To: Mr. Sheep - Politics and War Forum - j-body.org

To: Mr. Sheep - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

Current Page: 1 of 2

To: Mr. Sheep

Sunday, August 13, 2006 8:21 PM on j-body.org

I got this from a person who I met on a cigar board. It was an interesting read and an interesting standpoint. I thought it was good, so I am sharing it.

P.S. I don't want to come off as a chest beating military freak. Truth be known, I am not. I am proud of the military though, and I do get annoyed by the people that run out and cry about how we are "an oppressing force", or we are "evil". I now realize that they are just sheep, and that is what they do. So, no hard feelings, Mr. Sheep.

Subject: Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs(Long, but well worth the read)

Gen. Dula's letter to the University of Washington Student Senate Leader,
Jill Edwards.

Jill Edwards is one of the students at the University of Washington who did not want to honor Medal of Honor winner USMC Colonel Greg Boyington because she does not think those who serve in the U.S. Armed services are good role models. I think that this response is an excellent and thought provoking response.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
General Dula is a Retired Air Force Lt. Gen.

Gen. Dula's letter to the University of Washington student senate leader.

To: Edwards, Jill (student, UW)
Subject: Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

Miss Edwards, I read of your 'student activity' regarding the proposed memorial to Col Greg Boyington, USMC and a Medal of Honor winner. I suspect you will receive a bellyful of angry e-mails from conservative
folks like me. You may be too young to appreciate fully the sacrifices of generations of servicemen and servicewomen on whose shoulders you and your fellow students stand. I forgive you for the untutored ways of youth and your naïveté. It may be that you are, simply, a sheep. There's no dishonor in being a sheep - - as long as you know and accept what you are.

Please take a couple of minutes to read the following. And be grateful for the thousands - - millions - - of American sheepdogs who permit you the freedom to express even bad ideas.

Brett Dula

Sheepdog, retired

-------------------------------------------------------
ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS
By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER,
Ph.D., author of "On Killing."

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains:
What is worth defending?
What is worth dying for?
What is worth living for?

- William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997 One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident."
This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.
Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record
rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably
less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep. I mean nothing negative by calling them
sheep. To me, it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need
warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out
there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it.
There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf." If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal
human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world.
They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence
than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too
hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep.
Any sheep dog who intentionally ha rms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours. Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the
land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog
cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa." Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had
the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero? Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be.

Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that
go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a
little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day.
After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The
sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into "warriorhood", you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference. There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.

There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of
violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language:
Slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself. Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs.
But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to
alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke- Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to
each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you
are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be.
It is a conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay.
When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many police officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying a weapon. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other
cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved
every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die.
That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?" Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would
probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic
accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them. Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand
there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?" It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and
horror when the wolf shows up. Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking.
Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in "Fear Less", his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms
with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get
by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling." Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level. And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the
day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a
sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself..."Baa."
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy.
It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The
sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from "sheephood" and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

"If It Weren't For The United States Military"
"There Would Be NO United States of America"

Team GREEN
Suspension Division - "Handling Before Horsepower"
Making the turns since 1999
1998 EK Civic Hatch - Yes, it's a Honda.

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Sunday, August 13, 2006 9:28 PM on j-body.org

John Wilken

Powerful rhetoric. I've saved this to my desktop so I can re-read it if our country is ever involved in a justified military action.

I don't consider myself a sheep, even though I've been against this war in Iraq since the begining. If I had to choose between the three, I'd be leaning toward sheepdog with some wolf tendencies. Maybe it's because my opinion is that Iraq wasn't ever a threat, and every soldier sent over there is one less watching the herd over here.

Vietnam was cited, which was supposed to "stop the threat of communism". When we left Vietnam, their armies put down their guns, picked up their pitch forks and went back to farming. The only difference in their lives was the dead toll, land mines and POW/MIA's that didn't find their way home. Nothing positive came out of this war.

What will history say about this Iraq war? Looking back at Vietnam, it was a mistake to go and a mistake to stay as long as we did. We didn't stop communism, nor was it a threat to our way of life. The Iraq war will be written about the same way by our children. When we faced Iraq on the Kuwait border, there were no WMD's used against us. That should have been the first indication that no WMD's existed in Iraq. (Before this turns into another WMD's or NO WMD's thread, ask yourself this question: "I am being attacked and losing. Should I use the big guns or just quit?" ) We sent troops to hunt for Osama because the government said he was the one responsible for 9/11. Something happened in Bush's head and we headed into Iraq. The best reasoning for why we did that seems just as feeble as fighting in Vietnam to stop the communist threat.

I support our troops, but I don't support Bush, the war in Iraq, random bombings or use of force just because "we're the biggest dogs in the UN".

This article would have had a different effect on me if the war had better justification then "we were in the desert anyway, turn left and head for Iraq".

.

John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Monday, August 14, 2006 4:22 AM on j-body.org

GAM (The Kilted One)

RaiLS: I appreciate the article, because, it's mostly true however, I point this question at yourself and at those that believe it justifies all military actions even those that were unfounded or aggressive:

Whom should you fear more, those that wield the sword, or those that command the soldiers?

I don't have a thing against the troops at all, those that discharge their duties (for whatever reasons) with honour are not the people whom I have a problem with. Those that use the military as an instrument of projecting power to fit their own personal agenda, I have SERIOUS problems with.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Iraq is this generation's Vietnam... or more pointedly: It's another Somalia.

Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Monday, August 14, 2006 5:17 AM on j-body.org

Rosario

Wow, That was a great read.....

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Monday, August 14, 2006 8:34 AM on j-body.org

Keeper Of The Light (LordKOTL)

Going off John and GAM:

One of the things the article cites is standing up for something greater than one's self. Who define's what's greater, and who defines the litimus of who's the sheepdog and who's the wolf?

After all, from another perspective, In Vietnam, and Iraq, our solders could be construed as the wolves, and the Al queda and the VC could be the sheepdogs.

Unfortunately, in this world, everything is perspective. And sometimes buying into a greater cause by said sheep means that they end up as nothingt more than mutton for the gain of the shepherd.

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Monday, August 14, 2006 8:58 AM on j-body.org

AGuSTiN

So be the article's definition, wolves attack and sheepdogs protect. Iraq didn't attack us, ever. We attacked it. Twice.

That makes us the wolves, right?

---

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Monday, August 14, 2006 9:57 AM on j-body.org

AMERICONIUM (Adbot Rocks)

AGuSTiN wrote:So be the article's definition, wolves attack and sheepdogs protect. Iraq didn't attack us, ever. We attacked it. Twice.

It is my belief that the first gulf conflict was to protect Kuwait. A larger, domineering country tried to occupy it, and we helped deflect those attacks.

However, I was in the Navy at the time, and my information about the attacks came from military sources, so if you've been educated differently, then we don't disagree with what happened, those that sourced the information do.

As far as the current conflict, I cannot comment, since most of my information came from news sources, and as of now, I am having a great deal of difficulty determining was is real, what is a misrepresentation of the truth, and what are blatant lies, which ever side of the fence they spring from.

The letter RaiLs posted is a good one. And it sums up our society rather nicely. But a good point was made by Keeper. Who decides which label gets placed where?

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Monday, August 14, 2006 10:13 AM on j-body.org

AGuSTiN

^^

Sure, but they didn't attack us. I understand the reasoning of why we went to Kuwait, but is it the sheepdog's duty to protect flocks that aren't theirs?

---

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Monday, August 14, 2006 10:24 AM on j-body.org

John Wilken

AGuSTiN wrote:^^

Sure, but they didn't attack us. I understand the reasoning of why we went to Kuwait, but is it the sheepdog's duty to protect flocks that aren't theirs?

I'd vote "no" if my vote actually mattered. It's not like "we the people" are given a choice. When we left Kuwait, we put a king back into power. Substitute one wolf for another...

And where do weapons inspections fall into this catagory? It's a preventative measure, so it's sheepdog. But it's also an offensive move, so it's wolf. And it's motivated by fear, so it's also sheep.

.

John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Monday, August 14, 2006 11:18 AM on j-body.org

AMERICONIUM (Adbot Rocks)

Again, it's my understanding, that Kuwait asked for our help. So if we refused to render aid, what would you label us then? As for the weapons inspections, after the Kuwait deal, we decided that we didn't want Iraq to own weapons of a biological nature, because, A. They were used against their own countrymen, and B. However ineffective they were, had one actually been assembled properly, a SCUD missile had the capabilities to transport said biological weapons out of Iraq, and who wants that? Lastly, I believe it was the United States that put Saddam into power in the first place, so perhaps we felt a little guilty and resigned to remove him from power. We failed to do so in 91. However, I don't know why the powers that be concluded after September 11, 2001, that we should confront Iraq again. I'm sure there's a good answer, however, I have not educated myself in the history of the last 15 years to understand it, let alone come up with one.

Oil is money is power, and unfortunately, that's what this all breaks down to. In my head at least.

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Monday, August 14, 2006 12:13 PM on j-body.org

Luke

To anyone who thinks we shouldnt be in Iraq, I would like for you to come over here and talk to the Iraqi people. Talk to the people who's families are being killed every day by insurgent violence. After all, its not just insurgents against Americans here, its Suni's against Shiites against Kurds.

One of the problems with the war in Iraq, is that this culture has created a large number of "sheep" and "wolves" and not many "sheep dogs". It doesnt matter whether or not you think America should have ousted Sadaam, the fact is that we did. And if we leave now, the country will be destroyed..

The governement is not yet capable of controlling the insurgency, terrorists would flock to Iraq as it would become a land of "anything goes". An Iraq without the U.S. presence would become a training ground, and safe-haven for terrorists from many countries.

Iraq differs from Vietnam, my father was in Vietnam, I am in Iraq.....Military goals were achieved swiftly in Iraq, not so in Vietnam. The dictatorship of Sadaam and his supporters in the military were destroyed. What Iraq faces now is not conflict between the US and a military force trying to re-take lost ground. Iraq faces Terrorists, terrorists who not only try to kill U.S. forces, but who now actually prefer to target its citizens to turn them against each other, to create a civil war. That is the goal of the "wolves" here.

Removal of U.S. forces from Iraq is simply an idea by the "sheep" of America, for they are in denial. Denial that causes them to believe if we leave, everything will be fine back in America. It will not, terrorists would run rampent in Iraq, Iran would be bolstered with new confidence now that the U.S. Military is not right next store.

Two of the biggest terrorism supporting nations (Syria and Iran) are now split by hundreds of thousands of U.S. Military persons, if you do not believe that is a strategic victory in its own right your need to open your eyes. The U.S. has HUGE air bases here in Iraq(Al Asad, Balad, Al Taqaddum, BIAP) and we have an Arabic governement in Iraq who is grateful of our presence and who supports us. That was previously UNHEARD of in this region.

Terrorism is rearing its ugly head again, this time against Isreal and in the United Kingdom. Iraq is such a key strategic location for the Coalition militaries to combat terrorism, if you think we would just up and leave on a whim, you are sorely mistaken, and are indeed in denial.

2004 WR Blue/silver STi
Cobb Stage II
12.69 @ 106.1mph 1.66 = 60ft

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Monday, August 14, 2006 12:20 PM on j-body.org

Luke

Edit...one interesting similarity between Iraq and Vietnam are the cries of the "sheep" the people in denial to pull out and leave both conflicts. Perhaps the greatest challenge faced in Vietnam and Iraq is that the U.S. has to win two wars at once....We are trying to win the Strategic war and the war for public opinion. And the latter is a mistake by government leaders.

Wars are not popular, people die, they are long, expensive and many Americans do not have the stomach for them. And perhaps the hardest strain on the Military achieving victory, is the protestors, the pundits, the arm chair quarter-backs who preach a negative outlook on the conduct of our Military. That is the greatest threat to victory, not the enemy.

2004 WR Blue/silver STi
Cobb Stage II
12.69 @ 106.1mph 1.66 = 60ft

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Monday, August 14, 2006 2:41 PM on j-body.org

John Wilken

First and foremost, Thanks for joining the military to defend my right to tell you I think you're wrong. With that said...

Luke wrote:To anyone who thinks we shouldnt be in Iraq, I would like for you to come over here and talk to the Iraqi people. Talk to the people who's families are being killed every day by insurgent violence. After all, its not just insurgents against Americans here, its Suni's against Shiites against Kurds.

We opened the door for the insurgents when we took over. Saddam's army kept insurgents in check. As far as how this effects the Iraqi people, did you enlist in the Iraqi military or the US military? How does guarding the Iraqi people make it any safer for me to fly in an airplane?

Luke wrote:One of the problems with the war in Iraq, is that this culture has created a large number of "sheep" and "wolves" and not many "sheep dogs". It doesnt matter whether or not you think America should have ousted Sadaam, the fact is that we did. And if we leave now, the country will be destroyed..

Disagree. If we left today, Iraq would have a civil war. One side would win, one side would lose, but there'd be an Iraq. Let them fight eachother instead of plotting to blow up more airplanes.

Luke wrote:The governement is not yet capable of controlling the insurgency, terrorists would flock to Iraq as it would become a land of "anything goes". An Iraq without the U.S. presence would become a training ground, and safe-haven for terrorists from many countries.

According to Bush, many of the terrorists we're dealing with were trained in Iraq and funded by Iraq. It was part of his speech when we dropped our first bombs in Iraq.

Luke wrote:Iraq differs from Vietnam, my father was in Vietnam, I am in Iraq.....Military goals were achieved swiftly in Iraq, not so in Vietnam. The dictatorship of Sadaam and his supporters in the military were destroyed. What Iraq faces now is not conflict between the US and a military force trying to re-take lost ground. Iraq faces Terrorists, terrorists who not only try to kill U.S. forces, but who now actually prefer to target its citizens to turn them against each other, to create a civil war. That is the goal of the "wolves" here.

Terrorists are a tougher enemy than the Iraqi army. What makes you think that those terrorists will stop at whatever time our army leaves? Whether it's now, 2 years from now or 10 years from now, the only difference is how much resentment we're creating and allowing to fester.

Luke wrote:Removal of U.S. forces from Iraq is simply an idea by the "sheep" of America, for they are in denial. Denial that causes them to believe if we leave, everything will be fine back in America. It will not, terrorists would run rampent in Iraq, Iran would be bolstered with new confidence now that the U.S. Military is not right next store.

As long as we're present in the middle east, we are motivating terrorists to action against us. You can pound your chest and claim victory, but what has been won? The "free world" we live in is less free every time we have to take off our shoes at an airport. Add to the list no beverages on a plane. We can't win against terrorists, if we make everyone fly naked with no luggage, terrorists will surgically implant bombs in their asses and we lose anyway. Keep telling me that hittng a hornets nest with a stick is a good idea, but remember that those angry hornets are going to sting someone. They can't beat us on the battlefield, so they beat us in our own backyard.

Luke wrote:Two of the biggest terrorism supporting nations (Syria and Iran) are now split by hundreds of thousands of U.S. Military persons, if you do not believe that is a strategic victory in its own right your need to open your eyes. The U.S. has HUGE air bases here in Iraq(Al Asad, Balad, Al Taqaddum, BIAP) and we have an Arabic governement in Iraq who is grateful of our presence and who supports us. That was previously UNHEARD of in this region.

You're surrounded and that's a good thing? </sarcasm> Don't get too comfortable there, you know Bush is going to get us involved in the Isreal/Lebanon dealio. CNN reported that the US is going to send between 5000 and 15000 troops there, so add another country that is motivated to initiate terrorism against us.

Luke wrote:Terrorism is rearing its ugly head again, this time against Isreal and in the United Kingdom. Iraq is such a key strategic location for the Coalition militaries to combat terrorism, if you think we would just up and leave on a whim, you are sorely mistaken, and are indeed in denial.

Do you really believe that the terrorist attempt originating in the UK wasn't a direct result of the US's involvement in Iraq? Those planes were to explode in various places in the US, causing "greater than 9/11 destruction". While you're in the desert looking for an enemy, they're in the airports launching an attack against us. Who is in denial here? You can claim all the strategic importance of a US military presence in Iraq, but we're paying the price for it in the civilian world.

.

John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Monday, August 14, 2006 2:51 PM on j-body.org

John Wilken

Luke wrote:Edit...one interesting similarity between Iraq and Vietnam are the cries of the "sheep" the people in denial to pull out and leave both conflicts. Perhaps the greatest challenge faced in Vietnam and Iraq is that the U.S. has to win two wars at once....We are trying to win the Strategic war and the war for public opinion. And the latter is a mistake by government leaders.

Wars are not popular, people die, they are long, expensive and many Americans do not have the stomach for them. And perhaps the hardest strain on the Military achieving victory, is the protestors, the pundits, the arm chair quarter-backs who preach a negative outlook on the conduct of our Military. That is the greatest threat to victory, not the enemy.

When it was the hunt for Osama, the man we were told was responsible for 9/11, I stood and cheered. When it became the over-throwing of Iraq with NO JUST CAUSE, I started protesting. It's not that I don't have the stomach for war, or that I am in "denial", the war in Iraq was not, is not, and will never be a justifiable action.

Just like Vietnam, we were fed BS reasoning for invading Iraq. Until we lose our freedom of speech, I will continue to protest this unjust act by my government.

.

John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Monday, August 14, 2006 5:10 PM on j-body.org

Luke

John,

I wasnt referring to you in particular for anything I posted above, they were all general comments. Please dont attack me personally(which you have). Your opinions are your own, but I can tell you from experience that some of them are wrong. People can sit and argue "why" the terrorists hate the US more, is it becasue of our overall foreign policy or is it because of what we are doing in Iraq right now. I CAN tell you that if you think it is just because of what we are doing in Iraq, you are WRONG. They have hated us since the time of Jesus Christ, and will continue to hate the "infadel" until they day their own suicide bomb explodes. By the way, these people are going to hate us FOREVER, as long as we are primarily Christian(or not Muslim), and support Isreal, they will hate us. So tell me which of those you would prefer to condemn first. Your right, terrorists are a tough enemy, they are driven by religious fanaticism that is all but impossible to crush.

What we can stop however, are legitimate governments that support that kind of fanaticism. Like I said earlier, you may think we went into Iraq un-justly and without cause, I too can not say other wise. But what I can say is that we are HERE. Whether you like it or not, we are going to execute someones objectives. And we will win, the ONLY thing and I repeat ONLY thing that can stop us, is the politicians pulling out early, and trying to appease the outspoken minority. That "strategically" is no way to fight a war, you and I both know that. We did it that way in Vietnam.

Quote:

You're surrounded and that's a good thing? </sarcasm> Don't get too comfortable there, you know Bush is going to get us involved in the Isreal/Lebanon dealio. CNN reported that the US is going to send between 5000 and 15000 troops there, so add another country that is motivated to initiate terrorism against us.

John, obviously you were never a U.S. Marine. There is a popular saying by the great "Chesty" Puller when the Marines were surrounded at Koto-Ri in Korea: "we're surrounded, GOOD, that simplifies things" ....What I am trying to say is that militariliy, we are right where we want to be, dividing the enemy, right in their back yard, able to strike at a moments notice.

Quote:

Terrorists are a tougher enemy than the Iraqi army. What makes you think that those terrorists will stop at whatever time our army leaves? Whether it's now, 2 years from now or 10 years from now, the only difference is how much resentment we're creating and allowing to fester.

John, please read what I am writing when you answer. I didnt say the terrorists would ever stop, I said that we HAVE to stay until the Iraqi People can take care of them their selves.

And please dont lecture me about how these insurgents are "tougher" than the Iraqi army was, when were you over here?, how many have you had to kill?, how many have you come face to face with? Can you tell me how many you have seen that are actually foreign fighters, and how many are just brothers and fathers and sons forced into insurgent activities, or else their families will be killed. Come on John, HOW MANY HAVE YOU SEEN????

Arguing over the internet is exhausting, hell, this is a rare day off for me over here so forgive me if I do not respond again for quite some time.

I do want you to know though that the great thing about the Military, and the Marines in particular. Is that we will defend the Constitution of the United States and execute the policy of our elected leaders to protect our country. NO MATTER who those elected leaders may be. Remember that we do not have the luxury of sitting back in our homes with our families who we miss dearly, and second guessing the government. You however, do. So forgive me if I fail to shed a tear, because you feel it is an infringement upon your freedom to have to take your shoes off at the airport. We have to wonder every day we step outside, if today is the day, is today the day, that round doesnt hit my chicken plate, is today the day the missile tracks onto my helicopter, is today the day my wife gets a @!#$ telephone call she will remember the rest of her life!!!, is today the day....

2004 WR Blue/silver STi
Cobb Stage II
12.69 @ 106.1mph 1.66 = 60ft

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Monday, August 14, 2006 5:16 PM on j-body.org

RaiLS

Quote:

We opened the door for the insurgents when we took over. Saddam's army kept insurgents in check. As far as how this effects the Iraqi people, did you enlist in the Iraqi military or the US military? How does guarding the Iraqi people make it any safer for me to fly in an airplane?

Sadam's Armies did nothing but oppress and destroy. Can you back up your claim that they kept anything in check, let alone insurgants?

We are not there to guard anyone. We are there to train them to guard themselves. In the process, we have to take care of buisness until they can move in and fend for themselves.

Quote:

Disagree. If we left today, Iraq would have a civil war. One side would win, one side would lose, but there'd be an Iraq. Let them fight eachother instead of plotting to blow up more airplanes.

That is exactly what we do not want to happen. One side will not win and the other lose. They will fight forever. As soon as one side takes over, the other side will build strength and start another war. It will never end until they learn to live with eachother. That will never happen if we just leave and let them duke it out.

Quote:

Luke wrote:The governement is not yet capable of controlling the insurgency, terrorists would flock to Iraq as it would become a land of "anything goes". An Iraq without the U.S. presence would become a training ground, and safe-haven for terrorists from many countries.

According to Bush, many of the terrorists we're dealing with were trained in Iraq and funded by Iraq. It was part of his speech when we dropped our first bombs in Iraq.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with that statement. You are starting to contradict yourself now. You are also using a quote that was said at the beginning of of the war where the situation was much much differant. We have a completely differant mission out here then what we had in OIF I.

Quote:

Terrorists are a tougher enemy than the Iraqi army. What makes you think that those terrorists will stop at whatever time our army leaves? Whether it's now, 2 years from now or 10 years from now, the only difference is how much resentment we're creating and allowing to fester.

I think things will be differant when we leave when Iraq is ready for us to leave. They aren't. You said it yourself. They would have a civil war. Since the two parties are religious based there will never be rest if you let them fight eachother. They will cause more hate, more hate = more violence = no stability = exactly what Luke said. Then everything we have done out here will have been for nothing.

Quote:

As long as we're present in the middle east, we are motivating terrorists to action against us. You can pound your chest and claim victory, but what has been won? The "free world" we live in is less free every time we have to take off our shoes at an airport. Add to the list no beverages on a plane. We can't win against terrorists, if we make everyone fly naked with no luggage, terrorists will surgically implant bombs in their asses and we lose anyway.

This I agree with you on. But that is the world we live in. If we never went to Iraq at all there would still be these crazy rules. The two towers would still have fallen. Terrorists will still be trying to kill us. It's the world today. Your quote is a good one, but it has no bearing on this conversation what so ever.

Quote:

Keep telling me that hittng a hornets nest with a stick is a good idea, but remember that those angry hornets are going to sting someone. They can't beat us on the battlefield, so they beat us in our own backyard.

Tell me how that would be differant if we got up and left, leaving Iraq open for anyone and everyone to fill in on our absence.

Quote:

You're surrounded and that's a good thing? </sarcasm> Don't get too comfortable there, you know Bush is going to get us involved in the Isreal/Lebanon dealio. CNN reported that the US is going to send between 5000 and 15000 troops there, so add another country that is motivated to initiate terrorism against us.

In order to be surrounded, you would need to have the same enemy all around you. Fact of the matter is that no one trusts anyone out here, so we aren't exactly surrounded. It's not like Iran is going to line up their Army and come marching at us. No one is crazy enough to do that. NO ONE can line up against the US. Especially in the middle east with their old Soviet equipment. It will always result in gorrilla warefare. That would require us to march on to them.

Quote:

Do you really believe that the terrorist attempt originating in the UK wasn't a direct result of the US's involvement in Iraq? Those planes were to explode in various places in the US, causing "greater than 9/11 destruction". While you're in the desert looking for an enemy, they're in the airports launching an attack against us. Who is in denial here? You can claim all the strategic importance of a US military presence in Iraq, but we're paying the price for it in the civilian world.

Being in Iraq is not going to put a stop to all terrorism in the world. Reversly, us being in Iraq has nothing to do with those attempts. And those very prices you are paying at the airport are exactly what saved your butt from another attack.

What I am about to say may seem like a personal attack, but it is not. If you take it that way, I'm sorry. That is not it's intention. I am just having a hard time with everything you write. This is also a cut and paste from what I wrote in a differant forum that I post in. It's just mondane to write the same thing over and over.

Plain and simple, you are basing your argument on what you believe to be true. Tell me, what do you KNOW. Not what you think, but what you KNOW. I don't want to hear what you have heard from some liberal media source. I want to hear what YOU KNOW. From experiance. From people who have been over there. From your own travels. I have heard the news stories. I have also been in a few. I know that what they say happened on the news is NOTHING like what happened. It's a joke. It's insulting. It's disgusting. So I can understand why you think the way you do. You get fed bull@!#$ your whole life and you are going to think the way you do. Like I said, don't take it personal, I don't mean it to be. I also realize that you don't have the luxuary to just get up and fly to a combat zone to get the news first hand (Although I don't know if I'd call it a lux.). Fact of the matter is though, that you know nothing about what you are talking about. To tell you the truth, I know very little myself, but I do know some things.

Luke, you put it masterfully. I couldn't say it any better myself, so I am going to quote you.

Quote:

To anyone who thinks we shouldnt be in Iraq, I would like for you to come over here and talk to the Iraqi people. Talk to the people who's families are being killed every day by insurgent violence. After all, its not just insurgents against Americans here, its Suni's against Shiites against Kurds.

One of the problems with the war in Iraq, is that this culture has created a large number of "sheep" and "wolves" and not many "sheep dogs". It doesnt matter whether or not you think America should have ousted Sadaam, the fact is that we did. And if we leave now, the country will be destroyed..

The governement is not yet capable of controlling the insurgency, terrorists would flock to Iraq as it would become a land of "anything goes". An Iraq without the U.S. presence would become a training ground, and safe-haven for terrorists from many countries.

Iraq differs from Vietnam, my father was in Vietnam, I am in Iraq.....Military goals were achieved swiftly in Iraq, not so in Vietnam. The dictatorship of Sadaam and his supporters in the military were destroyed. What Iraq faces now is not conflict between the US and a military force trying to re-take lost ground. Iraq faces Terrorists, terrorists who not only try to kill U.S. forces, but who now actually prefer to target its citizens to turn them against each other, to create a civil war. That is the goal of the "wolves" here.

Removal of U.S. forces from Iraq is simply an idea by the "sheep" of America, for they are in denial. Denial that causes them to believe if we leave, everything will be fine back in America. It will not, terrorists would run rampent in Iraq, Iran would be bolstered with new confidence now that the U.S. Military is not right next store.

Two of the biggest terrorism supporting nations (Syria and Iran) are now split by hundreds of thousands of U.S. Military persons, if you do not believe that is a strategic victory in its own right your need to open your eyes. The U.S. has HUGE air bases here in Iraq(Al Asad, Balad, Al Taqaddum, BIAP) and we have an Arabic governement in Iraq who is grateful of our presence and who supports us. That was previously UNHEARD of in this region.

Terrorism is rearing its ugly head again, this time against Isreal and in the United Kingdom. Iraq is such a key strategic location for the Coalition militaries to combat terrorism, if you think we would just up and leave on a whim, you are sorely mistaken, and are indeed in denial.

Edit...one interesting similarity between Iraq and Vietnam are the cries of the "sheep" the people in denial to pull out and leave both conflicts. Perhaps the greatest challenge faced in Vietnam and Iraq is that the U.S. has to win two wars at once....We are trying to win the Strategic war and the war for public opinion. And the latter is a mistake by government leaders.

Wars are not popular, people die, they are long, expensive and many Americans do not have the stomach for them. And perhaps the hardest strain on the Military achieving victory, is the protestors, the pundits, the arm chair quarter-backs who preach a negative outlook on the conduct of our Military. That is the greatest threat to victory, not the enemy.

Team GREEN
Suspension Division - "Handling Before Horsepower"
Making the turns since 1999
1998 EK Civic Hatch - Yes, it's a Honda.

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Monday, August 14, 2006 5:34 PM on j-body.org

Keeper Of The Light (LordKOTL)

A simple question put to you and luke:

What power-that-be decided that the best thing is to have things the way they are, rather than have the supposed civil war? How does that power-that-be *know* that that civil war may not end up as the best thing that happened to that region?

The problem with that analogy is this:

The wolf is only doing what it is instuinctually supposed to do.

The sheep have been domesticated into a false sense of security--at one point in time sheep were wild, and at the cost of one or two waker members of the herd, were able to keep a stable population despite the wolf.

The sheep dog no longer follows it's natural course (a. la. wolf), and is charged with guarding a would-be meal in exchange for the illusion of security.

It seems to me, that the one element that is left out of the analogy, and is the source of the trouble, is the shepherd--the "deciding hand" that domesticated the sheep and the sheep dog--and since the shepherd no longwer has to work to maintain the flock, and can cull the her for it's own desires, has bred the sheep and the sheepdog into a relationship in which they cannot survive without the shepherd.

In other words--hamstring the shepherd, shep dog becomes wolf or dies, sheep either die or keep themseleves at the highest level so they won't fall prey to the wolf, and everything is where it should ahve been as nature intended. The weak woves, the weak sheep dogs, and the weak sheep all wioll die out by natural causes, and no autiocratic shepherd will feast wantonly without earning their living.

So, question the shepherd.

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Monday, August 14, 2006 5:56 PM on j-body.org

Luke

Quote:

What power-that-be decided that the best thing is to have things the way they are, rather than have the supposed civil war? How does that power-that-be *know* that that civil war may not end up as the best thing that happened to that region?

Spoken by someone who has never seen the horrors of war. Spoken by someone who has never seen nor cares to see the attrocities comitted by the "wolves" over here. Spoken by someone who has never seen the fear in a fathers eyes, for he is uncertain of his families future.

I'm sure a cival war might be the best thing for this country.

Keeper, I am not telling you to not question the shepard. I, in fact, protect that very right that you so gleefully enjoy. My biggest argument lies with those who think pulling out of Iraq immediately, think they are helping the "troops". All that will happen after that, is possible civil war, which you seem to believe might be a good thing, and that I will have to watch my son come back to this very hell hole, in 10 or 20 years...to finish the job we started. Militarily, you cannot leave before the soverign government feels they are able to protect their own people without U.S. support. Whether we are here for a just reason or not, something was started, and it better be finished before we leave.

2004 WR Blue/silver STi
Cobb Stage II
12.69 @ 106.1mph 1.66 = 60ft

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Monday, August 14, 2006 6:14 PM on j-body.org

John Wilken

Luke wrote:John,

I wasnt referring to you in particular for anything I posted above, they were all general comments. Please dont attack me personally(which you have). Your opinions are your own, but I can tell you from experience that some of them are wrong. People can sit and argue "why" the terrorists hate the US more, is it becasue of our overall foreign policy or is it because of what we are doing in Iraq right now. I CAN tell you that if you think it is just because of what we are doing in Iraq, you are WRONG. They have hated us since the time of Jesus Christ, and will continue to hate the "infadel" until they day their own suicide bomb explodes. By the way, these people are going to hate us FOREVER, as long as we are primarily Christian(or not Muslim), and support Isreal, they will hate us. So tell me which of those you would prefer to condemn first. Your right, terrorists are a tough enemy, they are driven by religious fanaticism that is all but impossible to crush.

"Why" they hate us is only part of the picture. We know they hate us, and we know they use terrorist methods to fight a war. While we are at war with them we should expect increased terroist activites. If this is true, then the converse must also be true, that if we aren't at war with them, we should see a decrease in terrorist activities.

Luke wrote:What we can stop however, are legitimate governments that support that kind of fanaticism. Like I said earlier, you may think we went into Iraq un-justly and without cause, I too can not say other wise.

We agree on something here.

Luke wrote: But what I can say is that we are HERE. Whether you like it or not, we are going to execute someones objectives. And we will win, the ONLY thing and I repeat ONLY thing that can stop us, is the politicians pulling out early, and trying to appease the outspoken minority. That "strategically" is no way to fight a war, you and I both know that. We did it that way in Vietnam.

There is no "win" with Iraq. Whenever we pull out, there will be a civil war or a miliary coup. The only difference is when it happens, and how many terrorist attacks happen against us while the diplomats play patty-cake.

Luke wrote:
Quote:

You're surrounded and that's a good thing? </sarcasm> Don't get too comfortable there, you know Bush is going to get us involved in the Isreal/Lebanon dealio. CNN reported that the US is going to send between 5000 and 15000 troops there, so add another country that is motivated to initiate terrorism against us.

John, obviously you were never a U.S. Marine. There is a popular saying by the great "Chesty" Puller when the Marines were surrounded at Koto-Ri in Korea: "we're surrounded, GOOD, that simplifies things" ....What I am trying to say is that militariliy, we are right where we want to be, dividing the enemy, right in their back yard, able to strike at a moments notice.

I was thinking more of General Custer as he rode into the canyon yelling to his troops "Now we've got them trapped", but OK, I'll ride the testosterone train with you and say you're in a good place.

Luke wrote:
And please dont lecture me about how these insurgents are "tougher" than the Iraqi army was, when were you over here?, how many have you had to kill?, how many have you come face to face with? Can you tell me how many you have seen that are actually foreign fighters, and how many are just brothers and fathers and sons forced into insurgent activities, or else their families will be killed. Come on John, HOW MANY HAVE YOU SEEN????

My statement was based off how quickly the Iraqi army was defeated, yet insurgents and terrorists are a never ending problem. As you said earlier in this thread, "terrorists are a tough enemy, they are driven by religious fanaticism that is all but impossible to crush."

Luke wrote:I do want you to know though that the great thing about the Military, and the Marines in particular. Is that we will defend the Constitution of the United States and execute the policy of our elected leaders to protect our country. NO MATTER who those elected leaders may be. Remember that we do not have the luxury of sitting back in our homes with our families who we miss dearly, and second guessing the government. You however, do. So forgive me if I fail to shed a tear, because you feel it is an infringement upon your freedom to have to take your shoes off at the airport. We have to wonder every day we step outside, if today is the day, is today the day, that round doesnt hit my chicken plate, is today the day the missile tracks onto my helicopter, is today the day my wife gets a @!#$ telephone call she will remember the rest of her life!!!, is today the day....

I won't belittle or throw any sarcasm at the sacrifice you're making, and the toll it's no doubt having on your family. I have family in Iraq also, I know the feeling.

I will continue to exercise my freedom of speech until that's taken away too or until I'm plant food. It's the Constitution that our leaders need to be reminded of, that America doesn't have freedom because we're the greatest country on earth, we are the greatest country on earth BECAUSE we have freedom. When that starts to get chipped away, we are losing more than a war.

.

John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Monday, August 14, 2006 6:53 PM on j-body.org

John Wilken

RaiLS wrote:
Quote:

Keep telling me that hittng a hornets nest with a stick is a good idea, but remember that those angry hornets are going to sting someone. They can't beat us on the battlefield, so they beat us in our own backyard.

Tell me how that would be differant if we got up and left, leaving Iraq open for anyone and everyone to fill in on our absence.

Things would be exactly the same. The Iraqi people would resent whatever new government, organize and over-throw. Then they'll have a civil war because the two opposing religious parties,

RailS wrote:Since the two parties are religious based there will never be rest if you let them fight eachother. They will cause more hate, more hate = more violence = no stability

It's not a question of IF there will be a civil war, but WHEN.

RaiLS wrote:In order to be surrounded, you would need to have the same enemy all around you. Fact of the matter is that no one trusts anyone out here, so we aren't exactly surrounded. It's not like Iran is going to line up their Army and come marching at us. No one is crazy enough to do that. NO ONE can line up against the US. Especially in the middle east with their old Soviet equipment. It will always result in gorrilla warefare. That would require us to march on to them.

Agreed, they would never do a "heads-up" fight with us. They'd use terrorist methods. They'd lose a straight-up battle, but not a jab with a suicide bomber.

RailS wrote:Being in Iraq is not going to put a stop to all terrorism in the world. Reversly, us being in Iraq has nothing to do with those attempts. And those very prices you are paying at the airport are exactly what saved your butt from another attack.

British intelligence and surveilance is what stopped the latest terrorist attempt. Happened miles from any airport.

RailS wrote:What I am about to say may seem like a personal attack, but it is not. If you take it that way, I'm sorry. That is not it's intention. I am just having a hard time with everything you write. This is also a cut and paste from what I wrote in a differant forum that I post in. It's just mondane to write the same thing over and over.

Plain and simple, you are basing your argument on what you believe to be true. Tell me, what do you KNOW.

Not taken as a personal attack, we have very different view points.
What I know...
* My government launched a war against a country and imprisioned it's leader without a clear reason.
* My government gets involved in other countries wars which causes problems here.
* Every time we write a new policy designed to stop terrorism, the terrorists find a way around it.
* Since our involvement in Iraq, terrorist activities against the US have increased.
* My government has implimented the "Patriot act", which is nothing more than violating constitutional rights because of fear.
* The man blamed for 9/11 is still alive and taunting us via video tape from time to time.
* The United States population is dramatically divided over whether we should stay in Iraq
* The Iraqi population is dramatically divided over which religious party should be ruling, but both sides agree it shouldn't be the US.
* RailS and I could have a cold beer and play darts or something as long as politics aren't discussed. (if you're ever in Cleveland...)

.

John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Monday, August 14, 2006 10:15 PM on j-body.org

RaiLS

Quote:

RailS and I could have a cold beer and play darts or something as long as politics aren't discussed. (if you're ever in Cleveland...)

If the day ever came when I went to Cleveland, I would take you up on it.

Team GREEN
Suspension Division - "Handling Before Horsepower"
Making the turns since 1999
1998 EK Civic Hatch - Yes, it's a Honda.

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:57 AM on j-body.org

Keeper Of The Light (LordKOTL)

Luke, youve misktaken me:

1) Who decided that what we're going is the best course of action, and what makes them so onmipotent?
2) Whe decided that WE should play policeman to the world? In other words, say we pull out now--what says that we have to even go back?

My point was merely a hypothetical with the civil war--it has been assumed that somewhere, someone with an all-knowing and all-seeing capacity has said "this is what's best for over there". I'd like to know who, i'd like to see their credentials, and explain their way of thinking.

After all, you take your orders directly from the shepherd--SOMEONE has to question the shepherd's logic on things--they need to be held accountable as well.

It's only the idiots that would think the military itself is wrong. After all, in this, i think except for a few cretins (like the bastrard that raped the 14 year old girl) and the top brass and the politicians involved, most of the people here are relatively innocent--they are just doing what they are doing--nothing wrong with that. The problem, as I see it, likes in Washington DC, Baghdad, London, Paris, Belin, Terahn, Jerusalem, Beirut, Ottowa, Rome, Prague, Bratislava, Warsaw, Belgrade, Budapest, Vienna, Cairo, Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang, Seoul, Manilla, New Delhi, and the rest (i think you get the idea).

And really, i have to say this, if it all came down to it, if someone seriously meant to question the shepherd, like it says in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution--likely the ones that did question would be equated with wolves, and thus, you'd stand against them.

So, forgive my cynicism.

And yes, i do know the horrors of war. I find humanity very dumb for fighting it rather than letting the leaders duke it out themselves...but then again, i'm not much of a societal mindset.

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:11 AM on j-body.org

John Wilken

^^ X2 with sprinkles on top. Especially this:

Quote:

Who decided that WE should play policeman to the world? In other words, say we pull out now--what says that we have to even go back?

This is where the US gets itself in trouble, meddling with other countries affairs.

.

John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 6:16 PM on j-body.org

Luke

John Wilken wrote:^^ X2 with sprinkles on top. Especially this:

Quote:

Who decided that WE should play policeman to the world? In other words, say we pull out now--what says that we have to even go back?

This is where the US gets itself in trouble, meddling with other countries affairs.

.

Ignorance is bliss isnt it gentlemen. How did the policy of appeasement work out for the French, and the rest of Europe in the late 1930's. "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it" The fact is, the U.S. and other of the worlds most wealthy countries are vested in their relationships with their trading partners. (ex)Americans complain about gas prices, war breaks out in the middle east and prices rise, the economy struggles, Americans feel the pressure, people lose jobs....it is in America's interest to stabalize the situation.

That is why we play world policeman, because we are the wealthiest country in the world. Well much of what we depend on is natural resources and trade relationships with so many other countries. When those are threatened it will have an adverse affect on the American people.

Keeper, your cynical words of wisdom against the human race are quite amusing. They are the ones most often spoken by self-riteous pundits who think there is no bounds to their intellect, who think they are the only humans on earth that have been enlightened. When it all comes down to it, all you actually are is a guy who calls himself "keeper of the light"(amusing btw), and preaches his words of wisdom over the internet, and never really makes a stand to change anything.

When was the last time you sacrificed anything for what you believed in? Honestly? I believe in America, I believe the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were some of the greatest documents ever writen. I believe that America stands for what is right in this world. Our leaders may not be the smartest, they may be democrat or republican, they may downsize or plus up the military, they may lie under oath about their sexual affairs with interns, but they were elected by the people of this country, under the guidlines outlined in documents that make America the greatest country on Earth. And I gladly sacrifice my family life, my time cruising in my car, good food, sleep, comfort, my friends back home, and even my life to protect those documents and the LAWFUL(I am bound, not to follow un-lawful ones) orders of the elected leaders of this Country. Tell me, what sacrifices, or lengths have you gone to, to protect what you believe is right? I'm sure the world leaders are paying close attention to the J-body forums for your trivial anti-establishment rhetoric.

2004 WR Blue/silver STi
Cobb Stage II
12.69 @ 106.1mph 1.66 = 60ft

Re: To: Mr. Sheep

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:44 AM on j-body.org

Keeper Of The Light (LordKOTL)

As for me, i don't need to do anything to "protect what i believe is right". Everyone else, through their apathy or corruption is doing it for me. After all, the politicians are perverting and circumventing the constitution for their own gains, and the people are led to believe that this is a good thing (the perversion and circumvention). After all, they are trading their liberty and freedom for the illusion of security.

Me, on the other hand, believing in entropy and the fact that all systems curmble and new ones take their place, as I said, I don't need to do anything. Either people will see that the system wneeds a total revamp, and it will meet my ends, or the syetem will collapse, and it will meet my ends. All i do i use the system against itself--to try and vote the @!#$s out, or barring that, get something in that will throw the proveribal monkey wrench into the system.

As for being "enlightened", i never claim to be. My way is not your way. You see fit to defend and make a stand for something you believe in--i'm not attacking that. I have my perspetive on things, as do you. And unlike pundits, i'm not trying to push an agenda to give some crusty old dude whom my tongue is firmly embedded in their cleft a vote. I just offer my perspective on things.

Now, to clear something up: America, in concept is a good idea--it's too bad that, IMHO, we let the politicians ruin it, but i guess that's thwe way it was supposed to go. But looking at some of the B.S. to have came out of Washington recently (Patriot Act, the B.S. about Gay Marriage, and other initiatives that are simply trying to reduce the liberties of americans), i see no reason to stand up and defend that, and maybe I am too cynical, but i do not think that things will get better. So what better way then to add to the entropy?

It may not be a good idea in your eyes, but it is in mine.

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Current Page: 1 of 2

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

Start New Topic Advanced Search