Wollfowitz, co-architect of war and its real cause, ignorant of American Death toll

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Wollfy shows his stuff



This man has shown that he is completely divorced from reality, first, in the manner that he thought post-war would be a cake-walk, and then after words, when he now shows that he doesn't actually care enough about the men and women that he is sending into battle to know how many are dying!!



This kind of disconnect is a sure sign of a mind that is blinded by a 'Vision', an ideology that blots out any information that might impinge on his 'greater Truth' . . . . forget the details, plan for the Pax Americana at all costs!!!



This man should be jailed



I spent some time recently perusing Soldier Blogs and ultra-right wing blogs and it saddens me that all of them could only see the enemy as being 'Lefties' and the Iraqi terrorists . . . .

It saddened me because They had memorials for their fallen brothers and yet they seemed to be blaming Liberals for their deaths . . . . I 'support' the troops, I come from a family with three Marine siblings, including a drill Sargent, and a decorated Col father, and still I am the enemy?!?!?

But I think that supporting them should take the form of admitting that they were sent into invading another country based on the 'Vision' of a few extremists . . . Afghanistan was a just war . . . but Iraq was poorly concieved (blinded by vision) and the follow-through was poorly concieved as well . . . its execution was brilliant and they all fought brilliantly and bravely . . . another source of saddness . . .



The real enemy is the IDEOLOGICALLY driven administration who can't even recognize the lives being sacrificed for their 'Vision'!!
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 57
    timotimo Posts: 353member
    amen, and amen.
  • Reply 2 of 57
    Like I've predicted...I'll say again. By the end of May our total death toll of soldiers will reach 1,000 and I feel that Wolfman will still fudge the numbers, Arbusto will say the same shit (over and over) and the general population (sheeeeep) will have no clue...I really hope I (we) wake up from this nightmare soon...by the way, where's scott? Was he finally banned? Or was he awakened from his hypnosis...



  • Reply 3 of 57
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    The real enemy is the IDEOLOGICALLY driven administration



    And this is the first administration in US presidential history to set a course based on IDEOLOGY? That is what Presidents do, bud. It's just unfortunate for you that in this case, you do not agree with the CURRENT ideology. All politicians with a spine have one.



    8)
  • Reply 4 of 57
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    "Fetish"
  • Reply 5 of 57
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jubelum

    And this is the first administration in US presidential history to set a course based on IDEOLOGY?



    The point being this admin never lets the facts get in the way of a good ideology.
  • Reply 6 of 57
    Osama Bin Laden might have "just" happened to be in the area, but Afghanistan was not a "just" war.
  • Reply 7 of 57
    buckeyebuckeye Posts: 358member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jubelum

    And this is the first administration in US presidential history to set a course based on IDEOLOGY? That is what Presidents do, bud. It's just unfortunate for you that in this case, you do not agree with the CURRENT ideology. All politicians with a spine have one.



    8)




    i·de·ol·o·gy __ _

    n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies

    1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.



    Unfortunately, his ideology only serves his individual needs. He believes that he was chosen by GOD to be President, not by the People. Contrary to what W and his cronies think, the US is a democracy, not a theocracy.
  • Reply 8 of 57
    trick falltrick fall Posts: 1,271member
    Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini had ideologies too!
  • Reply 9 of 57
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    I use the term 'ideology' in the same manner that old-school-Conservatives used to in reference to Communists and other forms of Utopian guided politicos.



    I use it to mean that someone has an IDEAL that they will not let go of and that they would rather force reality to conform. Ordinary ideology, in the sense of simple social and political ideas, usually are subject to adaptation . .. a give and take where the ideas listen to the realities of the world and adjust themselves accordingly and then acting.

    Other people would call that thinking before acting . . .



    Old school Conservatives would attack 'Ideology' because it has no Laissez Faire', it forces people, ideas and even markets to fit into a pallid image and poor model of the world . . .



    In fact the whole notion of 'Laissez-Faire' is the realization that human energies do not conform exactly to any human image of how they are supposed to act . . . . Ideology, then, is actually anti-Laissez-Faire and, when taken to extremes, inherently becomes Totalitarian.



    The Bush gang forced their IDEOLOGY on to the world before they even checked it against real conditions.



    another good definition of Ideology: by Althussar: "A false relationship to real conditions"
  • Reply 10 of 57
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Artman @_@

    ...by the way, where's scott? Was he finally banned? Or was he awakened from his hypnosis...









    Shhhh. I'm enjoying the lack of thread derailment and general delusion.



    PS - I agree about the sheep part. Why else would we have a country full of suburban idiots who think they need a "Dodge Hemi RAM", Toyota Sequoia or H2 for their ride to Acme Corp. and carting around their 2.2 kids?



    Ad-sheep, corporate sheep, political sheep... they're all the same species in the end.



  • Reply 11 of 57
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    Wollfy shows his stuff



    This man has shown that he is completely divorced from reality, first, in the manner that he thought post-war would be a cake-walk, and then after words, when he now shows that he doesn't actually care enough about the men and women that he is sending into battle to know how many are dying!!



    This kind of disconnect is a sure sign of a mind that is blinded by a 'Vision', an ideology that blots out any information that might impinge on his 'greater Truth' . . . . forget the details, plan for the Pax Americana at all costs!!!



    This man should be jailed



    I spent some time recently perusing Soldier Blogs and ultra-right wing blogs and it saddens me that all of them could only see the enemy as being 'Lefties' and the Iraqi terrorists . . . .

    It saddened me because They had memorials for their fallen brothers and yet they seemed to be blaming Liberals for their deaths . . . . I 'support' the troops, I come from a family with three Marine siblings, including a drill Sargent, and a decorated Col father, and still I am the enemy?!?!?

    But I think that supporting them should take the form of admitting that they were sent into invading another country based on the 'Vision' of a few extremists . . . Afghanistan was a just war . . . but Iraq was poorly concieved (blinded by vision) and the follow-through was poorly concieved as well . . . its execution was brilliant and they all fought brilliantly and bravely . . . another source of saddness . . .



    The real enemy is the IDEOLOGICALLY driven administration who can't even recognize the lives being sacrificed for their 'Vision'!!




    You look at soldier blogs and they claim that regardless of your assurances that you "support" them, that your version of "support" is unsupportive.



    So basically what you "think" is support doesn't amount to crap because the guys NOT typing away at a keyboard don't feel supported by what you do. They feel attacked and call you the enemy.



    So it appears that your words and actions have a severe disconnect and even when you assure us there is not, those assurances fall short. It sounds like you are the one divorced from reality.



    Nick
  • Reply 12 of 57
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Artman @_@

    Like I've predicted...I'll say again. By the end of May our total death toll of soldiers will reach 1,000 and I feel that Wolfman will still fudge the numbers, Arbusto will say the same shit (over and over) and the general population (sheeeeep) will have no clue...I really hope I (we) wake up from this nightmare soon...by the way, where's scott? Was he finally banned? Or was he awakened from his hypnosis...







    People that backhandedly attack others in hopes of soliciting a personal attack back should be banned.



    Just because your rights end at my nose doesn't mean you can breath on my face.



    Nick
  • Reply 13 of 57
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    The point being this admin never lets the facts get in the way of a good ideology.



    Sort of like NOW still supporting Clinton after rape charges, sexual harassment, lying under oath, a semen stained dress from cheating on his wife and using his power to gain sex from women.



    But he had good ideology though, really.



    Nick
  • Reply 14 of 57
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Sort of like NOW still supporting Clinton after rape charges, sexual harassment, lying under oath, a semen stained dress from cheating on his wife and using his power to gain sex from women.





    No, completely different actually.



    Thanks for playing though!
  • Reply 15 of 57
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    I use the term 'ideology' in the same manner that old-school-Conservatives used to in reference to Communists and other forms of Utopian guided politicos.



    I use it to mean that someone has an IDEAL that they will not let go of and that they would rather force reality to conform. Ordinary ideology, in the sense of simple social and political ideas, usually are subject to adaptation . .. a give and take where the ideas listen to the realities of the world and adjust themselves accordingly and then acting.

    Other people would call that thinking before acting . . .



    Old school Conservatives would attack 'Ideology' because it has no Laissez Faire', it forces people, ideas and even markets to fit into a pallid image and poor model of the world . . .



    In fact the whole notion of 'Laissez-Faire' is the realization that human energies do not conform exactly to any human image of how they are supposed to act . . . . Ideology, then, is actually anti-Laissez-Faire and, when taken to extremes, inherently becomes Totalitarian.



    The Bush gang forced their IDEOLOGY on to the world before they even checked it against real conditions.



    another good definition of Ideology: by Althussar: "A false relationship to real conditions"




    Sez the wannabe artist once again painting a false reality to which he is forcing his beliefs .



    Nick
  • Reply 16 of 57
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    No, completely different actually.



    Thanks for playing though!




    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Hey, look another example of ideology winning out over reality.



    Nick
  • Reply 17 of 57
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Wrong again!



    PNAC documents say "Take out Saddam." People who wrote said docs get into power. People in power say to intelligence, "Find us a reason to take out Saddam." Bush says, "Is that the best you've got?" (quote according to Woodward). Bush goes to war with Saddam, killing 10000 civilians.



    Nothing is found to justify the stated cause for war.
  • Reply 18 of 57
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    Wrong again!



    PNAC documents say "Take out Saddam." People who wrote said docs get into power. People in power say to intelligence, "Find us a reason to take out Saddam." Bush says, "Is that the best you've got?" (quote according to Woodward). Bush goes to war with Saddam, killing 10000 civilians.



    Nothing is found to justify the stated cause for war.




    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Hey, look another example of ideology winning out over reality.



    Nick
  • Reply 19 of 57
    hassan i sabbahhassan i sabbah Posts: 3,987member
    I'm trying not derail threads anymore, I really am, but this is just too good.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman, in this very thread:

    People that backhandedly attack others in hopes of soliciting a personal attack back should be banned.




    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman, a matter of minutes later, in response to pfflam

    Sez the wannabe artist once again painting a false reality to which he is forcing his beliefs.



    Isn't that great? Off you go, then.



    Back on topic, I'd like to address this post in a constructive fashion...



    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    You look at soldier blogs and they claim that regardless of your assurances that you "support" them, that your version of "support" is unsupportive.



    So basically what you "think" is support doesn't amount to crap because the guys NOT typing away at a keyboard don't feel supported by what you do. They feel attacked and call you the enemy.



    So it appears that your words and actions have a severe disconnect and even when you assure us there is not, those assurances fall short. It sounds like you are the one divorced from reality.




    ...but I honestly can't understand it. Could someone explain it to me? It doesn't appear to make any logical or syntactical sense.
  • Reply 20 of 57
    hassan i sabbahhassan i sabbah Posts: 3,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Hey, look another example of ideology winning out over reality.



    Nick




    Now, this is a good short post with a sensible sentence construction, and I understand it perfectly.



    The poster, unfortunately, does not make a point. He makes a contention, but offers nothing to support it.



    How, exactly, is Harald in the wrong here? What exactly does he say that is incorrect?
Sign In or Register to comment.