Support our troops for america.... [Archive]

Kerrie

Mar17-03, 03:21 PM

Yay! i am the first to post in this forum...and i want to start it out right and clean ( is that possible when the word politics is concerned? )...

anyway, i hear a lot of people bad mouthing the american president about the possibility of war, here in hippie land (that would be orygun) there are many marches for peace...yet i don't see the same loud support for our troops that are away from home, their families, sleeping on the floors/sand/ground etc, away from any communication source to call their wife, their children...

so here's food for thought...instead of protesting how our government is making choices, lend some care, compassion and support to the men and women who are sacrificing by sending letters, care packages, pictures and words of love and support for the tremendous courage they have for being on the forefront of this nation's security...

Greg Bernhardt

Mar17-03, 03:29 PM

you bet kerrie, even though I have a few friends stationed in the middle east I still support the war. we can't sit and wait for another act of terrorism. I just hope it can be quick, successful and with minimal loss.

Zero

Mar17-03, 03:31 PM

I would change one word of that...'instead' to 'also'. You can supprt the troops and protest at the same time!

Kerrie

Mar17-03, 03:45 PM

my best friend's husband had a few months to go before he was free and clear of the marine reserves...he just finished his bachelor's at PSU, and just proposed to my best friend and they planned to marry this november...i guess i get a little irritated of those who are so busy critisizing our governement more then they mention that we have real people who are in the middle east dealing with this reality that we are just reading and hearing about via the media...

while i realize that our government has some faults, to me it is more important to support those who are facing one of the most real human experiences that has ravaged our planet for years, and that is war...

Monique

Mar17-03, 04:04 PM

Sorry to say, I don't support the war and especially not the way that it is being declared. I should've written down the number of contradictions that people speak in a single sentence.. let's make peace by going to war.. they are a threat to our country so let's attack them first.. a mother with a 3 month old child at the front line.. a father with a newborn undergoing a heart transplant at the front line.. a little too eager in my opinion.

Sorry to taint your well meant thread Kerrie, so are American required under penalty to go to war? That would make me understand your thread better.

And Greg, I really don't think that this is going to be quick as advertised by Bush.. just think of all the counter actions that will follow.. when you give the first strike, you sure can expect to be hit back, hard.

Kerrie

Mar17-03, 04:23 PM

monique~

if one joins the military reserves, they are pledging a promise to serve our country shall war be at hand...or they go to jail...but those who join the reserves usually do so to help with college, or just to better themselves...my fiance has just a couple more weeks to go until he is free and clear of the army reserves calling him up, and we are waiting it out patiently...chances are he won't, but anything is possible...

my issue was not in support of any war....just for those who wonder, i am against war, but as it is obvious, it is not up to us citizens of america to choose the fate of our country, but rather the very few who hold the most power of this country...

i am advocating, that regardless of what you believe (war or no war), we need to support those who are dealing with this reality at the very front-our troops-they were called up to leave their homes and it is for them we need to give our loud support for because of what they are sacrificing...

Monique

Mar17-03, 05:18 PM

Hi Kerrie, thanks for clarifying that. There is a big difference in supporting the fighting troops (when I oppose war) if they themselves believe in a war or not. The dutch army is a professional one, from your post I am not yet clear whether the American army is a professional one or are people over the age of 18 (or 21?) summoned to report when troops are needed?

Kerrie

Mar17-03, 05:31 PM

we call it the draft when young men are called (regardless of their enrollment into the military) to serve our country as troops...our military (currently) is entirely voluntary, and there are many perks to serving our country, such as health care, college money, and help with buying a first home...

Monique

Mar17-03, 05:38 PM

So during such a draft they are free to deny serving the military or will there be actions taken against them if they do (just curious to know).

Kerrie

Mar17-03, 06:17 PM

the draft is far from voluntary...if a young man is drafted, he is going into the military whether he likes it or not, otherwise he faces jail time...my dad (being the hippie that he was and is) fled to canada when the draft started calling his friends...he was never called while in canada, but shortly after coming home he was sent the dreaded letter of the obligation to serve his counrtry...

i believe that the draft is outlawed here in america...someone correct me if i am wrong...

one may say "if you oppose war, don't join the military", but those who join are typically just starting out adulthood and the military provides direction (at least it is suppossed to)...a lot of times, the possibility of war doesn't seem that near...

FZ+

Mar17-03, 08:55 PM

Let's try and get a consensus here.
Though we all may nor may not belief that war is the right course of action, that responsibility lies with the administration in charge. Though we may or may not support the actual war, we fully support those soldiers who feel that they are doing their duty for the nation, and wish them luck in whatever endeavor they do. We have the greatest respect for these men, indeed, all men who are so prepared to lay down their lives, and trust in their capabilities. We may not agree that these capabilities should be used, but we may be anti-war, not anti those who simply do their duty.

Agreed?

Greg Bernhardt

Mar17-03, 09:47 PM

And Greg, I really don't think that this is going to be quick as advertised by Bush..

I diagree, there is no reason for the US to wait. I expect a move as early as late wednesday.

Ganshauk

Mar18-03, 01:33 AM

I support the war, I know many actives who likewise support it. That is, as has been pointed out, neither here nor there at this point.

We are committed now. Either you support it or you don't.

No disrespect, but saying you support the soldiers but not the war is like saying you support the furnace operator but not the extermination of Jews. With such an attitude, you could not but despise the forces of Hussein who surrender offhand, while respecting those who kill our own troops.

Taking orders is not an excuse for destroying life. It is a personal act, justified by the intention alone. Courage and honor - not duty - drive the soldier.

Protesting the war is protesting the mechanism of that war - the soldier - especially since every soul over there is there by choice. There is no draft.

To me, saying "I protest the war but honor the soldier" is asinine, a politically correct statement that sounds good but signifies nothing. You don't laude the engineer by telling him his building sucks! You don't hail the manufacturer by telling him his automoblile is trash. You don't applaude the baker by telling him his loaf is foul.

You dont uphold the soldier by telling him his war is unjust.

Galatea

Mar18-03, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Ganshauk
Courage and honor - not duty - drive the soldier.

I think that's a bold statement to make. A lot of the younger people in the military are doing so for the reasons Kerrie stated - money for college, stability, direction etc. I would not claim this is the majority as I have no real statistics but I should remind you that you don't either. It's awfully idealistic to assume all people join the military with such lofty goals. Are they courageous an honorable in the right situation? I'm sure. But I think a lot of them do it strictly because of duty.

Zero

Mar18-03, 03:17 AM

Zero

Mar18-03, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by Galatea
I think that's a bold statement to make. A lot of the younger people in the military are doing so for the reasons Kerrie stated - money for college, stability, direction etc. I would not claim this is the majority as I have no real statistics but I should remind you that you don't either. It's awfully idealistic to assume all people join the military with such lofty goals. Are they courageous an honorable in the right situation? I'm sure. But I think a lot of them do it strictly because of duty.

I was in the Marines...most folks were there for the college money. Duty was important, and courage isn't even a factor.

bogdan

Mar18-03, 07:59 AM

Romania supports 100% the US...
Unfortunately we hurry too much to show our support...
For example Turkey requested 30 billion $(!!!) for economical growth to permit their air-space to be used...
Us...romanians...requested nothing...and what will we receive ?
Maybe some anthrax...
I have nothing to argue to this war...but history is repeating...
Have you read "Dune", by Frank Herbert ? Do you see the similarities ? spice->oil;...so on...
minimal loss..the road to hell is...(don't know the word) with good intentions...and because of this war it will be hell here on earth...
Let's hope Shaddam will have the wisdom to leave Iraq...because we are on the edge of the abys...
God bless America and its allies...

Kerrie

Mar18-03, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Ganshauk
Taking orders is not an excuse for destroying life. It is a personal act, justified by the intention alone. Courage and honor - not duty - drive the soldier.

seems to me ganshauk that you could be a recruiter for the U.S. Miltary...as this comment is the ideal for which the military promotes, but the ideal and realistic world are two different things...most young "courageous and honorable" people join the armed forces for reasons that are more practical and beneficial to them on the individual level over the collective level of defending our country...

Monique

Mar18-03, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by FZ+
Let's try and get a consensus here.
Though we all may nor may not belief that war is the right course of action, that responsibility lies with the administration in charge. Though we may or may not support the actual war, we fully support those soldiers who feel that they are doing their duty for the nation, and wish them luck in whatever endeavor they do. We have the greatest respect for these men, indeed, all men who are so prepared to lay down their lives, and trust in their capabilities. We may not agree that these capabilities should be used, but we may be anti-war, not anti those who simply do their duty.

Agreed?

O...M..G..!! I just cannot believe what you are saying!!! I just cannot believe it.. Ganshauk made some good comments.. Where to begin, let's just say that you are supporting the whole thing you are fighting against. Iraqi people supporting Saddam Hussein, not questioning him since he is the leader and he means the best for his country. You guys are unbelievable, no offence

And Bogdan, why do you think that Romania supports Bush 100%? Could it have anything to do with just being accepted to Nato?

bogdan

Mar18-03, 09:38 AM

Nope...
Romanians are very unsure of them...We can be good friends...we forget many things...
Unfortunately we don't know how to make ourselfes more "pretious", more wanted...to impose conditions and to win strategic advantages...
We are too friendly...
Actually, romanians don't support US 100%...not all the people...
We...for example...have ruined our relationship with the other countries in europe (France...neighbours...) for so many times...(for example the war in Yugoslavia...we helped the USA and turned our back to our old friends the yugoslavs...)

STAii

Mar18-03, 10:57 AM

First of all i would like to point out that the ideas being said here are very shocking !
I will be frank in what i am saying, so please forgive me if i am too frank (but this has a big affect on the people living in the middle east (like myself), and a lot more than those living far from here)
Originally posted by Kerrie
if one joins the military reserves, they are pledging a promise to serve our country shall war be at hand...or they go to jail...but those who join the reserves usually do so to help with college

Can i translate this to "The guy will do whatever he is asked for even if he does not believe in it (or it is wrong) only to enter a university ?"
He will kill innocent people, make big problems in the world, even change a whole diplomatical issue only for his own personal sake ?

my issue was not in support of any war....just for those who wonder, i am against war, but as it is obvious, it is not up to us citizens of america to choose the fate of our country, but rather the very few who hold the most power of this country...

i am advocating, that regardless of what you believe (war or no war), we need to support those who are dealing with this reality at the very front-our troops-they were called up to leave their homes and it is for them we need to give our loud support for because of what they are sacrificing...
Aha, right.
So why not also give you loud support to the people that are sacrifying from the Iraqi side ?
Why not support them too ?
They don't want the war too, they are sacrifying too, they did not do anything wrong too, they care about their own life too.
But the difference is that their country can do nothing about war, while your country can stop it.
And the Iraqi soldiers actually need the support more than the US soldiers, they have no technology.
Imagine that they actually are low on food, they sometimes have to eat uncooked dogs only to stay alive !!
And lastly, who gave the right to US to decide who should rule and who should not (since US says that Saddam should not rule Iraq).
Originally posted by FZ+
we fully support those soldiers who feel that they are doing their duty for the nation, and wish them luck in whatever endeavor they do

Can you please define those soldiers ?
I guess you mean US and UK soldiers, but why do THOSE deserve support and the other side does not deserve support ?
Originally posted by Greg
I diagree, there is no reason for the US to wait. I expect a move as early as late wednesday.

Well, i think they were supposed to wait the decision of the UN, but they don't have to anymore, after they found that that the UN will not accept it anyway !
Originally posted by Zero
I was in the Marines...most folks were there for the college money. Duty was important, and courage isn't even a factor.

I think that you (along with Galatea) are missunderstanding the point of Ganshauk (specially that you are looking only at a sentence in the paragraph).
If you look at the whole paragraph, you will see the meaning a little clearer.
"Taking orders is not an excuse for destroying life. It is a personal act, justified by the intention alone. Courage and honor - not duty - drive the soldier. "
I personally see that Ganshauk meant (by the whole paragraph) that the reason the soldier actually accepts the orders is not because he feels the duty is pushing him, it is for another reason (maybe honor as Ganshauk sees, or college (and other things) as the others see), and therefore the idea that the soldier does not agree with the orders but still do them (under the name of "doing the duty") is not right.

Njorl

Mar18-03, 11:01 AM

It is certainly possible to oppose a war and support the soldiers fighting it. Opposition to the war is a belief that the war should not be fought. It is certainly possible to make that sentiment known, and at the same time demand that the soldiers fighting it receive the best possible equipment, logistical support and leadership available.

Opposition to the Vietnam war, for instance, was the best support a soldier could have. Our country was throwing away the lives of soldiers to no rational end. Those who opposed the war helped bring those soldiers home. There were certainly a lot of anti-war activists who did not support the soldier, but by the end, most protesters were against the war because their sons, brothers or husbands were being drafted.

Njorl

Zero

Mar18-03, 11:19 AM

I don't support this sort of war. I think the Republican plan is ignorant, and more harmful to the Iraqi people than it needs to be. How can I support the troops? Because I don't want anyone innocent to die. Not our troops, not their civilians. For the most part, I don't want to see Iraqi troops die, since my understanding is that many of them are conscripted, and will be shot if they don't fight.

Now, on the other hand, the draft dodgers planning the war (with the exception of Colin Powell, who is barely in the loop sometimes), should I support them?

Kerrie

Mar18-03, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by STAii
So why not also give you loud support to the people that are sacrifying from the Iraqi side ?
Why not support them too ?
They don't want the war too, they are sacrifying too, they did not do anything wrong too, they care about their own life too.
But the difference is that their country can do nothing about war, while your country can stop it.
And the Iraqi soldiers actually need the support more than the US soldiers, they have no technology.
Imagine that they actually are low on food, they sometimes have to eat uncooked dogs only to stay alive !!
And lastly, who gave the right to US to decide who should rule and who should not (since US says that Saddam should not rule Iraq).
[/B]

you have a valid point here STAii...I did label this thread as "Support our troops for America" though, and that is what I am addressing, perhaps you might want to start a new thread making this point? As I do find it a valid one...I am uneducated on the military process of Iraq, therefore I cannot offer my opinion of the other side, I would much rather have a native of the Middle East discuss what they are witnessing then rely on the DAM (Dysfunctional American Media)...perhaps you can restart a new thread and enlighten us all?

Monique

Mar18-03, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Njorl
It is certainly possible to oppose a war and support the soldiers fighting it. Opposition to the war is a belief that the war should not be fought. It is certainly possible to make that sentiment known, and at the same time demand that the soldiers fighting it receive the best possible equipment, logistical support and leadership available.

Opposition to the Vietnam war, for instance, was the best support a soldier could have. Our country was throwing away the lives of soldiers to no rational end. Those who opposed the war helped bring those soldiers home. There were certainly a lot of anti-war activists who did not support the soldier, but by the end, most protesters were against the war because their sons, brothers or husbands were being drafted.

Njorl

Where are your morals? You are against a war, that means that you do not support the reasons for which it is fought.. and then you say that they should get the best possible equipment and logistical support to do as much and overwhelming damage as they can? Don't let the American/British soldiers be hurt, but whoever is on the other side.. good luck?

Not all that is unknown is evil.

FZ+

Mar18-03, 02:48 PM

Agreed?
I guess no. [:((]

No disrespect, but saying you support the soldiers but not the war is like saying you support the furnace operator but not the extermination of Jews. With such an attitude, you could not but despise the forces of Hussein who surrender offhand, while respecting those who kill our own troops.
So we should have killed all the Germans after the war for supporting Hitler?
Your furnace operator comment is appealing for irrationality. In reality, if any sort of good is to come out of this, some sort of reconcilliation must take place. If we do not forgive and forget, we will never make progress. That is a fact. It's hard to accept, but that is a fact.
We must recognise that the soldiers on both sides of the conflict are simply doing their duty. In the armed forces, duty was the primary thing in your minds. The effect is, soldiers do not kill because they want to, but because they have to. Either that or you write off a generation as murderers.
We have to recognise these men's bravery, no matter which side they are on. If they surrender, they are brave for daring to defy Saddam. If they fight on, they should be respected for their determination. Even if they are our enemies. Tell me, if you were an Iraqi conscript, educated into the belief in protecting your country, what would you do? Their deaths are not meaningless. Neccessary in the horror of war, but they should be recognised. The same may not be applied to those who genuinely have a choice. Any commander remember that the responsibility of the war rests in their hands. The troops on the ground and on either side do not neccessarily have the blame.
I did limit it to those who genuinely feel they are doing their duty. Those doing it for economic purposes need not apply.

O...M..G..!! I just cannot believe what you are saying!!! I just cannot believe it.. Ganshauk made some good comments.. Where to begin, let's just say that you are supporting the whole thing you are fighting against. Iraqi people supporting Saddam Hussein, not questioning him since he is the leader and he means the best for his country. You guys are unbelievable, no offence
I feel regret for the people doing that, but I do not support the thing itself. We respect the individuals caught up in a situation they have no power over, and sympathise with their situation. We do not neccessarily support the "thing", the cause. People are going to die. At least we can feel sorry.

Can you please define those soldiers ?
I guess you mean US and UK soldiers, but why do THOSE deserve support and the other side does not deserve support ?
It doesn't actually matter which side they are on. I mean we respect the individuals on each side, even if we do not support the cause of either side. They may be troops, but each is a person. We need to remember that. We need to remember war is a horrible thing.

Njorl

Mar18-03, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Monique
Where are your morals? You are against a war, that means that you do not support the reasons for which it is fought.. and then you say that they should get the best possible equipment and logistical support to do as much and overwhelming damage as they can? Don't let the American/British soldiers be hurt, but whoever is on the other side.. good luck?

Not all that is unknown is evil.

I know where my morals are. First, I did not say that I opposed this war. I do not. I was speaking generally. But even specifically for this war, one could support the objectives of disarmament and regime change, but be opposed to fighting a war to do it.

Perhaps the protester does not think the goals are worth the lives of his countrymen. If the government then decides to fight a war anyway, the protester is perfectly logical in wanting his countrymen to have every advantage in that war. If the basis of the protest is the welfare of the soldier, it is logically consistent that the protestor should want the soldier to be as safe and effective as possible during the war.

Njorl

Monique

Mar18-03, 07:37 PM

Hi Njorl, that is good logic, for a selfish person. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to offend you, I am interested in the views that people have and how they go against their own believes.

A leader only leads a country if the people support him. Support should be measured in standing for the actions that are being taken, not about being patriotic. That is where things go wrong, if people were standing up for their believes in Iraq, they would probably be able to overthrow Saddam Hussein themselves. Instead they are 'patriotic' and will fight for their leader, just because he is the leader (and in case of Hussein, fear of torture plays a role).

I mentioned the word selfish, since Americans are attacking Iraq out of patriotic believes, if one is against a war, but is being called upon to fight, one should object and spent 3 years in jail, if that is what it takes to stand up for an opinion. It SHOULDN'T be logically about wanting the soldier to be safe, if that very same soldier is going to inflict damage upon other people.. I realize that it IS that way, but it shouldn't.

kat

Mar18-03, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by Monique
Hi Njorl, that is good logic, for a selfish person. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to offend you, I am interested in the views that people have and how they go against their own believes.

A leader only leads a country if the people support him. Support should be measured in standing for the actions that are being taken, not about being patriotic. That is where things go wrong, if people were standing up for their believes in Iraq, they would probably be able to overthrow Saddam Hussein themselves. Instead they are 'patriotic' and will fight for their leader, just because he is the leader (and in case of Hussein, fear of torture plays a role).

I mentioned the word selfish, since Americans are attacking Iraq out of patriotic believes, if one is against a war, but is being called upon to fight, one should object and spent 3 years in jail, if that is what it takes to stand up for an opinion. It SHOULDN'T be logically about wanting the soldier to be safe, if that very same soldier is going to inflict damage upon other people.. I realize that it IS that way, but it shouldn't.

I'm not really sure I understand your claim "Americans are attacking Iraq out of patriotic believes" maybe you can explain that a bit?
It appears to me that you want to see things in a very black and white manner, unfortunately in many cases life is just not so clear...or maybe you know something I don't?

Laser Eyes

Mar19-03, 02:28 AM

We have the greatest respect for these men, indeed, all men who are so prepared to lay down their lives, and trust in their capabilities.

I notice you don't say "We have the greatest respect for these men who are prepared to kill ..."

Laser Eyes

Laser Eyes

Mar19-03, 02:47 AM

so here's food for thought...instead of protesting how our government is making choices, lend some care, compassion and support to the men and women who are sacrificing by sending letters, care packages, pictures and words of love and support for the tremendous courage they have for being on the forefront of this nation's security

It is impossible to support the members of any armed forces who go to kill other people in a war if you disagree with the reason for the war. The two things just do not stand together. There is an inconsistency. The point that everyone is missing is that no member of the American forces (or any other country) can be forced to go into battle and kill other people against their will. No matter the reason they joined the military they can refuse to fight an unjust war. There may be serious consequences for them if they do but standing up for the right principle has always had a cost.

Laser Eyes

Njorl

Mar19-03, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Monique
Hi Njorl, that is good logic, for a selfish person. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to offend you, I am interested in the views that people have and how they go against their own believes.

A leader only leads a country if the people support him. Support should be measured in standing for the actions that are being taken, not about being patriotic. That is where things go wrong, if people were standing up for their believes in Iraq, they would probably be able to overthrow Saddam Hussein themselves. Instead they are 'patriotic' and will fight for their leader, just because he is the leader (and in case of Hussein, fear of torture plays a role).

I mentioned the word selfish, since Americans are attacking Iraq out of patriotic believes, if one is against a war, but is being called upon to fight, one should object and spent 3 years in jail, if that is what it takes to stand up for an opinion. It SHOULDN'T be logically about wanting the soldier to be safe, if that very same soldier is going to inflict damage upon other people.. I realize that it IS that way, but it shouldn't.

No Monique, you do wish to offend me. You have called me immoral and selfish. You then cravenly add a disclaimer that you don't wish to offend me. Had you truly not wished to offend me you could have pointed out how my opinions were wrong. Instead you insult me and ramble illogically about patriotism.

Let me put this argument in the simplest possible terms. Imagine your son is in the army, and is sent to fight. You opposed the war, though he did not. Do you want your son to receive a faulty gun, so that he will die instead of the enemy? That is not unselfish, that is unnatural.

Njorl

Siv

Mar19-03, 09:01 AM

If there's one objective the US is not going to achieve with this war, thats preventing further terrorist attacks. Quite the contrary. The moment you remove Saddam, the next in command (until this lady takes over) will sell all the weapons to the highest (terrorist) bidders and escape.

I'm surprised elementary logic is beyond Bush and co. Actually no ... I'm not surprised.

- S.

Monique

Mar19-03, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Njorl
No Monique, you do wish to offend me. You have called me immoral and selfish. You then cravenly add a disclaimer that you don't wish to offend me. Had you truly not wished to offend me you could have pointed out how my opinions were wrong. Instead you insult me and ramble illogically about patriotism.

Let me put this argument in the simplest possible terms. Imagine your son is in the army, and is sent to fight. You opposed the war, though he did not. Do you want your son to receive a faulty gun, so that he will die instead of the enemy? That is not unselfish, that is unnatural.

Njorl

I didn't call YOU immoral or selfish, I called your arguments that way. There is an ever so slight difference. I am not attacking you as a person since I don't know you, and your nuances.

It is very clear that that argument you just presented is selfish, you cannot deny that. A son is sent into war, a parent doesn't want him to get hurt, ofcourse, but how about the people that he is going to attack? Just who is right and who is wrong in these fights? Whose lifes are more important?

And it is clear to me that Americans are very patriotic and sometimes (more often than not as I have observed) say things that are offending to non-americans. I live here in a very multi-cultural community and I am not the only one with this opinion.

Monique

Mar19-03, 09:20 AM

Bush: 'New and undeniable realities'
South End Editorial Board

The president's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein and his sons last night could best be described as pure Shakespeare: "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

In his rehash of the same noble-sounding rhetoric that the American people have been listening to for months, Bush built his justification for a pre-emptive strike on the nation of Iraq from our "sovereign right to defend ourselves" to insinuating that "the security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now."

Yet the demand resounded hollow. Only Saddam and his sons were ordered to leave, under threat of attack from the United States to take place "at a time of our choosing."

Our president cannot rally the nine members of the Security Council to his cause, yet he claims to know what is best for the world. Our president has boldly pulled out of treaties and defied the will of the United Nations, yet he claims to be making the world safe for peace and democracy. Fear and perpetual war do not make peace. Ignoring popular opinion and usurping the democratic process do not furnish democracy.

His message to the Iraqi people, military and officials was absurd. From warnings not to harm the oil (and wine) to a sly Nuremberg Trials reference, Bush made it a "war crime" for an Iraqi citizen to defend his or her homeland.

Removing Saddam and his sons, should this farce of an ultimatum be complied with, will do little other than disrupt the region. It is not a viable solution, and our administration knows this.

This can be construed as little other than an attempt to feign a peace process and start war. Ironically, the president might have a higher approval rating if he would stop lying about his true intentions.

http://www.southend.wayne.edu/days/2003/march/3182003/oped/bush/bush.html

STAii

Mar19-03, 09:58 AM

The replies are really shocking.
Now i understand how US works.
First, all citizens put some guy as their president.
Then they accept the president even if they didn't like him (maybe this is not really a bad thing, if it is used right).
After that, they see what the president will do.
The president takes a certain action.
They start thinking if they are with that action, or against.
Some of them think the action is right, some of them think the action is wrong.
Eventually they all support the president, and the president does what he wants, and no one tries to defend his point of view.
So it does not really matter if they were with or against the action of the president, cause eventually they will support it.
And the role of the people stops the moment they choose the president.
So all the people eventually drop their morals and follow the 'leadership'.

Njorl

Mar19-03, 11:23 AM

Monique,

Calling the desire to have your loved ones continue to live selfish is ridiculous. You might as well consider exhaling selfish - it adds to global warming. So everyone on Earth should drop over dead or be considered selfish? Selfishness is the expectation of unreasonable benefits at unreasonable costs to others.

Njorl

Kerrie

Mar19-03, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by STAii
The replies are really shocking.
Now i understand how US works.
First, all citizens put some guy as their president.
Then they accept the president even if they didn't like him (maybe this is not really a bad thing, if it is used right).
After that, they see what the president will do.
The president takes a certain action.
They start thinking if they are with that action, or against.
Some of them think the action is right, some of them think the action is wrong.
Eventually they all support the president, and the president does what he wants, and no one tries to defend his point of view.
So it does not really matter if they were with or against the action of the president, cause eventually they will support it.
And the role of the people stops the moment they choose the president.
So all the people eventually drop their morals and follow the 'leadership'.

STAii...please remember that there are Americans who do not support the government...what can one individual do about this war? they can only protest, but that doesn't get anything changed....

this thread was dedicated to our American troops who are away from their families for a reason (to me) that is uneccesary...idealy, no war should be fought on this planet, but reality is taking us on a differnet course...

so, STAii, i believe your general opinion is unfounded about the Americans, because there are many of us who are supporting those who are unwillingly fighting....do you think my friend's husband wants to be out there in Kuwait during the sandstorms being commanded to shoot? no, there maybe few men and women who are gung-ho for this war, but i assure you the majority of them do not want to be there, and will celebrate the minute they are told to go back home to their families...

i suggest you speak to more general americans about how they individually feel about this war, and stop passing a general judgement on us, as here in america, we are not passing a general judgement on the arabic people either just because of this pending war....

Njorl

Mar19-03, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by STAii
The replies are really shocking.
Now i understand how US works.
First, all citizens put some guy as their president.
Then they accept the president even if they didn't like him (maybe this is not really a bad thing, if it is used right).
After that, they see what the president will do.
The president takes a certain action.
They start thinking if they are with that action, or against.
Some of them think the action is right, some of them think the action is wrong.
Eventually they all support the president, and the president does what he wants, and no one tries to defend his point of view.
So it does not really matter if they were with or against the action of the president, cause eventually they will support it.
And the role of the people stops the moment they choose the president.
So all the people eventually drop their morals and follow the 'leadership'.

No Stai, that is not how America works. People will continue to protest this war. Some of these will be prominent people speaking on national television. Others will speak out against the protesters. Others, like me, will speak out for the war, and for the right of the protesters to express themselves without being considered traitors. The United States is one of the few countries in the world in which this is true. You can still be imprisoned in France for speaking out against the government. You can still be fined in Britain and Australia for speaking the truth, if it is considered libelous. That can't happen to you in the US.

Njorl

Kerrie

Mar19-03, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
It is impossible to support the members of any armed forces who go to kill other people in a war if you disagree with the reason for the war. The two things just do not stand together. There is an inconsistency. The point that everyone is missing is that no member of the American forces (or any other country) can be forced to go into battle and kill other people against their will. No matter the reason they joined the military they can refuse to fight an unjust war. There may be serious consequences for them if they do but standing up for the right principle has always had a cost.

Laser Eyes
i see you have SRS (selective reading syndrome)...please re-read and re-consider HOW i said to support our troops, otherwise don't quote my words....

lend some care, compassion and support to the men and women who are sacrificing by sending letters, care packages, pictures and words of love and support

STAii

Mar19-03, 12:51 PM

Kerrie,
I did not mean to make a general statement about everyone (and i am sorry if i did), i meant to talk about majorities.
About what you said (your friend's husband).
A person that really cares about his principals will defend them.
That is, if the person is against war, he will not go to fight, he will prefer being prisoned then fighting against his beleives.
Therefore i see that those fighting will either be :
1-Someone that sees the war should happen.
2-Someone that sees the war should not happen, but still is fighting because he will hate being prisoned.
3-Someone that is against war, but still is fighting cause he wants to take the benefits of being a soldier.

Well, in the case (2), the person is a cowerd.
In case (3), the person has no principles, since he will prefer his own good on doing what is 'right'.

So if you are a person that is against war, you should see that the soldiers do not really deserve your lovely support (as explained before).

No Stai, that is not how America works. People will continue to protest this war. Some of these will be prominent people speaking on national television. Others will speak out against the protesters. Others, like me, will speak out for the war, and for the right of the protesters to express themselves without being considered traitors. The United States is one of the few countries in the world in which this is true.

And ... no one will hear all of this ? (i mean there will be no reaction from the government when they see that lot of people are against what they are doing ?)

Kerrie

Mar19-03, 02:17 PM

STAii, what you may not realize is, America gives great incentives to men and women who join the military RESERVES, different then the active military...by offering one weekend a month/two weeks a year of their time to train, they receive money for college, assistance for buying a home, and part time income...because the possibility of war is generally a very low one, my friend's husband (in his case specifically) joined the reserves for college reasons...his committment time would have been up this summer-thus not required by law to go to Kuwait-if he had not showed up for duty after being called up, he would face jail time, and probably end up owing a lot of money back for college (this fact i am not 100% sure of)...so in his perspective, he is probably not supportive of the war in general, but is doing his duty because the military provided him a lot of help with college in return for his pledge to serve his country...

again, please remember, this thread is not about protesting the war, but it is to lend encouragement to the men and women facing one of the scariest realities of our time-regardless if it is a good or bad reason, they are still dealing with something most of us would see as a nightmare...

russ_watters

Mar19-03, 02:33 PM

I would change one word of that...'instead' to 'also'. You can supprt the troops and protest at the same time! I completely agree. It saddens me how few people can require that not supporting a war means not supporting the troops. Supporting the troops is ENTIRELY about hoping the come back alive. What they fight for or even IF they fight is irrelevant to the desire to see them return alive. Example:

Therefore i see that those fighting will either be :
1-Someone that sees the war should happen.
2-Someone that sees the war should not happen, but still is fighting because he will hate being prisoned.
3-Someone that is against war, but still is fighting cause he wants to take the benefits of being a soldier.

Well, in the case (2), the person is a cowerd.
In case (3), the person has no principles, since he will prefer his own good on doing what is 'right'.

So if you are a person that is against war, you should see that the soldiers do not really deserve your lovely support (as explained before).
Though I disagree with your 3 case, I'll go with them. In any of those 3 cases, is your gripe with that person bad enough you wish them to DIE? Because failure in a mission means death. Patriotically supporting the troops is NOT about supporting the war, it is simply showing that you hope they don't DIE:

1. Misguided, but you are an American so I hope you don't die.
2. Coward, but you are an American so I hope you don't die.
3. Mercenary, but you are an American so I hope you don't die.

Do you realize that by your stance you are expressing a hope that our sodiers DIE? Whether you truly believe it or not, thats how it comes out. Hoping for Americans to die is unpatriotic.

FZ+

Mar19-03, 04:03 PM

russ_watters: That's right. My appeal can be interpreted as simply hoping that the war, since it probably can no longer be prevented, happens as quickly and bloodlessly as possible.

zk4586

Mar19-03, 05:12 PM

I know I'll be 18 when the 2004 Presidential election rolls around and will most definately not be voting for President Bush. It is this ridiculous double standard that's being applied by Bush that I object to most: that we should punish Saddam Hussein for going against the UN by going against the UN.

drag

Mar19-03, 05:41 PM

USA ! USA ! USA ! [:)]
Originally posted by zk4586
I know I'll be 18 when the 2004 Presidential election rolls around and will most definately not be voting for President Bush. It is this ridiculous double standard that's being applied by Bush that I object to most: that we should punish Saddam Hussein for going against the UN by going against the UN.
[:((]
The UN is a bunch of magots and politicians worried
about their own jobs.
It is abvious that there can NEVER be real consensus
in the UN about ANY war by ANY country, for the
simple reason that countries don't vote for what is
"right", but rather for what's "beneficial" to them
and each country has different intrests.
It is fortunate that a super-power like the US exists
and can act without this corrupted institution.
(Of course, as the saying goes - "Absolute power corrupts
absolutely." [;)] But, the history of the US appears
to prove this saying wrong, so far.)
Otherwise, no one would "raize a finger" in ANY
conflict ANYWHERE until WW3 would begin in full force.

The price of freedom is eternal vegelance.

Live long and prosper.

rutwig

Mar20-03, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
you bet kerrie, even though I have a few friends stationed in the middle east I still support the war. we can't sit and wait for another act of terrorism. I just hope it can be quick, successful and with minimal loss.

I agree with that idea, but the war has given to these groups the legitimation of continuing their attacks. And it has made from a local problem a religious question, and this is without doubt the most dangerous variant.
On the other hand, in Egypt and Algèrie there are groups that are much more dangerous than the troup of Saddam.

heumpje

Mar20-03, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by drag
USA ! USA ! USA ! [:)]

[:((]
The UN is a bunch of magots and politicians worried
about their own jobs.
It is abvious that there can NEVER be real consensus
in the UN about ANY war by ANY country, for the
simple reason that countries don't vote for what is
"right", but rather for what's "beneficial" to them
and each country has different intrests.
It is fortunate that a super-power like the US exists
and can act without this corrupted institution.
(Of course, as the saying goes - "Absolute power corrupts
absolutely." [;)] But, the history of the US appears
to prove this saying wrong, so far.)
Otherwise, no one would "raize a finger" in ANY
conflict ANYWHERE until WW3 would begin in full force.

The price of freedom is eternal vegelance.

Live long and prosper.

I can agree with this in parts. I do think that at the moment there are a lot of countries that only vote according to what benefits them most (and i believe that this also partially true for the states). I also think that the way the power within the counsel is distributed should be changed. It hasn't changed since the end of WW II, while the world did change a lot. So no more veto's for countries like france . Actually i think they should stop using veto rights because it doesn't help making decisions.

However, to state that it is fortunate that there is a superpower like the US, who can change the world in their favor without anybody able to do anything about it, is exactly the sort of arrogance that countries like france and germany are aggitating against. Perhaps it is naive, but i refuse to believe that Chirac vetoed only because of inland politics. I think a lot of countries at the moment are "against" the states because in the past few years (from the beginning of this administration) they have operated very unilateral. The US boycots treatise like the kyoto protocol and the international court only because it might, perhaps hurt the american economy.

Anyway, now that the war is here, i wish the troops fighting in the middle east all the very best. I also wish the Iraqi people all the very best. I think that they are the true victims of all this...

kat

Mar20-03, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by heumpje

However, to state that it is fortunate that there is a superpower like the US, who can change the world in their favor without anybody able to do anything about it, is exactly the sort of arrogance that countries like france and germany are aggitating against. Perhaps it is naive, but i refuse to believe that Chirac vetoed only because of inland politics.

France invaded Rwanda in 1994, on the side of the Hutus. When Britain and the US asked the UN to impose sanctions on the warlord dictator Charles Taylor in Liberia, France fought the prroposal and forced a weakening of the original intent in the final Security Council resolutions. France supported Laurent Kabila after he removed his pro-Tutsi Rwandan and Ugandan advisors. It supported Mobutu in Zaire, turning against him only when he attempted to improve his relations with the US. France invaded the Ivory Coast this year, without asking the UN for approval, because Ivoran rebels were threatening Abidjan and San Pedro where 20,000 French settlers live, and the rebels would have kicked them out. France supported the U.S. invasion of Yugoslavia without UN approval, because it did not want to have to accomodate the mostly Muslim refugees from the Yugoslav civil war that were starting to knock on France's door.

Knowing all this as well as I do, you still think that France
threatened to veto because of anything other then self interest?

Anyone who knows even just the tip of the iceberg of French foreign policy these past few decades that I outlined in the first paragraph of this post, who is able to simultaneously believe that France really stands for the position "that unilateral warmaking by any state without the compliance of the UN is unacceptable" might be interested in coming to Brooklyn, I have a nice bridge to sell you.

zk4586

Mar20-03, 08:47 AM

It is fortunate that a super-power like the US exists
and can act without this corrupted institution.

Fortunate? I find nothing fortunate in the fact that the US is a country which uses it's power to bully other nations into submitting to whatever suits the US. I find nothing fortunate in the fact that a country which was founded on the ideals of freedom and liberty would use its military strength and economic superiority so agressively that its image becomes one of capriciousness, arrogance, and brutality.

FZ+

Mar20-03, 08:57 AM

Knowing all this as well as I do, you still think that France
threatened to veto because of anything other then self interest?

Chirac threatened to use the veto for the same reason the US threatened to invade Iraq with or without an UN resolution.

If you can't believe that Chirac is acting out of principle and the common opinion of his public, then there is similarly no reason to believe that the US is invading Iraq to remove Saddam.

kat

Mar20-03, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by FZ+
Chirac threatened to use the veto for the same reason the US threatened to invade Iraq with or without an UN resolution.

If you can't believe that Chirac is acting out of principle and the common opinion of his public, then there is similarly no reason to believe that the US is invading Iraq to remove Saddam.

I was talking about the hypocrisy of the French government, which repeatedly sent its soldiers to foreign territories without UN approval when it decided it was in its national interest to do so, but decided to insist on the requirement for UN approval only when the US government decided it was in its interest to do so. That is a very blatant example of hypocrisy on the part of France regardless of who one would prefer to be his president (Schroeder perhaps, Chirac probably not), regardless of whether one voted for Bush or not (I did not), regardless of whether the American decision to go to war against Iraq is right or wrong (I think at this point it may be the lesser of evils), and regardless of whether the U.S. is equally hypocritical (which it is).

Zargawee

Mar20-03, 12:48 PM

If you can't believe that Chirac is acting out of principle and the common opinion of his public, then there is similarly no reason to believe that the US is invading Iraq to remove Saddam.
The reason is obvios , US And UK Want the fields of Oil , and wants to remove the most powerful arab country .
There's also a reason for UK to follow US, which is that The English Currancy is Going Down because of the success of the Euro , and if the Euro completes it's success , this will lead to make the Euro competor to The US Dollar .

Here In Jordan , we rely on The Us Dollar , but some investors are changing into Euro , becuase they see a very bright future for this currancy.

Back to the main subject , I think we have the right to suport the iraqi side , Not becuase they defend Saddam , but Only becuase they are arabs , and arabs are brothers .

russ_watters

Mar20-03, 02:09 PM

The reason is obvios , US And UK Want the fields of Oil If we had wanted to keep the oil, we would not have put out the fires then GIVEN THEM BACK to Iraq and Kuait in 1991. You will soon see (again) how wrong you are.

russ_watters

Mar20-03, 02:11 PM

I was talking about the hypocrisy of the French government, which repeatedly sent its soldiers to foreign territories without UN approval when it decided it was in its national interest to do so, but decided to insist on the requirement for UN approval only when the US government decided it was in its interest to do so. France is in fact fighting an unsanctioned war in the Ivory Coast right now. No UN approval was sought or given. Are they wrong for fighting it? Does it make them hypocrites? Absolutely.

FZ+

Mar20-03, 04:46 PM

The following are random examples:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2622511.stm
I draw your attention to the following line:
Former colonial power France has some 2,500 troops in Ivory Coast in a bid to enforce the fragile ceasefire.
http://www.iht.com/articles/85092.htm
See:
Virtually no one in France, Africa, the United States or the United Nations has attacked France's involvement in the Ivory Coast, its richest former colony in Black Africa, as neo-colonialist or unwanted. Indeed Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, and a number of West African chiefs of state, came to Paris as part of the supporting cast over the weekend that was meant to give the Ivory Coast accord a look of gravitas.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/2/5/235723/8626
meanwhile, what is the United States doing? where are the troops, the stealth bombers, the high-powered diplomats? dithering outside iraq. the French -the French!- are left to try and avert this potential catastrophe.

Now, there is a critical difference here. The French are here to enforce a ceasefire. They were called on regarding a conflict that was already occuring, and they are in agreement with the UN. The same is not true for america. The situations are explicitly different. So no hypocrisy.

russ_watters

Mar20-03, 07:57 PM

Now, there is a critical difference here. The French are here to enforce a ceasefire. They were called on regarding a conflict that was already occuring, and they are in agreement with the UN. The same is not true for america. The situations are explicitly different. So no hypocrisy. Is there a UN resolution in force regarding this action? Did France even seek one? Unless the answer to BOTH of those questions is yes, then France is indeed hypocritical on this issue. It doesn't matter WHY they are doing it, just that they are doing it WITHOUT UN SANCTION. meanwhile, what is the United States doing? where are the troops, the stealth bombers, the high-powered diplomats? dithering outside iraq. the French -the French!- are left to try and avert this potential catastrophe. Further deepening the hypocrisy. Whoever is expressing that opinion chastizes the US for making France go it alone. But France refuses to support the US - in fact France is actively HINDERING the US.

Clarification: I left out an important word in my last post. Are they wrong for fighting it? *NO!!*

Nicool003

Mar20-03, 08:30 PM

anyway, i hear a lot of people bad mouthing the american president about the possibility of war, here in hippie land (that would be orygun) there are many marches for peace...yet i don't see the same loud support for our troops that are away from home, their families, sleeping on the floors/sand/ground etc, away from any communication source to call their wife, their children...

so here's food for thought...instead of protesting how our government is making choices, lend some care, compassion and support to the men and women who are sacrificing by sending letters, care packages, pictures and words of love and support for the tremendous courage they have for being on the forefront of this nation's security...

you bet kerrie, even though I have a few friends stationed in the middle east I still support the war. we can't sit and wait for another act of terrorism. I just hope it can be quick, successful and with minimal loss.

I AGREE!!! I supposrt the troops and I too hope this war goes by quick, with minimal loss. Thank you for making this topic Kerrie I was looking for something like this!

Nicool003

Mar20-03, 08:33 PM

FZ you have much of your post backwards. Like:

meanwhile, what is the United States doing? where are the troops, the stealth bombers, the high-powered diplomats? dithering outside iraq. the French -the French!- are left to try and avert this potential catastrophe.

Hmmm I recently recall the French getting caught with secret trade with Iraq along with a cetrtan number of suspicious things...

BTW FZ!!!!!!!!! THIS IS A THREAD TO OFFER SUPPORT TO OUR TROOPS AND I DO NOT SEE YOU DOING THAT SO PERHAPS YOU SHOULD GO POST THIS IN ANOTHER THREAD!!!!!!!!

Sting

Mar20-03, 09:01 PM

Hi Nicool,

Please try to refrain from yelling. It's likely to start flaming. Thanks.

Hi FZ+,

If you wish to discuss the political aspects of the current situation, feel free to start another thread or continue with another discussion concerning this (as I am sure there are plenty of them).

Thanks Nicool and FZ+

kyleb

Mar20-03, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
I completely agree. It saddens me how few people can require that not supporting a war means not supporting the troops. Supporting the troops is ENTIRELY about hoping the come back alive. What they fight for or even IF they fight is irrelevant to the desire to see them return alive.

well if they were not going over to fight the war then supporting them would be different. for instance if they went simply to guard inspectors in an accelerated search program, that i could support. also, i should point out that i have a friend who will ship out any day; i am always supportive of people who do things that i belive are good and especially my friends; but i cannot support him on this, especially because he does not think the cause is just either. his argument is that he will not be in much danger himself, will make enough extra pay to buy a new computer, and will avoid going to jail. so basically he has been bribed/blacked-mailed into killing people. i cannot support our government for doing such things and i cannot support those who let our government do it to them. at least i can not do it and still feel like i am being a good person.[:((]

russ_watters

Mar21-03, 01:14 AM

but i cannot support him on this, But do you hope he comes back ALIVE or hope he DIES? That really is the question you need to ask yourself. Here is a reasonable opinion: "I don't support the war you are fighting or the reasons you are fighting it but I hope you come back alive."

Laser Eyes

Mar21-03, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
But do you hope he comes back ALIVE or hope he DIES? That really is the question you need to ask yourself. Here is a reasonable opinion: "I don't support the war you are fighting or the reasons you are fighting it but I hope you come back alive."

russ, I completely agree. You have stated the only legitimate support you can give to the men and women fighting the war if you do not support the war. You can hope they return alive and healthy.

I do not believe it is possible to support troops in any mental or physical way whether it is by letters, care packages or anything else if you take a position in opposition to the war. Do you think your support even in such an apparently harmless manner can make no difference? If you do then you are fooling yourself. What if the comfort you give to a soldier improves his frame of mind so he fires his gun more accurately and kills someone who might otherwise have lived? By your goodwill support you have helped to kill other people. To show any support to troops and say you oppose the war is hypocritical. But like any decent person we should all hope they return alive and well and wish the same for all countries' forces.

Laser Eyes

drag

Mar21-03, 08:36 AM

Greetings !

USA ! USA ! USA !
Originally posted by drag
It is fortunate that a super-power like the US exists
and can act without this corrupted institution.

Originally posted by zk4586
Fortunate? I find nothing fortunate in the fact that the US is a country which uses it's power to bully other nations into submitting to whatever suits the US. I find nothing fortunate in the fact that a country which was founded on the ideals of freedom and liberty would use its military strength and economic superiority so agressively that its image becomes one of capriciousness, arrogance, and brutality.
The USA was founded on the ideals of freedom
and liberty. If you remember - this freedom and
liberty was achieved through force. We are not
living in a black & white world. Not all wars are
bad, some are very good.

The UN is a pathetic institute when it comes to
deciding upon military action at present. The UN
can only, and even then in a poor way, handle
a real war.

Is the UN your idea of freedom and liberty ?!
The UN, if I may remind you, is an organization
where all countries are represented. There are
many countries in the world where there is no
freedom or liberty. This corrupted organization
draws descisions based on the opinion of tyrants.
While the US follows real democracy, its ideals and
intrests, this organization abides to only one
intrest - its internal stability.

The US is freeing people from a tyrant. Perhaps,
if you were an Iraqi citizen and you knew how
life is there and in the US and "western" countries
by comparisson - you'd have a "slightly" different
opinion on the subject.

People living in democratic countries throughout
their lives can not understand this. Do you really
think that absolute rulers care about the UN and
its treaties or human rights ? They're absolute
rulers - they only care about themselves, their own
greatness and power, their life-style and feeling
of control. They, unlike democratic countries, have
no problem to lie, kill, cheat, produce whatever
weapons they like for their own protection
and for their plans of conquest for further greatness.
The people are there just for the ruler's benefit.
Saddam disarming himself due to UN "pressure" is
just a joke. What does such "pressure" do to him ?
Do you think that the sanctions hurt him personally ?

Of course, that the US also has other intrests in the
area, except protecting itself and the "western"
world (some of which apparently just won't "get it"
until there are explosions outside their houses).
Of course, that when african countries kill each other
by the tens of phousands they could also
intervene and force settlements - although these
are not at all threats to US security, unlike Iraq
which giving it's weapons to terrorists can cause
even greater catastrophies. But, the world is not
black & white, like I said. So, does it make it a
bad thing - certainly not !

Live long and prosper.

kyleb

Mar21-03, 10:13 AM

but drag, we got our freedom by fending of those who would rather kill us than see us have it, not by attacking others. just because things are not as black and white does not give anyone the right to go painting the world red with blood.[:((]

Originally posted by russ_watters
But do you hope he comes back ALIVE or hope he DIES? That really is the question you need to ask yourself. Here is a reasonable opinion: "I don't support the war you are fighting or the reasons you are fighting it but I hope you come back alive."

well if what leads up to coming back alive includes killing people who did not make the choice to fight, i cannot wish him back alive. he is making his own choice, and a self-admittedly selfish one. if i were to which him safe passage, i feel i should do the same for thieves, drunk drivers, murderers, terrorists, and all the others who act out of similarly selfish motives; i cannot bring myself to do that. besides, we all die so i do not see any reason to waist much time worrying one way or another about that; it is how we live that is important.

drag

Mar21-03, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by kyleb
[well if what leads up to coming back alive includes killing people who did not make the choice to fight, i cannot wish him back alive. he is making his own choice, and a self-admittedly selfish one. if i were to which him safe passage, i feel i should do the same for thieves, drunk drivers, murderers, terrorists, and all the others who act out of similarly selfish motives; i cannot bring myself to do that. besides, we all die so i do not see any reason to waist much time worrying one way or another about that; it is how we live that is important. [/B]
Disgusting !
(I just don't have any other word for it.)

kyleb

Mar21-03, 12:25 PM

you say it is disgusting to not support people in their selfish motives? are you recomending i do otherwise?

Nicool003

Mar21-03, 12:55 PM

Kyleb what the heck. once again I am TRYING to refrain from yelling but I swear if sting hadn't asked me too........

They are not being selfish! they are doing their jobs and doing what the are asked to do. And their job is to protect us and also ungrateful annoying people like you.

There sting I didn't yell.

kyleb

Mar21-03, 02:04 PM

Nicool003, it seems you missed my previous comment to which i was referring to:

Originally posted by kyleb
also, i should point out that i have a friend who will ship out any day; i am always supportive of people who do things that i belive are good and especially my friends; but i cannot support him on this, especially because he does not think the cause is just either. his argument is that he will not be in much danger himself, will make enough extra pay to buy a new computer, and will avoid going to jail.

and yes, i am by no means grateful to people who do things that i do not think should be done and still claim it is for me, especially when they use my tax dollars to do it. if you are annoyed by my opinion, i recommend you lighten up on the intolerance and learn to accept that individuals are different by nature.

FZ+

Mar21-03, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Sting
Hi Nicool,

Please try to refrain from yelling. It's likely to start flaming. Thanks.

Hi FZ+,

If you wish to discuss the political aspects of the current situation, feel free to start another thread or continue with another discussion concerning this (as I am sure there are plenty of them).

Thanks Nicool and FZ+
Hmmm... Wasn't it I who called for both pro and anti war people to support the actual soldiers in Iraq, only to be told that it was somehow "impossible" or "hypocritical"? I was merely responding to kat and other's implication that France is anti-war merely to be against us etc etc, which I vehmently disagree. Hmm... maybe I shouldn't have responded, I guess.
The fact of the matter is that now that the war has begun, it cannot be un-begun. We can say whether we feel it was wrong in the first place, but in terms of humanitarian and diplomatic effects it is best if the war is over quickly without many casualties. That's why when certain anti-war countries now wish for a quick victory, they are not being hypocritical. That's why anti-war marchers do announce on news their support for actual troops.
Because, in this case, a desire for peace and a desire for victory co-incide.

kat

Mar21-03, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
I was merely responding to kat and other's implication that France is anti-war merely to be against us etc etc

Ummm I have never said that France is anti-war merely to be against us..I said their actions are reflective of self interest not Chirac's humanitarian concerns. I also gave several examples of past actions that show this and their hypocrisy. France taking the moral highground is the biggest joke i've heard all year, it's truly enough to make me laugh so hard I might just fall out my chair. France would never survive the scrutiny that the rest of the world gives the U.S.

FZ+

Mar21-03, 08:05 PM

(and that is precisely the kind of off topic debate I shouldn't be responding to)

Nicool003

Mar21-03, 08:57 PM

Yes FZ hmmm your also the one who then went against it by saying the french were doing things that they really weren't. Where did you get that? protectthefrench.com?

This is a pro soldier website so if you and kyleb wanna go start your own thread all by yourselves please, do so.

russ_watters

Mar21-03, 08:57 PM

you say it is disgusting to not support people in their selfish motives? are you recomending i do otherwise? No it is disgusting that you wish someone you consider a friend would die.

I was merely responding to kat and other's implication that France is anti-war merely to be against us etc etc, which I vehmently disagree You are correct. France's other motive is that due to this war they stand to lose a lot of MONEY by losing the ability to trade with a criminal.

France would never survive the scrutiny that the rest of the world gives the U.S. The scrutiny the US gets is the price of being the world leader. As the world leader, EVERY action taken is analyzed to death and every motive questioned. History will show our unprecidented benevolence.