The 3 things that piss me off about the conflict

[andyfox]

Your original post said "so many people" spat on the soldiers when they returned home and this pissed you off.

It's simply not true. There were a few people who spat.

You're certainly entitled to be pissed off by the spitters. It's a disgusting thing no matter what the circumstance. But I'm more pissed off that my government lied to me and deliberately killed civilians by the thousands. Those soldiers were not fighting in Vietnam to defend citizens' right to spit.

[Clarkmeister]

Are you retarded? Read what I write for a change. Where in my post did I say or insinuate that JOSH equates war with peace??

You said those who equate non-war with peace is laughable. I replied that its not as laughable as those who equate war with peace.

No mention of Josh anywhere.

What is your problem?

[nicky g]

"Many of those spat upon are busy saving the lives of innocent people, directly or indirectly.

But, yeah, most of it comes from my first statement....anytime anybody goes out of their way to induce harm with knowledge beforehand that their actions will create no good, it upsets me. This is people who beat helpless children, people who litter, and people who spit on our finest men and women. Call me crazy."

You're crazy. Dropping bombs on people who can'tfight back is almost always infinitely worse than any of those things. Troops are supposed to be able to cope with killing and being attacked; they can cope with a minor insult. What innocent lives were they saving in Vetnam, or Camodia, or Laos?

[Ray Zee]

its ceratinly wrong and sad that people do those things. the troops do believe they are doing the right thing. but also the people spitting are feeling like they are right to lash out. their mistake is that the troops in their mind represent the politicians. so they are lashing out at the wrong people. unfortunate. especially when we had the draft. current soldiers are mercenaries, and being professionally paid volunteer soldiers, they have to cope with whatever the public perceives.

plus we must remember the news reports the things that sell papers and air time and leaves out the boring real story.

[Josh W]

I've been misunderstood again.

If you think I'm going to defend the Viet Nam "war", you are wrong. I hate the fact that it took place, and my dad is a vet from that war.

I was merely using the war protestors from that era as an example of what pisses me off about the anti-war crowd.

But I am in no way a fan of that conflict, or our involvement in it.

Josh

[Josh W]

You are 100% right. You didn't mention me anywhere.

Of course, you did quote me. And, of course, you did write your post in a reply to mine.

And if you read what I wrote (insert applicable joke here), you'd see what upset me is that you were mocking my statement (quoting me, then sarcastically saying "yeah, that's worse that equating war with peace").

But now I'll answer your previous question...

equating war with peace is not nearly as silly as equating 'no war' with peace. this is because war has the possibility of leading to peace, whereas pacifism doesn't. just ask france. afterall, france has treelined streets because german soldiers like marching in the shade.

Now that that's aside.....

No, I'm not retarded. No, I don't take this forum seriously. It is largely controlled by Mason Malmuth who has told very respected posters that they may not discuss sports, the internet, war, stocks, or any other non-related poker items (this is, of course, referring to Abdul Jalib).

It is most frequented by Dynasty and Clarkmeister, whom are both very good (I'm assuming) poker players, with good advice. Dynasty would rather test the thickness of anonymous posters' skin than carry on a peaceful conversation, and Clarkmeister would rather twist words and pretend to respond to something, while ignoring the original poster's words.

This forum is a valuable tool for learning about poker, and to say it isn't is absurd. But if I were to ever start taking this forum as serious as many of the posters seem to, I'd pity my own existence.

And it's too bad, too. For instance, I'm leaving in 45 minutes for Vegas for the next 5 days. I'm going to watch basketball, bet on basketball, visit with some friends, and play some poker. And there are people here that, in a different world, it would be fun to meet and hang out with. Yes, Dave, you are one of these.

But the fact is, at the end of the day, I know that I can't meet you. I know that if I were to meet you, even though we have probably a fair amount in common, I'd want to puke due to your complete lack of civility. What do I mean by this?

When you first responded to this thread, you had no point to prove, no agenda, you just responded to twist my words and mock what I said. That's your perogative. Good for you. You acheived it.

And you probably think your life is better for it.

If I see you this weekend, I'll be sure to not say hi (ala when you and Dynasty were at commerce a few weeks ago, and when you were at commerce roughly 1.5 yrs ago).

And you'll probably respond with a "why are you pissed off?" post.

But because you haven't really read what I've written in the past, you'll have no way of knowing that I'm anything but pissed off. "Amused" is a much better word. "laughing" may be the best of all.

Josh

[Josh W]

As sad as it is, war has the possibility of leading to peace. Pacifism does not.

"no war" = peace is laughable because it's so far from the truth. We weren't at war on September 10th and 11th 2002. But was it peaceful? Have you felt "at peace" since then? Me neither.

And, yes, it is sad that Saddam Hussein is responsible for this war.

Josh

[Josh W]

Japan and Germany didn't have any "smoking gun" evidence (at least as far as I'm aware). Big, huge, un-overestimatedly big difference (perhaps a made-up word in there somewhere).

And to the citizens who think that "hey, if you have evidence of WMD, let's see it!!"....please, stop. Your lack of foresight is pathetic.

It is important to know just how little the average citizen knows.

Josh

[IrishHand]

You really should learn something about history before you try to use it to bolster your flagging arguments.

Both Germany (Poland '39) and Japan (US '41) had far better and more legitimate reasons for their invasions than the US does in this instance. In the former case, they were recovering land taken from them (illegitimately in their minds) in the Versailles treaty - the "Polish corridor", including Danzig (a German city). In the latter case, I would reference you to John Toland's The Rising Sun, an excellent analysis of the US actions, decisions and policies which led inevitably to Pearl Harbor. (Basically, the attack on Pearl Harbor was about as much a surprise to the US government/military as an Iraqi attack on US forces in the area would be this evening.) Frankly, on both counts (Pearl Harbor and Poland), you'd be well served to read a number of books on the topics - I'd start with the aforementioned Rising Sun, then move onto Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (Shirer).

[Clarkmeister]

Uhhhhh, you said people who like green beans were nuts and I said not as nuts as people who like peas.

Not sure how you got 16 paragraphs of angst from that, but its really all I said. For the record, I happen to think green beans and peas suck, but for whatever reason, you took my post to mean I disagreed with you about green beans, which I really don't.

GL in the tourney, I'll be at the IP every day at their viewing party.