Be all you can be.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The same whining complaint used by shirkers in every way -- the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam. "Well, I'd fight a different war, but not this war."
Calling those with different points of view who volunteered to serve in the infantry (rather than being drafted, or running the risk of a draft if they didn't "volunteer") isn't the best way to convince others.

Lemme see if I understand your point of view on this:

1) The current idiot (choose whoever makes you happy) gets us involved in a war. Maybe that should be "war" since we seem to like police actions now.

2) It's pretty clear that the idiot in charge really is an idiot, and is likely a lying bastard as well.

3) Calling him on being a lying bastard, and suggesting that the "war" he got us involved in is idiocy, is wrong.

4) It's wrong because, well, it's not supporting the idiot. And because sometime, more people might see the idiocy for what it is, and decide we've had enough idiocy.

5) If that happens, it "gets people killed." Or, it makes the sacrifice of those who fell worthless, as their lives wouldn't be if we dragged things on another decade and tripled their numbers.

That about right, Vern?
 
Sometimes, this forum just plain disgusts me. Now is one of those times.

Persevere, this forum is much like the country. The loudest don't necessarily represent the majority.

Those opposed to miltary action in Iraq are left to entrusting our security to the UN.

An Iraqi regiem without sanctions and Saddam still in charge would have been an unacceptable risk in a post 9/11 world. The sanctions were going to come down and the oil for food debacle showed us where our "allies" were on the subject.
 
That about right, Vern?

As opposed to those who give aid and comfort to the enemy? Who encourage him to hang on, telling him that if he kills enough Americans, he can win in the streets of the United States what he cannot win in battle?

Spitting on returning soldiers? That's your idea of patriotism?

(And yes, I've heard the argument, "Well, I didn't spit on anyone." But you encourage those who do.)
 
It would make sense if you'd been there -- and seen how encouraging the enemy kills American soldiers.
You still have made a statement accusing me indirectly of killing American soldiers. I have not done this.

A lack of support for the war is not the same as supporting our enemies.

Neither one of those pulls the trigger on a hajji's AK.

The Hajji ain't gonna go away just cause we support the war.

I actually supported taking out Saddam and his Cronies. I didn't support doing it at a time in which we were already in Afghanistan, or going over there before getting the right gear, (Like getting the right armor, etc)

Rumsfield doesn't give a rat's ass about our military, he closed a bunch of commisaries in North Carolina and made the families have to drive an hour or more to get groceries, because "we're not in the grocery business." Quality of life went significantly downhill from my first enlistment to my second.

And somehow, because I object to that nonsense, I am "killing American soldiers?" :rolleyes:

Ludicrous.
 
Gee Derek, lets not make any points other than calling people idiots and lying bastards.

The current idiot (choose whoever makes you happy) gets us involved in a war. Maybe that should be "war" since we seem to like police actions now.
Make that our entire congress that voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution

It's pretty clear that the idiot in charge really is an idiot, and is likely a lying bastard as well.
Did you cut and paste that remark from the DU?

Calling him on being a lying bastard, and suggesting that the "war" he got us involved in is idiocy, is wrong.
No, it is your opinion however misguided you may be.

It's wrong because, well, it's not supporting the idiot. And because sometime, more people might see the idiocy for what it is, and decide we've had enough idiocy.
Maybe if you and those that believed like you could compete in the marketplace of ideas you would see that reflected in government policy.
 
Last edited:
GoRon:

Reread what I wrote. Now, understand that this applies to Bush Jr (Iraq 2), Clinton (Yugoslavia -- I would have stayed in if we could guarantee my unit would go -- glad I didn't as I don't like the way it's run), Bush Sr (Iraq 1 -- I feel cheated because I fell for the hype where our embassador's daughter donned a veil and started talking about "throwing premature babies out of incubators" so they could take incubators from Kuwait -- damn liar), and on into times before I was paying attention. Think Kennedy's Bay of Pigs worked well? How about Vietnam -- in hindsight, was it worthwhile?

Not slamming your boy -- just slamming the idea that we have some patriotic duty to support the commander in chief, regardless of the idiocy he engages in.

Vern:
As opposed to those who give aid and comfort to the enemy? Who encourage him to hang on, telling him that if he kills enough Americans, he can win in the streets of the United States what he cannot win in battle?

Spitting on returning soldiers? That's your idea of patriotism?

(And yes, I've heard the argument, "Well, I didn't spit on anyone." But you encourage those who do.)
I think there's a disconnect here. You're not hearing what I'm saying, or where I'm coming from.

I never spit on you (couldn't even walk yet -- young enough I missed the moon landings). I never gave "aid and comfort" to your enemy, nor have I conveyed any messages from him. Remember: Mao did his doctoral thesis on George Washington and the insurgency we call the Revolutionary War" -- he knew that if you hold on long enough, even a superpower will give up. The brits did, and we did. it's the way politics works.

My idea of patriotism is doing what's right for the country. In this country, we have a history of open discussions regarding important issues -- since before we revolted, even.

Blind obedience to the idiot in charge is something your history should warn you about. There's something to be said for supporting the troops who are over there dying while they do their best to do the best. There's more to be said for making sure that if they die, they die for something meaningful. If we back out of Iraq for whatever reason (lack of will, China invades Taiwan and we need the troops, the "legitimate" government we set up goes all theocratic on us and kicks us out while being a bigger threat than Saddam ever was), then they died for nothing.

As a combat vet I'd think you'd get that.
 
Solutions

Someone here mentioned solutions. After some thought, I have some solutions that I think are plausible.

1) Determine an acceptable outcome in Iraq, and work towards it. If we pull out before Iraq is stable, we may as well hand it over to the Iranians. Whether we like it or not, we're there, so reality dictates that we finish what we started.
2) End this stop-loss nonsense. If troops ETS-ing and going home leaves the military short, start pulling troops from the other hundred-odd places we have them. The Berlin Wall is gone, the USSR is no more, do we really need that big of a presence in Europe?
3) If we're going to ever end dependence on Middle East oil, we have to get serious about an energy policy. That means doing what this country can do like no other nation; research and development. The only reason we haven't found a suitable substitute for oil is because we haven't really tried. This is the nation that sent a man to the moon, surely we can figure a way to make pig poop (or whatever) useful.
4) Nuke power plants. Want to continue to be an industrialized nation? Start giving serious thought to where and when we build these. They're cleaner, more efficient, and safer than just about anything else. We can take a lesson from France in this. ALL of their nuke plants are designed exactly the same, with the same failsafes and the same layout. Personnel from any power plant can go to any other power plant and the transfer is seamless. The French haven't ever had an accident that I'm aware of.
5) Work towards a law that eliminates special privileges for those serving in government. Make them live with the same medical benefits, social security benefits, and pay structure that the average Ame4rican does. Throw in that they cannot work for a lobbying group for 5 years after their time in office is over.
6) Stay in the UN, but only to be able to exercise veto power. Cut the amount of funds we give them by 75%. What we DO give, make it in manufactured goods or food, no cash.

That's my list of solutions. Anyone have any others?
 
Last edited:
They're at it again.

Who specifically are you referring to?

When Iraq Veterans Against the War calls upon the President and the Congress "to immediately and unconditionally withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq and the Middle East," are they "helping the enemy"?

When Gen. William Odom states that "we have failed" in Iraq and that we should remove U.S. forces "from that shattered country as rapidly as possible," is he "killing our soldiers"?

The anti-war people can take full credit for that -- they created the enemy victory in Viet Nam.

Another question for you. When Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers to the newspapers, he proved once and for all that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations had systematically lied to the American people at every step of the way. Did his leaking the secret history of US intervention in Indochina "create the enemy victory in Viet Nam"?

Who's really killing our soldiers? Those calling for the troops to come home, or those who insist on sending more young men and women over to the Iraqi quagmire?
 
2) End this stop-loss nonsense. If troops ETS-ing and going home leaves the military short, start pulling troops from the other hundred-odd places we have them. The Berlin Wall is gone, the USSR is no more, do we really need that big of a presence in Europe?

We need a presence anywhere we can get a presence. Iraq is one heckuva presence, and will eventually modify the entire region. That's why we're there - not Hussein. Long-term, we'll have a stable middle east, which will help maintain a stable world.

As far as "stop loss" - I wish they'd allow former service fat cripples to re-up for non-combat slots... Yeah, I know, I know... "on today's battlefield, there is no rear area...."
 
Vern, your ignorant stereotypes and BS are quite annoying and prove from the get go that you aren't even paying attention to what is being said. Your mind is rusted shut like a steel trap. Nobody is advocating spitting on soldiers. I know I haven't and I dare you to show otherwise. I'll send you $50 if you can quote me to the contrary. Everyone I have met so far very much supports the soldiers in harm's way. I have friends and family over there and I'd like to see all of them return home. I am not even really against Bush--I just think this war was an unnecessary and irresponsible use of resources that would be better used in say...Afghanistan. I don't even hate Bush. I don't know if his intent was malacious or if he made a decision with the information on hand and it all went to crap. Some soldiers may agree with why they are over there. Other's do not. Not all of them share your blind patriotism. Some of them just want to do their job and come home. They don't agree with why they are over there but they know that with their name on the dotted line, their opinion doesn't matter. My brother made a spontaneous decision based on, among other things, money and adventure. He will get both but regrets his decision and doesn't agree with why he is there. He now finds himself north of Baghdad fighting with the 101st but eagerly awaits his return to "freedom." And if what he says he true, there are a lot of people in his unit with similar feelings. Stereotypes are rarely true and yours are no exception.

The thing about blind patriotism is that you may be a patriot, but you are still blind...

For the rest of us, there is always critically evaluating the environment around you are forming an opinion capable of changing. I am not an automaton. I will not grin and nod. And I will not sign my name on a line promising to die if need be for a cause I believe to be in error. That is the point of volunatary service. And I love my country for giving me the choice and the ability to voice an opinion contrary to that of our elected leader. I pity that you lack to foresight and open-mindedness of our forefathers.

Some wars are necessary. This one isn't. That doesn't mean I don't love my country or support my brother and others in harm's way. It also doesn't qualify me to be exported. You may ask whose right it is to question the morality of their country. But quite simply, it is mine. The Constitution guarantees this...
 
ebd wrote:
"3) If we're going to ever end dependence on Middle East oil, we have to egt serious about an energy policy. That means doing what this country can do like no other nation; research and development. The only reason we haven't found a suitable substitute for oil is because we haven't really tried. This is the nation that sent a man to the moon, surely we can figure a way to make pig poop (or whatever) useful."
---------------------------

Wow, finally after so many more pages since I last looked at this thread
there's someone who homes in on what our presence in the ME is all about!

Yes, this is about access to a dwindling strategic and economic resource
that powers our entire country from top to bottom. It made the computer
you're using right now, is providing the electricity either directly or
indirectly (coal and nuke fuel doesn't get to the power plant on its own),
and will get you to work, grocery shopping, and the video store today
where you can rent some multimedia product made out of oil.

Being in Iraq has many benefits: immediate access to the world's 2nd
largest oil reserve, keeping Iran in check (look at a map sometime and
where we have troops and notice that we have Iran surrounded), and
denying access to our potential rivals in the ME. If this was about stopping
tyranny and genocide where it's the worst, we'd be in the Sudan now.

It would be nice if we had a <equal> alternative, but we don't and we won't.
At this point there's nothing on the horizon that will power our economy
like oil --even if it's $150/bbl. Americans are not prepared to make hard
choices that would reduce their standard of living. This is evident by the
usual amount of whining both on this thread, the mass media, and any
given coffee shop or office watering hole on any day of the week.

Would more Americans be willing to use urban mass transit and trains for
longer trips? Not at this point. They haven't in the past either which has
resulted in our transportation infrastructure being neglected and even
removed. Don't blame the politicians because it's you and your fellow
citizens who wanted to gas and go out of their own garages in the morning
rather than wait. Would Americans be willing to go 1/2 a day without
electricity? Hah!

For the people who don't want to send their kids to fight OUR resource wars
or complain this was a "diversion" (from what? the ME is the point), please
turn off your computer, trade it in for a horse and start churning your own
butter. Otherwise, you're consuming the oil as well. If YOU are not willing to
sacrifice for it, but have no problem letting OTHER people sacrifice so YOU
can maintain YOUR standard of living, then you're a hypocrite. Yeah, go
ahead and try flaming me on that. :fire: If you're reading this, you're not
Amish and therefore you're living off our Oil society. Those of you who
have past service, hey, thanks, but that was the past and here we are
still using oil in the present. Are you going to keep using it? Are your kids?
Yes? Then they need to pony up as well. I had the ancestors who fought
in the Revolution --does that mean I get to rest on their accomplishments
and say "It's someone else's turn to take care of American"?

Yes, I've been to Iraq in uniform. I've BTDT and seen all the BS both in the
military and civilian government. The people who have the hardest time
accepting collective sacrifices, but even moreso for themselves, is Jane
and John "It's All About Me" Citizen. And let's face it, keeping J&J "happy" IS
the national interest. That seems to be the ONLY thing people remember
from our country's founding --something about "pursuit of happiness" and
they have taken it to the most comfortable hedonistic extreme in world
history. King Solomon's exploits would pale in comparison to the average
Hollywood star. Even our Middle Class live far better than a Senator living
in his villa outside of ancient Rome. And, like Rome we have our Legions.

Finally, there has never been a good war. Not the Revolution nor WWII
which I had ancestors fight in as well. War is always the result of a
human failure. It shows a failure to communicate, live together or at least
co-exist with a neighbor. I'm not boiling this down to "it takes two to
fight" but when was the last time that the US really engaged in a war of
self-defense? How about any other country? We see a lot of modern civil
wars which show once peaceful societies that have broken down. Ask a
soldier who served in the Balkans or East Timor. People can fall into hatred
even when there is no limited resource involved.

Want some solutions other than look in the mirror and :banghead: ?
How about changing the way you live? :scrutiny:
How about putting that forbidden fruit back on the tree and
living in the Garden? :uhoh:
 
What I hate about threads like this is that first, the subject is way too complex for an Internet site. Next, folks base judgements on snapshots in time, without looking back through--quite often--the decades of prior decisions which have led to present circumstances.

Stipulate for the moment that we were wrong to invade Iraq. Problem: If we pull out now, the militant cultures will assume that we're all hat and no cattle, and will be encouraged to continue or accelerate hostility against us. Remember that bin Laden said that our retreat from Somalia encouraged him in his efforts.

We know from the Vietnam era that public hostility against the administration, with parades and name-calling, does in fact provide encouragement to our enemy. Again, right or wrong about administration policy doesn't matter. The encouragement is fact. That encouragement does in fact, then, lead to more deaths of our men in combat zones.

We know that after 1989, Bush I and then Clinton allowed or encouraged the drawdown of the numbers in our military, relying more on the Reserves and the National Guard. "Peace Dividend", remember? Bush II has basically done nothing to change this. And so we have a 16-year policy of minimum numbers--and the men subject to callup are paying the price for what our entire society has condoned. Hawks and Doves together...

And so it goes...

Art
 
Until I am sure I have superior information, I have to support "the idiot". I helped elect him, and now it's my job to be supportive. It's also my job to try to be well enough informed to make a judgment in the next election. Unless I am fundamentally an isolationist who mostly wants to redistribute wealth at home and has no real understanding of economics, a spoiled brat, I understand that military operations will occur occasionally. I am not anti-war. I am anti-wasting soldiers lives. Finish what you start as long as it remains a worthy mission.

The war in Iraq is mainly an effort to have a stable world economy. The US cannot build a wall around itself, maintaining the country like a nursing home for dependent citizens. The Iraq war is the first of a number of attempts to deal with governments that threaten the world economy...a bitter pill but quite necessary. A myopic view will not explain it.
 
Vern, your ignorant stereotypes and BS are quite annoying

I'm glad you're annoyed.

The "anti-war movement" gave aid and comfort to the enemy in Viet Nam, and that killed literally tens of thousands of soldiers. They did spit on returning wounded -- and soldiers returning from this war have been spit on, too.

During the Viet Nam war, they also combed newspapers and clipped stories mentioning people in the military. These were sent to North Viet Nam via the Soviet Embassy and used to identify key speciaties -- such as Electronic Weapons Officers on B52s.

They clipped stories about families which were used to break down POWs -- Colonel Floyd James Thompson (who was my boss for a couple of years after the war) was confronted with a newspaper picture of his wife at a social event with another man.

Now you may say, "I would never do that" -- but your words and actions encourage those who did.

You may have noted stores prior to the Iraq invasion that Saddam was looking for asylum in other countries. And then he changed tactics -- and at about the same time the Canadian government informed the United States that the Iraqi government was sending money to "anti war groups" in the United States. You think that was a coincidence?

Have you see the pictures of the "anti-war protest" in Washington? Did you see the signs and flags of the Communist Party, USA and many other left-wing groups at that rally?

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and associates with ducks -- it's a duck.
 
and soldiers returning from this war have been spit on, too.

Vern,

Sources, please?


Oleg,

You mentioned coercion in recruitment earlier in this thread. What coercion?
Trying to convince a young man to enlist is coercion? If so, we have radically different definitions of the word. The last time coercion was used to induct recruits into the US military was over thirty years ago.
 
Sources, please?

I personally spoke to two soldiers of the 39th Brigade, Arkansas National Guard, in Batesville, Arkansas who had been spit on.

My sources for what happened to Colonel Floyd James Thompson came from the man himself, a POW for 9 years.

When I worked for Colonel Thompson, I attended many intelligence meetings aimed at putting together a picture of what happened to our POWs and spoke personally to many of them.

My sources for the outing of EWOs (who were turned over to the Soviets, tortured and drugged, and finally liquidated) come from a B52 pilot who was shot down during Operation Linebacker. His story was confirmed by other sources -- his own EWO, like several others, survived the shoot-down, was pulled out of ranks and shown the clipping -- a "Home Town News Release" that identified the Air Force school he attended.

That officer -- and every other EWO shot down -- never returned to the US.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and associates with ducks -- it's a duck.
 
And what does helping the enemy have to do with 'anti-war'???

It encourages the enemy to believe he can win in the United States, on the streets, what he cannot win on the battlefield. It sends him a message, "Hang on and keep killing Americans, because there are people in the United States on your side."

I note that not a single combat veteran has spoken up to disagree with me.
 
You read it the wrong way: beeing antiwar migth help the enemy, but helping the enemy is definitly not antiwar! And there are also a difference between 'anti-war' and 'war protestor'. Anyway, it was ment as a critical coment to the 'anti-war movement', lost in language problems.
 
Dear Art and Vern,

I must admit, despite myself, I'm intensely interested in this thread. Both sides got me thinking.

-Now my uncles were both in 'Nam for three tours each. They signed up, and asked to go back: they believed they were doing right. Now, for the whole spitting thing: it would be a deathwish to spit on my uncles one 6'8" and the other 6'5" and both with a look that would wither steel. So, yes they had friends spat on, but they weren't spat on.

Anyway...

-Guess what? They hate the Iraq war. They now think the Vietnam 'Conflict' was a joke and a waste of good mens lives. They at first hated the protesters in 'Nam but then saw the light (as they said). My one uncle is a Lieutenant Colonel and had literally dozens of his own men killed leading them in combat.

-What he realized, is that those protesters, made the war so unpopular that it ended the conflict sooner. This saved lives, because the politicians were to chicken-sh** to let the dog off the lease and use ALL our resources to win the war, so this "conflict" would have kept going on, if not for the protesters. He now protests the Iraq War.

***all of what I just said DOESN'T MATTER. What does matter is our rights as citizens and our duty as such to our country.

Here's my questions, and believe me, you've put me on the fence, I'm truly undecided about this, so please, if it's within you, SWAY ME:

1. Do you believe the Bill of Rights Flawed, outdated, perfect, divine, just-about-right, in need of revision?

2. Do you believe a citizen should excersize his rights, when motivated by laudible intentions, for the good of his country?

3. If so, how should he go about it.

See, I believe it's the DUTY of every citizen to act as the watch dog of the government, specifically because once a kid signs up, he's revoked his say in the matter, and has to follow orders. In my opinion, when he kills for a good cause, I too can sip from the cup of victory, but when he kills for an unjust cause, or DIES for an unjust cause, I'm gonna have some blood on my hands to wash off.

-We're in this together.

-I hope you write back soon

-Paco
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top