Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: red26 on June 19, 2006, 02:31:45 PM
-
A friend of mine posted this.. Who cares if a soldier dies..
Take a man and put him alone,
Put him twelve thousand miles from home.
Empty his heart of all but blood,
Make him live in sand, in mud.
This is the life I have to live,
This the soul to God I give.
You have your parties and drink your beer,
While young men are dying over here.
Plant your signs on the White House lawn;
"Lets get out of Iraq".
Use your signs and have your fun,
Then refuse to use a gun.
There's nothing else for you to do,
Then I'm supposed to die for you?
There is one thing that you should know;
And that's where I think you should go!
I'm already here and it's too late.
I've traded all my love for all this hate.
I'll hate you till the day I die.
You made me hear my buddy cry.
I saw his leg and his blood shed,
Then I heard them say, "This one's dead".
It was a large price for him to pay,
To let you live another day.
He had the guts to fight and die,
To keep the freedom you live by.
By his dying, your life he buys,
But who cares if a Soldier dies!
If you care repost it and let ppl know you do
If you are in the Military add your name to the list
-
I spent 6 yrs of my life giving to this great country this poem made me cry when I read it because its almost too true. When I came home for leave in 03 I went to a shopping mall and there was a 13 yr old kid I was in uniform Class A's because I was going to a gradustion after we left there and that kid a 13yr old kid looked at me and called me a " baby Killer" I dont know about yall but I felt like about 1 inch tall. BUT I still love my country :aok
-
Originally posted by red26
...
I'll hate you till the day I die.
You made me hear my buddy cry....
who is "you"?
-
I supose its the guy that if asked he wouldnt pick up a wepon to defend this country but yet he wants to gripe about the way of life he's living.
In the service we used to call them HIPPYS but now some of them fight with us so my groupe called them former longhairs. Because thouse that we had with us didnt have the long hair anymore.
But if someone tells me that going to war is wroung and that they would never fight for this land then they need to move to Bosnia or Kosavo or try Bratislava Or the Chech Republic and see how a person lives they dont have a choice some countrys tell you ok your 18 now you need to join up or go to prison.
-
Furious knows the subject of the poem. He's just being obtuse, ignore him.
A similar poem dealing with the term Tommie (or is it Tommy) was written some time back.
-
I didnt know that my friend just sent me that one. it relley hit home for me being a vet. and all
-
edit
i don't understand how people can join the military and never think they will be put in harms way, the job of the military is to go to war.
former Marine.
-
Tommy by Rudyard Kipling
I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.
I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.
Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.
We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.
You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!
-
63tb,
That's it and thanks. It still applies today. Tommy does see what's going on.
-
That guy can go suck a nut.
Yes, it's terrible that he's over there. And over there is terrible...
But it ain't the folks who "plant signs in the White House lawn" wot made him go over there.
No... it was a combination of a couple of things:
a) His admirable decision to enlist.
b) The folks at the far reaches of that White House lawn who abused a sacred trust, and thought it'd be a hell of an idea to spring for plane tickets so that this poet could head off to some miserable fiasco of a war.
And now he's pissed off. Who the hell could blame him.
Christ.... this poem reads like a bitter indictment of Bush's war... yet he has the temerity to lash out at the people who only want him back safe and in one piece.
Read the poem again. This guy has no idea what he's doing over there....
-
Im sure glad we have nash to explain these things to us :rolleyes:
-
Hey - just my pee-oh-vee. :)
What's your take?
-
Nash,
On the contrary, he knows exactly why he's over there. As to the rest of it I don't think you would understand, you lack the background for it.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Nash,
On the contrary, he knows exactly why he's over there. As to the rest of it I don't think you would understand, you lack the background for it.
He does?
"It was a large price for him to pay,
To let you live another day.
He had the guts to fight and die,
To keep the freedom you live by."
I'm sorry to say it, but his buddy's death had nothing to do with anyone back on the mainland being able to live another day.
It had nothing to do with freedom. And nobody's life depended on it.
I wonder....
Who was he referring to when he said this: "You made me hear my buddy cry."
Who specifically was he talking about here? Who "put him twelve thousand miles from home?"
Was it the White House lawn flag planters?
(which by the way is impossible nowadays.... )
No... Of course not.
-
Like I said nash you lack the perspective and I have no doubt you always will. The people that soldier was talking to and talking down about was not the President. He doesn't feel betrayal by having been sent there. He feels betrayal for those. perhaps like yourself, who see and say nothing but bad things about what is going on over there. He feels the criticism they levy against the situation is also levied against him and he resents it.
Those who won't do what other do, yet feel smug in the satisfaction that they are somehow superior to those who do place themselves in harms way and criticise the fact that they went or are there. Those are the folks that soldier feels betrayed by, that his and his friends sacrifice isn't appreciated, instead he feels vilified and degraded by those who wouldn't go.
Kind of like the summer soldier that was talked about so many years ago. It's all great to be rah rah and lets all get the job done as long as things are all going our way. Yet let something justseem to be not going our way and it's all we don't belong there, we should never have gone, we don't know what we are doing, we are screwing it all up, we can't win this quagmire. When WE doesn't include those who are there, only those who aren't and likely never will be there.
He resents the use of the freedom he is guarding of those by those who would ever deign to do something or sacrifice like that for anyone else.
You have your parties and drink your beer,
While young men are dying over here.
Plant your signs on the White House lawn;
"Lets get out of Iraq".
Use your signs and have your fun,
Then refuse to use a gun.
There's nothing else for you to do,
Then I'm supposed to die for you?
There is one thing that you should know;
And that's where I think you should go!
I really don't think you would understand it any more than a person who has been blind all their life can understand the color orange.
-
I didnt like the poem nash and I dont buy into the hype it puts out. The only time I put any of my soul into this business is when I meet and talk with veterans who have been in combat or served in theater. In this case Ive talked with dozens of soldiers and airmen who have participated in the current operations in Iraq and Afganistan and I never get any of the emotional crap from any of them. Its all business as far as I can tell.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I really don't think you would understand it any more than a person who has been blind all their life can understand the color orange. [/B]
Yeah, well maybe I would understand it if someone, anyone, could explain to me how any of those guys on that POS turf are "guarding freedom."
Because they ain't "guarding" ****.
They're trying in vain to "secure" territory.
It has nothing to do with freedom, Maverick. You were free before, and you'll be free after.... no matter the outcome.
The kid in the poem doesn't beg a rallying cry. Instead, the cry should be deep, sincere, and solemn.
And please..... use words such as "sacrifice" and "freedom" sparingly... because you're only cheapening them with the abandon you toss these words out. Reserve them for those times when it's appropriate; when it's in fact applicable.
-
Like I said you won't understand as you will never place anyone or anything like an ideal above yourself. The only cheapening I have done is to waste time trying to have a serious discussion with you. You claim I cheapen the words yet you have never served as I and many others have. So don't presume to tell me what the value of those words are when you never risk anything for anyone.
-
"You you you ..."
Lol....
Sorry...
I am not the war, I am not freedom, I'm not the poet, I'm not the president.
So turn your laser beam on ants for all I care.
I am not your enemy. And the (mystical and non-existant) White House lawn flag planters are not your enemy either.
And you do cheapen words.... spitting them out like a broken record such as you do.
"FuhrEEEDOM!"
-
mav, you got it right.
-
Yeager, he only "got it right" if you never again use the words "sacrifice" and "freedom" because.... it turns out.... you need to have worn a uniform in order to say them.
Which of course, everyone knows, you haven't.
But if you had? You can say this stuff with complete abandon. Erhm, that is, you and guys like.... oh I don't know.... the Secretary of Defense and the rest of the deferment crowd.
They are somehow free to say "freedom."
They've somehow sacrificed enough to be able to say "sacrifice."
So I expect that these words will be stricken from your vocabulary until such time as you enlist, or Maverick says it's okay for you use them, or you get appointed to order troops into battle.
But if you fit into any of the above categories? By all means, repeat these words as long and as loud as you need to. Use them as your response to anything.... because it's your uniform-wearing right.
Say them so often that they end up meaning nothing at all.
When it comes to the Iraq war, you've made the biggest mistake, quite possibly, of your entire life.
Scratch that..... (what was I thinking?)
You've made the biggest mistake of other people's lives.
-
Nash makes some very good points, and makes them well.
-
Not really Beetle...he's let his opposition to a foreign president turn into blind, unreasoning hate.
He's swallowed every criticism of that president that the vitriolic left has brewed up hook, line, and sinker.
Nash find's far more wrong with that president than the mass-murdering, duplicitous former ruler of Iraq, who's multitude of victims are still being dug out of the sands of that troubled country.
He finds more virtue in Kofi Annan and the grasping liars in certain European governments who willingly violated the sanctions against Saddam in return for filthy lucre than in the man who took him down.
He has no compunction against calling Saddam's nemesis a liar for launching a war based on intelligence, most of which was gathered by the CIA and foreign intelligence agencies during a previous administration, which was perused and believed by virtually every western power.
Beetle, Saddam is cut from the same bolt of cloth as Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. I'll not apologize for a president that had the guts and the will to take him down.
Nash, you can be quite charming and rational at times and concerning certain matters, but in regards to this, Nash you're a nit
-
Nash = the citizens kipling always wrote about.
Kipling had it right, now just as much as then. Tommy definately sees who's jerking them around, and it's not the guy who sent them to war.
That bit Red posted is just the modern take on Kipling, and by definition Nash will never understand it. That's the whole point Kipling made back then, and it's the point being made in that poem now. It's the point unintentionally made by the little girl red found who is being taught to hate her protectors at far too young an age.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
Yea, Nash representing. Some things never change.
-
BS.
BS for bagging on Nash for seeing the lack of thought that poem conveys.
BS for ASSuming that no one can understand the pain of losing a friend in battle.
BS for striking up some kind of us against them attitude.
and a great big BS is called on the "baby killer" comment. Come on....
-
As a former marine that served in the laughable first Gulf War (or the 4 day war as I like to call it), I have to agree with Nash and Midnight Target. This is an all volunteer military, they were not drafted, and they are not fighting some major axis power bent on world domination protecting our "freedom" and "liberty". They are fighting to protect US interests in the middle east.
I have the utmost respect for our military men and women, and wish for all of them to return safe and sound.
--Oobi
-
"FuhrEEEDOM!"
====
thats nash spitting in mavs face.
it turns out.... you need to have worn a uniform in order to say them.
====
Says who? I recognize and appreciate the freedom their sacrifice has, is and will continue to guarantee for myself directly and for you in an unbrella like fashion, just being nearby and all that. And I support the men and women of the US armed forces directly by providing logistics, so I feel quite a bit of uniformed pride as I spend all day with folks wearing flight suits.
Honor, Sacrifce, Freedom.
-
MT
It's not just this thread. Nash has consistently demonstrated where he stands.
If you see yourself in either an "us" or "them" column, you're pretty much proving Kipling's point. Thx for the confirmation.
-
Aww (http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/19_1150808357_tiny_violin.jpg)
-
Yea, that's what I thought.
.
-
Originally posted by Nash
"
I am not your enemy. And the (mystical and non-existant) White House lawn flag planters are not your enemy either.
we have met the enemy and it is nash.
-
I know it has been brought up before on these boards but this thread makes me wonder again.
Reading through all this I once again get the impression that many people believe that disagreeing with the war in Iraq (or any for that matter) is equal to not supporting, or even outright disrespecting the service(wo)men over there.
Are some of you really convinced of this?
-
it doesnt seem to guarantee it outright thud but 40/60 seem to disrespect those in uniform by proxy, from what I see here.....
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Beetle, Saddam is cut from the same bolt of cloth as Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. I'll not apologize for a president that had the guts and the will to take him down.
Indeed, indeed. But that was not the justification for the war in Iraq. If you look at this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78433), you'll see what I said at the time pretty much agrees with what you're saying now. But - and it's a very big but - I stated that the purpose of the war was to remove WMD from Saddam's control, the removal of Saddam being a secondary consideration, or "by-product" as I put it in that thread. I had no idea of the level of insurgency that would follow, and I don't think Bush and Blair did either. The popularity of both Bush and Blair is now surely at its nadir since they each came to office, in each case as a direct result of this war.
But as we now know, there were no WMD in Iraq. I'm open to the possibility that during the UN prevarication leading up to the commencement of hostilities, Saddam might have had the opportunity to ship WMD across the border into Syria, but we'll never know for sure.
Just before we went to war in Iraq, WMD were being cited as the whole case for going to war, with the removal of Saddam as the icing on the cake. Now, the roles of these two factors are being reversed by people like yourself. Now it's "getting rid of Saddam was the whole point of the war, with WMD as the excuse to start it in the first place".
I hardly need remind you that there are other despots around the world who remain untouched. Top of the list is surely Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who has presided over the transformation from prosperity to starvation and poverty. Why isn't your president taking him out then? He's about as much of a threat to the US as Saddam was. Oh wait, there's no oil down there...
The CIA/MI6/Bush/Blair did a snowjob on us, and lied about the threat of WMD. Blitz was right - the US, as it turns out, was in no way threatened by Iraq - it's just redikulous.
Going to war on a false prospectus was bad enough, but inventing reasons for having done it, after the fact, is not much better.
-
not saying you can't be against the war, but when you protest the war publicly you become a propaganda tool for the enemy and encourage the enemy to keep on fighting thereby causing more deaths on all sides.
the people that think by protesting the war they will end it, only make it last longer. thats called the "law of unintended consequences".
if you feel the need to protest the war do it through the proper channels, write you congressman, etc.
-
but inventing reasons for having done it, after the fact, is not much better.
====
most of the reasons I have come to understand existed before hand, and were not "invented" after the fact beet1e. Unless of course you have some other reasons you have...err...uhmm....invented :aok
-
who cares what nash thinks so long as he can't vote and...
he get's slapped down when he tries to sneak in yet another boring endorsement for liberal socialist democrats in our country.
lazs
-
Originally posted by john9001
not saying you can't be against the war, but when you protest the war publicly you become a propaganda tool for the enemy and encourage the enemy to keep on fighting thereby causing more deaths on all sides.
the people that think by protesting the war they will end it, only make it last longer. thats called the "law of unintended consequences".
if you feel the need to protest the war do it through the proper channels, write you congressman, etc.
I see what you mean, but that would take the only practical tool away from the people in case they would oppose the war right?
The only way to actually pressure the government is through public exposure and in order to prevent helping the enemy the public becomes de facto mute. Difficult dillemma...
-
Originally posted by Yeager
most of the reasons I have come to understand existed before hand
...none of which was a reason for going to war in the first place. They were just side issues, fringe benefits, whatever. The WHOLE CASE for going to war was WMD. When I said inventing reasons for going to war was a bad thing, this does of course include promoting side issues into "reasons" for going to war, after the fact.
-
Removing saddam Hussein from power was all the reason I would have needed Beet1e but there were a whole basket full that were good enough for me. WMDs were the most immediate reason, I think most everyone thought he had them so I dont get angry over not finding them.
Thud, when I have an issue with my government, I prefer to contact them directly via phone or email, maybe even a letter to the local newspaper editor. But I will not prance up and down the street of my city holding signs and beating drums, looking foolish like some others and giving aid and comfort to those who prefer to kill us....these people that protest tend to be people I would rather not associate with. Leftest radicals, socialists and communists.
Instead, I vote.
-
So Yeager, on the basis of your support for the case for removing Saddam from power, do you also support a US armed invasion of Zimbabwe to topple Robert Mugabe? If not, why not?
-
You know...
when Kipling wrote the poem, he faced the same problem of separating his actual message from convenient political grandstanding.
One's point of view on the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the politics of war is simply not the point.
The poem speaks to the sacrifice made by a volunteer citizen-soldier; to those sacrifices made even for people who are so shallow that their opinions of a soldier flow with the breeze...i.e., refuse them service at the bar, then stand behind them and call them 'hero' when danger looms.
Public protest is a sacred right in this country. It's even healthy, to the extent that it keeps a spotlight on our 'leadership' and keeps them accountable. However, that does not mean that such protest cannot be counter-productive, ill-timed, off-point, ill-mannered or inappropriate in the extreme. Having a right, doesn't always make you 'right'.
The point is to understand that the soldier is to be respected for the willingness to risk and sacrifice for others...even for those who are too scared to do it themselves. The point is to keep political ire focussed on those responsible for political decisions, and to still be grateful for the sacrifices made by others. They do it to support their country, and because they swore to do as they are asked by the civilian leadership of this nation, not to judge when and where they will serve.
To continue to rant on about the political issues (this horse has been beaten thoroughly to death already), and to blame the dutiful soldier for your displeasure over geo-political questions is just fifth grade dumb. It's also transparently self-aggrandizing. You simply cannot blame the soldier.
I personally am not happy with how the whole thing was handled, and whether it's deception, or stupidity, or one followed by the other, no longer matters to me. It needs to be seen through to its best possible conclusion, for the sake of the civilians who need a decent life returned to them, for the sake of the power vacuum that would remain otherwise, etc...
To blame the soldier, to diminish or dishonor their individual sacrifices, to denegrate them and teach your children to curse a soldier in the streets for the wrongs of another...thats just plain disgusting.
If you don't think they sacrifice every day for your sake, and if you won't put on the uniform and ante up with the rest to find out for yourself, well...a man has to draw his own conclusions from that...
I may not 'support' the war, and I may believe that our collective administrations screwed the pooch in a big way, but I will never do anything other than sincerely thank a US soldier for serving this country.
Until I stand up to be counted among them, I have no right to do otherwise.
-
Based on my knowledge on this subject I would say it is time to get Mugabe out of there. Yes.......I assign this mission to the UK Spain Italy and Germany while we finish up in Iraq. Deal?
-
Originally posted by eagl
MT
It's not just this thread. Nash has consistently demonstrated where he stands.
If you see yourself in either an "us" or "them" column, you're pretty much proving Kipling's point. Thx for the confirmation.
Well, you lost me on the last one there. I called BS on the "us or them" attitude. BS means I disagree with it. Kinda like calling shenanigans on it or calling it bogus or calling it stupid...
I understand BS is an acronym and all, but I thought you would understand silly acronyms better than most ... Tommy.:)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Removing saddam Hussein from power was all the reason I would have needed - to send other people to die in Iraq…
How brave of you.
If the Iraqis didn't fight for their freedom why should anyone else? The Iraqis deserved their government. As do we all.
Nash makes some excellent points, and before any of you "I wanted to serve but never did" armchair-generals asks for my "credentials" - yes I'm a vet.
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
How brave of you.
If the Iraqis didn't fight for their freedom why should anyone else? The Iraqis deserved their government. As do we all.
Nash makes some excellent points, and before any of you "I wanted to serve but never did" armchair-generals asks for my "credentials" - yes I'm a vet.
over the years, many Iraqs have died trying to overthrow saddam, they needed a little help, just like the colonies needed help from the french when the colonies had their little "disagreement" with England in 1776.
did you forget about the massacres of the Kurds and she-its after gulf war 1?
former Marine
-
How brave of you.
====
Thanks, but the real credit goes to those in harms way.
If the Iraqis didn't fight for their freedom why should anyone else? The Iraqis deserved their government. As do we all.
====
The Iraqi people have been trying to rid Iraq of Hussein since he savaged his way into power. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis opposed to Hussein have died over the last 30+ years as a result of that opposition.
Nash makes some excellent points
====
thats a matter of opinion.
yes I'm a vet.
====
Thanks for your service.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Based on my knowledge on this subject I would say it is time to get Mugabe out of there. Yes.......I assign this mission to the UK Spain Italy and Germany while we finish up in Iraq. Deal?
Nicely side stepped!
-
Its just a step to the left........
-
Originally posted by Yeager
directly via phone or email, maybe even a letter to the local newspaper editor. But I will not prance up and down the street of my city holding signs and beating drums, looking foolish like some others and giving aid and comfort to those who prefer to kill us....these people that protest tend to be people I would rather not associate with. Leftest radicals, socialists and communists.
Well, the makeup of the crowd will depend on the issue at hand, right?
-
Originally posted by john9001
over the years, many Iraqs have died trying to overthrow saddam, they needed a little help, just like the colonies needed help from the french when the colonies had their little "disagreement" with England in 1776.
did you forget about the massacres of the Kurds and she-its after gulf war 1?
former Marine
Have you forgotten that Iraq had a conscript army? An army of the people. Hussein ruled Iraq with the help of his people. The Kurds were not Hussein’s people. Two thirds of the Iraqi population is Shi’ite, but how many actually stood up to fight? Those who did were brave, but unfortunately the vast majority of Iraqis are complaisant cowards who’d rather whine and complain to the west instead of standing up to fight for their own freedom.
I have no respect for the Iraqi people, and if one non-Iraqi die to help them it is one too many.
It was the American people that rebelled against England. True, France helped, but it wasn’t a French invasion to free the Americans from a tyranny they accepted. Do you really want to give the French all the credit? No, I didn’t think so.
-
I served with the 1st Infantry Div. In Iraq in Operation Danger. I know what it's like to see one of your buddys tore apart by a IED Ive seen my buddys take a round in the chest. Ive been there when we ship the bodys home with flags draped across there coffins. And ya know yall say that we are not fighting a huge 'Axis Power' but in some since we are if we just sat back ant let them rant and rave it would take no time for them to try something stupid like try to bring the fight here. Its funny you say that there is no axis well your kinda right for they dont want you to see there full body of there army. They would rather hide and fight like ***ches they hide in hospitals, churches come on they dont even put on a uniform. So the public dosent know about there army the public cant see them and since they dont were a uniform the public dosent think that there is a thret. And as far as being called a "baby killer" it still happens today and yes it happend to me at the mall . Ya know in WWII the troops were backed no matter what they did its called caring for thouse that are willng to DIE just so the people back home do have to worrie. Thats one of the reasons I joined up in the first place. Some of yall dont see US the troops being treated like crap because you havent wore the uniform and for some people since your not the ones beeing treated like crap it dosent matter to you. As long as you have your nice car and nice house your big job with AC you dont care about thouse guys in Iraq getting wasted. Who cares if a Marine dies Who cares if Soldier dies as long as you have your nice car and nice house and big job WHO CARES and for some they might not have anything but they dont care as long as its not them. SO you dont have to support the war but dont treat the guys that come back like CRAP.:furious
-
We've all seen the pictures of the radical hippies that make fools of themselves and are of such low mental stock that they blame soldiers for doing their duty. But I think this is such a small percentage of the population that they should not even deserve a footnote in our history. I know a lot of people against the war but I have never heard even one of them say the least disrespectful thing against any soldier. I think this is much ado about little.
I think most people for the war are of the opinion that if anyone is against it, they must be against the troops fighting it. Nothing could be farther from the truth. But that sentiment is so common that Thud even asked outright if it was the norm. Yeager said the ratio is 40/60 but from my experience I think it's actually closer to 1/99. Take any anti war rally early in the war and count the people in the rally against all the other people in that city and I dare say you would come in at way less than one percent of the population. Today you would find even less of a fraction than that.
On this board we've had maybe one or two radicals who would stoop so low as to criticize someone serving their country, but I haven’t seen that for quite a while now. The vocal anti-war personalities in this very thread like Nash, Beet & MT, have never to my knowledge said anything in the least disrespectful of any soldier.
Where does all this hostility come from? Is it left over from the Vietnam era? That era is over, lets move on. Anti-war does not equal anti-soldier anymore.
-
Goomba and Red26, well said.
-
You guys claiming all our problems with the sadman had to do with WMD possibilities are oversimplifying..
Are we forgeting that he invaded his neighbor and took their country and that Kuwait asked us for help? Not to mention that the UN asked us to do something...
Then... the UN sent in the inspectrors and the UN did the sanctions and the UN had it's inspectors thrown out.
The sadman had used WMD's and was known to seek them out... He may or may not have had them but... He kicked out the inspectors and was "sanctioned" (read had to bribe them).
We had no idea apparently if he had em or not... he had em in the past and probly had some when we warned him and durring the inspections and after we warned him...
If he were still in power he would be seeking them out right now. He sanctioned terrorism against our allies...
He was a bad man. He was also a dangerous and bad man. We as a country and a world are better off without him. He was 100 times more of a threat to us and the world than any spear chucking african dictator.
lazs
-
Until men are drafted they should except the risks of the job they chose, and complain among themselves. My brother is about to deploy there a third time. He says it sucks over there, but doesnt feel he is wronged for being sent there.
Im sure some places in the US have their nests of folk who love to chant baby-killer, and pretend they are in the 60s, but much of the nation is behind their troops, even if they dont agree with the administration's behavior.
-
The great majority of Iraqi's were not "Saddam's people." He was sustained by the support of the Sunni's and the Baathist party.
There was always resistance to his rule. The 400,000 bodies that have been uncovered prove that. The vast majority of these victims are Kurds and Shi-ites.
To imply that the Iraqi's got the government they deserved because they were too cowardly to resist is to use a base and foolish argument. The Shi'ites and Kurds are no more, or less, cowardly than any other ethnic group.
-
Then why didn’t they remove Hussein from power themselves? The only alternative must be that most Iraqis didn’t want him removed. Why couldn’t the Iraqis win their own freedom?
The Americans did it.
The Russians did it twice.
The Romanians did it.
Basically the entire Eastern Europe did it.
The French did it.
The Afghans did it at least twice.
The Indies did it.
The South Africans did it.
The IRANIANS did it.
Why couldn’t the Iraqis do it?
Why is the Iraqi’s freedom worth the lives of Americans and others?
It is not.
-
Why couldn�t the Iraqis win their own freedom?
====
Dude check this site out. Its just the tip of the google iceberg but I think you deserve to at least check some things out here before carrying on. No doubt you and maybe some others will cast doubts towards the particular source but there are hundreds of sites out there all pretty much confirming that Hussein brutalized the entire Iraqi nation.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/27000.htm
"Over one million Iraqis are believed to be missing in Iraq as a result of executions, wars and defections, of whom hundreds of thousands are thought to be in mass graves."
-
How could Hussein “brutalize” his people if they didn’t cowardly allow him to do so? Dictators don’t take power. They’re given power by the people.
No one deserves freedom if they’re not willing to die for it. Do you think their freedom is worth American lives? If so why?
-
How could Hussein �brutalize� his people if they didn�t cowardly allow him to do so? Dictators don�t take power. They�re given power by the people.
====
lol, dude I get it. Im going to take a pass on this one, thanks for the larfs tho :rofl
-
Yeah, yeah, uv...but history is also replete with examples of rebellions and insurrections that didn't succeed and ended with brutal massacres. So what's your point?
Rebellion in northernEngland, centered in the area around York, against the rule of William Bastard...was put down in an infamous campaign sometimes called the Scouring of the North. It took decades for the region to recover it's population.
Hundreds of thousands of rebelling Khwaresmian Turks were massacred in Persia by the Mongols.
A paranoid Stalin murdered tens of millions of people who either rebelled against his rule, or were suspected of plotting rebellion. The Russian Army lost 36,000 officers in one purge.
Hitler murdered millions in the captive countries of Europe.
The greatest mass murderer of the twentieth century may have been Mao tse-Dung.
All of these people perpetrated crimes against their own people. Are to claim that all of these people deserved the rulers they got because they were too cowardly to fight back?
As I said, to state such is to use a base and foolish argument.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Yeah, yeah, uv...but history is also replete with examples of rebellions and insurrections that didn't succeed and ended with brutal massacres. So what's your point?
What part of “willing to die for your freedom” did you not understand? Name one that didn’t succeed eventually. Sooner or later all brutal regimes are overthrown.
Originally posted by Shuckins
Rebellion in northernEngland, centered in the area around York, against the rule of William Bastard...was put down in an infamous campaign sometimes called the Scouring of the North. It took decades for the region to recover it's population.
The people of York, indeed all the people of England are free from William the Bastard and any other ruling Monarch. The Yorkers rebellion failed, but their descendants won freedom … on their own.
Originally posted by Shuckins
Hundreds of thousands of rebelling Khwaresmian Turks were massacred in Persia by the Mongols.
Again, the Turks seem to be living in a rather democratic and free country now. They won their freedom eventually.
Originally posted by Shuckins
[BA paranoid Stalin murdered tens of millions of people who either rebelled against his rule, or were suspected of plotting rebellion. The Russian Army lost 36,000 officers in one purge. [/B]
What happened to the Soviet Union again? Refresh my memory.
Originally posted by Shuckins
Hitler murdered millions in the captive countries of Europe
This is perhaps the best example of a dictator being given power by his people. And supported by the people. The crimes committed by the Nazis are shared by all Germans, and they feel the shame even today.
The Iraqis are hardly any better for what they did and allowed to be done in their name.
Originally posted by Shuckins
The greatest mass murderer of the twentieth century may have been Mao tse-Dung.
This regime is still in power. How long do you think it will last?
Originally posted by Shuckins
All of these people perpetrated crimes against their own people. Are to claim that all of these people deserved the rulers they got because they were too cowardly to fight back?
You are making my point for me. With the exception of Mao Tse Tung, all those regimes were eventually overthrown.
Originally posted by Shuckins
As I said, to state such is to use a base and foolish argument.
I think sending our young to die for the freedom of those who do not deserve it is foolish. Criminal even.
-
Ho-hum...the people of the captive nations of Europe did not "vote" Hitler into power. Short of intervention by outside powers, it is doubtful that any rebellion would have been successful, given his military might and brutality.
Hitler's regim was brought down by the greatest international coalition of all time. The young men from the U.S. who fought, did so to protect their country and also to liberate the captive peoples of Europe. I believe Churchill called it the Great Crusade. Historians in the U.S. have called it the "Last Good War" because our nation fought for the collective good of mankind.
The Soviet Union's blood-spatterd government was brought down by political and economic pressures applied by the democratic nations of the West...and not by the people themselves. Yet those people are still captive of Stalin's "I am your savior" propaganda.
Hundreds of thousands of our fellow countrymen died during the Civil War which liberated millions of Black slaves. Many of them were draftees. Was that cause noble enough for our young men to die for? Should we have left the slaves in bondage because they were too cowardly to fight for their freedom?
How long do I think the Communist Regime in China will last? Given than it has one of the fastest growing economies in the world, quite a long time. That in no way erases the blood stain from it's history. Unfortunately, the world did nothing to prevent Mao from shedding the blood of his people.
After all, we are not, really, our brother's keeper...especially if our brother happens to be one of those little yellow people who live half-way around the world.
Hundreds of thousands of Sudanese Christians have been massacred by their government. The world has done almost nothing. There is very little support for military intervention. No attempt has been made, to my knowledge, to even arm these victims of genocide so that they might defend themselves.
Apparently, they are not our brothers either.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Ho-hum...the people of the captive nations of Europe did not "vote" Hitler into power. Short of intervention by outside powers, it is doubtful that any rebellion would have been successful, given his military might and brutality.
Even so they DID rebel, and fight, and die. If not for the partisans in the east and resistance fighters in the west the war may have been lost.
Originally posted by Shuckins
Hitler's regim was brought down by the greatest international coalition of all time. The young men from the U.S. who fought, did so to protect their country and also to liberate the captive peoples of Europe. I believe Churchill called it the Great Crusade. Historians in the U.S. have called it the "Last Good War" because our nation fought for the collective good of mankind.
Have no illusions why America fought. After waiting two years and having Japan and Germany declare war first, America reluctantly joined the “Last Good War”.
We weren’t fighting a dictator hated by his own people. We were fighting the German People and their dictator.
Very different from Iraq … or so we are led to believe.
Originally posted by Shuckins
The Soviet Union's blood-spatterd government was brought down by political and economic pressures applied by the democratic nations of the West...and not by the people themselves. Yet those people are still captive of Stalin's "I am your savior" propaganda.
You claim the laurels of the August Revolution for America and the west?
(http://www.thehollandsentinel.net/images/081201/russia1.jpg)
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1475000/images/_1478422_confrontap150.jpg)
How shameful of you. You are beneath my contempt.
Originally posted by Shuckins
Hundreds of thousands of our fellow countrymen died during the Civil War which liberated millions of Black slaves. Many of them were draftees. Was that cause noble enough for our young men to die for? Should we have left the slaves in bondage because they were too cowardly to fight for their freedom?
Apples and Oranges. The slaves were not the people of the USA, nor were they in any way numerous enough to successfully rebel. Unlike the Iraqi population. Even so, many blacks did fight and die for their freedom log before the civil war.
What you should have asked: Should another nation have invaded America to free the slaves?
I think you’ll agree that the answer is “no”.
Originally posted by Shuckins
How long do I think the Communist Regime in China will last? Given than it has one of the fastest growing economies in the world, quite a long time. That in no way erases the blood stain from it's history. Unfortunately, the world did nothing to prevent Mao from shedding the blood of his people.
“The World”. You say it like it’s actually an organizational entity capable of making decisions.
Why should we have shed blood instead of them? They gave power to Mao Tse Tung, not us.
Originally posted by Shuckins
After all, we are not, really, our brother's keeper...especially if our brother happens to be one of those little yellow people who live half-way around the world.
No they are not “our brothers” if they choose to be ruled by evil dictators. They are responsible for their own government, and by proxy the actions of the government.
Our children will be judged by the actions our government. Be it acclaim, or stigma like present day Germans.
Originally posted by Shuckins
Hundreds of thousands of Sudanese Christians have been massacred by their government. The world has done almost nothing. There is very little support for military intervention. No attempt has been made, to my knowledge, to even arm these victims of genocide so that they might defend themselves.
Apparently, they are not our brothers either.
No they are not “our brothers”. If you feel otherwise feel free to join their rebellion and fight. I for one do not support sending our youth to die in Africa in their place.
We are not the “World Police”, nor should we be.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Nash = the citizens kipling always wrote about.
Yea, Nash representing. Some things never change.
It's incredible to me; how thick the irony is of you championing Kipling - the rock star poet of all things Imperialism - in a discussion about Iraq.
We're talking about Iraq, and Kipling's "Tommy" was talking about the British army's involvement during its imperial hold on India.
...... yet, "Tommy" could just as easily be referring to a "red coat" not in India, but in eighteenth century Virginia! You don't even have to change any of the names.
So what are trying to do here? Hang on, I'll make it effortless for you.
You are equating my dissent with the citizens of India dissenting against Britain's hold on India, which - by proxy - makes it also a bad thing for Americans to have criticized Britain's imperial hold on the US.
What words would you have expressed to "Tommy" if you ran into one in a Virginian bar, circa 1750? The very same ones Kippling lashes out at in "Tommy," I would hope.
Yet suddenly, it's a bad thing here. Heh.... but go ahead. Compare me to Ghandi all you want. :)
And nice use of art, there. ;)
Best of all, it's priceless that you employ it here regarding the US's occupation of a foreign country. Absolutely fricken hysterical.
My God... the degree that folks like you will go in order to squelch free expression, for the purported aim of freeing people, never ceases to confuse the absolute bejeezious out of me.
-
dude, what is ?up with all the ?question marks?
-
Nash,
You epitomize the phrase: "I reject your reality and substitute my own".
-
Originally posted by Yeager
dude, what is ?up with all the ?question marks?
Not sure what that's about. Every post you've written today has question marks all over the place...... nobody else's does.
Might be some kind of nifty Windows thing.
-
So, since we are NOT the world police...and the U.N is basically doing nothing...we just sit back and watch it happen.
Got it.
In summation: Nothing and no one is worth dieing for. There is no "brotherhood of man."
The United States and the western democracies had absolutely nothing to do with the breakup of the Soviet Union.
A few corrections to your statements; The Nat Turner was the only slave revolt in the United States prior to the Civil War...and involved a mere handful of rebels. Oh, and there were four million slaves in the southern states...fully 40% of the population...more than enough to "fight for their freedom."
The United States' entry into World War II was delayed by a peace movement led by people who thought exactly like you...that nothing that takes place in other countries is important enough for us to shed our blood over. Not even the massacre of our fellow man.
Personally, I find hand-wring, do-nothing, pacifists with no apparent compassion for the sufferings of their fellow men to be beneath contempt.
"There is no greater love than this, that a man refuse to lay down his life for his friends."
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Nash,
You epitomize the phrase: "I reject your reality and substitute my own".
Is that saying anything?
Reality is the gold standard. It's only our perceptions of it that differ.
I reject your perception of it.
-
Who are you talking to Shuckins?
-
From what I've seen you reject pretty much anything other than your own ideas and opinions. Which pretty much goes in line with what I posted. earlier. To paraphrase, you reject reality and substitute your own.
-
Nash,
I'm talking to uvwpvW.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
From what I've seen you reject pretty much anything other than your own ideas and opinions. Which pretty much goes in line with what I posted. earlier. To paraphrase, you reject reality and substitute your own.
Lol... Like I was born into the world with a set of opinions, and I will exit the world with those exact same opinions.
Right.
That sounds like folks like you, quite frankly.
No... I'll roll with the punches instead.
Bad prez, bad war.... and I'll say so.
That's all that's happening here.
By the way, it was you who asked for the Tommy poem. Upon its posting, you said this:
That's it and thanks. It still applies today. Tommy does see what's going on.
"Tommy" can't see squat.
Because Tommy isn't a person in a poem. "Tommy" is slang for a soldier in the British army during the height of Britain's imperialist reign over much of the world. Much like "Charlie" or "Haji" is slang.
Does Tommy's perspective "apply today?"
I'm sure it does.
But I'm not so sure that you want to be associating yourself with it.
-
nash... you say that you are not my enemy... I very much think that you are.
Your views are such that you would take away my individualism and replace it with democratic socialism and big government.... Of course.... you are canadian so you really can't vote and are pretty harmless but... speak up and you are just another whack-0-mole to me. You deserve it.
There is indeed a split between red and blue in this country. the socialists from other nations are allied with the blues.... nash is so blue he would be king of the smurfs.
seriously.... what kind of person has to say "I am not your enemy"? Easy.... A person who is your enemy and doesn't want you to know it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nash is so blue he would be king of the smurfs.
:rofl Gotta love it.
-
One is in a sad state when calling someone with a different political mindset, not even that different, an enemy. Since when does a mild disagreement qualify you as such?
People who are trying to attack and annihilate your western way of life in general, these are enemies.
And on the ever returning proclamation of "Big Government": ever contemplated the size of the huge apparatus of civil servants and bureaucracy needed to warrant the academic quality of all teaching institutions if vouchers are introduced, as all but exactly the same people calling BG in every thread strongly advocate.
The happy days of hypocrisy have returned...
-
Oh.. so you say that it would take more civil servants to monitor the same amount of schools if not all of them were public? Not sure I get that reasoning unless you are monitoring unrealistic things that are none of the states business.
And... yes I do believe that the red and the blue states should hate each other and that far from "not being that much different from each other" they are diametricaly opposed to each other.
Only people with a blue state mentality would try to pretend that there is no difference. The gap is huge and unbridgable. The blue states are socialist and therefore will never give up.
It is a fundamental and unsolvable difference between socialism and individualism when boiled down to its essence.
lazs
-
said the blue stater.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
So, since we are NOT the world police...and the U.N is basically doing nothing...we just sit back and watch it happen.
Got it.
In summation: Nothing and no one is worth dieing for. There is no "brotherhood of man."
No we’re not the World Police and the UN never was. If our allies or friends need help we should answer their call. The Iraqis are not our allies or friends. Culturally and politically they are our enemies.
Originally posted by Shuckins
The United States and the western democracies had absolutely nothing to do with the breakup of the Soviet Union.
The western economic war on the Soviets probably did accelerate its collapse, but it collapsed from within. The disenfranchisement of the people, blunderous Soviet planned economy and rampant corruption doomed the Soviet Union long before the cold war.
Originally posted by Shuckins
A few corrections to your statements; The Nat Turner was the only slave revolt in the United States prior to the Civil War...and involved a mere handful of rebels. Oh, and there were four million slaves in the southern states...fully 40% of the population...more than enough to "fight for their freedom."
They could have been 10 times as many and it wouldn’t have mattered. As long as they were held in small groups without the right to mingle and communicate with others, no real rebellion could be started. You should look up the word “slave” some time, I think you’ll find the definition lacking of any resemblance to the Iraqi population. The Iraqi Shi’ites were citizens of Iraq and made up a significant portion of the Iraqi army.
Did you just fail to think this through or are you really this obtuse?
Originally posted by Shuckins
The United States' entry into World War II was delayed by a peace movement led by people who thought exactly like you...that nothing that takes place in other countries is important enough for us to shed our blood over. Not even the massacre of our fellow man.
They were wrong. The British were our friends. The French were our friends. Germany was a clear and present threat and a growing military might. The Iraqis are not our friends, Iraq was not a threat and its diminishing military couldn’t even threaten its weakling neighbors.
Originally posted by Shuckins
Personally, I find hand-wring, do-nothing, pacifists with no apparent compassion for the sufferings of their fellow men to be beneath contempt.
Yes, pacifists are a strange bunch. The Iraqis may be your fellow man, but they sure as hell are not my fellows.
Originally posted by Shuckins
"There is no greater love than this, that a man refuse to lay down his life for his friends."
If only the Iraqis were our friends, then you might make some sense.
-
Saying that iraq is or was not a threat because they could not invade the mainland is overly simplistic. Given the nature of oil and it's impact on the entire world economy iraq had a significant impact on world economic events. That was one of the main reasons for rescuiing Kuwait. Maintaining a significant portion of the globes oil supplies in openly hostile hands gives the hostile leader a significant tool to damage the economy of any nation they feel the desire to do so.
Maintaining a presence and relationship for trade and political purposes is every nations responsibility. Allowing the economy to be controlled by a hostile nation is not benign nor reasonable. It most definately fits in with the self interest of the national policy.
-
MT... living in a blue state or a state controlled by blues does not make you a blue stater.
lazs
-
Hmm... interesting perspective.
I take it then that working for the government also means that you are not a government employee, right?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Saying that iraq is or was not a threat because they could not invade the mainland is overly simplistic. Given the nature of oil and it's impact on the entire world economy iraq had a significant impact on world economic events. That was one of the main reasons for rescuiing Kuwait. Maintaining a significant portion of the globes oil supplies in openly hostile hands gives the hostile leader a significant tool to damage the economy of any nation they feel the desire to do so.
Maintaining a presence and relationship for trade and political purposes is every nations responsibility. Allowing the economy to be controlled by a hostile nation is not benign nor reasonable. It most definately fits in with the self interest of the national policy.
“Self interest of the national policy”
Tell me Maverick, do you think it is ok to send soldiers to invade another nation just because it serves our economic self interest?
-
Denile ain't just a river in Egypt. :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Oh.. so you say that it would take more civil servants to monitor the same amount of schools if not all of them were public? Not sure I get that reasoning unless you are monitoring unrealistic things that are none of the states business.
l
Yes I do, from experience I 'know' (though that was over here) that voucher constructions and similar undertakings tend to explode bureaucracywise. The sad thing being that without it many (new) private schools are in a deplorable state, both regarding academic and other characteristics. That said, the U.S. has a longer history op private schools so the effect may be less substantial there.
Originally posted by lazs2
And... yes I do believe that the red and the blue states should hate each other and that far from "not being that much different from each other" they are diametricaly opposed to each other.
Only people with a blue state mentality would try to pretend that there is no difference. The gap is huge and unbridgable. The blue states are socialist and therefore will never give up.
It is a fundamental and unsolvable difference between socialism and individualism when boiled down to its essence.
lazs
For starters it is hard to take anyone seriously who believes that entire states should actually hate eachother because of some differing voting records. I'll guarantee you that in that case every single country in the world would have at least a dozen civil wars on its hand.
All that aside, you seem to forget that there is a concept known as moderacy and that not everything is or should be partisan. Many people are left leaning on one issue, right on the other (terrible clichés, left and right). Furthermore it is possible to walk a pragmatist line between what you call socialism on one side and individualism on the other. A limited mandatory medicare system with additional commercial coverage for example, just everyday things like that.
So to wrap it up, I'm pretty much convinced that this unbridgeable gap you've been talking about may exist at times, but only in the limited minds of those who see everything black-vs.-white it will lead to actual hate, mutual obstruction and purposeful conflict. Sad actually...
P.S. The blue states will never give up on what? Spreading their dangerous dogmas and forcing these upon the brave last few remaining strongholds of individualism such as yourself? :noid
-
Letters,
Think about it. Make your own decision.
-
A SOLDIERS PRICE
If war should come today
Think of the price a soldier would have to pay
He'd leave his family and his home.
But worse of all few would care that he's gone
All they would know
Is he's in some far away place
Fighting a war
They did not have to face
And if he should die
Few would care why
All they would say
Is "Atleast I did not have to pay"
Written By :
Then PFC James Bradshaw
Operation Just cause
December 20, 1989
U.S. Army
Retired SFC
December 12 2003
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Letters,
Haven’t figured it out yet?
Originally posted by Maverick
Think about it. Make your own decision.
I am very clearly against it. I find any use of the military to further economic goals repugnant and criminal. Hussein invaded Kuwait to further his economic goals, aren’t we better than that?
Why don’t you just answer my question: Do you think it is ok to send soldiers to invade another nation just because it serves our economic self interest? Perhaps you are afraid of what the answer would make you.
-
Interesting Poem.
Entertaining thread.
Being a Vet. Some of what I have read here makes me shake my head and wonder.
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
Haven’t figured it out yet?
I am very clearly against it. I find any use of the military to further economic goals repugnant and criminal. Hussein invaded Kuwait to further his economic goals, aren’t we better than that?
Why don’t you just answer my question: Do you think it is ok to send soldiers to invade another nation just because it serves our economic self interest? Perhaps you are afraid of what the answer would make you.
The answer does not make me anything. Your opinion is obvious and as far as I am concerned inconsequential.
As to the national interest on either economic, security or military situation, the historical answer is that all have each been used as a means of justifying conflict on one basis or another. As per Clausiwitz (sp?) war is a political tool Granted it's the ultimate political tool but the military is a means of enforcing political power. So is holding a nation's economy for ransom. So is holding the nations population under threat or threatening to unleash a weapon on them.
Now if you can achieve the desired result without the use of military force, that is the best option. A true political solution. Is it possible all the time, no. Kuwait is a prime example, saddumb was not going to give up what he had gained and he at that point had control over a very significant portion of the world's oil.
So in answer to your question, yes a severe economic threat is definately justification for a political action up to and including the use of force. Severe being a threat capable of damage equivalent to the "great depression" of the 1920's.
-
I think Patton stated it best when he told Roosevelt:
"I must go do my job sir. Because you have failed at yours."
-
“As per Clausiwitz” (meaning Clausewitz) you say. So are we militaristic Prussians now? Yes, perhaps it is a fitting comparison.
How would Iraq go about creating such an “economic threat”? By refusing to sell its oil? Iraq was only allowed to sell a minute amount of oil under the UN sanctions, so that’s a mute point. Also, they OWN the oil under their soil, and can do with it as they please … or are you some kind of communist?
So if Iraq already was not selling its oil and therefore could not influence the price of oil in any substantial way, how exactly was Iraq a threat to America or the west (or anybody)? How could they have hurt us economically or otherwise?
You are grasping at straws, like all your like minded.
-
You asked a question and I answered it, truthfully and with thought. You on the other hand have nothing to offer but adhoc attacks. You must have taken lessons from nash.
-
Hey did yall here they found WMD I dont remmember how much but it was a crap load. So put that in your little Communist bowl and smoke it NASH just go smoke your crap and have your fun wile the fighting is done to keep you and all outhers free BUDY!!!!! Dang commies:furious
-
lol... get ahold of your sweet selves. :)
-
Oh and by the way I just wanted to add in Normandy there is a cemetary it holds over 500 body of american troops from D-Day its funny that we complane about loosing 200 trops a year when we lost over 500 troops in one day on D-Day and thats just one cemetary too. there are like 50 of them in Normandy.
This Info was given to me by a Former Capt. Us Air Force that served on D-Day flying the P-47 up and down the beaches of normandy. 18 Of his best friends are laid to rest in that cemetary.
-
hmmm.....eagle eye, tell me about your avatar.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
And... yes I do believe that the red and the blue states should hate each other and that far from "not being that much different from each other" they are diametricaly opposed to each other.
Only people with a blue state mentality would try to pretend that there is no difference. The gap is huge and unbridgable. The blue states are socialist and therefore will never give up.
It is a fundamental and unsolvable difference between socialism and individualism when boiled down to its essence.
lazs
Originally posted by Neubob
Nash is Nash, and I appreciate him for it... I may even love him for it, but that would sound way too left-wing for my taste.
Regardless, our views on the world couldn't differ more. Nevertheless, I value the guy's intelligence and his sense of humor. Agreement is not a pre-requisite for respect.
Be friends, fellas.... Life's short.
Sorry for the shameless plagiarism here, but upon reading Neubob's post I immediately thought of Lasz's rant above...
-
Originally posted by red26
Oh and by the way I just wanted to add in Normandy there is a cemetary it holds over 500 body of american troops from D-Day its funny that we complane about loosing 200 trops a year when we lost over 500 troops in one day on D-Day and thats just one cemetary too. there are like 50 of them in Normandy.
This Info was given to me by a Former Capt. Us Air Force that served on D-Day flying the P-47 up and down the beaches of normandy. 18 Of his best friends are laid to rest in that cemetary.
You need to read more.
And bone up on your info before you post... the 1st ID didn't have an "Operation Danger" they had a Task Force Danger. :aok
-
Originally posted by Maverick
You asked a question and I answered it, truthfully and with thought. You on the other hand have nothing to offer but adhoc attacks. You must have taken lessons from nash.
I’m confident you meant ad hominem, not ad hoc. No I have made no ad hominem attacks. Although I recognize that some of my comments may carry a bit of sting, that does not make them ad hominem attacks.
Your post quoted above however is an ad hominem attack. You attack the person (hominem) – me – to deflect the fact that you are unable to form a counter-argument. The only options you are left with are to concede the debate or make an ad hominem attack. Naturally you choose the latter.
Let’s review the debate in brief:
Originally posted by uvwpvW
The Iraqis are not our friends, Iraq was not a threat and its diminishing military couldn’t even threaten its weakling neighbors.
Originally posted by Maverick
Saying that iraq is or was not a threat because they could not invade the mainland is overly simplistic. Given the nature of oil and it's impact on the entire world economy iraq had a significant impact on world economic events…
Originally posted by uvwpvW
Tell me Maverick, do you think it is ok to send soldiers to invade another nation just because it serves our economic self interest?
Originally posted by Maverick
… yes a severe economic threat is definately justification for a political action up to and including the use of force. Severe being a threat capable of damage equivalent to the "great depression" of the 1920's.
Originally posted by uvwpvW
How would Iraq go about creating such an “economic threat”? By refusing to sell its oil? Iraq was only allowed to sell a minute amount of oil under the UN sanctions, so that’s a mute point. Also, they OWN the oil under their soil, and can do with it as they please … or are you some kind of communist?
So if Iraq already was not selling its oil and therefore could not influence the price of oil in any substantial way, how exactly was Iraq a threat to America or the west (or anybody)? How could they have hurt us economically or otherwise?
You failing to come up with a credible response leaves me no choice but to conclude that Iraq was no threat to us or the west in general, militarily, economically or otherwise.
Unless you have some more straws you wish to grasp at, I consider this matter closed.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
hmmm.....eagle eye, tell me about your avatar.
P-61 Blackwidow nice huh?
-
I'm not going to get mixed up in all this. I would just like to point out the fine use in this thread of some of the following words.
obtuse
quagmire
temerity
duplicitous
vitriolic
compunction
Good stuff!!!!
-JoLLY
-
is it a photo, a screenshot from MSFS or what?
-
Letters,
Yes you are quite correct I intended to use the term ad hominum. In the current vernacular, my bad.
As to your question.
I already answered a part of it and yet you do not wish to recognize it. Let me reinforce what I was saying. The world is not a place where a nation can exist in peaceful isolationism. That period past after we became so dependant on industrial and commercial benefits that we can no longer produce within our own shores all the materials we need to maintain the current technological level of society.
This is the case for pretty much any nation in the world not based on a totally agrarian society (example Amish and I mean society not nation with that group). No one nation can maintain itself without trading with some other part of the globe. If a critical material is controlled by a hostile power or can be manipulated by a hostile power there exists a significant economic threat to all nations that depend on that commodity. If you need an example look at the current price of oil and how it jumps everytime there is a mere threat to a portion of the production of any country that is a source of it. Even the loss of offshore drilling and refining capacity in this nation alone caused a price increase and a significant impact on the economy. Since our economy is also tied to other nations we were not the only one to feel the pinch.
Leaving a hostile power in control of a significant portion of that critical commodity is a significan5t weakness to our security and economy. Even if there were simply a single nation embargo by that hostile nation the entire globe would be effected economically due to the price fluctuation from the decrease in overall supplies. This would be the case even if other non-hostile nations decided to increase production to take up the shortfall form the one nation’s embargo. In fact a similar situation still exists as the oil production from Iraq is still not up to full production and the mere threat of reducing it further from terrorist attacks continues to cause economic fluctuations across the globe with the overall price of oil.
If that hostile power were able to gain direct control, the threat is even greater to nations that the power is hostile towards. Even if you wish to ignore the specific impact of the oilfields that were controlled by Iraq and Kuwait alone. The take over of that single small country had an impact that far exceeded the borders of that nation. This also included the supplies of other nations that may or may not have bordered Iraq and Kuwait. The mere threat was enough to cause a significant impact on the world both politically and economically. Exporting the threat militarily either through a direct attack or through using low intensity conflict tactics (terror) will cause even more economic impacts. Just because a nation that is intent on making their will felt cannot do so through an invasion does not negate the fact that they may have an extremely damaging impact on the target nation through the use of a simple threat.
Now going back to what I said earlier in another post. Yes there is certainly precedent for military action by one nation towards another if the political process cannot do so peacefully. Given the possible threat to the economy and the risk of a collapse of the entire nation due to a severe enough threat to the economy, again like the depression of the 20’s, it is certainly justification to express political power through military means. Maintaining a status quo and stable trade situation preferably with a friendly power is a benefit not only to this nation but also to every other nation that has economic ties to both sides of the disagreement. Almost every nation’s economy is tied to others through trade and a significant impact on a large trading partner will ripple through the entire globe. If that can be maintained through peaceful means the political way will have succeeded.
If you cannot see the potential here there is really nothing I can do to convince you of it. Like I said, I do not think there is any chance an isolationist concept will succeed. Even if we did wish to close our borders totally the rest of the world’s economies will certainly do their utmost, and successfully in our case, to open those borders either through direct or indirect action. FWIW economic action IS direct action and can be as devastating as military action to a nation.
-
Right on MAV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:aok :aok :aok :aok :O
-
I found it online google search ww2 planes
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
I’m confident you meant ad hominem, not ad hoc. No I have made no ad hominem attacks. Although I recognize that some of my comments may carry a bit of sting, that does not make them ad hominem attacks.
Your post quoted above however is an ad hominem attack. You attack the person (hominem) – me – to deflect the fact that you are unable to form a counter-argument. The only options you are left with are to concede the debate or make an ad hominem attack. Naturally you choose the latter.
Let’s review the debate in brief:
You failing to come up with a credible response leaves me no choice but to conclude that Iraq was no threat to us or the west in general, militarily, economically or otherwise.
Unless you have some more straws you wish to grasp at, I consider this matter closed.
People Like this make me long for the days when Hanging was allowed
-
Im sorry I got the name of our mission mixed up at the top I was mad so Im sorry guys but its the people that will never go fight and then think they know whats it like to come home to this country. They always say its not so bad . And we dont treat our soliders bad but BS on that. They will understand when they have to pick up a wepon because of people like thouse they just sat back and said there is no threat out there to the US. Then they are running for there live's because since they said there is no threat and had there gaurd down like the whole Red Army is on the arsh. One day because of people that just set back and say its ok this country will be hurting. And its only going to be the ones that support this country are going to be on the front lines kicking arsh looking back to see thouse people running to anouther country to leave us MEN to fight. GO FIGURE!!!:aok
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
Did you just fail to think this through or are you really this obtuse?
Originally posted by uvwpvW
No I have made no ad hominem attacks.
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.
:)
-
Amazing how many people saw buddies get killed over in Iraq and then came to share it with us here on the humble AH bbs.
At least nobody bought you 3 free months of AH this time.
-
Originally posted by john9001
not saying you can't be against the war, but when you protest the war publicly you become a propaganda tool for the enemy and encourage the enemy to keep on fighting thereby causing more deaths on all sides.
Bull****.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
who cares what nash thinks so long as he can't vote and...
he get's slapped down when he tries to sneak in yet another boring endorsement for liberal socialist democrats in our country.
lazs
More handwringing about the liberal socialist bogeyman. :rolleyes:
-
In all my life I didnt know there were so many people aginst the US that LIVED HERE. GO FIGURE:huh :furious
-
Originally posted by red26
In all my life I didnt know there were so many people aginst the US that LIVED HERE. GO FIGURE:huh :furious
Hmmm... I don't follow your logic.
-
I'm saying that back in the days of WWII everyone backed this country no matter what the country did. Now if the country goes to war it seems like hardly anyone supports this country most of the people are aginst us if we go to war.:furious
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Given the possible threat to the economy and the risk of a collapse of the entire nation due to a severe enough threat to the economy, again like the depression of the 20’s, it is certainly justification to express political power through military means.
Wow, someone has something new to say.
Generally I disagree with it. Although since time immemorial nations have gone to war for exactly the reasons you state, I don't believe that those wars could be called "just".
Look at Japan in WW2. Do to sanctions thier oil resevers were deminishing. They had two choices, reduce demand and the size of their military or use that military to conquer nations that had oil. And this is basically the choice that any nation would face if they lost extra-national access to a resource.
Just because one nation wants a resource, it does not follow that the nation that has it is obligated to sell or give it to them. Land is a resource, Germany wanted more land, Poland didn't want to give it to them. Does that justify Germany's invasion?
What about in the extreme case of possible economic disaster like the Great Depression? Typically speaking the nation that faces the disaster is in that position because it put itself there. If a person goes massively into debt and is facing bankruptcy, are they then justified in robbing the bank if they refuse to extend any more credit? I don't think so, the person should tighten their belts and work their way out.
I think, at it's heart you are advocating for a socialist solution instead of a capitialist solution to an economic problem. Yes, under the conditions you discribe the price of the commodity (say oil) would go up. But the nation that needs the oil will naturally reduce usage as demand would go down. Not only that but it would become economically viable to start investing in researching and developing other energy sources. If instead they invade an oil producing nation, not only are they destroying the oil producing nations freedom to define their own destiny, but they are screwing up thier own economy by forcing the taxpayers to pay for the war (which are typically very expensive). And I would bet that the war would end up being more expensive than paying the increase in the price of oil.
-
Originally posted by red26
I'm saying that back in the days of WWII everyone backed this country no matter what the country did. Now if the country goes to war it seems like hardly anyone supports this country most of the people are aginst us if we go to war.:furious
Unlike WWII, many Americans believe the war in Iraq was unnecessary.
Being against the war in Iraq does not make one against the U.S.
-
I think if you live in a country you should back it no matter what they do. I am one of the guys that thinks every person should have to serve at least 2 yrs in the Armed Forces at 18 or upon graduation. And most will say that being a COMMIE. but its not its called giving back to your country and also taking pride in your country. If you want to run this country down then MOVE go to another country and run down this country form there. When out fore father's sighned the bill of rights and they put freedom of speech in it they had no idea that our country would turn the way it has.
:furious :aok
-
Originally posted by red26
I think if you live in a country you should back it no matter what they do. I am one of the guys that thinks every person should have to serve at least 2 yrs in the Armed Forces at 18 or upon graduation. And most will say that being a COMMIE. but its not its called giving back to your country and also taking pride in your country.
You are using "government" and "country" synonymously. One certainly can serve thier country by not serving it's government. Heck I would argue that that is better service and governments are such ****ups.
When out fore father's sighned the bill of rights and they put freedom of speech in it they had no idea that our country would turn the way it has.
:furious :aok
Nah, US's founding fathers totally knew that the US could end up the way it has and that's precisely why they wrote up the Bill of Rights, to try and prevent it.
-
Originally posted by red26
I think if you live in a country you should back it no matter what they do. I am one of the guys that thinks every person should have to serve at least 2 yrs in the Armed Forces at 18 or upon graduation. And most will say that being a COMMIE. but its not its called giving back to your country and also taking pride in your country. If you want to run this country down then MOVE go to another country and run down this country form there. When out fore father's sighned the bill of rights and they put freedom of speech in it they had no idea that our country would turn the way it has.
:furious :aok
I don't follow. What does military service have to do with supporting the actions of our government?
-
Firing Squad
:D :D :D :D __ __ __:D :D :D
Immediate opening for 3 good marksman!
:eek:
Typical Liberal Like the one that Hijacked this thread
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I already answered a part of it and yet you do not wish to recognize it. Let me reinforce what I was saying. The world is not a place where a nation can exist in peaceful isolationism. That period past after we became so dependant on industrial and commercial benefits that we can no longer produce within our own shores all the materials we need to maintain the current technological level of society.
This is the case for pretty much any nation in the world not based on a totally agrarian society (example Amish and I mean society not nation with that group). No one nation can maintain itself without trading with some other part of the globe. If a critical material is controlled by a hostile power or can be manipulated by a hostile power there exists a significant economic threat to all nations that depend on that commodity. If you need an example look at the current price of oil and how it jumps everytime there is a mere threat to a portion of the production of any country that is a source of it. Even the loss of offshore drilling and refining capacity in this nation alone caused a price increase and a significant impact on the economy. Since our economy is also tied to other nations we were not the only one to feel the pinch.
You really didn’t have to broaden on your previous post. I understand the workings of a global economy. Every change in the supply or demand of a product has global ramifications. I just think you’re greatly overestimating the global economic impact a nation like Iraq can make.
Ask the Europeans or Asians if they “feel the pinch”. Gasoline prices in Europe have risen a whopping $0,3 since the summer of 2000, and is actually on the decline now. The rampant increase in gas prices in America is much more a result of domestic factors like increase in demand and the lack of refining capacity, than any foreign influence.
Originally posted by Maverick
Leaving a hostile power in control of a significant portion of that critical commodity is a significan5t weakness to our security and economy. Even if there were simply a single nation embargo by that hostile nation the entire globe would be effected economically due to the price fluctuation from the decrease in overall supplies. This would be the case even if other non-hostile nations decided to increase production to take up the shortfall form the one nation’s embargo. In fact a similar situation still exists as the oil production from Iraq is still not up to full production and the mere threat of reducing it further from terrorist attacks continues to cause economic fluctuations across the globe with the overall price of oil.
If that hostile power were able to gain direct control, the threat is even greater to nations that the power is hostile towards. Even if you wish to ignore the specific impact of the oilfields that were controlled by Iraq and Kuwait alone. The take over of that single small country had an impact that far exceeded the borders of that nation. This also included the supplies of other nations that may or may not have bordered Iraq and Kuwait. The mere threat was enough to cause a significant impact on the world both politically and economically.
Now going back to what I said earlier in another post. Yes there is certainly precedent for military action by one nation towards another if the political process cannot do so peacefully. Given the possible threat to the economy and the risk of a collapse of the entire nation due to a severe enough threat to the economy, again like the depression of the 20’s, it is certainly justification to express political power through military means.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Remember 1973? When all the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria cut production and shut down oil exports to America, Western Europe and Japan because of the Yom Kippur war? It didn’t create another 1920’s depression here or anywhere else, and now you’re suggesting that Iraq alone could? Please, that’s beyond absurd.
Iraq did in no way pose a significant economic threat to us or anyone else.
Originally posted by Maverick
If you cannot see the potential here there is really nothing I can do to convince you of it. Like I said, I do not think there is any chance an isolationist concept will succeed. Even if we did wish to close our borders totally the rest of the world’s economies will certainly do their utmost, and successfully in our case, to open those borders either through direct or indirect action. FWIW economic action IS direct action and can be as devastating as military action to a nation.
I am not an isolationist, but there’s a big difference between non-isolationism and military adventurism.
The fact of the matter is that Iraq cannot do what all the Arab oil producers already tried and failed to do. You are justifying a war that has cost tens of thousands of lives on nothing more than a modest increase in gasoline prices (compared to the ‘70s). And most of that price increase has nothing to do with Iraq.
Originally posted by Eagle Eye
People Like this make me long for the days when Hanging was allowed
That says more about you sir than me.
Originally posted by Toad
:)
“Did you just fail to think this through or are you really this obtuse?”
Alone this would be an ad hominem attack.
“They could have been 10 times as many and it wouldn’t have mattered. As long as they were held in small groups without the right to mingle and communicate with others, no real rebellion could be started. You should look up the word “slave” some time, I think you’ll find the definition lacking of any resemblance to the Iraqi population. The Iraqi Shi’ites were citizens of Iraq and made up a significant portion of the Iraqi army.
Did you just fail to think this through or are you really this obtuse?”
This is a valid argument with a slight added for flavor.
Even if every ad hominem attack is an insult, not all insults are ad hominem attacks. Like so many others you fail to se the difference.
Originally posted by red26
I think if you live in a country you should back it no matter what they do. I am one of the guys that thinks every person should have to serve at least 2 yrs in the Armed Forces at 18 or upon graduation. And most will say that being a COMMIE. but its not its called giving back to your country and also taking pride in your country. If you want to run this country down then MOVE go to another country and run down this country form there. When out fore father's sighned the bill of rights and they put freedom of speech in it they had no idea that our country would turn the way it has.
:furious :aok
Many Germans once thought the way you do, and the world paid a heavy price for their lack of vision.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't HIJACKING threads a rules violation. Lord knows if not TROLLING such as above is.
And we know he doesn't want to fight. He might get hurt.