree that the Iraq was a strategic move and the WMD, UN violations, ect.... just fit the bill to allow it to occur. I think they convinced themselves of those things (different from direct lying) , particularly the WMD part. But bottom line, it was a strategic move in an overall WOT objective. They just couldn't make that dog hunt, so to speak.......

    .

    Part of the problem is that the whole AQ issue is outside the "age of Ideology" equation, thus outside the political world playground we were used to operating in, and it's WHY there is so much disagreement on how to wage it between us. The threat from radical Islamist is a faith based threat. It operates totally outside the political sphere and there is ONLY one way to deal with it. By removing it through force and violence.

    The problem is, you have to work within the "age of Ideology" sphere to do that. We easily toppled regimes an invaded countries using Ideology based strategic and tactical maneuvers. NOBODY was prepared for the difficulties we face erasing this faith based threat. It's not the good ole days, where you can call up a crusade and go on an "ethnic cleansing" bender to stomp it out (kinda like they used to do ;) ).

    I'm not sure the dems would have done any better, though I agree, they would have tried hard as well.

    to be clear, when I say "Ideology" based thinking, I mean it in the context of what we've come to think of as traditional political and social based reasoning. i.e. imposing your political or social will on someone else's through diplomacy or war. That kinda thing.



    Again, if you believe in the stuff I just talked about, this speaks directly to it. Invading Iraq (imposing our political and social will) was "age of ideology" solution to a faith based problem. In fairness, because it's all we really knew at that point. Granted, it's taking 5 years, but FINALLY some Sunnis insurgents whose primary objections were ideological (we invaded their country) are switching over (regardless of why). You can explain it as ideology vs. ideology. We haven't seen AQ turn up and "say, gee, I don't feel like jihading anymore, think I'll start cooperating". You never will either (ideology vs. faith). No, this doesn't mean we need to turn into zelots :D

    So again, I think we were kinda swinging a wild axe at first (barely better now), but for sure, the WOT isn't gonna be like "other wars" and cannot be fought like them either. A new war, requires new (outside the box) thnking.

    Again, I'm just hypothesizing and totally to the fact that I may be full of crap :D.
  14. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Oh no, not at all. I didn't mean to say that. I agree with most of what you just said. I was speaking to a small (possible growing) part of the left, which is simplistic, which is why I qualified it. The left (and right) is wide ranging and cross over is easy. You might be shocked, but there are parts of me that are suprisingly liberal :eek: .

    Read my thoughts above. They're kinda jumbled cuz I just kinda blurted them out without organizing them. But is kinda goes to what you are saying. I'll admit that my initial support for ANY WOT move was wild axing swinging anger (I have very personal reason for it). Coming down, and doing A LOT of research and thinking has totally changed my thinking. I think that we cannot abandon Iraq, not for conservative reasons, or even emotional. I think that losing (still trying to determine what losing is at this point) will have HUGE negative WOT ramifications. In particular if we allow a third realm to enter the equation. We'll be facing a faith based threat using ideological means, while surrounded by a ethnic crisis (sunni/shia conflagration). Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

    I actually try (perhaps it doesn't seem that way), to take more theoretical (not political) angle when is comes to warfare stuff.

    Again, I'm not a military historian or expert and probably full of sh!t. Just a simple minded guy that read a lot the many swirling topics. It'll take much greater minds then mine to figure this stuff out.
  15. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    By the way, that slam poem was really cool. He really delivered his message well. I liked the way he tied the ending around to the beginning. On pure artistic value, I give it an 8.5.
    Good post.
  16. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,067
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +331 / 1 / -9

    Liberals:
    They can't call him a "redneck cracker" :singing:

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>