Be all you can be.

[ebd10]

To those that have made statements, or sympathize with the opinion that those who are not as enthusiastic about fighting this war should either be silent or leave the country: You would deny me the right to voice an opinion to the point of exiling me from my home. What makes you better than any tyrant that has ever existed?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

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.

We've heard it all before. "I support the troops, but I oppose the war."

No matter how you slice it, this kind of thing killed tens of thousands of American soldiers in my generation. And the same kind of people are trying to do the same thing to this generation.

 

[goosegunner]

We've heard it all before. "I support the troops, but I oppose the war."

Aperantly the point was lost once again; the point was: why do they call themself 'anti-war movement' when they actually supports the war, they only want the other side to win.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

To those that have made statements, or sympathize with the opinion that those who are not as enthusiastic about fighting this war should either be silent or leave the country: You would deny me the right to voice an opinion to the point of exiling me from my home.

Ah, the old "If you disagree with me, you're infringing on my rights."

Well, guess what? The rest of us have rights too -- and that includes the right to say what we think about your opinions.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Aperantly the point was lost once again; the point was: why do they call themself 'anti-war movement' when they actually supports the war, they only want the other side to win.

They won't admit that -- and if you say it, they'll accuse you of somehow violating their rights.

 

[No_Brakes23]

You mentioned coercion in recruitment earlier in this thread. What coercion?

I am pretty sure Oleg was speaking in the context of a draft, which at that point in the thread had been put forward as a good idea. It was stated that anyone who thought that a draft was unfair, was unpatriotic.

I believe Oleg's response was to that, not recruitment.

But I could be wrong.

Art Eatman, well said.

Vern Humphrey, you are a broken record, your entire response to any challenge can be summed up with "this kind of thing killed tens of thousands of American soldiers in my generation", which is a cop-out. Your lack of response to my suggestion that your position would have made you a Torry in the American Revolution leads me to believe it is true and that you agree. I have no interest in the opinion of King George's men.

 

[ebd10]

Ah, the old "If you disagree with me, you're infringing on my rights."

"Oh kettle, thou art black" sayeth the pot.

Well, guess what? The rest of us have rights too -- and that includes the right to say what we think about your opinions.

Never said anything different. I would defend your rights to the death, regardless of whether I agreed with you or not. And it would never occur to me to silence you or to exile you for having an opinion that differs from mine.

Oh, and not to put too fine a point on it, the war is over. What we are doing now is occupation.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern Humphrey, you are a broken record, your entire response to any challenge can be summed up with "this kind of thing killed tens of thousands of American soldiers in my generation"

I'm so sorry you're tired of hearing about the deaths of tens of thousands of American soldiers. It must be quite an ordeal for you to read these posts.

 

[ebd10]

I'm so sorry you're tired of hearing about the deaths of tens of thousands of American soldiers. It must be quite an ordeal for you to read these posts.

You keep on about the "tens of thousands of American soldiers" that you say were killed as a result of the anti-war movement supplying propoganda to the enemy, but you failed to acknowledge, or perhaps just ignored the fact that the Vietnam War was the result of the politicians LIES. If you want to blame someone for those deaths, how about blaming the people that got us involved in the first place? The Gulf of Tonkin incident, the very reason we sent our military to the region, NEVER HAPPENED. 57000 Americans died for a lie.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

You keep on about the "tens of thousands of American soldiers" that you say were killed as a result of the anti-war movement supplying propoganda to the enemy, but you failed to acknowledge, or perhaps just ignored the fact that the Vietnam War was the result of the politicians LIES.

Don't parrot the old propaganda back at me -- I was there, remember?

 

[ebd10]

Don't parrot the old propaganda back at me -- I was there, remember?

Nice way to avoid addressing the issue. Do you have anything substantive to add?

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Vern. That's all your posts are is annoying. They aren't insightful or intelligent. Just annoying. Like an alarm clock in the room next to you that won't shut off. It's loud but that is about the best thing that can be said of it. Actually, that is a bad analogy because I haven't lost any sleep over your trifling. If you intend to frustrate your opposition into silence, I am afraid you're going to lose.

Just because I think my country should have a damn good reason to send my brother and brothers everywhere into combat does not mean I want the enemy to win or that I am giving aid or comfort to the enemy. I am not spitting on soliders or sending newspaper clippings. What happened to your friends and fellow soldiers is disgraceful, but it is simply wrong to say that all people who remain skeptical of the war are in the same boat. It is akin to a black man saying that all white men are in the KKK because he had a friend that was lynched--obviously and proposterously asinine. Remember I voted for Bush, twice. I helped put him into office and because of this, I will accept the decisions he makes in office. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with all of them even if I am not parading through the streets with a sign.
Common sense dictates that all endevors involving such a massive use of resources as war should be viewed critically and that sensible mean should be skeptical. It is in the founding spirit of this country to question government and I'll be damned if I'll be exported or called a traitor without sounding off because I do so.

 

[Paco]

Gentlemen, sometimes the bitterness from a single act or season of pain can stain a soul for the rest of its time on the earth.

-All you can do is pray for those with such scars and thank God you don't have them.

-Paco

 

[bountyhunter]

The Gulf of Tonkin incident, the very reason we sent our military to the region, NEVER HAPPENED. 57000 Americans died for a lie.

Best information says that something did indeed happen at the Gulf of Tonkin, although many have surmised it was staged to provide provocation for the military to wage war.

On July 31, 1964, the American destroyer USS Maddox, was in international waters conducting a reconnaissance mission in the Gulf of Tonkin. Critics of President Johnson have suggested that the purpose of the mission was to provoke a reaction from North Vietnamese coastal defense forces as a pretext for a wider war. North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked the Maddox and in response, with the help of air support from the nearby carrier USS Ticonderoga, she destroyed one of the torpedo boats, damaging two others. The Maddox suffered only superficial damage and retired to South Vietnamese waters where she was joined by USS C. Turner Joy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Nam_War#The_War_Begins

 

[ebd10]

I have no reason to doubt this guy:

Squadron commander James Stockdale was one of the U.S. pilots flying overhead August 4. In the 1990s Stockdale stated: " had the best seat in the house to watch that event, and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets — there were no PT boats there… There was nothing there but black water and American fire power."

Gulf of Tonkin

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Am I correct in assuming that "Pocket.38" posted a cut-and-paste
of an article by one "Fred" or "Fred Reed" and has not answered
any of the responses in 7 pages?

So Hitler invaded Poland and the Imperial Japanese Navy bombed
Pearl Harbor because we had too many bankers and war profiteers?

Whatsgoingonhere?

[You know, if you say "Vichy-Quisling-Stockholm Syndrome"
fast enough it sounds like a Chinese curse from Firefly?]

 

[No_Brakes23]

Gentlemen, sometimes the bitterness from a single act or season of pain can stain a soul for the rest of its time on the earth.

Paco, I think you hit the nail on the head. Vern ain't gonna see things my way, and I ain't gonna see things his way, on this issue.

So Hitler invaded Poland and the Imperial Japanese Navy bombed

I must agree that our involvement in WWII was more "noble" than some other wars, but there must be some balance between the isolationists, and the "World Police" folks.

 

[PaulV]

I wish I'd known that the stuff my recruiter told me was a big lie, and I wish I'd contacted Oleg before I joined up so I wouldn't become a cog in a big political propoganda machine. All this time, I thought the unit citations and thank-you letters from national policy makers were because my agency was doing something to make a difference since 1947. Silly me, I could just kick myself now.

Sometimes, this forum just plain disgusts me. Now is one of those times.

Amen brother! The world would be a much better place if we just packed up our toys and went home. I bet no one would see fit to bother us here either.


The case for war:

1. Numerous violations of the 1991 cease-fire agreement. Gulf War I was not finished properly.
-Multiple attacks on aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone.
-Keeping of weapons prohibited by the agreement. (Long range rockets, explosives for nuke tests (Remember the big flap about missing explosives just before the election? They were supposed to get rid of that stuff.) and WMD (read the Duelfer report, a few were found.)
-Weapons development programs prohibited by the agreement. (Longer range rockets and bio-weapons (Again, read the Duelfer report, no agents were found but the program was kept ready to be made active.)
-Hampering weapons inspections. (It was not the UN's job to play scavenger hunt. The defeated power was to provide ready access and proof of destruction of the weapons they admitted having.) By the way what happened to those weapons?
-Acquiring prohibited foreign weaponry through the oil for food scandal. Sanctions were a joke. Countries that opposed our action (France, Germany, and Russia) were benefitting through illegal weapons sales to Saddam. Sanctions never would have forced compliance due to corruption.

2. Support for terrorism.
-Providing refuge to the Abu Nidal group.
-Contracts from the oil for food scandal went to organizations that have been recognized as Al-Qaeda fronts.
-Reward payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers
-Assasination attempt on a U.S. President.
-Hijacking training complex.

3. Genocide.

4. Iraq is right in the center of the problem area. It was a good strategic move. Asserting our presence here drives a stake through the heart of Islamic fundamentalist movement. I think we are beginning to see the walls of oppression cracking in the middle east. Look at what is happening in Lebanon and even amongst the populace of Iran.

5. Geopolitics. The nations in the world most likely to create problems for the U.S. that would make the War on Terror pale in comparison are China (Taiwan) and North Korea (South Korea). The only thing preventing those nations from making the territorial grab is the concept that we would intervene on behalf of our allies. How does our political will to enforce agreements look to governments that only respect strength if we let a third rate power like Iraq thumb its nose at a cease fire agreement we are enforcing?

 

[miko]

Ignorant perhaps, but not dumb or hormone driven. Then again, I was almost 23 when I enlisted, (Someting I would NOT reccomend.)

If we (charitably) assume that a person starts thinking and accumulating wisdom/understanding, at around 13, than 23 is DOUBLE the mental age of 18 – 10 years of thinking as compared to 5. And that assuming that the rate at which one accumulates wisdom is the same at 14 as it is at 22.
In my squad, 23 was “old man” – a person of incomprehensible life experience.

Kind of puts the lie to THIS little nugget, doesn't it?

Err. He knew what he was doing at 35 while he did not necessarily at 18. Even if he was doing the same thing. Doesn’t put anything to lie. Just an amusing anecdote.
Plenty of people regretted at 35 having served at 18, others regretted not having served. If you would put more stock in a decision/sentiment of 18-year old as compared to a person twice that age, you are not of much opinion about acquired wisdom….

With that blanket statement logic we should not allow until the age of brain formation (whatever that is)-
any legal prosecution of them for law violations as they have "unformed brains" and can't tell right from wrong
any of them to hold any position of trust involving the public policy
allow them to touch anything dangerous or hunt etc.

Err… They are not allowed to drink, nor to smoke in some municipalities until they are 21, nor eligible to be elected to some offices until they 25 or even 35 years old.

Speak for yourself, not everyone else. You might have been immature and irrational at 18 but not all of us were. I knew I wanted to be an engineer when I was 15, made the choice to focus on that, went to college on a scholarship, got two degrees, and now enjoy my career immensely.

Not everyone else, but certainly most of us.

I look back I can't fault my choice at 15 because I made the best decision based on the information I had at the time.

Ahh.. On the information you had at the time. Surely you do not believe that a human is incapable of acquiring information after that age or after 18.

There is no reason that good decisions cannot be made at 18. Sure, good parental input helps, but heaven forbid someone be a real parent these days..

By your logic, why not at 15? Or 12? Let’s allow the 12-year olds sign binding contracts with the recruiters, enough coddling them.
With all due respect to your accomplished career, if you have not noticed that human males undergo serious amount of maturation from 18 to 25-30, then you are freaking ignorant of what normal humans are. Better stick to your engines then.

That's a bit of a stretch. No, it's more than a stretch, it's silly. You are constructing arguments out of thin air.
Five seconds on Google (or in any library) will show extensive listings of state NG units serving in WWI and WWII. Try typing in National Guard WWII and hitting Enter.

Actually, employing the NG beyond this nation’s borders is clearly unconstitutional.
According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia – 'to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions.'.

It is simply beyond my comprehension that some folks cannot understand what the words 'armed services' mean.

One thinks one does until he hits the statistics on pregnancies and the ratio of single mothers. Then one gets really confused….

Where is the libertarian treatise with SPECIFIC real world policies that can be implemented?

The problems that American empire experiences would not have not arisen for a (more) libertarian American republic in the first place. Specific problem of japanese in 1941 were not necessarily Americans but their own government. Inducing them to attack America earlier and harder was hardly the best advice for them.

Where is your alternative solution to dealing with Saddam?

Keep supporting him. Buy his oil, sell him stuff, watch him fight muslim fundamentalists, maintain peace and order, westernize and secularize Iraq even more.
Oh, yes – let him have that backward feudal theocracy of Kuwait.

miko

 

[GoRon]

The problems that American empire experiences would not have not arisen for a (more) libertarian American republic in the first place. Specific problem of japanese in 1941 were not necessarily Americans but their own government. Inducing them to attack America earlier and harder was hardly the best advice for them.

libertarians are Monday morning quarterbacks. They sit around and critique what the government does and bemoan that nobody will listen to them. For such advocates of free markets they sure haven't done a very good job of selling their philosophy in the free market of ideas.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

libertarians are Monday morning quarterbacks. They sit around and critique what the government does and bemoan that nobody will listen to them.

And when the enemy is on our shores, and the time comes for them to "defend to the death" our rights, they'll still be squabbling among themselves when the enemy walks up the Capitol steps.

 

[PaulV]

Actually, employing the NG beyond this nation’s borders is clearly unconstitutional.
According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia – 'to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions.'.

The National Guard is not the militia.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

NG is NOT the Militia

The Act of 1905 that created the National Guard states
specificly that the National Guard is based on the Power
of Congress to raise the army, and not under the Power
of Congress to arm, organize and discipline the militia,
specificaly because Article I, Section 8, Clause 15
limits the uses of the militia.
National Guard is not the constitutional militia, never has
been; it was created as an army reserve.

 

[javafiend]

-Multiple attacks on aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone.

That's what happens when you violate the airspace of a sovereign nation. Don't want your planes shot at? Don't fly them through the airspace of hostile nations.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Paul, would you happen to know of any place online I can find and access this report you speak of? I would like to read it...