A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Rides
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Trek 4 the Troops



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 26th 06, 04:09 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,rec.bicycles.misc
Robert Chung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 402
Default Start your own thread, please!

wrote:

Brian, et al...

I implore you, please start your own thread if you want to bash Bush or
discuss the war itself. I'm not talking about supporting the
administration or the war. I'm just trying to generate support for the
folks who're asked to do the hard work.


Are you suggesting that those who had other priorities than doing the hard
work don't deserve support?


Ads
  #23  
Old October 26th 06, 04:31 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Drackman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 541
Default Start your own thread, please!


wrote in message
ups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
. ..
Sure, I'll make donations to the American Friends Service Committee
and
Move On in your name. The best was to support the troops is to bring
them home NOW and vote Democrat in November.

Brian: While I agree with your sentiments, it's wrong to assume a
reasonable person couldn't make a reasonable case for the other side
(keeping troops there, or putting them there in the first place). And
as
for the Democratic party, sorry, I can't help but think that Bill
Clinton
passed up opportunities to deal with this before things got totally out
of
hand. When the inspectors weren't allowed to inspect, he could have
ordered immediate reprisals each and every time. Eventually the message
gets home. You let the inspectors do their job, or something gets
bombed.
A direct linkage. But we seem to have problems with that sort of thing;
in
our military handbooks, apparently it's a requirement that all such
things
lead to escalation and ever-greater involvement.

I can't believe I'm replying in this thread.



Bill Clinton has been out of office for six long years during which the
Republican Party has controlled the Executive branch and both Houses of
Congress. Bill Clinton didn't invade Iraq. He continued the policies
toward Iraq that were in place from the prior Bush administration. The
evidence is clear that the intelligence people in Clinton's outgoing
National Security Council tried to tell the incoming Bush people about
bin
Laden but the warnings fell on deaf, ideological ears. Bush and the
Republican party made this mess and America is finally waking up--too
late
for the needlessly dead and maimed. And now the Taliban is returning in
Afghanistan because Bush diverted the war machine to Iraq. The only
people
coming out of this on the plus side are the leaders of the arms industry.
And then there's that budget deficit every year under Bush. My kids will
be
paying for that and their kids as well.


Brian, et al...

I implore you, please start your own thread if you want to bash Bush or
discuss the war itself. I'm not talking about supporting the
administration or the war. I'm just trying to generate support for the
folks who're asked to do the hard work.

If you have a single sympathetic gene in your body for the folks
actually fighting, suffering, or dying in the war in Iraq and
Afghanistan, you'll take your political discussions elsewhere.


I can't believe your attitude. You make an off-topic post and then try to
get people to only respond in the direction that you approve?


  #24  
Old October 26th 06, 04:34 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Drackman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 541
Default Trek 4 the Troops


"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
. ..
Sure, I'll make donations to the American Friends Service Committee and
Move On in your name. The best was to support the troops is to bring
them home NOW and vote Democrat in November.


Brian: While I agree with your sentiments, it's wrong to assume a
reasonable person couldn't make a reasonable case for the other side
(keeping troops there, or putting them there in the first place). And as
for the Democratic party, sorry, I can't help but think that Bill Clinton
passed up opportunities to deal with this before things got totally out of
hand. When the inspectors weren't allowed to inspect, he could have
ordered immediate reprisals each and every time. Eventually the message
gets home. You let the inspectors do their job, or something gets bombed.
A direct linkage. But we seem to have problems with that sort of thing; in
our military handbooks, apparently it's a requirement that all such things
lead to escalation and ever-greater involvement.


You seem to be missing that it was the United Nations that were doing the
inspections, not the U.S.


  #25  
Old October 26th 06, 04:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,rec.bicycles.misc
Rich Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default Trek 4 the Troops


wrote in message
ups.com...

Funny, but the only reason you get to express your sentiments on this
is because better men than you have fought to preserve that right.


Better men than you have been imprisoned and executed to preserve that right
as well.

RichC


  #27  
Old October 26th 06, 02:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,rec.bicycles.misc
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default Trek 4 the Troops


Rich Clark wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

So, I'd like to ask everyone to NOT hijack the thread, turning it into
a political debate. That's been done to death in previous threads and
isn't appropriate here.


I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide what's appropriate. *I* don't think
it's appropriate for someone to represent bicyclists, even by the remotest
inference, as supporting this war, since I am a bicyclist and I don't
support the war.

You may think that it's possible to separate "support the troops" from
"support the war," but I don't. The troops are there to execute an immoral
and illegal policy on behalf of a rogue government, and the only support I
can conscientiously give them is to try to get them out of there. Helping
them in their mission makes me complicit in it.

I would support you riding across America on a "bring the troops home now"
mission, however, and would be happy to donate to that.

RichC


Rich,

I think you're over-thinking this. I don't presume to represent all
cyclists, nor do I think that anyone will assume such after seeing me
riding along by myself. Perhaps if I organized large group rides in
major cities all across the country, involving many thousands of
cyclists, folks might think we as group are "pro-war".

I'm tying my desire to raise awareness for what I think is a worthy
cause to my riding a bike, well... 1) I like riding a bike and have
thought of riding cross-country on a fixed gear for a while, and 2)
it's not like I can just call up a bunch of TV stations and talk them
into running a story about a guy on his couch who thinks his story
deserves to be told. Hell, the very reason I'm doing the ride on a
fixed-gear is to differentiate the ride as something worthy of at least
a little interest/curiosity. Lot's of folks have ridden in support of
various causes, and the only way to generate interest is to be a bit
different.

I respect your opinions, and your right to have/express them. I'm not
trying to convince anyone to believe you share mine, or to make you
complicit in the war effort. I strongly believe, as do many of my
liberal friends, that it's entirely possible to support the troops
while not supporting the war.

The reason I posted any information here at all is because I thought a
bunch of fellow cyclists MIGHT be interested in the notion of the
fixed-gear continental crossing. Apparently there are plenty of folks
who are so caught up in their hatred for all things 'Bush' they
completely missed that.

  #28  
Old October 26th 06, 03:41 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Drackman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 541
Default Trek 4 the Troops


wrote in message
ups.com...

Rich Clark wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

So, I'd like to ask everyone to NOT hijack the thread, turning it into
a political debate. That's been done to death in previous threads and
isn't appropriate here.


I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide what's appropriate. *I* don't
think
it's appropriate for someone to represent bicyclists, even by the
remotest
inference, as supporting this war, since I am a bicyclist and I don't
support the war.

You may think that it's possible to separate "support the troops" from
"support the war," but I don't. The troops are there to execute an
immoral
and illegal policy on behalf of a rogue government, and the only support
I
can conscientiously give them is to try to get them out of there. Helping
them in their mission makes me complicit in it.

I would support you riding across America on a "bring the troops home
now"
mission, however, and would be happy to donate to that.

RichC


Rich,

I think you're over-thinking this. I don't presume to represent all
cyclists, nor do I think that anyone will assume such after seeing me
riding along by myself. Perhaps if I organized large group rides in
major cities all across the country, involving many thousands of
cyclists, folks might think we as group are "pro-war".

I'm tying my desire to raise awareness for what I think is a worthy
cause to my riding a bike, well... 1) I like riding a bike and have
thought of riding cross-country on a fixed gear for a while, and 2)
it's not like I can just call up a bunch of TV stations and talk them
into running a story about a guy on his couch who thinks his story
deserves to be told. Hell, the very reason I'm doing the ride on a
fixed-gear is to differentiate the ride as something worthy of at least
a little interest/curiosity. Lot's of folks have ridden in support of
various causes, and the only way to generate interest is to be a bit
different.

I respect your opinions, and your right to have/express them. I'm not
trying to convince anyone to believe you share mine, or to make you
complicit in the war effort. I strongly believe, as do many of my
liberal friends, that it's entirely possible to support the troops
while not supporting the war.

The reason I posted any information here at all is because I thought a
bunch of fellow cyclists MIGHT be interested in the notion of the
fixed-gear continental crossing. Apparently there are plenty of folks
who are so caught up in their hatred for all things 'Bush' they
completely missed that.


It sounds like you wanted to ride you bike cross-country and get attention
for yourself...then went looking for a cause that you could use to get
attention. Very sad.


  #29  
Old October 26th 06, 04:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,rec.bicycles.misc
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default Trek 4 the Troops


Frank Drackman wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Rich Clark wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

So, I'd like to ask everyone to NOT hijack the thread, turning it into
a political debate. That's been done to death in previous threads and
isn't appropriate here.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide what's appropriate. *I* don't
think
it's appropriate for someone to represent bicyclists, even by the
remotest
inference, as supporting this war, since I am a bicyclist and I don't
support the war.

You may think that it's possible to separate "support the troops" from
"support the war," but I don't. The troops are there to execute an
immoral
and illegal policy on behalf of a rogue government, and the only support
I
can conscientiously give them is to try to get them out of there. Helping
them in their mission makes me complicit in it.

I would support you riding across America on a "bring the troops home
now"
mission, however, and would be happy to donate to that.

RichC


Rich,

I think you're over-thinking this. I don't presume to represent all
cyclists, nor do I think that anyone will assume such after seeing me
riding along by myself. Perhaps if I organized large group rides in
major cities all across the country, involving many thousands of
cyclists, folks might think we as group are "pro-war".

I'm tying my desire to raise awareness for what I think is a worthy
cause to my riding a bike, well... 1) I like riding a bike and have
thought of riding cross-country on a fixed gear for a while, and 2)
it's not like I can just call up a bunch of TV stations and talk them
into running a story about a guy on his couch who thinks his story
deserves to be told. Hell, the very reason I'm doing the ride on a
fixed-gear is to differentiate the ride as something worthy of at least
a little interest/curiosity. Lot's of folks have ridden in support of
various causes, and the only way to generate interest is to be a bit
different.

I respect your opinions, and your right to have/express them. I'm not
trying to convince anyone to believe you share mine, or to make you
complicit in the war effort. I strongly believe, as do many of my
liberal friends, that it's entirely possible to support the troops
while not supporting the war.

The reason I posted any information here at all is because I thought a
bunch of fellow cyclists MIGHT be interested in the notion of the
fixed-gear continental crossing. Apparently there are plenty of folks
who are so caught up in their hatred for all things 'Bush' they
completely missed that.


It sounds like you wanted to ride you bike cross-country and get attention
for yourself...then went looking for a cause that you could use to get
attention. Very sad.


Frank,

You couldn't be more wrong. Yes, I had thought of riding cross country
for awhile. But, my motivation is not to raise attention to me,
regardless of how you see it. I saw an opportunity to do something
good with something I was thinking of doing anyway. If you see that as
self-serving, so be it.

  #30  
Old October 26th 06, 07:09 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides,rec.bicycles.misc
B. Lafferty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 612
Default Trek 4 the Troops


wrote in message
ups.com...
Rich,

I think you're over-thinking this. I don't presume to represent all
cyclists, nor do I think that anyone will assume such after seeing me
riding along by myself. Perhaps if I organized large group rides in
major cities all across the country, involving many thousands of
cyclists, folks might think we as group are "pro-war".

I'm tying my desire to raise awareness for what I think is a worthy
cause to my riding a bike, well... 1) I like riding a bike and have
thought of riding cross-country on a fixed gear for a while, and 2)
it's not like I can just call up a bunch of TV stations and talk them
into running a story about a guy on his couch who thinks his story
deserves to be told. Hell, the very reason I'm doing the ride on a
fixed-gear is to differentiate the ride as something worthy of at least
a little interest/curiosity. Lot's of folks have ridden in support of
various causes, and the only way to generate interest is to be a bit
different.

I respect your opinions, and your right to have/express them. I'm not
trying to convince anyone to believe you share mine, or to make you
complicit in the war effort. I strongly believe, as do many of my
liberal friends, that it's entirely possible to support the troops
while not supporting the war.

The reason I posted any information here at all is because I thought a
bunch of fellow cyclists MIGHT be interested in the notion of the
fixed-gear continental crossing.


Many of us are interested in that aspect of a trans-america ride.


Apparently there are plenty of folks
who are so caught up in their hatred for all things 'Bush' they
completely missed that.


Hate Bush? No. I think he's a terribly manipulated moron, but it's the
policies promulgated by the Republican leadership that are disgusting. That
includes Iraq policy, pre-emptinve war and contempt for internationl
structures that might lead to peaceful international dispute resolution as
well as much of their domestic policy. I doubt you would have gotten the
response you have if you had announced that you were riding to fundraise for
the USO.




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trek 4 the Troops [email protected] General 134 November 27th 06 02:14 PM
Trek 4 the Troops [email protected] Racing 178 November 27th 06 02:14 PM
Trek 4 the Troops [email protected] Social Issues 125 November 27th 06 02:14 PM
Road Bike Geometry: Traditional vs. Comfort (eg. Trek 1000 vs. Trek Pilot 1.0) Gray Techniques 32 September 14th 06 11:48 PM
2004 - Trek 1400? Trek 1200? comments? yuri budilov Techniques 1 April 4th 04 10:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.