Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hangtime on March 28, 2003, 12:32:49 AM
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hang...
You guys have been caught by the spin. We've got "Anti-War" demonstrators and then we've got the "Support the Troops" demonstrators and somehow it's all been spun so people think that "Anti-War" is the same thing as "Anti-Troop".
From my perspective where "Anti-War" and "Support the Troops" are not mutually exclusive, I cannot share your offense at these pictures.
In my opinion, soldiers, whether U.S. or Iraqi, are instruments of policy. You want to blame Bush? Go right ahead. You want to blame Hussein? Be my guest. I think you oughta blame both... but that's another thread.
The soldiers are to be respected, especially our own.
I don't see it sandy.. and since that other thread is about to be history, lets rumble over here.
item: anti-war sentiment and protest emboldens saddams regime and lengthens the war. this costs troops lives. since we are THERE and we ain't leaving till the regime is replaced, should we not then cease anti-war activisim and instead provide a united front against saddam?
-
The troops are instruments of government policy. I was/am against that policy, for various oft repeated reasons. I could go into them, but that would cloud the issue.
Define support. Wishing they don't come to harm? Hoping they don't get maimed, executed, tortured, burnt to death? Hoping they all come home?
That's my definition and in that case, how can I not support my own countrymen?
Furthermore, are you saying that there will never be a war you won't support, never be a government policy that you won't object to? If that isn't the case, then there will be a time you won't be supporting the troops yourself, going by your logic.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I don't see it sandy.. and since that other thread is about to be history, lets rumble over here.
item: anti-war sentiment and protest emboldens saddams regime and lengthens the war. this costs troops lives. since we are THERE and we ain't leaving till the regime is replaced, should we not then cease anti-war activisim and instead provide a united front against saddam?
I've heard similar arguments in the Senate and House... Some Republicans (have to search for the quotes), have stated that being against this war is the same thing as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." In other words, dissent is treason.
It's just scary and it's shameful.
-
There have been 2 threads that covered this.
imho you cant rightly feel the war is wrong, unjust, immoral and illegal and think that the officers and troops carrying out the war are great. "I was just following orders" went out the window after ww2.
We have read on this board where folks have said that the President is out to kill Iraqi civilians, steal their oil and conquer and rule over them.
If its so obvious as it seems to be to most leftist then you would expect the "troops" to see it as such as well. Unless the left think they are much smarter then the rest.
They dont "support" the troops they hope no one dies but thats different. Thats easy, we all hope no one dies.
What they basically are saying is "We think the war is wrong and that you are brainwashed mindless drones for not seeing it as such. So even though you are tools for Bush and his oil buddies and are willing to kill civilians if necessary to help the criminal Bush conquer Iraq we hope you dont die."
I dont see how you can seperate the "mission" from the men when its the "mission" that these troops are sacrificing for.
-
umm dissent isnt treason, dissent is a great part of democracy.
Dissent isnt what jihad err weazels post is, nor is the sign those masked protesters were pictured holding.
Those are lies meant to incite.
-
Batz, have you ever been in the military?
-
Same thing can be asked of you, Sandy. The UCMJ has provisions dealing with unlawful orders.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
-
The guy at the tip of the sword is going to have a hard time proving that any order from the President is unlawful.
In any case, you don't get orders directly from the President. They filter down. The assumption is that the chain of command is making certain that the troops are not doing anything illegal. Occasionally, you might ask yourself, "Is this okay?" The comforting answer is that if the Div O, Dept O, XO, CO and right on up through the type commanders and CINCS believe that it is, well then it must be.
-
So, you get an order to shoot a POW from your immediate superior.
You'd do it? Using that logic?
-
So you're telling me that you couldn't distinguish a lawful order from an unlawful one?
- Your platoon commander orders you to shoot a prisoner. This man is not trying to escape or kill anyone. His hands are tied behind his back and he's placed on his knees.
Lawful or unlawful?
- You catch a member of your unit looting a shop. You tell him to stand down. Your sergeant orders you to leave him alone. He further orders you to carry some of the stolen goods.
Lawful or unlawful?
- You come upon a squad that is raping a civilian. One of the members of the squad outranks you. He tells you that you didn't see a thing. He orders you back to your post and to stay quiet.
Lawful or unlawful?
- Your commanding officer gives you an order to fire on civilians that are protesting in the street. There is no sound of gunfire, no threat to your unit, no weapons obvious in the hands of the protesters. You hesitate. The officer repeats the order.
Lawful or unlawful?
[/list]
-
Sandman did his time in the "prison with a good chance of drowning", or as it is commonly called the U.S. Navy.
F.
crap, you guys are posting to damn fast.
-
6 years on Submarine. Why do wanna know?
And does it make any difference in regards to my opinions?
On the part of "lawfull orders" we went to classes that discussed what "lawfull orders" are and when you should question those. It all had to do with...... well need to know stuff there but take my word there were "reasons".
But I am not bringing any legal arguement. I bring up logic.
If the war is wrong then its wrong in every way. I dont see how someone can pick and choose the parts they "like".
How can one support the people who are the ones actually "carrying out the crime" ie stealing oil, oppressing civilians and subjugating them.
Its easy to say "I hope no one dies." but in the real world people die and there are things worth killing and dieing for.
If we were to believe the left those troops in Iraq are suckers killing, dieing and sacrificing for what are basically criminals.
As sorry as the Vietnam era was those "dissenters" had the sac to hold to a coherent belief system (degenerate as it was).
Hiding behind "I will support war if 2/3rds of these guys say its ok or if 14 of these UN guys give it a thumbs up or I dont support the war, I support the troops" is plain bs.
-
Personally ... most of us preferred "Uncle Sam's Canoe Club". But hey.
Originally posted by Furious
Sandman did his time in the "prison with a good chance of drowning", or as it is commonly called the U.S. Navy.
F.
-
I think it's perfectly reasonable to have been AGAINST the Vietnam War while at the same time NOT spitting on the soldiers.
Do you have to immediately agree with the policy the minute that troops are sent over to become instruments of it? Because the logical extension of that is that all one has to do to legitimize their policy is send in the troops.
"I think going to war would be a mistake Mr. President because.... oops.... I see you sent in the troops.... seems like a great idea to me God bless and Godspeed".
What's the point of the very American expression of dissent if all one has to do to quell it is to ignore it?
-
Originally posted by Toad
So, you get an order to shoot a POW from your immediate superior.
You'd do it? Using that logic?
Not what I meant at all. There's great number of directives, standard operating procedures, etc. covering day to day operations. The difficulty comes when something comes up that's out of the norm, something that's not routine. You guys are ex-military... how many times did you question your superior on the source of his orders when you didn't understand why?
As for the war being legal and lawful... who knows? Depending on what court you go to, it might be. On the other hand, it might not. The troops don't have the luxury of waiting to find out. The assumption is that the orders of the President are indeed legal and lawful.
Not that it matters... even if the war on Iraq is considered legal, we can still ask if it's right.
-
Originally posted by Batz
6 years on Submarine. Why do wanna know?
And does it make any difference in regards to my opinions?
Just trying to understand your perspective... don't take it personal. :)
-
Each time of the very few times that situation arose. And there were a few. Each time I was either briefed and/or shown documentation that convinced me there was no problem with the order.
I think the troops know that in October of 2002, the Congress authorized Bush to use military force against Iraq if diplomacy failed. I'm sure that was part of their mission brief at some point. So, I'm pretty sure most normal folks in the chain of command have no doubt about the legality of the order to use military force in Iraq. After all, Congress authorized Bush to use force. End of story.
Yes, we can certainly ask if it is right.
Note that the Congress, the representatives of the people, seem to have no doubt. Have you seen any Representative or Senator put a motion on the floor to stop the Iraq action or to impeach the President or in any way push for a vote indicating Congress does not support this action?
I have not.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Note that the Congress, the representatives of the people, seem to have no doubt. Have you seen any Representative or Senator put a motion on the floor to stop the Iraq action or to impeach the President or in any way push for a vote indicating Congress does not support this action?
I have not.
I haven't either, but I've seen a few that are turning this into what appears to be a campaign platform.
-
Theres a natural order to protesting. The Anti-Troops crowd thinks the Anti-War crowd are a bunch of studmuffins.
-
I am not wrong sholz if you place your moral comopess to what ever direction 14 guys on the UN think you infact have no morality. The UN is not the world government its voluntary organization and the authority it has comes from those Nations who voluntarily comply with its descisions.
No Nation is bound by what it decides and the only means it has for enforcing its descisions comes from just a few Nations.
If you defer your own judgement to a group who only are looking after their own self interests then you deserve what you get.
No offense taken Sandman.
But trust me each one of the Crew members on the Sub I was on was drilled on what lawfull orders are and when they should be questioned. But that wasnt my point.
I would expect your definition of "support" is the same as Dowdings
Wishing they don't come to harm? Hoping they don't get maimed, executed, tortured, burnt to death? Hoping they all come home?
I dont think that is "support". Support helps keep up morale and helps reinforce the reason these troops are sacrificing the way they are.
You may have a personal steak seeing your country men not killed, maimed, or tortured but I dont think thats the same as support.
I dont think it makes one any less a patriot but to me it seems a bit wishy washy to say.
"I dont support the war, but I sure support the troops."
-
Well... if support is narrowly defined as making the troops feel good about where they are and what they're doing, the best that I can offer is that I don't hold any of them personally responsible and that I hope they all return safely.
It's not as much as you want, Batz, but I think it's a far sight more than spitting on them and calling them "baby killers."
I listened to some interviews of injured soldiers that had been transferred to Rammstein. When asked about why they are there in Iraq, it's strange just how naive and childish their answers sounded. The politics and the arguments surrounding the war and Bush's motivations are irrelevant to the troops there on the field in the war zone. They just want to survive. They want to get the job done and get home. The ones that were injured expressed regret that they could not be in the field, helping their friends, not regret that they couldn't do their part to liberate Iraq. Their emotions seem far more basic than that.
-
(http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2003/db030328.gif)
-
Sholz I am not going argue with you.
You can defer to the un for a moral compess the rest of us will make up our own minds.
I and a good number in the US see no reason for a UN as its now designed. Its a useless organization, even its humanitarian programs can be run more efficiently through private organizations.
The UN hasnt brought peace, ended war, or brought freedom and security to anyone. Its an organization where irrelevent Nations can feel important. Its no more effective then the League of Nations was.
The UN means nothing outside of that.
Support after 9/11 really didnt mean much out side of the "show". We still had thousands of dead. We didnt need the world to go into afghanistan just like we dont in Iraq. We would have went into afghanistan without the UN just like we did in Iraq and Kosovo.
The Russians dont defer to the UN to solve their problems with the Chechens, the French didnt wait on the UN to go into Africa. The Chinese didnt listen to the UN when they went into Tibet. I can go on and on. Whatever legitmacy the UN had came from very few Nations like the US UK etc.....
I don't hold any of them personally responsible
Well thats a relief, I guess........
-
Originally posted by Nash
I think it's perfectly reasonable to have been AGAINST the Vietnam War while at the same time NOT spitting on the soldiers.
Do you have to immediately agree with the policy the minute that troops are sent over to become instruments of it? Because the logical extension of that is that all one has to do to legitimize their policy is send in the troops.
"I think going to war would be a mistake Mr. President because.... oops.... I see you sent in the troops.... seems like a great idea to me God bless and Godspeed".
What's the point of the very American expression of dissent if all one has to do to quell it is to ignore it?
well typed sir.
-
I am not gonna fumble through that wall of text. Use some spaces.
Norway didnt solve anything in the Balkans. So as much as you claim Norway was against Milosevic's regime you were certainly incapable of doing anything about it. The UN certainly would not have rallied around Norway to do anything. You may think thats "belittling" but thats reality.
The UN has brought no peace, hasnt stopped any war or freed any people. It hasnt solved world hunger, aids or any of the like.
The UN has no place because it is like any other "democratic" (not that they are elected but in how the un vote system is structured)body around the world. Split into factions and along partisan lines so that "majority" descisions are rare. Couple that with a self defeating rules system that allows nothing but a log jam.
The UN isnt "elected" by the world to solves its problems. The UN is worthless. You may want it to be more but it isnt.
The US can form its own alliances and organizations with those Nations that share mutual interests. This is already true. Search for the various regional organizations from Africa to Europe to the Americas the far and mid east.
The UN needs us more then we need it. You cant say the same for Norway. As well intentioned and altruistic as you make Norway out to be Norway on its own would be irrelevant in world affars. Thats why you and other members of irrelevant Nations cling to this idea that the World needs a UN.
We (the US) dont need it. It hasnt provided onething to the benefit of the US.
The idea that the UN is a place for the Nations of the world to debate is BS. Most of the talking between Nations goes on outside the scope of the UN. Even in gulf 1 Bush Sr. put together his coalition not by begging before the UN but through individual dealings with each Nation involved. As a result he swayed the UN. But the UN wasnt any more relevant then as it is now
If Norway or you defer your idea of what right and wrong on how a body like the UN security council votes then you and either blind or naive.
The UN is not the "world government" and we arent obligated by it descisions.
Theres a reason the US spends so much on defense, theres a reason we engage other nations economically and politically. Thats to preserve US interests.
You are from Norway so we can expect you not to understand what that means but I doudt the US will ever defer its political or military descision to the UN.
Not ever.
So you can hold onto to this candyland "we are the world" bs all you want. That means as much to me as Norway's opposition to Milosevic's regime meant to Albanians/Muslims in Serbia.
This has been covered in numerous other threads. For any further discussions you can search for those threads.
-
Well said, GScholz, well said. I just watched that same piece on the news here and reached the same conclusion. I tried at first to persuade myself that they are nervous of the camera, but the more I looked at that woman's face the more I realised that that simply isn't the case. It was shame, pure and simple. Desperation had brought them to seek help for their kid.
We've sent our troops into a ****-storm of epic proportions from which we can't afford to back out. We can't afford to lose. And there's already rumblings that it might widen to include Iran and Syria in some kind of insurgent conflict.
I really hope for a speedy victory, I really do. The longer this goes on, the more accidental civilian deaths that inflame the Arab world, the more seeds we sow to be reaped in future years.
Here's hoping it all works out in the end.
-
I know it is difficult to understand these people, but they are not like you and me. They don't have the same culture and upbringing as you and me. Their understanding of concepts like freedom, liberty and democracy are not like ours.
Yer gawdamned right. and it's why were taking out that murdering savage that was in power, and it's why when we leave that disgusting camel turd heap the most dangerous thing those folks will have in their military will be a piper cub and a case of raid bugspray. not unlike we left japan and germany, 50 years ago.
next we're gonna settle koreas hash.
like batz sez.. the hell with the UN debating club.
1/3 of this planets nations behave like kindergarden brats. so we'll deal with 'em like they ARE kindergarden brats.
we're gettin the word out.. if yer potentate toymaker decides to rattle their nasty toys at america, america will be around soon enough to take the toys away and install a rational babysitter.
if europe don't love us anymore.. boo hoo. if ANYONE decides to threaten us.. they are gonna get spanked.
time for the world to get it's diaper changed. the sooner the lil miserable shiits of this world get potty trained, the better.
get this europe and the 'world'.. we don't need your love, or your respect. we require peace.. and freedom from threats against our security.
make it plain you intend to harm us, threaten us.. we're gonna act. no more sittin on our butts waiting for the next planeload of citizens to be hijacked and slaughtered. no waiting for some murdering dune coon to figure out how he's gonna subvert his nation and it's resources to harm us. now it's time to 'pre-empt' the regularly scheduled terrorist attacks with a lil regime changing and map re-drawing.
don't bother flamin me.. myself and about 700 million americans have heard it all before.
'wanh wanh wanh'.
take a nap, learn to deal with it.
-
You know, I truly was against this war without UN sanction. I wrote and called my Reps, knowing it wouldn't make a difference. Did it anyway.
Longterm, I believe this will hurt us more than help us. I do.
In my heart, I feel it IS a mistake even if we were to take massive homeland casualties later on from an Iraqi supplied WMD. That would perhaps at least provide the clear link and "wake up call" we seem to need.
Now that we're "in it", though I do feel that we have to "win it". If for no other reason than the message that a pull out would send to the other dictatorial WMD oriented leaders out there. We grabbed this tarbaby with both hands, so now we've GOT to win through.
But I did not wish for this; my heart goes out to all those who have and will lose their loved ones..... on both sides of this..... in this conflict.
All that being said............
Some of what Hang said still resonates deeply for some reason. There's something there that calls out to me.
I'm staring deep into my own navel, but there's almost a feeling of inevitability. The arrival of Armageddon, in the sense of the final battle between right and wrong.
Because while some of you are not, I am also convinced that a person like Saddam, who will use means and the methods he has used to rule, to slaughter and to conquer, needs to be killed and removed from his seat of power. I can say the same about Kim Jong Il without a crease in my brow. There are others. Mugabe springs to mind.
So, does Syria want a piece of this? Does it want finally the determination of Armageddon? Iran too? Anyone else? Come forward!
Fine. So be it. Part of me says "bring it". Let's get this over with so that the world can either go forward into light or descend into the darkness of dictatorship.
As I said, I don't fully understand why lately this feeling has been staying with me. I know that I would volunteer once again and probably be told I was too old, again.
I suspect that it is the continual TV bombardment of US boys in uniform being shot at in a foreign country because they came to remove a mass murderer from power.
Yeah, I know the rest of the world doesn't see it that way. But that isn't resonating right now.
There ya go. My bare soul. Enjoy.
-
The arrival of Armageddon, in the sense of the final battle between right and wrong.
Because while some of you are not, I am also convinced that a person like Saddam, who will use means and the methods he has used to rule, to slaughter and to conquer, needs to be killed and removed from his seat of power. I can say the same about Kim Jong Il without a crease in my brow. There are others. Mugabe springs to mind.
So, does Syria want a piece of this? Does it want finally the determination of Armageddon? Iran too? Anyone else? Come forward!
Fine. So be it. Part of me says "bring it". Let's get this over with so that the world can either go forward into light or descend into the darkness of dictatorship.
As I said, I don't fully understand why lately this feeling has been staying with me. I know that I would volunteer once again and probably be told I was too old, again.
I suspect that it is the continual TV bombardment of US boys in uniform being shot at in a foreign country because they came to remove a mass murderer from power.
Yeah, I know the rest of the world doesn't see it that way. But that isn't resonating right now.
There ya go. My bare soul. Enjoy.
You know, these have been my exact same feelings in the last few days. As I've watched the news and see it all unfold in technicolour, I've felt like I'm staring over the edge of a precipice. I know that sounds melodramatic and hysterical - but that's been my gut reaction.
I was talking to my dad today about the war. I said to him that I had a bad feeling about it, and he just smiled and said it would all work out in the end. I tried to explain what I meant, but couldn't really put it into words.
As I looked at the pictures of American servicemen and women on TV last weekend, the way they pushed a mic into the face of that wounded guy, all I could say was '****ing Savages'.
When I saw the pictures of the two dead British Army sappers, I couldn't put the anger I felt into words. There was nothing but fury.
Today, I was watching some rally in Egypt and they interviewed some of the people there. The stuff they spouted was just utter crap - one guy, an accountant, no less was trying to say that Coalition forces were dragging people out of their houses in the night and shooting them. How can we 'win' when people have such ignorance in their heads?
I'm not sure we can.
But hey, I'm going a university reunion tomorrow. :) And for sure there will be a toast for the two guys out in the Gulf right now, who won't be able to make it.
-
"...anti-war sentiment and protest emboldens saddams regime and lengthens the war. this costs troops lives. since we are THERE and we ain't leaving till the regime is replaced, should we not then cease anti-war activisim and instead provide a united front against saddam?...".
Let me say up front that I do support this war since I believe the WMD are there (god help us if they aren't found).
Having said that I must disagree with the above statement. What about the demonstrations against the Vietnam War?...were they out of line also? Not saying it's the case here, but there were and will be in the future unjust wars that may be prevented or stopped by anti-war activism. To deny the right to anti-war activism is to believe all wars your government participates in are just...which is very naive.
And yes, I believe you can wholeheartedly support the troops, hoping the war is over quickly and everybody returns safely, without supporting the war itself. Don't see any conflict there.
bowser
-
"Some of what Hang said still resonates deeply for some reason. There's something there that calls out to me." - Toad
Aye... does to me too.
It's curious.... (and disturbing :) ) .... but it's there.
-
Originally posted by bowser
Having said that I must disagree with the above statement. What about the demonstrations against the Vietnam War?...were they out of line also? Not saying it's the case here, but there were and will be in the future unjust wars that may be prevented or stopped by anti-war activism. To deny the right to anti-war activism is to believe all wars your government participates in are just...which is very naive.
ah. yes. the ineveitable 'vietnam war' refrence..
vietnam ran 12 years.. with no invasion EVER of the country we were 'at war' with. that 'war' was prosecuted by stunninghunks, target lists provendered by accountants and laywers.
make yah a deal. if we ain't got iraq under a new regime in 6 months, i'll be in the ranks of war protestors. we'll walk shoulder to shoulder to washington, and stop the madness.
ok?
to rape badger.. 'give war a chance'.
now, shut up and soldier; america.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
ah. yes. the ineveitable 'vietnam war' refrence..
vietnam ran 12 years.. with no invasion EVER of the country we were 'at war' with. that 'war' was prosecuted by stunninghunks, target lists provendered by accountants and laywers.
make yah a deal. if we ain't got iraq under a new regime in 6 months, i'll be in the ranks of war protestors. we'll walk shoulder to shoulder to washington, and stop the madness.
ok?
to rape badger.. 'give war a chance'.
now, shut up and soldier; america.
Hang,
You darn well know the source of the target list, it was a particular democrat. I hope he is reminded of all the lives he cost in his own little piece of hell. :mad:
-
yup.
bastard won't live forever. i promised i'd piss on his grave.
-
Uh Hang, he's already dead. I'd be arrested for pissing on his grave too. The wife keeps me away from that area even though we have family in Texas. ;)
-
mcnamaras dead? just saw him on some cuban missile crisis tv semininar...
where'd they bury that bastard?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You know, these have been my exact same feelings in the last few days. As I've watched the news and see it all unfold in technicolour, I've felt like I'm staring over the edge of a precipice. I know that sounds melodramatic and hysterical - but that's been my gut reaction.
I was talking to my dad today about the war. I said to him that I had a bad feeling about it, and he just smiled and said it would all work out in the end. I tried to explain what I meant, but couldn't really put it into words.
As I looked at the pictures of American servicemen and women on TV last weekend, the way they pushed a mic into the face of that wounded guy, all I could say was '****ing Savages'.
When I saw the pictures of the two dead British Army sappers, I couldn't put the anger I felt into words. There was nothing but fury.
I watched the footage of those American POWS and I was almost happy that they weren't Australian soldiers. Glad that there weren't any dead diggers being propped up on a bench and filmed.
Last night the news showed an armoured column crossing a captured bridge, and the camera panned down to the dead Iraqi soldiers strewn along the side of the bridge they died defending and I felt almost nothing.
I have been 100% against the war that my country has been fighting, and I still am.
But I am proud of our diggers professionalism, and conduct and want them to all come home safe. I don't think is any conflict in that thinking at all.
Tronsky
-
Hold yer water. I'm pretty sure he's still alive. Tell ya what... the three of us can meet graveside when he does pass. I'll bring the beer.
He'll pass. We'll p ss.
-
Uh, hate to mention this but the democrat I was refering to was lbj. He was the CinC during the build up and was the one who thought he could make the NV's "see the light" by using creative bombing strategies. I am not excusing mcnamara at all here but he was not the CinC, lbj was.
-
My view of Robert STRANGE is that he's the one that totally f d up the war. LBJ was simply a politician; he let STRANGE do his thinking for him. After all, STRANGE was a "whiz kid".
I'd feel a bit softer towards him if he ever admitted he was way wrong and he killed a lot of American boys... but he never has and never will.
But heck, I'll bring the beer to LBJ's gravesite too! When ya wanna go?
-
No! The troops are not the enemy, the goverment is.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
You're sixty or seventy years too late with that realization.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You're sixty or seventy years too late with that realization.
jfyi, Nazies were there from 1933-1945.
Try read a book :)
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
Geez ... pardon me, "anal Hans". :D
[size=8]Fifty-eight to seventy years too late.[/b][/size]
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Geez ... pardon me, "anal Hans". :D
Finally, i see u are at least able to use a search maschine on the internet :)
It's about time for me to join the anti Iraq war protest march now.
Happens in 35 min
Laters, Blitz :)
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
Yeah, get out there and show the world you support people that put other people through shredders!
You go boy!
(Like it or not, you're making a choice)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, get out there and show the world you support people that put other people through shredders!
You go boy!
(Like it or not, you're making a choice)
My proposal for this war would have been a fair 2 people fight.
A square drawn into the sand of Iraq dessert , 30 feet by 30feet.
Saddam engages with the bones of the people he murdered and
Bush retaliates with all his empty bourbon bottles :D
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
"...make yah a deal. if we ain't got iraq under a new regime in 6 months, i'll be in the ranks of war protestors....".
What the heck does the length of the war have to do with it? It's a just war or it isn't. State your position either way and stick with it 'ya wuss. No jumpin' off the bandwagon allowed.
bowser
-
Blitz, I'd settle for calling off the whole war if you had to personally stand and watch every torture and murder committed in Iraq by Saddam or his representatives[/edit> for the next year.
-
Originally posted by bowser
"...make yah a deal. if we ain't got iraq under a new regime in 6 months, i'll be in the ranks of war protestors....".
What the heck does the length of the war have to do with it? It's a just war or it isn't. State your position either way and stick with it 'ya wuss. No jumpin' off the bandwagon allowed.
bowser
??? you drew an analogy with vietnam. i poped a hole in it, the comparison is invalid; infering that the war in iraq won't last more than six months. compared to the mis-manged clusterfork that turned into 12 years of american political assininity, the iraq war has had from the onset a set of goals that we WILL achieve.
should we deviate, should iraq turn into a vietnam style clusterfork, i'll join the ranks of war prostestors and demand the return of our troops.
my position has been exceedingly clear. the war is just, our stated goals are the objective.
yer sated position of 'supporting the troops, but not the war' sounds like mamby-pamby double speak to me. can't ride both wagons at once, bowser. either the war is just, or it is not.
wuss, yerself.
-
"Blitz, I'd settle for calling off the whole war if you had to personally stand and watch every torture and murder committed in Iraq by Saddam or his representatives[/edit> for the next year." - Toad
... and leave your country exposed to the threat of a WMD attack?
It's wild to me... how the debate has so rapidly shifted to become almost predominantly about the human rights violations in Iraq.
Ironic as it may be, the more it's about national self interests and the less it's about liberating and protecting the peoples of other nations, the better off its gonna be viewed. And by far the more legitimate your aims.
You have a right to protect yourself. It's a bit more sketchy when you're trying to maintain your right to liberate a people in some far away bad country or other that may or may not even WANT you there. Because then Blit'z "you didn't care before" argument becomes valid. And you'd *certainly* want UN backing if that's the case. It also becomes about nation building and the world's policeman. It's setting a precedent to do the same for other downtrodden countries. Plus... nobody in their right minds really believes that it's what this war is about.
Why even go there? But no... all you hear about nowadays is how these people need to be liberated.
-
Nah, I'd just want to see what Blitz was posting after a year of that.
After all, America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
:D
You already know what I think. After all, you're a sentient being, unlike...... oops, no ad hominems!
-
nash.. i guess we're supposed to pick one item from the list of henious practices of saddams regime?
check the list.. we're working down it.
Rumsfeld said the goal of the operation is to defend Americans, eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and liberate the Iraqi people.
"Coalition military operations are focused on achieving several specific objectives: to end the regime of Saddam Hussein by striking with force on a scope and scale that makes clear to Iraqis that he and his regime are finished," he said.
Next, Rumsfeld said their goal is "to identify, isolate and eventually eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, production capabilities, and distribution networks. Third, he said, they'll "search for, capture, drive out terrorists who have found safe harbor in Iraq."
Fourth, they plan to "collect such intelligence as we can find related to terrorist networks in Iraq and beyond," followed by collection of "such intelligence as we can find related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction activity."
Sixth, they seek "to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian relief, food and medicine to the displaced and to the many needy Iraqi citizens." Seventh, they plan to "secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people, and which they will need to develop their country after decades of neglect by the Iraqi regime."
"And last, to help the Iraqi people create the conditions for a rapid transition to a representative self-government that is not a threat to its neighbors and is committed to ensuring the territorial integrity of that country."
"This war is an act of self defense, to be sure, but it is also an act of humanity. Coalition forces are eliminating a regime that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of its own people and which is pursuing weapons that would enable it to kill hundreds of thousands more. In recent days, the world has witnessed further evidence of their brutality and their disregard for the laws of war. Their treatment of coalition POWs is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
To the families of those captured or missing, know that our thoughts and prayers are with you and with your loved ones and that we will do everything in our power to bring them safely home. To the families and loved ones of those brave men and women who have been killed or wounded, know that their courage and sacrifice are deeply appreciated by all Americans.
The regime has committed acts of treachery on the battlefield dressing their forces as liberated civilians, and sending soldiers out waving white flags and feigning surrender, with the goal of drawing coalition forces into the ambushes; using Red Cross vehicles to courier military instructions. These are serious violations of the laws of war. The regime's actions have had little practical military effect thus far, but they do serve as a telling reminder of why it is important that this regime be removed.
Those who behave with such brutality cannot be allowed to possess tools of mass murder. This is the behavior of desperate men. Iraqi authorities know their days are numbered. And while the Iraqi regime is on the way out, it's important to know that it can still be brutal, particularly in the moments before it finally succumbs. This campaign could well grow more dangerous in the coming days and weeks as coalition forces close on Baghdad and the regime is faced with its certain death. But the outcome is assured.
To the Iraqi people, let me say this: By now you have seen and know that coalition airstrikes are not aimed at you, they are aimed at the regime of Saddam Hussein. We are systematically eliminating the institutions that repress you. As we do so, we are doing everything possible to protect innocent civilians. Humanitarian assistance, food, water and medicine is already being delivered, and more will arrive shortly. A regime that starved its own people so that a dictator could build many, many palaces, will be removed. In its place, you will build a free Iraq with a new government based on democratic principles of political freedom, individual liberty, and the rule of law. "
Rummy the Dummy, 25Mar
-
"...you drew an analogy with vietnam. i poped a hole in it, the comparison is invalid...".
I never compared the Vietnam war to the Iraq war. I used the protests…key word protests…against the Vietnam war as an illustration of anti-war activism that in the end turned out to be perfectly justified. But no…if you had your way, people would have had to keep their mouths shut because their country was at war, it emboldened the enemy. Small price to pay for freedom of speech if you ask me. Freedom of speech. You may have heard of it. It's one of the wonderful aspects of western life they're fighting to bring to the Iraqi people.
bowser
-
But no…if you had your way, people would have had to keep their mouths shut because their country was at war, it emboldened the enemy. Small price to pay for freedom of speech if you ask me. Freedom of speech. You may have heard of it. It's one of those wonderful aspects of western life we're trying to impart to the Iraqi people
you missed it again bowser.
12 years.
when did the protests start against the vietnam war?
we were not marching on washinton in the second week of that lil fray. or the second year.
Freedom of speech. You may have heard of it.
aid and comfort to the enemy, bowser. you may have heard of it.
-
in many cases, yes
what group spit on the soldiers when they returned from the jungles of vietnam?
what group has haters of the military in it? US/democracy haters in it?
what group has communists in it?
to say you r one but not the other is fence sitting ... before the fighting started you could be both, now its one or the other til its over...
ps
Nash
though I do not agree with anything you say, please continue to post as your avatar is tops :)
-
Will do Eagler. If I can bring just a little bit of sunshine into this world I will have considered my existence worthwhile. :)
I was born in '69 so as far as wars go I'm just a pup... I'm curious... The "free speech vs aid and comfort" debate was going on during the Vietnam War was it not? Was there anything like it during the Korean War? Others?
Also... could it be said that despite the protests during Vietnam "providing aid and comfort to the enemy", did they have the net effect of *saving* thousands of lives when all is said and done?
-
Originally posted by Nash
I was born in '69 so as far as wars go I'm just a pup... I'm curious... The "free speech vs aid and comfort" debate was going on during the Vietnam War was it not? Was there anything like it during the Korean War? Others?
Of course. Go read about the Sedition Act of 1918.
-
Hhm... a pretty frightening piece of law.
Is there any difference between the Sedition Act and what the anti-protestors want?
-
Right now the protester protectors are at war with the anti-protester regime in Iraq .
-
Originally posted by Toad
Blitz, I'd settle for calling off the whole war if you had to personally stand and watch every torture and murder committed in Iraq by Saddam or his representatives[/edit> for the next year.
Damned, how could ya government get to sleep at night in all those long years Saddam Hussein was their friend and they supported Saddam Hussein with any weapon he wants, intelligence + WMDs,very well knowing that he slaughtered his own people, tortured some, murdered some personally and used WMDs daily in his Angriffskrieg against Iran 1980-1988?
That's totally beyond human imagination :(
Regards Blitz
btw If ya want to know something about someone who likes torture of his own people,too, drive by to hell and ask the 'Schah of Persia' and his secret police guys from 'Savak' :(
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
"...aid and comfort to the enemy, bowser. you may have heard of it...".
Bit of a leap from emboldening the enemy with anti-war protests to providing him with aid and comfort don’t ‘ya think?
Any yes, I have heard of the term. Article3, Section3: Treason if I recall correctly. However, unlike you I actually understand what it means. If you brush up on your knowledge of the constitution and the laws that pertain to this particular subject, you’ll see there’s a big difference between supporting the other side and disagreeing with your side. You’ll also find that to prove treason, you have to “prove intent to aid the enemy in connection with active contact and coordination with said enemy”. Key words....contact and coordination.
You seem to have a hard time understanding my illustrations but....Hanoi Jane. She actually made contact with the enemy. Many people believe she could have been successfully prosecuted for treason. Far different story from people voicing their opinion in the streets around the world.
bowser
-
Well, we finally managed to get over our guilt about trading with Nazi Germany in the early '30's too. But it also took a war.
And just look... after it was all over and the rebuilding had been done....... we were friends again. Isn't history funny, with all its twists and turns?
But, if we REALLY wanted to know anything about torturing people, murdering millions and genocide we'd stop by hell and see how your countrymen are doing, wouldn't we? I think they may still be the reigning champions, unless they're tied with Stalin and his boys.
Hey, did you know we were once allied with Stalin too? But, as you can see, that problem's been solved too.
Funny thing.. we were friendly at one time or another with both of these murdering genocidal regimes. We also played key roles in destroying those regimes.
Funniest thing is...... afterwards there was quite a friendly relationship in both cases. Go figure.
Isn't history funny, with all its twists and turns?
Isn't history funny, with all its twists and turns?
Isn't history funny, with all its twists and turns?
Isn't history funny, with all its twists and turns?
But we digress... you keep dragging up old history and blaming Saddam on us. I don't agree with your opinion.
Point is, in any event we're fixing the Saddam problem right now.
And you choose to side AGAINST the removal of a man that will be amongst his peers when he finally get to hell and meets your famous countrymen as well as Stalin.
THAT'S really funny, eh? You against the removal of a man like Hitler or Stalin.
REALLY funny. But not funny "ha-ha".
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, we finally managed to get over our guilt about trading with Nazi Germany in the early '30's too. But it also took a war.
And just look... after it was all over and the rebuilding had been done....... we were friends again. Isn't history funny, with all its twists and turns?
But, if we REALLY wanted to know anything about torturing people, murdering millions and genocide we'd stop by hell and see how your countrymen are doing, wouldn't we? I think they may still be the reigning champions, unless they're tied with Stalin and his boys.
Hey, did you know we were once allied with Stalin too? But, as you can see, that problem's been solved too.
Funny thing.. we were friendly at one time or another with both of these murdering genocidal regimes. We also played key roles in destroying those regimes.
Funniest thing is...... afterwards there was quite a friendly relationship in both cases. Go figure.
Isn't history funny, with all its twists and turns?
Isn't history funny, with all its twists and turns?
Isn't history funny, with all its twists and turns?
Isn't history funny, with all its twists and turns?
But we digress... you keep dragging up old history and blaming Saddam on us. I don't agree with your opinion.
Point is, in any event we're fixing the Saddam problem right now.
And you choose to side AGAINST the removal of a man that will be amongst his peers when he finally get to hell and meets your famous countrymen as well as Stalin.
THAT'S really funny, eh? You against the removal of a man like Hitler or Stalin.
REALLY funny. But not funny "ha-ha".
To draw a line between Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein is the most ridiculous thing ever.
It's like sayin America is like Nazy- Germany, totally dumb.
Read some history books and get a clue.
The only reason your government wants to get rid of Saddam Hussein is because he made 1 wrong move when he invaded Kuwait. That was against your selfinterests. If he wouldn'd have invaded Kuwait he would have been your friend till today.
Has absolutely nothing to do with Freedom, Democrazy,Humanty, or such. These items are only used for selling bad politics to the world :(
Regards Blitz
btw If ya want to know something about someone who likes torture of his own people,too, drive by to hell and ask the 'Schah of Persia' and his secret police guys from 'Savak' :(
Or former president Somoza from Nicaragua :(
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
Perle kicked, who's next?
-
Originally posted by blitz
To draw a line between Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein is the most ridiculous thing ever.
It's like sayin America is like Nazy- Germany, totally dumb.
Read some history books and get a clue.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
Perle kicked, who's next?
Ummm, hussien is hitler. And in your last sig line is that a funny aimed at the guy who got shot on video? Daniel pearle?
Sick bastard.
there were no extermination camps in Germany, its just redickulus..
-
Originally posted by X2Lee
Ummm, hussien is hitler. And in your last sig line is that a funny aimed at the guy who got shot on video? Daniel pearle?
Sick bastard.
there were no extermination camps in Germany, its just redickulus..
Jfyi, it's Richard Perle, read a newspaper once a year :)
Oil- err Rums-feld next? :D
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
-
Say what you want.
You're parading and protesting to keep a mass murderer in power.
YOU are the one trying to stop his removal.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Say what you want.
You're parading and protesting to keep a mass murderer in power.
YOU are the one trying to stop his removal.
Wrong ! We protest against a preemtive strike warmonger politic that can create exactly what it wants to deny. Terrorism!!
And when we see more terrorism out of this we naturely need another little, clean, chirugical war......
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
-
Well, delude yourself all you like.
The violations of the UN SC resolutions are clear and are long standing.
His murder and genocide are undeniable.
You are protesting to stop his removal.
-
Hehe ... I still love Nash's avatar.
-
Originally posted by blitz
Jfyi, it's Richard Perle, read a newspaper once a year :)
Oil- err Rums-feld next? :D
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
it doenst matter if I knew his name, what matters is that you have that in your sig.
they say these forums are moderated but seems you can post
any offence you like.
making fun of hostages is pond scum.