NationStates Jolt Archive

Commentary: This is a first person account of coming back to "the world" after having been in combat. It relates experiences very similar to those many of us had coming back from Vietnam, but at least no one spat on them or called them "babykillers."


Coming Home (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/opinion/14crawford.html?th&emc=th)


By JOHN CRAWFORD
Published: August 14, 2005
Tallahassee, Fla.

IT was raining when I stepped off the plane and into a chilly Georgia morning. The line of soldiers, heads down, struggled underneath the weight of their gear across the tarmac and into a long, low building full of Red Cross coffee and doughnuts. Along the way a general stood shaking hands and exchanging salutes with the returning soldiers. Next to him, a young lieutenant shivered as he held an umbrella out at arm's length over the general. Neither had combat patches on their uniforms, and I splashed by without saluting or shaking hands. It gave little satisfaction.

It had been just over a year since I had last been at that airport; that first time there had been banners and flags, family members waving fervently at the departing plane. This time the weather, I guess, had kept them home and the gray sky was the only real witness to our return. Clouds or no, the "freedom bird" had landed and our war was over, we were home.

I left for Iraq on Feb. 12, 2003. The war hadn't started yet. The Florida National Guard in which I was serving as a specialist was partly made up of former active-service infantrymen from the Rangers, the 82nd Airborne, the 10th Mountain and (in my case) the 101st Airborne. The rest were "straight Guard," as we called them: college students, small-business owners, police officers, contractors, painters or unemployed. They had signed up for the fabled "one weekend a month, two weeks a year" and gotten very much more than they bargained for.

Still, things started fairly well. There were no complaints as March waned and we crossed from Kuwait into Iraq; only thinly veiled excitement. As the weeks turned to months, however, and we watched active-duty units return to their families, our stoicism was replaced with mounting frustration. Our Vietnam-era flak vests, retooled M-16's more than two decades old and a general absence of supplies added to an irrefutable feeling that we had been abandoned in the lion's den.

When the tour ended a year later, our uniforms were in tatters, night vision goggles had been packed away seven months earlier when all our replacement parts ran out, and the ragged men who stepped off the plane in Hinesville, Ga., scarcely resembled the "shock-and-awe" troops seen on television. Nevertheless, we were soldiers returned home ... victorious, at least in a sense.

That night, in the same dilapidated World War II barracks that we had deployed from an eternity before, I didn't sleep. I thought it was because of the Christmas-morning-like tremble in the air. In reality, I had become addicted to Valium in Baghdad and was going through withdrawal. Sitting alone on my bunk in the darkness, I felt a wave of nausea approaching. That sick feeling hasn't entirely gone away yet.

A week later someone gave a speech, and bags full of coupons for free double cheeseburgers and oil changes were handed out. (Most of the good freebies had already been plundered by 17-year-old trainees who hadn't yet been to basic training.) And with a wave goodbye and a pat on the back, we were civilians again. I heard there was a parade a few months later, but I was too drunk to go and it wasn't on television.

Even the best laid plans go awry, and that is what happened with me. While many in my platoon had relatively easy transitions, I found myself within days kept from homelessness only by the hospitality of a friend with a sofa. It was like being at a party and going to the restroom for 15 months and then trying to rejoin the conversation. Everyone and everything had changed without asking me first.

I took solace in becoming the kind of self-deprecating drunk who shows up at parties naked and wonders why everyone reacts the way they do. The sequence of events that followed culminated in my waking up on the dingy bathroom floor of an even dingier one-bedroom apartment devoid of furniture, except for a couch pulled from a dumpster early one rainy morning before the garbage man could claim it. In that bathroom, fighting off sickness from the year's excess, I did some soul-searching.

I didn't find a whole lot. I don't have nightmares, or see faces. When there is a flash outside my window at night I know it's just lightning and not a flare or explosion. I can even drive without cringing at the slightest pile of rubble along the roadside in anticipation of an ear-rending explosion and shrapnel tearing through my flesh. I rarely get into fights with people who I imagined are "eyeballing me." I actually adjusted quite well.

It certainly could have been worse. One of my buddies got locked up in an institution by the police for being a danger to himself. Another woke up in the hospital with no memory of the beating he received from those same police - not for being a danger to himself, but to everyone else. One guy got a brain infection and wakes up every morning expecting to be in Iraq. Two more are in Afghanistan, having re-upped rather than deal with being home. Five more went back to Baghdad as private security guards. Their consensus on how it is a second time around: still hot and nasty.

The ones who are still around here I don't see as much as I used to; that doesn't come as much of a surprise. Too many things have happened since we got back a little over a year ago. Busy schedules and girls have gotten in the way. Classes have to be attended, jobs worked; life goes on.

War stories end when the battle is over or when the soldier comes home. That's one way to tell it's a story. In real life, there are no moments amid smoldering hilltops for tranquil introspection. When the war is over, you pick up your gear, walk down the hill and back into the world, where people smile, congratulate you, and secretly hope you won't be a burden on society now that you've done the dirty work they shun.

Lying there on that bathroom floor, with my dog eyeing me and wondering if a coup d'état would be necessary to ensure his continued food supply, I did figure out one thing: My problem was, I had the wrong definition of home. All my life I learned it was "where the heart is." Things are much easier now that I've figured out that home is just a place where you receive mail.

The adjustment soldiers must make when returning to the world - ok that's like Vietnam. But you should be honest here and admit it's like EVERY OTHER WAR too. Ask vets of World War two what it was like to come home and adjust from combat to being suprised from behind by a well meaning family member. Ask veterans of World War One, who came home with chemical weapons burns. ask Veterans of Korea. Ask veterans who fought in wars that did not involve the USA.
War is hell. It changes a person, sometimes forever. Viet Nam is not the only war to feature grevious psychiatric and social changes on the soldiers who fought them.
And a small pointless comparison to Vietnam is no reason to leave Iraq. Get a sense of perspective.

The adjustment soldiers must make when returning to the world - ok that's like Vietnam. But you should be honest here and admit it's like EVERY OTHER WAR too. Ask vets of World War two what it was like to come home and adjust from combat to being suprised from behind by a well meaning family member. Ask veterans of World War One, who came home with chemical weapons burns. ask Veterans of Korea. Ask veterans who fought in wars that did not involve the USA.
War is hell. It changes a person, sometimes forever. Viet Nam is not the only war to feature grevious psychiatric and social changes on the soldiers who fought them.
And a small pointless comparison to Vietnam is no reason to leave Iraq. Get a sense of perspective.
Well, I mentioned Vietnam because ... it's the only war I was in and I've grown rather fond of basing what I say on personal observations. Kapisch?

You really should activate your "View Signatures" option.

That is really tragic. That is the only thing I can really think that fits as a response that I'm capable of saying. :(

That is really tragic. That is the only thing I can really think that fits as a response that I'm capable of saying. :(
War is tragic ... for everyone involved. The fact that we take our best and most competent and send them into harm's way only aggravates the tragedy.

Well, I mentioned Vietnam because ... it's the only war I was in and I've grown rather fond of basing what I say on personal observations. Kapisch?

You really should activate your "View Signatures" option.I don't have the sig option on and I know that you've served in Vietnam.

Eut, you surprised me. I never figured you would ever compare this war to Vietnam in any way shape or form because it isn't. It hurts whenever anyone tries to make a connection between that war and this one. My homecoming during the Vietnam was very different than described in this article, but I wasn't a combat soldier either.

Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (aka Shell Shock, etc)

Happens to all soldiers during war.

Eut, you surprised me. I never figured you would ever compare this war to Vietnam in any way shape or form because it isn't. It hurts whenever anyone tries to make a connection between that war and this one. My homecoming during the Vietnam was very different than described in this article, but I wasn't a combat soldier either.

Eut, posted this before I read your reason for mentioning Vietnam. I understand. Sorry.

War is tragic ... for everyone involved. The fact that we take our best and most competent and send them into harm's way only aggravates the tragedy.Yeah, my dad thought that was incredibly ironic. You have to be perfectly fit in order to get into the army. Might be because he got sent to Germany instead of Vietnam when he got drafted...

Sounds about par for course, you send the young into a situation where stress is the diet of the day and people expect Sargent-fecking-York to come home. That aint the fecking case however, most GIs I know either Somalia, IAQ I, IRaq II, Vietnam or the handful of WWII guys are all real people. As in multifaceted, some I know are fecked up beyond all recognition, others have come away from the experience like poets.

It is simply and plainly sad, and truly nothing more can really be said.

The older I get however the more I realize I am glad recruiters turned me down for whatever reasons they did, I think I would have been the former and not the latter.

Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (aka Shell Shock, etc)

Happens to all soldiers during war.

PTSD

Yeah, my dad thought that was incredibly ironic. You have to be perfectly fit in order to get into the army. Might be because he got sent to Germany instead of Vietnam when he got drafted...

Oh yeah. Countries should send those least suited for combat to warzones. Only makes sense, after all, we need all the muscleheads to keep society running. :rolleyes:

Shit! Double post.

The older I get however the more I realize I am glad recruiters turned me down for whatever reasons they did...I know the feeling, though German draftees don't have the risk of being stationed in war zones nowadays.

Oh yeah. Countries should send those least suited for combat to warzones./ Only makes sense, after all, we need all the muscleheads to keep society running. :rolleyes:It may justify it, but it doesn't make it any less ironic.

Soem of the Marines from my old unit had big problems adjusting. For me, it was really hard to listen to people go on about the economy, making money, and essentially setting the gears in motion to make it all happen all over again. Even worse where those family members and friends that try to bridge the gap and talk to you about it, but there is nothing you can say to them. I felt like they had not earned the right to talk about it, because they could never know. I still kinda feel like that. It is like being a stranger at a family Thanksgiving.

PTSD

Disorder ... sorry, got mixed with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (that's awful too)

Eut, you surprised me. I never figured you would ever compare this war to Vietnam in any way shape or form because it isn't. It hurts whenever anyone tries to make a connection between that war and this one. My homecoming during the Vietnam was very different than described in this article, but I wasn't a combat soldier either.
Just that one dimension, and even then more by way of contrast than comparison.

Oh yeah. Countries should send those least suited for combat to warzones. Only makes sense, after all, we need all the muscleheads to keep society running. :rolleyes:
So now I'm a "musclehead." That's not only hilarious, it's totally ironic. Heh!

Disorder ... sorry, got mixed with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (that's awful too)
As I recall, PTS Disorder use to be called PTS Syndrome ( or something similar ) before it was designated a full-fledged "Disorder."

As I recall, PTS Disorder use to be called PTS Syndrome ( or something similar ) before it was designated a full-fledged "Disorder."

Thanks, I was right (sort of).

Soem of the Marines from my old unit had big problems adjusting. For me, it was really hard to listen to people go on about the economy, making money, and essentially setting the gears in motion to make it all happen all over again. Even worse where those family members and friends that try to bridge the gap and talk to you about it, but there is nothing you can say to them. I felt like they had not earned the right to talk about it, because they could never know. I still kinda feel like that. It is like being a stranger at a family Thanksgiving.

Bingo! I could have written this myself. I went around for years in complete amazment at the things civilians thought were important. Fortunately, most adapt on their own and come to realize, that for better or worse, they are our civilians and thats a better lot than the other guy's.

Liverbreath']Bingo! I could have written this myself. I went around for years in complete amazment at the things civilians thought were important. Fortunately, most adapt on their own and come to realize, that for better or worse, they are our civilians and thats a better lot than the other guy's.
LOL! This was one of the seeds of destruction for my marriage. My ex was always astonished that I didn't get upset at almost anything. How could someone who has survived almost being killed and/or captured numerous times get upset over the fact that part of the friggin' lawn is a lighter green than the rest of it?

All of this reminds me so much of my dad. Dad is a Vietnam Vet - he didn't want to get drafted so he voluntarily joined the Marine Corps. He was in active combat for 18 mos. before he was shot in the leg and sent home. As far as the Marines were concerned, he was a good soldier - he was promoted several times and went from an E-1 to an E-5 in those 18 months - has numerous service ribbons and, of course, his Purple Heart. Dad also has PTSD, shrapnel in his leg and still suffers from both sleep apnea and narcolepsy to this day. When I was little I didn't understand this and I used to think it was very amusing that he would just fall asleep anywhere in any position, even in the middle of talking. He later told me that he had learned to do that in combat because he never got the chance to sleep for more than a few minutes or an hour or two, but once he got home he never could stop. He was treated so badly by the public when he got home that he gave his Purple Heart to his mother to keep because he couldn't stand looking at it. We were all very pleased and proud 5 years ago when he was finally able to bring himself to take it home and show it to us after his mother died.

My message to the public about the treatment of all veterans is as follows:

Not agreeing with the war decisions made by your government does NOT entitle you to take it out on these brave men who have dedicated their lives to protecting yours. The ONLY thing it gives you the right to do is say THANK YOU and show your gratitude by welcoming these men home as the heroes they are.
If you can't manage this, stay home, shut up and see a therapist because you have some pretty disgusting issues.

So now I'm a "musclehead." That's not only hilarious, it's totally ironic. Heh!

Did I specifically mention you? No. So be quiet, old man. I don't know you, I've never seen you. So, I can't say you're a musclehead.

However, a lot of soldiers are.

EDIT: Does this veneration of war vetrans who 'fought to save your lives' extend to Vietnam veterans, who only fought to maintain US influence in Asia?

Oh...Now I'm depressed... :(

I think we need to put more effort into realizing the hell these guys have been through, instead of just throwing them to the wind...

Commentary: This is a first person account of coming back to "the world" after having been in combat. It relates experiences very similar to those many of us had coming back from Vietnam, but at least no one spat on them or called them "babykillers."
If no one has spit on this soldier or called him a "babykiller", then how is this man's experience coming home from Iraq "similar" to your coming home from Vietnam?

I think the problem of adjuisting to the real world. Coming back from somwhere thats full of shooting and explosions where you're expected to kill the guy wearing a different colored shirt and then trying to transition back to civilian life.

I took it as more of a commentary on a returning soldier's psyche than a criticism of the homecoming.

I think the problem of adjuisting to the real world. Coming back from somwhere thats full of shooting and explosions where you're expected to kill the guy wearing a different colored shirt and then trying to transition back to civilian life.

I took it as more of a commentary on a returning soldier's psyche than a criticism of the homecoming.
Actually, I think this soldier took more swipes against the Government/Army than anything else, and certainly not the civilians.

My message to the public about the treatment of all veterans is as follows:

Not agreeing with the war decisions made by your government does NOT entitle you to take it out on these brave men who have dedicated their lives to protecting yours. The ONLY thing it gives you the right to do is say THANK YOU and show your gratitude by welcoming these men home as the heroes they are.
If you can't manage this, stay home, shut up and see a therapist because you have some pretty disgusting issues.

I agree with this statement in its entirety. I couldn't have said this better myself. Thanks for posting it Jakutopia and tell your father thanks for serving his country.

This is often typical of many returning combat veterans from almost any modern conflict, be it Vietnam, Korea, WWII, Iraq, etc. In war you are taken out of a modern society and placed in a situation that reverts back to the most primal of instincts of survival and kill or be killed situations. Of the combat vets I've known many simply bury their experiences inside and never mention them. World War II for the Allied veterans may have had a somewhat easier time returning home as such a high percentage of the adult male population had served in uniform that in your town, many of your old friends would know what you had gone through, as well as having the satisfaction of a clear victory in which the nation had taken part in fully. One of the best post-war films about coming home is "The Best Years of Our Lives" in 1946, showing the problems of returning vets, I cannot imagine being gone for so many years as my relatives in that conflict were, one of my Grandfathers was inducted into the Army before Pearl Harbor, sent overseas in very-early 1942, and didn't return home until 1946. But Vietnam may well have been worse as vets trickled back stateside often to hostile reception among a population that at large knew of the war only through the 6 o'clock news and college protests. In Iraq at least units rotate home in unison to provide some support, as well as the public's in general respect for the men, whatever they feel about the war itself, rare is the person I've seen that will speak a word against the soldiers. But I cannot imagine the contrast between civilian life here and that of the combat veteran.

I agree with this statement in its entirety. I couldn't have said this better myself. Thanks for posting it Jakutopia and tell your father thanks for serving his country.

Will do Corneliu - and thank you :)

Will do Corneliu - and thank you :)

Your quite welcome. Besides that, my father is coming home in 2 days from a combat zone and I can't wait for him to get home! :)

Did I specifically mention you? No. So be quiet, old man. I don't know you, I've never seen you. So, I can't say you're a musclehead.

However, a lot of soldiers are.

EDIT: Does this veneration of war vetrans who 'fought to save your lives' extend to Vietnam veterans, who only fought to maintain US influence in Asia?
Based on the way you wrote this post and your use of loaded words, probably not ... at least not by you.

[ Forrest invites Ankhmet to go perform an impossible act upon his own body. ] :D

You mean lick my elbow?
:)

If no one has spit on this soldier or called him a "babykiller", then how is this man's experience coming home from Iraq "similar" to your coming home from Vietnam?
I was refering to overall impact on the individual of having experiences totally alien to those most civilians go through.

Your quite welcome. Besides that, my father is coming home in 2 days from a combat zone and I can't wait for him to get home! :)
Yayyy! Give the old man a hug and tell him an old Vietnam veteran said he's a hero regardless of how either he or others feel. :)

You mean lick my elbow?
:)
You got it, lugnut. :D

Yayyy! Give the old man a hug and tell him an old Vietnam veteran said he's a hero regardless of how either he or others feel. :)

I will do that Eutrusca :)

You got it, lugnut. :D

Oh, good, because I thought you might mean inser[snip, due to unpleasantness]

I was refering to overall impact on the individual of having experiences totally alien to those most civilians go through.
Then it has more to do with soldiers coming home from a combat zone then about a similarity between Iraq and Vietnam veterans?

Then it has more to do with soldiers coming home from a combat zone then about a similarity between Iraq and Vietnam veterans?

I believe CH, you and I can agree on this though he can compare the experiences to Vietnam so he too is also correct.

:eek: Your both Right :eek:

Then it has more to do with soldiers coming home from a combat zone then about a similarity between Iraq and Vietnam veterans?
Sigh. I honestly wouldn't know. Almost everything I post about this and related subjects is derived from personal experience. As I said before, Vietnam is the only shooting war in which I have been involved, so for me it's the base line against which I measure other conflicts.

Commentary: This is a first person account of coming back to "the world" after having been in combat. It relates experiences very similar to those many of us had coming back from Vietnam, but at least no one spat on them or called them "babykillers."

You would, of course, have proof that being spit upon was a classic way of being welcomed home on military airbases, of course?


Because I haven't seen anything of the sort.

You would, of course, have proof that being spit upon was a classic way of being welcomed home on military airbases, of course?

Because I haven't seen anything of the sort.
No, you probably haven't. Arriving at a military airbase would automatically preclude that sort of thing, since the MPs take a very dim view of people spitting on their brothers and sisters. However, since many, many returning Vietnam veterans ( including me ) came back through Seatac International, SF International, and other civlian airports out in LaLa Land, the incidences of name-calling, pelting with rotten fruit, spitting, etc. happened with alarming frequency.

There are even those sad, disengenous souls who swear that sort of thing never happened. They are wrong ( being charitable ). It happened to me and no one can erase those memories by propagating another "big lie."

No, you probably haven't. Arriving at a military airbase would automatically preclude that sort of thing, since the MPs take a very dim view of people spitting on their brothers and sisters. However, since many, many returning Vietnam veterans ( including me ) came back through Seatac International, SF International, and other civlian airports out in LaLa Land, the incidences of name-calling, pelting with rotten fruit, spitting, etc. happened with alarming frequency.

There are even those sad, disengenous souls who swear that sort of thing never happened. They are wrong ( being charitable ). It happened to me and no one can erase those memories by propagating another "big lie."
You'd, of course, have written proof of this? This is the internet, and what you've said directly contradicts a number of studies, including one that says over 90% of veterans were welcomed home 'warmly' (taken back in the 70's), which does seem to shoot your little hypothesis about it happening with 'alarming frequency' in the ass.

You'd, of course, have written proof of this? This is the internet, and what you've said directly contradicts a number of studies, including one that says over 90% of veterans were welcomed home 'warmly' (taken back in the 70's), which does seem to shoot your little hypothesis about it happening with 'alarming frequency' in the ass.

I want to see these studies. You don't by any chance know where I can find them do you?

You'd, of course, have written proof of this? This is the internet, and what you've said directly contradicts a number of studies, including one that says over 90% of veterans were welcomed home 'warmly' (taken back in the 70's), which does seem to shoot your little hypothesis about it happening with 'alarming frequency' in the ass.
So now you're calling me a liar? Interesting.

I don't give a flying RAT-FUCK for any of those studies. I know what I know because I was fucking THERE! If you choose to not believe me, that's your problem, not mine.

I want to see these studies. You don't by any chance know where I can find them do you?
Cited here ( http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/04/30/debunking_a_spitting_image?mode=PF ) , couldn't tell you where to find the original poll.

So now you're calling me a liar? Interesting.

I don't give a flying RAT-FUCK for any of those studies. I know what I know because I was fucking THERE! If you choose to not believe me, that's your problem, not mine.
You're right. I refuse to believe someone who I've never met on the internet over the word of studies conducted by the fucking VA.

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that your word means something with me. Clue train, your word doesn't. Your word, for all I know, could be that of a twelve year old with a funny sense of humor. Hense why I'm asking for paper (or electronical) confirmation. Some police reports you, of course, filled for assault against those who spit upon you would do. Or even some newspaper coverage.

So now you're calling me a liar? Interesting.

I don't give a flying RAT-FUCK for any of those studies. I know what I know because I was fucking THERE! If you choose to not believe me, that's your problem, not mine.

Eutrusca settle down. I've been called a liar for using front line information about the Iraq war on these forums but settle down man. I don't want to see ya forum banned.

Cited here ( http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/04/30/debunking_a_spitting_image?mode=PF ) , couldn't tell you where to find the original poll.

Thanks. I'll take a look at this.

Cited here ( http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/04/30/debunking_a_spitting_image?mode=PF ) , couldn't tell you where to find the original poll.
How utterly fucking convenient. :rolleyes:

Eutrusca settle down. I've been called a liar for using front line information about the Iraq war on these forums but settle down man. I don't want to see ya forum banned.
[ mutter, grumble, murmur, cuss, fuss, cuss some more ]

Always with the being spat on and being called 'babykillers'.

Tough taters.

There are times I just don't believe you are what you claim to be - as you're so mired in the past, you'd think it was 1975, not 2005.

You'd, of course, have written proof of this? This is the internet, and what you've said directly contradicts a number of studies, including one that says over 90% of veterans were welcomed home 'warmly' (taken back in the 70's), which does seem to shoot your little hypothesis about it happening with 'alarming frequency' in the ass.

I don't have any bullshit statistics to back me up, but I know four Vietnam veterans personally and not a single one was "welcomed home warmly."

Cited here ( http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...g_image?mode=PF ) , couldn't tell you where to find the original poll.

While I'm not positive that studies haven't been conducted with results that ridiculous, it is rather handy that the sources for this one are unavailable.

I don't have any bullshit statistics to back me up, but I know four Vietnam veterans personally and not a single one was "welcomed home warmly."

Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.


While I'm not positive that studies haven't been conducted with results that ridiculous, it is rather handy that the sources for this one are unavailable.
If it bothers you, go down to your library and start digging. Or to your local VA administrative center. I'm sure they'd be glad to point you in the right direction.

I don't have any bullshit statistics to back me up, but I know four Vietnam veterans personally and not a single one was "welcomed home warmly."
That has been much my experience with contacts over the years. Some of the stories are very sad, such as one of the men in my company with the 173rd Airborne Brigade who was wounded in a contact just North of Ahn Khe Base Camp, and got a "Dear John" from his wife while he was recuperating in a hospital in Japan. Lots and lots of stories like that. My own parents were pretty much indifferent toward me after I got back. Actually, I think it was easier to handle the outright hostility than the indifference. Kind of like, "Oh. Are you back already? Sorry, but we converted your room to a sewing room. You'll have to sleep on the couch. When did you say you were due back at Fort Bragg?"

Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.

If it bothers you, go down to your library and start digging. Or to your local VA administrative center. I'm sure they'd be glad to point you in the right direction.

I don't need to, I have multiple primary sources which I would trust to be much more accurate than any study performed by some party who's honesty in the conducting of said study is unknown. For all we know, the studies were conducted vocally and asked a question like "Did your family and friends welcome you home warmly upon your return from Vietnam?" and become "Were you welcomed home warmly upon your return from Vietnam?" for the sake of being concise. I'm not the one that needs to dig here, as I have never heard of a Vietnam Vet not being called a babykiller at least once, and most people I have talked to accept the unruly welcome home of the Vietnam veterans as fact. You are.

I don't need to, I have multiple primary sources which I would trust to be much more accurate than any study performed by some party who's honesty in the conducting of said studies is unknown. For all we know, the studies were conducted vocally and asked a question like "Did your family and friends welcome you home warmly upon your return from Vietnam?" and become "Were you welcomed home warmly upon your return from Vietnam?" for the sake of being concise. I'm not the one that needs to dig here, as I have never heard of a Vietnam Vet not being called a babykiller at least once, and most people I have talked to accept the unruly welcome home of the Vietnam veterans as fact. You are.
You're the one doubting the veracity of a VA study. Go and ask them. You're making the assertion that the study is wrong. Prove it.


I've never heard any first hand accounts to that matter, nor have I ever seen any record showing that to be so. On the other hand, I have a study, taken in 1971 by the VA, that says otherwise. I chose to believe the VA over someone's word that I have never met, nor have any way of verifying.

You're the one doubting the veracity of a VA study. Go and ask them. You're making the assertion that the study is wrong. Prove it.

You're the one asserting that such a study exists, conveniently without any proof of the actual original polling. You prove it.


I've never heard any first hand accounts to that matter, nor have I ever seen any record showing that to be so. On the other hand, I have a study, taken in 1971 by the VA, that says otherwise. I chose to believe the VA over someone's word that I have never met, nor have any way of verifying.

Why don't you go to the homeless shelter wherever you are, find a Vet, and ask him how he was treated upon his arrival in the United States? Then, when he makes you look like an ass, ask another, and another, and another, until you find one that says, "Oh, yeah, I was welcomed back warmly and with open arms from friends and strangers alike. It was such a pleasant experience."

You're the one asserting that such a study exists, conveniently without any proof of the actual original polling. You prove it.

Nope. You have to disprove the source. That's how it works buddy. You're the one claiming that it doesn't exist. I have no reason to doubt the verity of the source I gave, I suggest you show me some evidence that you have for doubting the verity of the source I gave, real statistical evidence, not anecdotal crap. You try pulling "well my friend said" in the real world and you'll be laughed at.



Why don't you go to the homeless shelter wherever you are, find a Vet, and ask him how he was treated upon his arrival in the United States? Then, when he makes you look like an ass, ask another, and another, and another, until you find one that says, "Oh, yeah, I was welcomed back warmly and with open arms from friends and strangers alike. It was such a pleasant experience."
Finding a source, a record of these things happening back in the 1970's would be delightful. You find it, you're the one claiming that such things happened. Other people have tried, and have failed (see slate trying this and finding that such actions tend to degrade into friend of a friend crap)

I chose to believe the VA over someone's word that I have never met, nor have any way of verifying.
I choose not to take anyone at 'face value', even those who claim to have fought in a war. But if anecdotal evidence is enough in some quarters to carry an argument, I've detailed on more than one occasion my suspicions as to the veracity of claims to have fought in wars forwarded on these forums by comparing and contrasting the POV of the numerous actual flesh-and-blood war veterans I've known with those who claim that status here:

actual war veterans

- are opposed, even actively opposed to war
- are opposed to policies that bring us closer to war
- describe in sharp detail the horrors of war to dissuade romantic notions of war

supposed war veterans online

- are supportive, even actively supportive of war
- are supportive of policies that bring us closer to war
- wax poetic over the romantic aspects of war so as to entice young people into greater acceptance of State-sanctioned murder and to dissuade notions of diplomacy taking precedence over violent resolution to conflicts.

Nope. You have to disprove the source. That's how it works buddy. You're the one claiming that it doesn't exist.

Unless you can prove otherwise, no such source fucking exists. You can't prove that something doesn't exist. Unless you can prove that the polling was actually done in the first place and provide me with solid information on who conducted it, it's safe to assume that the statistics were made up or altered in some way. That's how it works buddy. I don't prove shit is inaccurate until you prove it exists to be inaccurate.

Finding a source, a record of these things happening back in the 1970's would be delightful. You find it, you're the one claiming that such things happened. Other people have tried, and have failed (see slate trying this and finding that such actions tend to degrade into friend of a friend crap)

It's not friend of a friend crap, it's my personal friends and the parents of younger ones who I have spoken to and who have told me that they were treated miserably on more than one occasion.

Cited here ( http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/04/30/debunking_a_spitting_image?mode=PF ) , couldn't tell you where to find the original poll.
This is an article by an avowed Marxist, Jerry Lembcke, who has written numerous polemics on the application of Marxist theory to modern organizations, including "Capitalist Development and Class Capacities: Marxist Theory and Union Organization," and "Recapturing Marxism: An Appraisal of Recent Trends in Sociological Theory." Not exactly who I would choose as an unbiased sorce for information about how Vietnam veterans were welcomed home with open arms. :rolleyes:

This is an article by an avowed Marxist, Jerry Lembcke, who has written numerous polemics on the application of Marxist theory to modern organizations, including "Capitalist Development and Class Capacities: Marxist Theory and Union Organization," and "Recapturing Marxism: An Appraisal of Recent Trends in Sociological Theory." Not exactly who I would choose as an unbiased sorce for information about how Vietnam veterans were welcomed home with open arms. :rolleyes:
I wasn't aware that all Marxists were anti-soldier.


Hint: Ad hominem logical fallacy.

Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)
Definition:

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

Jerry Lembcke (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1999) is an associate professor of sociology at Holy Cross College in Massachusetts, where he is trumpeted as a "nationally recognized expert on the Vietnam War and Vietnam veterans."

For the unabashedly socialist Lembcke, the Vietnam War is a consuming scholarly interest. But it is also more than that: it is a political tool used by the professor to persuade students in his inflexible view that the Vietnam War, along with all wars wherein the United States is a lead actor, are "neo-imperialist" manifestations of America's militaristic ideal, and therefore to be opposed.

Lembcke's views are concretized in his 1998 book, The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam. The book, required reading in several sociology classes at Holy Cross, mounts two equally tendentious arguments. The first, hotly disputed by many Vietnam veterans, is that the stories of Vietnam veterans returning from the war only to be spit upon by obstreperous anti-war activists are nothing more than a "myth" invented, Lembcke argues, by the Nixon administration. Lembcke claims that the only documented instances of spitting involved belligerent Vietnam veterans unloading on those of their disillusioned comrades who joined forces with the anti-war movement. Lembcke's claims are undermined by the testimony of countless veterans who have reported being spat upon by anti-war activists; nevertheless, the book was well received by mainstream media outlets upon its release, and many credulous journalists persist in unquestioningly recycling its arguments.

The second, and perhaps more incendiary, claim made by Lembcke in The Spitting Image is that posttraumatic (PTSD) stress disorder was a political invention. Specifically, Lembcke argues, it was created with the explicit aim of discrediting returning veterans who protested the Vietnam War. In Lembcke's telling, "PTSD functioned to help erase the memory of the war as an act of U.S. aggression that we lost because the Vietnamese beat us, by rewriting it as a war we lost because we defeated ourselves, i.e. our military was stabbed in the back, our soldiers spat on, etc." Indeed, according to Lembcke, "the image of the dysfunctional PTSD-stricken victim-veterans" replaced the "historical reality" that the Vietnam War "empowered a generation of GIs who revolted against the war and joined the movement to stop it." Lembcke's insistence on this reading, it bears noting, is far from disinterested: a former chaplain's assistant during the Vietnam War, Lembcke returned home to join the group Vietnam Veterans Against the War. As Lembcke himself admitted in a 1999 article for Holy Cross Magazine, he hopes to burnish the "image of anti-war warriors," which, he claims, is at odds with the "militarism that dominates our culture." In the same article, Lembcke darkly warned that "Reclaiming our memory of the Vietnam era entails a struggle against very powerful institutional forces that toy with our imaginings of the war for reasons of monetary, political, or professional gain." For Lembcke, "Vietnam symbolizes popular resistance to political authority and the dominant images of what it means to be a good American."

Unless you can prove otherwise, no such source fucking exists. You can't prove that something doesn't exist. Unless you can prove that the polling was actually done in the first place and provide me with solid information on who conducted it, it's safe to assume that the statistics were made up or altered in some way. That's how it works buddy. I don't prove shit is inaccurate until you prove it exists to be inaccurate.

I proved that the information exists by showing a source that cited it. Until you can prove that you have a reason to believe that the source is inaccurate, the validity of the source stands. Do have a nice day, you hear?


It's not friend of a friend crap, it's my personal friends and the parents of younger ones who I have spoken to and who have told me that they were treated miserably on more than one occasion.
Do they have proof of this miserable treatment, dating back to the 70's? A paper record? Can I please see scanned copies of those records?

I choose not to take anyone at 'face value', even those who claim to have fought in a war. But if anecdotal evidence is enough in some quarters to carry an argument, I've detailed on more than one occasion my suspicions as to the veracity of claims to have fought in wars forwarded on these forums by comparing and contrasting the POV of the numerous actual flesh-and-blood war veterans I've known with those who claim that status here:

actual war veterans

- are opposed, even actively opposed to war
- are opposed to policies that bring us closer to war
- describe in sharp detail the horrors of war to dissuade romantic notions of war

supposed war veterans online

- are supportive, even actively supportive of war
- are supportive of policies that bring us closer to war
- wax poetic over the romantic aspects of war so as to entice young people into greater acceptance of State-sanctioned murder and to dissuade notions of diplomacy taking precedence over violent resolution to conflicts.

This is simply bullshit. The people on these forums that claim to have been in war are no less willing to describe the horrors they faced than anyone else. And it remains true that the majority of both self-proclaimed veterans online and real-life veterans that I know personally were treated like shit, which is what this is about to begin with.

In fact, a girl I knew growing up had a Dad in Vietnam, and he was supportive of many wars, judging each by its merit. I doubt hardly any veterans are glad that they had to go to Vietnam, or think it was effectively handled and thus do not entirely support it, online or offline.

%ow someone was recieved when they got home from vietnam largely depended on where they came back to. Most of the Veitnam vets that I personally know did not get a warm reception on either coast, but got a better welcome when they got here to the midwest.

The 90% figure is bullshit. Veitnam vets aren't all that hard to find, go and ask them how they were recieved.

When I got back from Iraq, I was recieved here very well, but got very different reactions as I traveled around the country and diffrent people found out that I was a vet. When I visited my sister at college, I ran into a small group of students who thought that I needed my ass kicked. I'm a fairly large man and very confident in my ability to defend myself, and I think that is the only reason that they thought better taking me on.

I proved that the information exists by showing a source that cited it. Until you can prove that you have a reason to believe that the source is inaccurate, the validity of the source stands. Do have a nice day, you hear?

Good, while a source is cited in the article you provided, said source has still not proved that the original polling happened in the first place, and thus the statistics given are to be assumed nonexistent until solid proof of their existence is given. Mentioning of a source and vague references to it do not merit validity or fact. I could say that in 1977 the VA conducted another study, and came up with results completely opposite of the original results which implied that 97% of veterans were verbally assaulted on numerous occasions, and, by your logic, because I vaguely referenced a source that may or may not actually exist, said source must be assumed accurate. And, I'm not certain, but prodding me with childish statements like, "Do have a nice day, you hear?" sure sounds like flamebaiting from what I read, as it seems like a blatant attempt to push me into letting you know what an idiot I think you are.


Do they have proof of this miserable treatment, dating back to the 70's? A paper record? Can I please see scanned copies of those records?

No, do you? No. You have a vague reference to such.

I doubt hardly any veterans are glad that they had to go to Vietnam, or think it was effectively handled and thus do not entirely support it, online or offline.
So do I, and that's rather my point. Online, the vast majority DO appear to entirely support not just that war, but all wars, and war in general. Which causes me to seriously doubt the veracity of those who claim on online forums that they are who they claim to be. and I think that's bullshit, the worst kind of bullshit, as it attempts to so downplay State-sanctioned murder as to make it a palatable, nay, desirable means of resolving conflict.

Some people would see 'babykillers' made of a entire new generation in order to validate their supposed experiences and perceived treatment at the hands of their fellows. And that isn't just lame, it's virtually criminal.

Good, while a source is cited in the article you provided, said source has still not proved that the original polling happened in the first place, and thus the statistics given are to be assumed nonexistent until solid proof of their existence is given. Mentioning of a source and vague references to it do not merit validity or fact. I could say that in 1977 the VA conducted another study, and came up with results completely opposite of the original results which implied that 97% of veterans were verbally assaulted on numerous occasions, and, by your logic, because I vaguely referenced a source that may or may not actually exist, said source must be assumed accurate. And, I'm not certain, but prodding me with childish statements like, "Do have a nice day, you hear?" sure sounds like flamebaiting from what I read, as it seems like a blatant attempt to push me into letting you know what an idiot I think you are.

Do you have a reputable source referencing it? No?



No, do you? No. You have a vague reference to such.
Vague? You do know that op-ed pieces are vetted for accuracy, right?

So do I, and that's rather my point. Online, the vast majority DO appear to entirely support not just that war, but all wars, and war in general. Which causes me to seriously doubt the veracity of those who claim on online forums that they are who they claim to be. and I think that's bullshit, the worst kind of bullshit, as it attempts to so downplay State-sanctioned murder as to make it a palatable, nay, desirable means of resolving conflict.

Some people would see 'babykillers' made of a entire new generation in order to validate their supposed experiences and perceived treatment at the hands of their fellows. And that isn't just lame, it's virtually criminal.

Dobbs, do you believe that there is anything worth fighting or killing for?

Dobbs, do you believe that there is anything worth fighting or killing for?
No.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".

And I've lived my life by that one.

Do you have a reputable source referencing it? No?

Nor do you.

Vague? You do know that op-ed pieces are vetted for accuracy, right?

Yes, they are, but they are not void of subtle rewording and editing to present one side more strongly than the other. It is all-too-likely that, if the statistic is accurate, the original question referred to "home" as the place they lived, not as the United States, in which case all it means is that 90% or more of the Vietnam Vets were welcomed home by their family and friends, not by strangers, which should be expected. Find me five vets that say they were welcomed back to the United States warmly, as the article presents the word "home" to mean, and I guarantee I can find you one hundred that will say the opposite.

Nor do you.

Are you arguing that my source is not valid? Please, say why you believe that a newspaper lies to you.


Yes, they are, but they are not void of subtle rewording and editing to present one side more strongly than the other. It is all-too-likely that, if the statistic is accurate, the original question referred to "home" as the place they lived, not as the United States, in which case all it means is that 90% or more of the Vietnam Vets were welcomed home by their family and friends, not by strangers, which should be expected. Find me five vets that say they were welcomed back to the United States warmly, as the article presents the word "home" to mean, and I guarantee I can find you one hundred that will say the opposite.
You would, of course, have proof of this, or is this more conjecture in a pathetic attempt to create strawmen?

No.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".

And I've lived my life by that one.

Then I feel sorry for you that you don't have anything worth fighting for. But I do wish that I could live in a world where people like me are not needed. You may think of me as being incompetent, savage, stupid, or deluded, but there are people out there who will kill simply because you don't belive as they do. Others will commit acts of violence for almost any reason that you can name. And I willingly will stand between you and them, even if you hate who and what I am.

Then I feel sorry for you that you don't have anything worth fighting for. But I do wish that I could live in a world where people like me are not needed. You may think of me as being incompetent, savage, stupid, or deluded, but there are people out there who will kill simply because you don't belive as they do. Others will commit acts of violence for almost any reason that you can name. And I willingly will stand between you and them, even if you hate who and what I am.
I wish you wouldn't presume so much. I have no desire to see you die, and if I am to be killed by the violence, or rather, the incompetence of others, so be it. Go willingly stand between two other people, I am not afraid to die.

I've known a lot of people who are dead, they are good people, and I have no qualms about standing alongside them. This is not empty verbiage. I am very much at peace with my own mortality.

Play cowboy on someone elses' behalf, please. I am unafraid.

Yep. War sucks. One of the reasons I'm a pacifist.

Are you arguing that my source is not valid? Please, say why you believe that a newspaper lies to you.
A newspaper? Lie to us? That couldn't possibly happen! OMG! Oh noes! It's the end of the world!!!!!ONE11!!!!

Yep. War sucks. One of the reasons I'm a pacifist.
Interesting. It's one of the reasons I'm a soldier. :)

Interesting. It's one of the reasons I'm a soldier. :)

My desire not to get into a war v pacifism debate is being overcome by my desire to point out that saying "I'm a soldier because war sucks" is like saying "I'm a Child Care provider because kids suck."

... oh well I thought it was amusing.

Though I don't doubt you have your reasons for being who you are. :)

Dobbs, I admire your convictions, and I hope that you are never put in a position where your convitions are tested.

I believe that those who have the ability to fight have a duty to defend those that cannot. After seeing war first hand, i know that I would give anything to keep it from coming to the shores of my country. That is why i fight.

Dobbs, I admire your convictions, and I hope that you are never put in a position where your convitions are tested.

I believe that those who have the ability to fight have a duty to defend those that cannot. After seeing war first hand, i know that I would give anything to keep it from coming to the shores of my country. That is why i fight.
If you're willing to give anything, try giving words, and not actions - actions that leave human beings lying dead in pools of blood - more than just a cursory nod-of-the-head as a preamble to furthering the aims of the violent (the incompetent).

And if I've lead my life well and done my best to foster amity where there might have been friction, I have no reason whatever to fear putting my convictions to the test. As I said, I've lived my life by my words and deeds, and so far, for 36 years, I have yet to be proven wrong in my heartfelt belief.

Interesting. It's one of the reasons I'm a soldier. :)
If we're to believe that, necessarily.

My desire not to get into a war v pacifism debate is being overcome by my desire to point out that saying "I'm a soldier because war sucks" is like saying "I'm a Child Care provider because kids suck."

... oh well I thought it was amusing.

Though I don't doubt you have your reasons for being who you are. :)
Heh! Don't worry. I have great respect for the true pacifist, not only because it requires great courage to be one, but because his or her ultimate objective is almost identical to mine. The major difference is that I believe that the gretest deterrent to war is the willingness of the soldier to stand on a wall and loudly proclaim, "You shall not pass" to the barbarian hordes at the gates.

I also believe that there will come a day when war is no longer an option, so I am trying to work myself out of a job, as is any true citizen/soldier. Almost all of us would much rather die in bed surrounded by our grandchildren than in a forgotten field somewhere. But until that day comes, when men will not take up arms against men, nor study war any longer because the heart of man has changed, there will always be a need for the idealist/soldier who offers his or her own body as a sacrifice for his bretheren.

( God, that sounded noble! Heh! )

No.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".

And I've lived my life by that one.

"Peaceful people sleep well at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf"- Oscar Wilde


"A man who has nothing worth fighting for has nothing worth living for"- unknown

"Peaceful people sleep well at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf"- Oscar Wilde


"A man who has nothing worth fighting for has nothing worth living for"- unknown
And six of one is like half a dozen of the other. You have something to say or are you going to throw quotations at me?

And six of one is like half a dozen of the other. You have something to say or are you going to throw quotations at me?
[ hauls out the quotation-rail-gun and sprays Dobbsworld with Poe, Twain, Shakespere, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and an entire Bartlettes' worth of others! ] :D

If you're willing to give anything, try giving words, and not actions - actions that leave human beings lying dead in pools of blood - more than just a cursory nod-of-the-head as a preamble to furthering the aims of the violent (the incompetent).

And if I've lead my life well and done my best to foster amity where there might have been friction, I have no reason whatever to fear putting my convictions to the test. As I said, I've lived my life by my words and deeds, and so far, for 36 years, I have yet to be proven wrong in my heartfelt belief.

Believe me, I would much rather see conflict ended by words rather than action. Most of the time, words are all that are needed. But words only work on those who are willing to listen. I don't believe in starting a physical confrontation, but if the right things are threatend I will defend them by what ever means I can.

Dobbs, we both are believe that we are doing our best to make the world a better place for those who follow. I think that we can agree on that point. i also think that we are more willing to let violence be done to us than to a true innocent.

And six of one is like half a dozen of the other. You have something to say or are you going to throw quotations at me?

No problem. There is a difference between seeing the war as a neccesity and seeing as a good thing. Just because the veteran says he supports the invasion of Iraq, doesn't make him some war mongering fraud, as you seem to imply.

Its like a doctor tellign a cancer patient they need an amputation. Do you think he gets off on the idea of cutting a limb off a patient, or does he believe that this horrible and painful experience will be better for the patient in the long term than the alternative?


It would be wonderful if we could all get by without violence and fighting. Unfortunatly, that is simply not an option to some people.

It would be wonderful if we could all get by without violence and fighting. Unfortunatly, that is simply not an option to some people.
And the promulgation of violence as an acceptable means of resolving conflict is simply not an option to others.

Impasse.

And the promulgation of violence as an acceptable means of resolving conflict is simply not an option to others.

Impasse.


Ya, and what happens when the two meet? What happens when you run into someone who thinks you should die because you call God by the wrong name and participate in the wrong economic system, or root for the wrong kickball team and is willing to act on it?

You'll be looking for the big strong fighter to protect you.

Ya, and what happens when the two meet? What happens when you run into someone who thinks you should die because you call God by the wrong name and participate in the wrong economic system, or root for the wrong kickball team and is willing to act on it?

You'll be looking for the big strong fighter to protect you.
Well, since you seem to feel you know just how I'd react, I won't bother to correct you. But in future, bear in mind that that not everyone feels the need the cheerlead for a point of view that is diametrically opposed to your own - in fact, far from it.

I loathe your complete dismissal of my stated beliefs and your insinuation that I am incapable of adhering to them. In my own way, I am that 'big strong fighter'. It's not my fault that you lack sufficient empathy to understand that. And I won't be addressing this topic any further, at least not where you're concerned, as I don't think there's anything to be gained from further exchanges with you.

As I stated previously, impasse.

Well, since you seem to feel you know just how I'd react,

I know how human beings will react.

But in future, bear in mind that that not everyone feels the need the cheerlead for a point of view that is diametrically opposed to your own - in fact, far from it.

Did I say everyone? Did I imply most people? No. But there are those kinds of people out there. Some people seem to just want to fight. Wheher they are drunk or depressed or just mentally disturbed, they feel the need to do violence.



I loathe your complete dismissal of my stated beliefs and your insinuation that I am incapable of adhering to them.

I didn't say you were incapable, I implied that they simply aren't practical.

In my own way, I am that 'big strong fighter'.

Ya, great on the philosphical level.

It's not my fault that you lack sufficient empathy to understand that.

Its not my fault you can't figure out where idealism ends and practicality begins.

And I won't be addressing this topic any further, at least not where you're concerned, as I don't think there's anything to be gained from further exchanges with you.

So, you are sticking your fingers in your ears and saying NANANAN I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!

As I stated previously, impasse.

And I'll say this, you're simply wrong.

Pick to your heart's content, I won't be dancing to your tune. You apparently know my innermost thoughts, go ahead and have an argument with me, feel free to fill in all my blanks.

I don't care to provide you further fuel. Light yourself on fire.

A Soldier is always prepared to die, however that dosn't mean they sign up to die. A soldier will fight to survive and come home alive if they can, this is not always posable. Duty, honour, Loyalty, these words mean something to soldiers and if they didn't fight, then they would have to violate one of them and to a soldier that is unacceptable. they fight for us, the people, they risk there lives fighting a war no one really cares about against an enemy that can strike at any time ending all that they are and ever will be. they fight for us so we don't have to, to keep us safe. they do exactly the same as police, firefighters, amberlance crews and doctors, they just do it on forign land.

When nations go to war, we send in our soldiers, those men and women who march bravely into a battle they may never come back from knowing full well that the cause of the nation they fight for may be wrong and yet still they fight and would indeed die for perhaps a flawed ideal. It is what they are trained for, some train all their lives to obey and serve a government whom would simply use them as pawns in some twisted game of chess. The best soldiers however, are the ones that have there own reason to fight, for some its to protect the ones they love, for others it is to show duty and honour for there nation regardless of how twisted its administration.

Politicians and Governments go to war, soldiers do not, soldiers fight because they have to, it is what they are trained to do, what some are born to do we should not look down upon these souls, we should support them because they fight and indeed die for us.

Trained to fight, taught to kill and then betrayed and thrown away by a nation who would like nothing better than to pretend they no longer exist because they now do not “fit in” with that nations political agenda and our soldiers are blaimed by the "anti-war" agender too, simply because they followed orders.

So where do we put the soldiers who are no longer adept at living? Soldiers we’ve abused used and pushed to the very edge of sanity and addicted to drugs to make them fight longer, harder faster? For those that survive inside, they pray for the next war to redeem themselves in the eyes of the people of there nation, for a crime they never committed in the first place and the rest I hear you say? the answer lays in a sanatarium.

Please never forget the soldiers that die for us, they deserve better than to die on some fogotten battlefield no one cares about and there memorys betrayed by the very people they gave there lives to protect, they are fighting a war no one truely wants and yet still they fight because its whatt soldiers do.

You'd, of course, have written proof of this? This is the internet, and what you've said directly contradicts a number of studies, including one that says over 90% of veterans were welcomed home 'warmly' (taken back in the 70's), which does seem to shoot your little hypothesis about it happening with 'alarming frequency' in the ass.

If I remember correctly, you're the same one who called my husband a liar when he told of a bad welcome home from Nam. What do you do, counter anyone who disputes your claims by trying to discredit them with personal attacks and then provide links to a Marxist's opinion piece to back you up?

What do you do, counter anyone who disputes your claims by trying to discredit them with personal attacks and then provide links to a Marxist's opinion piece to back you up?
You say 'Marxist' like it's a bad thing...

It isn't as long as you are under 21.

No.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".

And I've lived my life by that one.

So your family isn't worth fighting for or killing for?

You say 'Marxist' like it's a bad thing...
No, not really ... sad and demented, yes, but no more "bad" than any other ridiculous political ideology which has been proven wrong time and time and time again.

"Peaceful people sleep well at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf"- Oscar Wilde


"A man who has nothing worth fighting for has nothing worth living for"- unknown

Both great quotes!

I can see it now: A thief and murderer comes into Dobbs' house one night, kills his wife/girlfriend/boyfriend (never know) by stabbing him/her in the throat, then goes after Dobbs. Dobbs, immediately seeing to most logical out to the situation, says, "Wait, let us talk this over like the gentlemen we both so obviously are."

Well, I mentioned Vietnam because ... it's the only war I was in and I've grown rather fond of basing what I say on personal observations. Kapisch?

You really should activate your "View Signatures" option.

I've read your signature. It doesn't change my opinion. However, I do retain the hope that you're smarter than John McCain. John can't create opinions of his own. He says what the media tells him to.

I can see it now: A thief and murderer comes into Dobbs' house one night, kills his wife/girlfriend/boyfriend (never know) by stabbing him/her in the throat, then goes after Dobbs. Dobbs, immediately seeing to most logical out to the situation, says, "Wait, let us talk this over like the gentlemen we both so obviously are."

Sad isn't it? Meanwhile, someone breaks into my home, I have a bo sitting up in my room that I can use for defense. With it being dark, he won't see it coming. I'm not afraid to use it either to defend my family.

:rolleyes: Can the peace faction and the war faction stop fighting?

:rolleyes: Can the peace faction and the war faction stop fighting?

You take all the fun out of life :D

Heh! Don't worry. I have great respect for the true pacifist, not only because it requires great courage to be one, but because his or her ultimate objective is almost identical to mine. The major difference is that I believe that the gretest deterrent to war is the willingness of the soldier to stand on a wall and loudly proclaim, "You shall not pass" to the barbarian hordes at the gates.
Then it gets into a thinking man's game. The "true pacifist" wants to know why "the barbarian hordes are at the gates" in the first place.

You take all the fun out of life :D
I have to admit, I was infulanced by Dr. Strangelove "Gentlemen please! You can't fight here, this is a war room!"

But it IS a little silly, you have one side stating that they don't want to fight and believes that violence is not practicle, and the other side stating that violence is sometimes the only way, and they will fight for the first side's choice not to fight.

And then BOTH sides start fighting about it.

A wee bit strange, ne? ;)

I can see it now: A thief and murderer comes into Dobbs' house one night, kills his wife/girlfriend/boyfriend (never know) by stabbing him/her in the throat, then goes after Dobbs. Dobbs, immediately seeing to most logical out to the situation, says, "Wait, let us talk this over like the gentlemen we both so obviously are."
Like I'm going to grace this with anythng other than an indignant response.

*sigh*

I hear a bell. I am suddenly hungry. Damn it.

An entirely improbable and unlikely scenario, and an altogether mocking quality moves me not one iota from what I know to be eminently right, as much as you may or may not hold violence as a means of reasonably resolving conflict close to your own heart.

Blah blah blah etc.

Wow - I saw this thread yesterday and read the soldier's statement - and we were discussing how the soldier seems to get forgotten by the civilians he fought for. I come back today to almost 6 pages of posts by people attacking war and debating violence vs. pacifism.

Dobbs (and a few others) you disagreed with your government's war decisions and you have been attacking anyone who admits to being a soldier or being related to one. Thanks for proving my point!

Just a reminder Dobbs, if you disagree with what your government is doing, take it up with your congressman and/or the president who made the decision - you have no right to attack the soldier who was only following orders to the best of his ability in his desire to keep his family, his neighbors and YOU safe.

I have to admit, I was infulanced by Dr. Strangelove "Gentlemen please! You can't fight here, this is a war room!"

But it IS a little silly, you have one side stating that they don't want to fight and believes that violence is not practicle, and the other side stating that violence is sometimes the only way, and they will fight for the first side's choice not to fight.

And then BOTH sides start fighting about it.

A wee bit strange, ne? ;)

I agree with you. Which is why I normally try, notice the word normally, to stay out of such fights like that. I'm neutral in those types of fights and I try to play peacekeeper. Odd uh? Me a so called war monger playing peacekeeper? :eek:

Wow - I saw this thread yesterday and read the soldier's statement - and we were discussing how the soldier seems to get forgotten by the civilians he fought for. I come back today to almost 6 pages of posts by people attacking war and debating violence vs. pacifism.

LOL! It is a rather stimulating debate though. Gets the blood pumping.

Dobbs (and a few others) you disagreed with your government's war decisions and you have been attacking anyone who admits to being a soldier or being related to one. Thanks for proving my point!

Dobbs always had a way to prove a point while trying to disprove a point. It is rather quite funny.

Just a reminder Dobbs, if you disagree with what your government is doing, take it up with your congressman and/or the president who made the decision - you have no right to attack the soldier who was only following orders to the best of his ability in his desire to keep his family, his neighbors and YOU safe.

Dobby is from Canada as is CanuckHeaven and Canada stayed out of the war and didn't bother to assist us in rebuilding Iraq nor in assisting the Iraqi people in liberating them from the Tyrant Saddam Hussein.

Dobby is from Canada as is CanuckHeaven and Canada stayed out of the war and didn't bother to assist us in rebuilding Iraq nor in assisting the Iraqi people in liberating them from the Tyrant Saddam Hussein.

Ooops - ok - although I still believe the protecting "you" part applies as if this continent is ever invaded I'm pretty sure our northern neighbors are going to need a substantial amount of our help

Dobby you can still write our congressmen and president if you disagree with them - and I wish you luck, they don't often listen to us either :rolleyes:

Dobby is from Canada as is CanuckHeaven and Canada stayed out of the war and didn't bother to assist us in rebuilding Iraq nor in assisting the Iraqi people in liberating them from the Tyrant Saddam Hussein.

God knows if I ever get liberated I want it to be with a storm of napalm and missile attacks on the capital.

Dobbs (and a few others) you disagreed with your government's war decisions and you have been attacking anyone who admits to being a soldier or being related to one.
Exagerration is evidently not a dying art by any means.

Demonstrate for anyone where I castigated relatives of the soldiers I readily admit to disappointing with my stated opinion of extreme distaste for all things militarist - or withdraw your scurrilous accusation, as it is my contention that you are putting words into my mouth.

And Corneliu has tried putting a few words into my mouth as well. As I've come to expect from certain less-than-scrupulous American types on these boards.

True to form, Corny - congrats on your consistency.

And Corneliu has tried putting a few words into my mouth as well. As I've come to expect from certain less-than-scrupulous American types on these boards.

True to form, Corny - congrats on your consistency.

Consistency for poking holes into everything that your brainwashed mind believes? Your Welcome.

Next time you want to debate, get your head out of your ass and actually debate instead of using propaganda ok?

Consistency for poking holes into everything that your brainwashed mind believes? Your Welcome.

Next time you want to debate, get your head out of your ass and actually debate instead of using propaganda ok?
Next time you and your friends want to take issue with me and my stated position, don't tell and repeat scurrilous lies, half-truths, and innuendo.

I said nothing whatsoever about anyone's relatives, and I expect a retraction on that score, else I call you both LIARS.

Next time you and your friends want to take issue with me and my stated position, don't tell and repeat scurrilous lies, half-truths, and innuendo.

We haven't. We have used nothing but facts, that's right, facts in our arguements. Facts you didn't agree with so you tell us that our facts are wrong. Guess what. They weren't.

I said nothing whatsoever about anyone's relatives, and I expect a retraction on that score, else I call you both LIARS.

I never mentioned relatives. I asked you if you were willing to defend your family by fighting and killing to defend them because you said that there's nothing worth fighting and dying for. You never did get back to me on that.

I never mentioned relatives.

I call bullshit on that, you LIAR.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9447004&postcount=115

You repeated a scurrilous lie and I refuse to let that go unchallenged.

I call bullshit on that, you LIAR.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9447004&postcount=115

You repeated a scurrilous lie and I refuse to let that go unchallenged.

I have to call bullshit because I never mentioned relatives in that post! Great job dobby.

I have to call bullshit because I never mentioned relatives in that post! Great job dobby.
You repeated the lie of the poster you quoted, without correction, thereby granting that lie (and you know that contention was an outright lie) a greater semblance of validity.

You are contemptible beyond belief.

You repeated the lie of the poster you quoted, without correction, thereby granting that lie (and you know that contention was an outright lie) a greater semblance of validity.

You are contemptible beyond belief.

You can't hang that on me dude. Go after Jakutopia. I was agreeing with him.

You can't hang that on me dude. Go after Jakutopia. I was agreeing with him.
You actively legitimized a falsehood. You are completely without merit, and if I had any respect at all for the likes of you, it was completely eradicated when you began down this path.

A bold-faced LIAR and an unapologetic LIAR at that. Keep flying your true colours.

I can see it now: A thief and murderer comes into Dobbs' house one night, kills his wife/girlfriend/boyfriend (never know) by stabbing him/her in the throat, then goes after Dobbs. Dobbs, immediately seeing to most logical out to the situation, says, "Wait, let us talk this over like the gentlemen we both so obviously are."
Pacifism is not laying down and letting others do violence upon you and those you love. This is the most common mistake people make when talking about a philosophy they do not understand. Pacifism is having the capability to defend yourself, but not pursuing aggression, only defense, and only when it is absolutely the last choice. People like Dobbs and I feel that when an army is used for aggression, instead of 'defense as the very last resort', violence is used as a tool, and is encouraged. That kind of thinking is never going to stem violence, only increase it.

You actively legitimized a falsehood. You are completely without merit, and if I had any respect at all for the likes of you, it was completely eradicated when you began down this path.

So why are you going after me then? I'm not the one that said it. Go after the person that did Dobby and leave me alone ok? I didn't say it so why are you attacking me? Is it because I agreed with him and you already have it in for me or what?

A bold-faced LIAR and an unapologetic LIAR at that. Keep flying your true colours.

Actually, your the one that is showing himself to be a liar. I told you I was only agreeing with him and to go after the guy that originally posted something that I agreed too. I guess there is some truth to it otherwise you wouldn't be attacking me they way you are.

Go after the original poster because he/she was the one that state it. Stop attacking me because I agreed with him.

You actively legitimized a falsehood. You are completely without merit, and if I had any respect at all for the likes of you, it was completely eradicated when you began down this path.

A bold-faced LIAR and an unapologetic LIAR at that. Keep flying your true colours.


I wouldn't say he legitimized it. He quoted a post by someone else - he even gave credit to the original author. If someone slandered you and a newspaper quoted that person's slander, the newspaper is not guilty of slander. The person who wrote the original piece is.
You can't blame Corneliu for the supposed lie that someone else wrote about you. You need to go after the original author. The moderators won't side with you on this. But they might if you go after the original author.

Does jakutopia have some dirt on you that keeps you from going after him?

Consistency for poking holes into everything that your brainwashed mind believes? Your Welcome.

Next time you want to debate, get your head out of your ass and actually debate instead of using propaganda ok?
Pot, meet kettle. You're both black.

Pot, meet kettle. You're both black.
[ looks at arm, looks in mirror, looks at arm again ]

WTF, u talkin' 'bout, woman! :D

Go after the original poster because he/she was the one that state it. Stop attacking me because I agreed with him.
So, you agreed with another LIAR. And you compounded that patently-obvious LIE because it helps you to paint a FALSE picture of me as some kind of totally unrealistically and unreasonable HATE-MONGERING person.

While the TRUTH of the matter is, I am philisophically opposed to military solutions - MY STATED OPINION. And one I have yet to CONTRADICT.

I don't know Jakutopia, but I know YOU. And you are a LIAR. You'll exploit another poster's LIES to help you perpetuate still more LIES about who I am and what I satnd for.

You are the absolute WORST of what NS has on offer.

Go after the original poster because he/she was the one that state it. Stop attacking me because I agreed with him.
Corn...you weren't just 'supporting what someone else said', you were agreeing with them. You were validating their statements. If someone said, "Corneliu is a tree-hugging hippy' and I said, 'yeah, Corn really is...man, he loves them trees', I'm not just agreeing, I'm becoming an acomplice in a falsehood.

No one likes to be attributed with an opinion that they do not actually hold. Just because Dobbs is against violence, and against the glorification of the military, does not mean that Dobbs runs around with a victim complex saying, "kill me and my family! I won't defend myself!". Dobbs has never denigrated the relatives of soldiers. Dobbs has called into question the way certain 'soliders' on the forum, who have claimed to experience combat, seem to glorify that combat. In RL, most vets are horrified by the violence they've seen and participated in, and have a strong desire to shield others from it in the sense that they've taken the 'job' so that others won't have to. I too find this internet warmongering to be unrealistic and OOC for a real vet.

So, you agreed with another LIAR. And you compounded that patently-obvious LIE because it helps you to paint a FALSE picture of me as some kind of totally unrealistically and unreasonable HATE-MONGERING person.

While the TRUTH of the matter is, I am philisophically opposed to military solutions - MY STATED OPINION. And one I have yet to CONTRADICT.

I don't know Jakutopia, but I know YOU. And you are a LIAR. You'll exploit another poster's LIES to help you perpetuate still more LIES about who I am and what I satnd for.

You are the absolute WORST of what NS has on offer.

Just keep up the attacks on me Dobbsworld. Apparently you don't feel like going after the original poster and attacking me for agreeing with him. Continue it Dobby. I'm enjoying your attacks.

Just keep up the attacks on me Dobbsworld. Apparently you don't feel like going after the original poster and attacking me for agreeing with him. Continue it Dobby. I'm enjoying your attacks.
Okay....both of you need to cool down. Corn, you're baiting, and Dobbs, I think you're getting angry enough to take that bait. Let it go for now, please, both of you, or request moderation on this disagreement.

Dobby is from Canada as is CanuckHeaven and Canada stayed out of the war and didn't bother to assist us in rebuilding Iraq nor in assisting the Iraqi people in liberating them from the Tyrant Saddam Hussein.

Yes, Canada does have a habit of following international law and anything we are signatory members to. Go figure. Thus we did not take part in Iraq. We are however in Afghanistan being used for target practice by stoned American pilots.. :eek: :D

Yes, Canada does have a habit of following international law and anything we are signatory members to.

Then why aren't you in Iraq enforcing International Law? Saddam did violate International Law you know. I don't see you there enforcing it! Oops I guess Canada doesn't care about it after all.

Go figure. Thus we did not take part in Iraq.

We don't need you in Iraq. We have it covered.

We are however in Afghanistan being used for target practice by stoned American pilots.. :eek: :D

Accidents happen. Welcome to war.

Pacifism is not laying down and letting others do violence upon you and those you love. This is the most common mistake people make when talking about a philosophy they do not understand. Pacifism is having the capability to defend yourself, but not pursuing aggression, only defense, and only when it is absolutely the last choice. People like Dobbs and I feel that when an army is used for aggression, instead of 'defense as the very last resort', violence is used as a tool, and is encouraged. That kind of thinking is never going to stem violence, only increase it.
I do believe you stated that extremely well. :)

Corn...you weren't just 'supporting what someone else said', you were agreeing with them. You were validating their statements. If someone said, "Corneliu is a tree-hugging hippy' and I said, 'yeah, Corn really is...man, he loves them trees', I'm not just agreeing, I'm becoming an acomplice in a falsehood.

No one likes to be attributed with an opinion that they do not actually hold. Just because Dobbs is against violence, and against the glorification of the military, does not mean that Dobbs runs around with a victim complex saying, "kill me and my family! I won't defend myself!". Dobbs has never denigrated the relatives of soldiers. Dobbs has called into question the way certain 'soliders' on the forum, who have claimed to experience combat, seem to glorify that combat. In RL, most vets are horrified by the violence they've seen and participated in, and have a strong desire to shield others from it in the sense that they've taken the 'job' so that others won't have to. I too find this internet warmongering to be unrealistic and OOC for a real vet.
Yes, I do believe that you have caught Corny stepping in his own crap. Nothing surprises me about the king of opinion.

Then why aren't you in Iraq enforcing International Law? Saddam did violate International Law you know. I don't see you there enforcing it! Oops I guess Canada doesn't care about it after all.

Sorry Corneliu, but no UN resolution for invasion means illegal war. We won't even get into the act of preemption being against the UN charter. The USA violated international law. But we've been down this road a million times on this forum, Zep and I have both proved it over and over again. So spare the new people their lack of knowing your track record.

Sorry Corneliu, but no UN resolution for invasion means illegal war.

Ooops sorry but here is where your wrong. We did have UN authorization in the terms of 687 which is the cease-fire resolution. Not even 1441 overturned this resolution. In fact, 1441 didn't overturn any resolutions. It backed them up instead. Interesting isn't it? Why aren't you in Iraq to enforce international law? The US, Britain, Australia, Poland, South Korea, Japan, etc are there to enforce International Law and to rebuild that glorious civilization. I guess Canada doesn't care about all the human rights abuses or the Declaration of Human Rights.

We won't even get into the act of preemption being against the UN charter. The USA violated international law. But we've been down this road a million times on this forum, Zep and I have both proved it over and over again. So spare the new people their lack of knowing your track record.

We are enforcing International Law by following through on all the UN Resolutions. I guess you liberals don't understand that or you just flat out don't care. Alwell. We don't need Canada. We have our allies and that is all that counts.

Then why aren't you in Iraq enforcing International Law? Saddam did violate International Law you know. I don't see you there enforcing it! Oops I guess Canada doesn't care about it after all.
Actions sanctioned by the US government, both present, and past, suggest that the US government is only interested in international law when it pleases them. And only interested in multilateral agreements when it pleases them. For example...the US made little outcry or attempts at 'laying down international law' when the Kurds were being gassed. And the US is refusing to abide by a NAFTA panel ruling that they must cease softwood lumber tarrifs, and repay all tarrifs collected. Don't preach international law, when you spottily adhere to it yourself. We can predict when you will follow it...but we can't really be sure of it.


We don't need you in Iraq. We have it covered.

Then stop complaining no one is helping you.

And you have a strange definition of 'having it covered'.

Accidents happen. Welcome to war.
Trite. Friendly fire is anything but.

Sorry Corneliu, but no UN resolution for invasion means illegal war. We won't even get into the act of preemption being against the UN charter. The USA violated international law. But we've been down this road a million times on this forum, Zep and I have both proved it over and over again. So spare the new people their lack of knowing your track record.
You will have to forgive Corny, in that his copy of Resolution 1441 is slightly different than the UN one, and the same goes for his copy of the UN Charter.

Heck, I wouldn't normally trust what Richard Perle says, but if he says the Iraq War is "illegal", then I am at least going to listen to him.

We don't need Canada. We have our allies and that is all that counts.
You have your truth, as well, never forget that you have your truth. Much and all as it's based on falsehoods, so is your coalition.

And just as you don't need your single-largest trading partner and closest G-8 neighbour, so too do we no longer need the mealy-mouthed lies and broken promises from the world's biggest cheapskate and BS merchant, where equitable trade is concerned.

Go fly a flag already.

We are enforcing International Law by following through on all the UN Resolutions. I guess you liberals don't understand that or you just flat out don't care. Alwell. We don't need Canada. We have our allies and that is all that counts.

Wrong on all counts. You broke international law by preemptively striking a nation that posed no threat to you. Further more you were wrong. And please spare me the bullshit about how "everyone" thought he had WMD. They didn't invade Iraq, you did and you were wrong!

I'm not going down this road with you for the zillionth time. Your logic and interpretation of said UN resolutions are wrong and well, enough said.

Also CanuckHeaven has pointed out to you chapter and verse in the past of just why the Iraq war was illegal... the only people you fool here is yourself and those who may not know any better.

As for your allies, who's that? Tony Blair and John Howard? Because you certainly don't have the support of the world at large. Not even a majority in your own country anymore. Too many lies.

Actions sanctioned by the US government, both present, and past, suggest that the US government is only interested in international law when it pleases them. And only interested in multilateral agreements when it pleases them. For example...the US made little outcry or attempts at 'laying down international law' when the Kurds were being gassed. And the US is refusing to abide by a NAFTA panel ruling that they must cease softwood lumber tarrifs, and repay all tarrifs collected. Don't preach international law, when you spottily adhere to it yourself. We can predict when you will follow it...but we can't really be sure of it.

We're not talking about Nafta. I have my own opinions on that one as being inefficent and unwanted. I don't even like CAFTA either but that is my own personal opinion.

As for believing in International Law when we feel like it, I'll grant you that but when a nation violates 17 BINDING RESOLUTIONS, I'll back the use of force.

Then stop complaining no one is helping you.

I've said that? I don't think I ever did. I only bash those nations that aren't helping rebuild or don't care about Iraqi oppression at the hands of Saddam Hussein.

And you have a strange definition of 'having it covered'.

I do? We do have it covered. We're protecting the Iraqis from those that don't want Democracy to come to them.

Trite. Friendly fire is anything but.

Friendly fire accidents happen all the time unfortunately.

I guess Canada doesn't care about all the human rights abuses or the Declaration of Human Rights.
Human rights abuses like Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay?


We are enforcing International Law by following through on all the UN Resolutions. I guess you liberals don't understand that or you just flat out don't care. Alwell.
You are violating International law.

And your flamebaiting about Canada is a joke.

You have your truth, as well, never forget that you have your truth. Much and all as it's based on falsehoods, so is your coalition.

Our coalition are those nations that want to aide the Iraqi people. How is that being false? Oh you mean the Faulty intel that every nation had? Sorry dude but intelligence isn't perfect unless you have agents on the ground. Hardly anyone did in Iraq and Saddam did a nice job of fooling the world into thinking he had them.

And just as you don't need your single-largest trading partner and closest G-8 neighbour, so too do we no longer need the mealy-mouthed lies and broken promises from the world's biggest cheapskate and BS merchant, where equitable trade is concerned.

Then have your government pull out of all trade deals with the US if that is how you feel. Good luck.

Go fly a flag already.

I have a flag flying thank you very much.

Wrong on all counts. You broke international law by preemptively striking a nation that posed no threat to you. Further more you were wrong. And please spare me the bullshit about how "everyone" thought he had WMD. They didn't invade Iraq, you did and you were wrong!

I'm not going down this road with you for the zillionth time. Your logic and interpretation of said UN resolutions are wrong and well, enough said.

Also CanuckHeaven has pointed out to you chapter and verse in the past of just why the Iraq war was illegal... the only people you fool here is yourself and those who may not know any better.

As for your allies, who's that? Tony Blair and John Howard? Because you certainly don't have the support of the world at large. Not even a majority in your own country anymore. Too many lies.

You don't need a resolution to enfore a resolution. The resolution that stated that Iraq disarm itself called for the use of force if they didn't comply. It didn't call for the need for another resolution if Iraq didn't comply.

Human rights abuses like Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay?

Those that do are being punished. :rolleyes:

You are violating International law.

No we aren't. We are enforcing international law. Thanks though.

And your flamebaiting about Canada is a joke.

Whose flaimbating? I stated a truth

Our coalition are those nations that want to aide the Iraqi people. How is that being false? Oh you mean the Faulty intel that every nation had?
Nope. Still champing at the bit to put words in my mouth, are you Corneliu?

And trust me, I was quite active trying to prevent the government-of-the-day, the wretchedly corrupt and perpetually-resident-in-the-back-pockets-of-the-Reaganite-Republicans, now a footnote in Canadian political history, the Progressive Conservative Party, from signing our country away and selling it down the river to you lot.

I could be so again, if that's what you really want.

You blinkered LIAR.

You don't need a resolution to enfore a resolution. The resolution that stated that Iraq disarm itself called for the use of force if they didn't comply. It didn't call for the need for another resolution if Iraq didn't comply.
War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html)

Nope. Still champing at the bit to put words in my mouth, are you Corneliu?

That was what you were implying Dobby. I"m not making it up. I saw what you posted. That was precisely what your implying. I didn't put anything into your mouth that you haven't already stated hundreds of times previously. Everytime your words have been proven FALSE!

And trust me, I was quite active trying to prevent the government-of-the-day, the wretchedly corrupt and perpetually-resident-in-the-back-pockets-of-the-Reaganite-Republicans, now a footnote in Canadian political history, the Progressive Conservative Party, from signing our country away and selling it down the river to you lot.

At the sametime, having your Prime Minister violate the Canadian Constitution at every turn that you've said nothing about.

I could be so again, if that's what you really want.

You blinkered LIAR.

The only one lying here is you dumbsworld.

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html)

One person saying it doesn't make it true. Opinion=/=fact!

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html)

Just because someone disagrees with it, that doesn't invalidate the resolution or the call to enforce it in said resolution.

No we aren't. We are enforcing international law. Thanks though.

You don't have the authority. If you want to police the world, do it all, and stop complaining that you're overextended. Else, admit that you are not globocop. Don't pick and choose and natter on about international law.

That was what you were implying Dobby. I"m not making it up. I saw what you posted. That was precisely what your implying. I didn't put anything into your mouth that you haven't already stated hundreds of times previously. Everytime your words have been proven FALSE!



At the sametime, having your Prime Minister violate the Canadian Constitution at every turn that you've said nothing about.



The only one lying here is you dumbsworld.
Ah, so seeing as you know what I'm thinking, perhaps you can type all my posts for me.

Again,

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9447004&postcount=115

you're the one helping spread untruths and scurrilous LIES.

You don't have the authority.

Yes we do. Its called UN Resolutions. Why don't liberals understand this? Oh yea, because it legitamizes what we are doing. Never mind.

If you want to police the world, do it all, and stop complaining that you're overextended. Else, admit that you are not globocop. Don't pick and choose and natter on about international law.

I don't want us to be the world's policemen but for some reason, every nation seems to come to the US to help solve most of their problems. Why is that?

You don't need a resolution to enfore a resolution. The resolution that stated that Iraq disarm itself called for the use of force if they didn't comply. It didn't call for the need for another resolution if Iraq didn't comply.

First, they did comply, or have they found WMD in Iraq that I haven't heard about?

Second, the very last line in res. 1441 reads if memory serves me correct, "14. Decides to remain seized of the matter." In other words, that was not a green light to invade Iraq. In fact quite the opposite.

Saddam may of been guilty of bad book-keeping, but that was about it as far as complying to 1441.

Ah, so seeing as you know what I'm thinking, perhaps you can type all my posts for me.

Again,

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9447004&postcount=115

you're the one helping spread untruths and scurrilous LIES.

Care to tell me where I lied in the quote since I'm not seeing it?

I don't want us to be the world's policemen but for some reason, every nation seems to come to the US to help solve most of their problems. Why is that?

Don't make me laugh. You love being the "world's policemen". It helps you cultivate your martyr complex.

First, they did comply, or have they found WMD in Iraq that I haven't heard about?

Then why didn't he fully comply with the resolutions to let them verify it? They didn't do no such thing Steph.

Second, the very last line in res. 1441 reads if memory serves me correct, "14. Decides to remain seized of the matter." In other words, that was not a green light to invade Iraq. In fact quite the opposite.

Funny thing is steph, we have all the authorization we need in regards to them violating 687, the cease-fire resolution.

Saddam may of been guilty of bad book-keeping, but that was about it as far as complying to 1441.

Prove it!

Don't make me laugh. You love being the "world's policemen". It helps you cultivate your martyr complex.

Excuse me? I don't want us to be the world's policemen. But why is it that every nation comes to us for assistance and not any other nation? I want our troops to stay out of harms way.

Corn, I know you're young, and passionate...but you need to stop telling others what they mean.
You have your truth, as well, never forget that you have your truth. Much and all as it's based on falsehoods, so is your coalition.

Our coalition are those nations that want to aide the Iraqi people. How is that being false? Oh you mean the Faulty intel that every nation had?

Don't fob this off as being solely about 'faulty intelligence'. It goes much deeper, try as you might to ignore it. This is not a case of 'oops, we guessed wrong', which is what you are basically trying to twist Dobb's words into meaning. Dobbs stated that the coalition and your version of 'the truth' is based on lies. Lies plural. As in many. As in much more complex than your attempt at reductionism and shrugging it off as 'faulty intelligence'.

Just because someone disagrees with it, that doesn't invalidate the resolution or the call to enforce it in said resolution.
What part of the word "illegal" don't you understand?

One person saying it doesn't make it true. Opinion=/=fact!

Wow, you of all people Corneliu, I'm surprised, I would of thought you would know who Richard Perle is. Perhaps you should go google him and his part in the lead up to the Iraq war. Hell, it's a sad state of affairs when we Canadians know more about your politics than you do.

What part of the word "illegal" don't you understand?

What part of "one person saying it doesn't make it fact" don't you understand?

Yes we do. Its called UN Resolutions. Why don't liberals understand this? Oh yea, because it legitamizes what we are doing. Never mind.I see. Which UN resolution names the US globocop?

You blatantly disregarded the UN, and now you are using the UN as justification for your actions? How droll.


I don't want us to be the world's policemen but for some reason, every nation seems to come to the US to help solve most of their problems. Why is that?
Who cares? You're already in there, 'policing the world'. See you in Darfur, Haiti, and the dozens of other serious conflicts going on right now, all of which are violating human rights. Have fun! Don't say you didn't ask for it!

First, they did comply, or have they found WMD in Iraq that I haven't heard about?

Second, the very last line in res. 1441 reads if memory serves me correct, "14. Decides to remain seized of the matter." In other words, that was not a green light to invade Iraq. In fact quite the opposite.

Saddam may of been guilty of bad book-keeping, but that was about it as far as complying to 1441.

No one is saying they found WMD. But Iraq denied access to inspectors at every turn. They were violating the resolution by not letting the inspectors do their jobs. I never said they actually found WMD. But Saddam was moving something around from place to place while his security forces stalled the inspectors. There is a theory that he moved his WMD to Syria (where he was trying to send trucks full of cash, but we intercepted those).

Now it can't be proven that any WMD were sent to Syria but they were definitely hiding something from the intercepted radio ttransmissions made each time the inspectors were stalled at a new suspected weapons storage site.

The resolution called for enforcement. It did not call for the drafting of another resolution. The resolution was violated.

Prove it!

I don't have to, the war did that for me, sadly.

Wow, you of all people Corneliu, I'm surprised, I would of thought you would know who Richard Perle is. Perhaps you should go google him and his part in the lead up to the Iraq war. Hell, it's a sad state of affairs when we Canadians know more about your politics than you do.

Stephistan,

I know who he is but just because he's the one that said it, doesn't make what he says true. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

BTW: Can I have your doctorate? You need to go back to school and actualy learn something. I have a really well rounded educatoin because of the type of schooling I had not to mention everything that both of my parents experienced in their time in the service. Can both of you say the samething?

Excuse me? I don't want us to be the world's policemen. But why is it that every nation comes to us for assistance and not any other nation? I want our troops to stay out of harms way.
So keep them out of harms' way. And while you're at it it, why not keep the young men and women who become soldiers further from harm by reducing the size of your military?

Or do you care enough to see that through to its' logical conclusion? Not that I expect much from an armchair quarterback who's more than ready to see his countrymen die to protect his right to spew drivel online, while maintaining the charade of supposed unsuitability to serve himself.

I might not support militarism, but at least I'm consistent in my stances - not some cringing pugilist who prefers to see others play out some video game fantasy with live bullets, whose actual sacrifices I'll take as somehow being my own, and fodder for lording it over people with scruples and principles.

If everyone in the world were pacifists, it would only take 1 barbarian to destroy everything the pacifists have worked for. Guardians will be needed until man kind is 100% pacifist and from what I've seen nothing is ever exactly 100%.

I don't have to, the war did that for me, sadly.

The war proves nothing. Prove it.

I see. Which UN resolution names the US globocop?

None but we go where we are asked to go and enforce what the UN doesn't want to enforce.

You blatantly disregarded the UN, and now you are using the UN as justification for your actions? How droll.

Excuse me but it was the UN that authorized Gulf War 1. It was the UN that authorized the UN Cease-fire that Hussein Violated. It was the UN that passed 17 Resolutions (all of which were not backed up). Yes I can use the UN to better my arguements because if the UN just backed up their resolutions, maybe the world wouldn't be so chaotic.

Who cares? You're already in there, 'policing the world'. See you in Darfur, Haiti, and the dozens of other serious conflicts going on right now, all of which are violating human rights. Have fun! Don't say you didn't ask for it!

We may just have to go into Darfur because the UN is to corrupt to do it. France and Russia will just stall the UN into doing nothing, much like China did with Kosovo. As for Haiti, we're there now trying to keep the peace.

If everyone in the world were pacifists, it would only take 1 barbarian to destroy everything the pacifists have worked for. Guardians will be needed until man kind is 100% pacifist and from what I've seen nothing is ever exactly 100%.
Better go hide under your bed, in that case.

Is this really something I should feel bad about? Someone volunteered to do something and when they did it sucked at the end?

Too bad pal...you get what you ask for.

Better go hide under your bed, in that case.

No thanks, I think I'd rather stand and help the poor bastard hiding under the bed.

No thanks, I think I'd rather stand and help the poor bastard hiding under the bed.

As would I!

No one is saying they found WMD. But Iraq denied access to inspectors at every turn.

This is one of the great myths of all time when it comes to Iraq. The first time the inspectors left. Saddam didn't kick them out. Was he giving them a hard time? You bet! Why? Because he was complying and then Madeline Albright Sec. of State at the time made a very public statement saying that it didn't matter if Saddam complied they were never going to lift sanctions. Then and only then did Saddam start giving the inspectors a hard time. That was Gulf 1. A little history for you.

As for Gulf 2, this war, the inspectors left because they were told to by the USA government, or they couldn't promise they'd be safe given despite the inspections not being complete, Bush & co. had already decided to invade Iraq.

Saddam has NEVER kicked out a UN inspector. NEVER!


The resolution called for enforcement. It did not call for the drafting of another resolution. The resolution was violated.

For christ sakes, go read 1441, it did no such thing. They were suppose to reconvene after the inspections, which the Americans never let them complete.

Who is it that said a lie told often enough becomes the truth? Well they sure had that right.

What part of "one person saying it doesn't make it fact" don't you understand?

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html)

Law Groups Say US Invasion Illegal (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0321illegal.htm)

GREEN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT OPPOSES U.S. INVASION OF IRAQ (http://www.ctgreens.org/documents/opposeiraqwar.pdf)

Annan: Invasion of Iraq 'illegal' (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0916/dailyUpdate.html?s=ent2)

Blix: Iraq war was illegal (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1493820,00.html)

Need more, there are lots of them?

Is this really something I should feel bad about? Someone volunteered to do something and when they did it sucked at the end?

Too bad pal...you get what you ask for.
Did you see anywhere in any of the original posts about this where anyone expected you to "feel bad" about anything? I don't THINK so.

Although it's volunteers who save your life if you're trapped in a burning building, volunteers who revive you if your heart has stopped beating, volunteers who give you aid and comfort if you've lost your home, your family or your job, just continue with your contempt and hatred. Too bad, pal ... you'll get what you're asking for.

Question for Nerion? By chance are you Corneliu's mother or sister?

This is one of the great myths of all time when it comes to Iraq. The first time the inspectors left. Saddam didn't kick them out. Was he giving them a hard time? You bet! Why? Because he was complying and then Madeline Albright Sec. of State at the time made a very public statement saying that it didn't matter if Saddam complied they were never going to lift sanctions. Then and only then did Saddam start giving the inspectors a hard time. That was Gulf 1. A little history for you.

As for Gulf 2, this war, the inspectors left because they were told to by the USA government, or they couldn't promise they'd be safe given despite the inspections not being complete, Bush & co. had already decided to invade Iraq.

Saddam has NEVER kicked out a UN inspector. NEVER!




For christ sakes, go read 1441, it did no such thing. They were suppose to reconvene after the inspections, which the Americans never let them complete.

Who is it that said a lie told often enough becomes the truth? Well they sure had that right.


There you go again. Twisting words to make your agument seem plausible. No one said he kicked them out. They were denied access to key facilities, sometimes for as many as a couple of days. Then he'd let them in. If that's your definition of complying, then I now understand your point of view, even if I still have to disagree with it.

He was playing a game of shells with the inspectors. He let them into some places immediately when he had nothing to hide. But why keep inspectors outside a facility for 2 days if you have nothing in there to hide? The inspectors were supposed to have been given unrestricted access to any facility they deemed necessary to inspect. They were not given that freedom of movement to do their jobs.

Saddam did NOT comply. I don't know why you still think he did.

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html)

Law Groups Say US Invasion Illegal (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0321illegal.htm)

GREEN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT OPPOSES U.S. INVASION OF IRAQ (http://www.ctgreens.org/documents/opposeiraqwar.pdf)

Annan: Invasion of Iraq 'illegal' (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0916/dailyUpdate.html?s=ent2)

Blix: Iraq war was illegal (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1493820,00.html)

Need more, there are lots of them?

Nice opinions. All of them. That is all they are opinions. In the eyes of international law, the Invasion of Iraq is 100% legal. Sorry if your brainwashed mind can't accept that fact.

Saddam did NOT comply. I don't know why you still think he did.
She doesn't. But she cannot admit that anyone who supported the US action in removing Saddam from power can be correct about anything. To do so would call into question the entire house of cards she and others have constructed about American being evil. Can't have that, now can we? :)

Did you see anywhere in any of the original posts about this where anyone expected you to "feel bad" about anything? I don't THINK so.

Although it's volunteers who save your life if you're trapped in a burning building, volunteers who revive you if your heart has stopped beating, volunteers who give you aid and comfort if you've lost your home, your family or your job, just continue with your contempt and hatred. Too bad, pal ... you'll get what you're asking for.
I don't see any soldiers volunteering to do any of that. I do see soldiers killing people on orders from people safely located on the other side of the planet.

No need to wear uniforms, march in formation, or otherwise act like prats in order to volunteer, btw. Unless the St. John's ambulance course is now only available to the marines, or something.

Right back atcha, supposed veteran.

-tag-

I don't see any soldiers volunteering to do any of that. I do see soldiers killing people on orders from people safely located on the other side of the planet.

Those people signed up to wear the uniform. Hence they volunteered.

Saddam did NOT comply. I don't know why you still think he did.

That is your opinion, the inspectors seemed to have another.

Still didn't make the war legal. So it's a strawman argument.

What part of "one person saying it doesn't make it fact" don't you understand?
I can really see how that applies to yourself, although that is what you want everyone to believe.

I can really see how that applies to yourself, although that is what you want everyone to believe.

NIce comeback. However, my arguements are from those that were actually there. My facts are accurate unlike yours.

War is tragic ... for everyone involved. The fact that we take our best and most competent and send them into harm's way only aggravates the tragedy.

And when they are sent into harms way over a LIE told to further a fascist/corporate agenda, it becomes the most horrifying tragedy of all.

I don't see any soldiers volunteering to do any of that. I do see soldiers killing people on orders from people safely located on the other side of the planet.

No need to wear uniforms, march in formation, or otherwise act like prats in order to volunteer, btw. Unless the St. John's ambulance course is now only available to the marines, or something.

Right back atcha, supposed veteran.
Your last sentance says it all. When the tide of evidence or argumentation runs against you, you automatically drop into personal attack mode and call into question the background of those with whose postion you disagree.

The attack on soldiers as volunteers applies to volunteers per se. Since many emergency and social services people are volunteers, attacking volunteers per se is also an attack on them.

Let me ask you this ... what would it take to convince you that someone ( whether me or not ) is in fact a veteran of the Armed Forces of the US? What would be your standards of proof for such a claim? I really would be interested in knowing this. Tell me, what would you accept as proof???

Nice opinions. All of them. That is all they are opinions. In the eyes of international law, the Invasion of Iraq is 100% legal. Sorry if your brainwashed mind can't accept that fact.

Oh yes, my word, Annan and Blix, two men who's jobs are based on international law and Richard Perle who knew the every day workings of the defense department and was a hawk..yes, opinions.. but certainly not as enlightened and or correct as some 22 year old kid taking an introduction course to politics.. haha Corneliu I can only laugh, because there is nothing else I can do, you talk about us being brainwashed.. now THAT is funny.

And when they are sent into harms way over a LIE told to further a fascist/corporate agenda, it becomes the most horrifying tragedy of all.

The intel was faulty. This myth has already been hammered and destroyed. Bush didn't lie but used faulty intel in which the Director of the CIA resigned over. Now we have a full fledged Intel shakeup because of the bad intel that was used to place our troops into harms way.

So who lied?

Oh yes, my word, Annan and Blix, two men who's jobs are based on international law and Richard Perle who knew the every day workings of the defense department and was a hawk..yes, opinions.. but certainly not as enlightened and or correct as some 22 year old kid taking an introduction course to politics.. haha Corneliu I can only laugh, because there is nothing else I can do, you talk about us being brainwashed.. now THAT is funny.

International Law disagrees with them. I gues you don't like the fact that Saddam violated 17 Resolutions? The UN Cease-fire? The Declaration of Human Rights? (btw: That is nonbinding incase your wondering)

Under International Law, once a cease-fire is violated, nations can go back to war if they wish without approval from anyone. Hussein violated that cease-fire and thus a coalition of nations took him to task for it and ousted him from power. All perfectly legal.

Don't let their epithets and accusations of brainwashing stop you from speaking out.

The most brainwashed of all are those that think taking Saddam out somehow reduced terrorism in the world.

And the proof that Saddam complied with 1441? How about the distinct lack of WMD? YOu know for damn sure if there were any, it would have been all over the news. The Bush Admin wouldn't pass up an opportunity to gloat that they were right, that it wasn't a LIE. Yet in the two and a half years they have been there, hmmm...no WMD found anywhere.

Look under your desk again, president monkey's butt.... while more of our finest die, you just go on and keep making jokes.

Bah, I can't take anymore of this ..lol Corneliu I swear you live in a bubble.

Anyway, I'm going to take my little girl outside to play. She, I can at least have some what of an intelligent interaction with. She'll be 2 in Jan. She's also very cute. :)

Later guys! ;)

So who lied?
Do you really want to get back into that one, Corneliu? Man, that 'doggy-dog world' of yours is a real bitch, isn't it? That, and learning your vernacular non-phonetically.

Bah, I can't take anymore of this ..lol Corneliu I swear you live in a bubble.

Actually I don't but I do know what Saddam did wether you believe he did it or not. Saddam didn't comply with ANY resolutions whatsoever and that is really a fact. No amount of your spining will say otherwise.

Anyway, I'm going to take my little girl outside to play. She, I can at least have some what of an intelligent interaction with. She'll be 2 in Jan. She's also very cute. :)

Later guys! ;)

I hope you don't brainwash her as you yourself got brainwashed. It'll be a shame to see her not having an opinion mind.

Do you really want to get back into that one, Corneliu? Man, that 'doggy-dog world' of yours is a real bitch, isn't it? That, and learning your vernacular non-phonetically.

Prove he lied! Come on! Oh yea you can't because the Intel really was faulty and that has already been proven that it was faulty intelligence and that Bush didn't lie.

It'll be a shame to see her not having an opinion mind.
Once more, for the Corneliu-impaired?

Still waiting for an answer from Dobbsworld to this:

Let me ask you this ... what would it take to convince you that someone ( whether me or not ) is in fact a veteran of the Armed Forces of the US? What would be your standards of proof for such a claim? I really would be interested in knowing this. Tell me, what would you accept as proof???

Prove he lied! Come on! Oh yea you can't because the Intel really was faulty and that has already been proven that it was faulty intelligence and that Bush didn't lie.
I'm not talking about the lies Bush tells that flow freely as wine from Bacchus' own cup, Corneliu - I'm talking about you. And yours.

I hope you don't brainwash her as you yourself got brainwashed. It'll be a shame to see her not having an opinion mind.

I really need to take my little one out for some fresh air, but I just wanted to assure you Corneliu, I wouldn't dream of doing to my children what your parents obviously did to you.

Have a nice day!

I really need to take my little one out for some fresh air, but I just wanted to assure you Corneliu, I wouldn't dream of doing to my children what your parents obviously did to you.

Have a nice day!
Things are getting pretty nasty on here! :(

The intel was faulty. This myth has already been hammered and destroyed. Bush didn't lie but used faulty intel in which the Director of the CIA resigned over. Now we have a full fledged Intel shakeup because of the bad intel that was used to place our troops into harms way.

So who lied?

WEll, since Edmunds and Clark have been officially silenced, unless you go searching for their stories, you won't realize that the intelligence community kept trying to turn in the proper translations and interpretations, but they kept being sent back to do it again until it read that Saddam was involved.

So the lies were told by the intelligence community after being coerced by their civilian administration to do so.

The problem for the Bush administration is the fact that they REPEATED these lies, even knowing they were lies. Colin Powell told the UN a load of hooey that had been disproven nearly a year before. If you know it's a lie and you repeat it, YES, YOU ARE LYING, TOO.

And im gonna need some sort of source showing that Saddam violated a cease-fire. I think that's something you heard from Limbaugh.

Still waiting for an answer from Dobbsworld to this:

Let me ask you this ... what would it take to convince you that someone ( whether me or not ) is in fact a veteran of the Armed Forces of the US? What would be your standards of proof for such a claim? I really would be interested in knowing this. Tell me, what would you accept as proof???
Nothing you can hope to establish on an online forum, in size 3 bold type. I'd accept as proof a face-to-face meeting replete with any and all memoribilia and/or paraphenalia as the supposed veteran may have on offer at the appointed time and place.

I won't simply take anyone's word for it that they are who they claim to be in the context of NS. I hardly expect anyone else to, either.

I really need to take my little one out for some fresh air, but I just wanted to assure you Corneliu, I wouldn't dream of doing to my children what your parents obviously did to you.

Have a nice day!

No,

My parents actually taught me to have an opinion and to back it up. This I have done.

Have fun with your daughter.

Things are getting pretty nasty on here! :(
Things are as you've made them, Eut. Why not try enriching the world instead of dividing and subdividing it?

Things are as you've made them, Eut. Why not try enriching the world instead of dividing and subdividing it?

Something the liberals are pretty good at! Practice what you preach.

Your last sentance says it all. When the tide of evidence or argumentation runs against you, you automatically drop into personal attack mode and call into question the background of those with whose postion you disagree.

The attack on soldiers as volunteers applies to volunteers per se. Since many emergency and social services people are volunteers, attacking volunteers per se is also an attack on them.

Let me ask you this ... what would it take to convince you that someone ( whether me or not ) is in fact a veteran of the Armed Forces of the US? What would be your standards of proof for such a claim? I really would be interested in knowing this. Tell me, what would you accept as proof???

They step outside the argument and resort to personal attacks when they can't come up with anything else to refute your original argument.

When your opponent starts calling you names, they've given up on attacking your point and attack you out of frustration.

They step outside the argument and resort to personal attacks when they can't come up with anything else to refute your original argument.
Prove to me that Eutrusca is what he claims to be, a veteran.

Nothing you can hope to establish on an online forum, in size 3 bold type. I'd accept as proof a face-to-face meeting replete with any and all memoribilia and/or paraphenalia as the supposed veteran may have on offer at the appointed time and place.

I won't simply take anyone's word for it that they are who they claim to be in the context of NS. I hardly expect anyone else to, either.
A face-to-face meeting? ROFLMAO!! What the hell would that accomplish, pray tell???

Prove to me that Eutrusca is what he claims to be, a veteran.
Well, since you expect me to travel to wherever you are and present you in person with some sort of official documentaion ( which you have yet to specify, I might add ), you pretty effectively elminate any possibility of "proof." How amazingly convenient for you. :D

Prove to me that Eutrusca is what he claims to be, a veteran.


I don't see where that refutes any of his points. Tell me how your attack on him personally validates your point over his?

What part of "one person saying it doesn't make it fact" don't you understand?
I can really see how that applies to yourself, although that is not what you want everyone to believe.

Still waiting for an answer from Dobbsworld to this:

Let me ask you this ... what would it take to convince you that someone ( whether me or not ) is in fact a veteran of the Armed Forces of the US? What would be your standards of proof for such a claim? I really would be interested in knowing this. Tell me, what would you accept as proof???

Settle down Eu. Why do you get your panties in such a bunch over someone on the internet challenging you over being a veteran? For godssake, you know you're a veteran, your friends and family know you are a veteran. What do you care if some anonymous nobody might not believe it?

I admire all soldiers that enlist with the intention of national DEFENSE. I personally don't think it is right for our soldiers to ever leave our territory and kill other people on their home soil.

Some seem to think that because someone is, or has been a soldier, the rest of us need to worship them and give them cuts in line for the rest of their life.

Get over it. I won't thank you for killing people in Vietnam because not one of them ever threatened me or my way of life. I think that any soldier sent overseas to kill other nation's people should refuse to go. I have more respect for those that fled to Canada, leaving behind their families just like you did, but for something that did not cause any death. I admire the National Guard, who came to my town after the Hurricane and helped keep things together and handed out water and ice. THEY served the people of america better than anyone who killed a vietnamese on their home soil.

YOu might find my opinion wrong and become enraged by it, but i find hawks' opinions equally horrifying.

You cant kill an idea by killing people, and you can't stop violence and terrorism by wreaking violence and terror. How many people think that the world is any safer from terrorists after the nearly 300 billion dollars spent on 'killing terrorists'.?

A face-to-face meeting? ROFLMAO!! What the hell would that accomplish, pray tell???
It would establish that which you are so keen for everybody on NS to blithely assume - that you are who you claim to be.

They step outside the argument and resort to personal attacks when they can't come up with anything else to refute your original argument.

When your opponent starts calling you names, they've given up on attacking your point and attack you out of frustration.
You mean personal attacks such as this one by you directed towards me (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9447516&postcount=1112) on another thread, which BTW, I haven't replied to as yet.

You don't know me and you have personalized your post claiming "And I do know what you think". As I stated before, you don't have a clue, and to make such a presumptious statement as that is totally illogical.

I will reply more in depth to your deception when I have the time.

Well, since you expect me to travel to wherever you are and present you in person with some sort of official documentaion ( which you have yet to specify, I might add ), you pretty effectively elminate any possibility of "proof." How amazingly convenient for you. :D
I said nothing about expectations. Where you are concerned, Eutrusca, the only "expectation" I have is that you will continue to promulgate violence as an acceptable means of resolving conflict, to whitewash the horror of war, and to be actively complicit in the selling of militarism to younger generations as some sort of fable of romance. Other than those, there is the expectation that you will allude vaguely to your supposed military career while propping up and validating the actions of the gang of undemocratic thugs who have usurped executive power in your nation for the last five years.

That's about it.

And it's not at all convenient for me. Not in the least.

*Edit: further to an earlier post by Eutrusca's youthful ward, Corneliu, please direct all further inquiries to the boy wonder. He claims to know my innermost thoughts, and undoubtedly he'll be eminently better suited to answering your questions for me.

You mean personal attacks such as this one by you directed towards me (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9447516&postcount=1112) on another thread, which BTW, I haven't replied to as yet.

You don't know me and you have personalized your post claiming "And I do know what you think". As I stated before, you don't have a clue, and to make such a presumptious statement as that is totally illogical.

I will reply more in depth to your deception when I have the time.

I'll await your reply. Didn't call you a name, though I did state that you supported the enemy (just read through your posts defending their actions, justifying their cause and demonizing efforts by the US and the new Iraqi government to lend stability and give those people a voice in their own government.)

Your posts demostrate the same bent as a fan rooting for his favorite team. You never said you do not support the insurgents, yet your arguments clearly DO support what they stand for and what they're doing.

I called it like I saw it - I didn't call you a name. Though I COULD have said it LOOKED like you support them. In retrospect that would have been more polite I suppose and I apologize if it offended you - that was not my intent. Perhaps I WAS guilty of what I accused these folks of doing. Touche for calling me on it.

But your posts show a clear leaning. They do make you look like you're rooting for the insurgents.

*Edit: further to an earlier post by Eutrusca's youthful ward, Corneliu, please direct all further inquiries to the boy wonder. He claims to know my innermost thoughts, and undoubtedly he'll be eminently better suited to answering your questions for me.

WOW. I didn't think I knew your innermost thoughts! How did I pull that off?

I know that you can call me a liar as well, but, I have personal knowledge that Eut is a Nam vet. However, before you resort to that tactic, you better consider who I am and the reputation I value and maintain. I don't advise it.

As for the original subject of this thread, and the earlier claims that Nam vets were not harrassed, My husband has told me of the problems he had when he came home, I saw some of the abuse our soldiers went through. When peace protestors set fire to several buildings on my college campus and soldiers from a nearby Army base were sent to help fight the fires, I saw them pelted with all manner of disgusting things...not to mention rocks. I have an old high school buddy who has permanent eye damage from an infection after getting hit in the face with a balloon full of urine and feces. I hope I don't live to see a segment of our population degrade into barbarians all in the name of "peace" like I saw in the Nam era.

WOW. I didn't think I knew your innermost thoughts! How did I pull that off?
You tell me, boy wonder. I thought seeing as you're the one who made that claim, you'd like to be the one to back it up. Try using your bat-bullshit-analyzer, or something.

I know that you can call me a liar as well, but, I have personal knowledge that Eut is a Nam vet. However, before you resort to that tactic, you better consider who I am and the reputation I value and maintain. I don't advise it.

As for the original subject of this thread, and the earlier claims that Nam vets were not harrassed, My husband has told me of the problems he had when he came home, I saw some of the abuse our soldiers went through. When peace protestors set fire to several buildings on my college campus and soldiers from a nearby Army base were sent to help fight the fires, I saw them pelted with all manner of disgusting things...not to mention rocks. I have an old high school buddy who has permanent eye damage from an infection after getting hit in the face with a balloon full of urine and feces. I hope I don't live to see a segment of our population degrade into barbarians all in the name of "peace" like I saw in the Nam era.

Heresay. And does nothing to establish Eut's credibility. Why would a veteran of war promulgate militarism amongst youth, unless that 'vet' isn't a 'vet' at all?

Before someone interprets my last message to mean i condone any violence or unkind acts towards veterans, let me set you straight.

I do not condone any acts of violence against anybody. I do not blame the troops for the shortsightedness of the administration.

And while i do not respect them for going to kill people in their own homes, i will not disrespect them either. I assume they did what they thought was right, in their own miguided way. They showed loyalty and commitment to duty and responsibility. It's not entirely their fault they were brainwashed into believing that killing people in another land would be good for america, or that they had more loyalty to authority than they had moral courage to say NO.

I would never spit on a soldier, much less throw something at them.

I WILL, however, engage them in a lively verbal debate.

Heresay. And does nothing to establish Eut's credibility. Why would a veteran of war promulgate militarism amongst youth, unless that 'vet' isn't a 'vet' at all?

same reason a drug addict wants their other drug addict friends to stay on the drugs. It 'justifies' what they did/are doing.

If others become more enlightened to the process of peace, it makes participating in a war that much less justifiable.

ANd i dont know why Dobbsworld is making such a big deal over whether Eu is a vet or not. Does it really matter? or is he just rolling barrels to see how high Eu jumps. (BTW, that was a really impressive jump when he changed font sizes and colors and everything!)

Quit trolling, Dobbsworld. YOu aren't adding anything to the conversation/debate. I might disagree with Eu as much as you, but your tack is not leading anywhere. Save your breath. Save our ears.

Quit trolling, Dobbsworld. YOu aren't adding anything to the conversation/debate. I might disagree with Eu as much as you, but your tack is not leading anywhere. Save your breath. Save our ears.
If anything, I would hope to throw a spotlight on the fact that of all the veterans I've had the honour of interacting with, Eutrusca is the only purported 'veteran' who actively seeks the furtherance of armed conflict as the best, nay only means of settling disputes - the only purported 'veteran' who actively seeks to so downplay the realities of war that the myth of the romance/nobility of war continues to plague yet another generation.

I know Eut himself is a lost cause, a hawkish war-monger and an avowed proponent of militaristic solutions - but I'll be damned if I'll allow him free reign to pollute the minds of those who will come after him.

Therefore, not a troll at all. A public service is more like it. With all due respect.

If anything, I would hope to throw a spotlight on the fact that of all the veterans I've had the honour of interacting with, Eutrusca is the only purported 'veteran' who actively seeks the furtherance of armed conflict as the best, nay only means of settling disputes - the only purported 'veteran' who actively seeks to so downplay the realities of war that the myth of the romance/nobility of war continues to plague yet another generation.

I know Eut himself is a lost cause, a hawkish war-monger and an avowed proponent of militaristic solutions - but I'll be damned if I'll allow him free reign to pollute the minds of those who will come after him.

Therefore, not a troll at all. A public service is more like it. With all due respect.

Interesting that you state that Eut feels that war is the only way to settle disputes. Now you're guilty of what you accuse Corneliu of doing and CanuckHeaven accused me of doing - yeah, I admit I screwed up on that one. You know what he thinks now?

But again, I have to ask - what difference does it make if he's a veteran? How does him being or not being one make him wrong and you right? What does it matter? I hate to rain on your parade here, but no one wants to hear you keep posting the same rants over and over again - especially if you have nothing to contribute to the thread.

But again, I have to ask - what difference does it make if he's a veteran? How does him being or not being one make him wrong and you right? What does it matter? I hate to rain on your parade here, but no one wants to hear you keep posting the same rants over and over again - especially if you have nothing to contribute to the thread.
All things being equal, I'd agree with you insofar as to whether or not Eut is in fact a veteran is not relevant.

However, all things are not equal in the case of Eutrusca. Eutrusca has cultivated an environment where he is held over and above his fellows due to some bizarre pseudo-Medieval belief that former soldiers, and their opinions, are of greater intrinsic value than the common folk. Now, that might not be Eutrusca's fault - I blame lopsided American "values" for that - but he certainly has availed himself of the unspoken benefits to his position, and all completely on one person's say-so - his own.

I say it's wrong to pull the wool over people's eyes, especially wool that will potentially see young people fighting and dying in wars for all the wrong reasons... the least of which is that some unseen person, posting online, who claims, unsubstantiated, to have served the military and been denigrated for so doing by the spittle of boogeymen of 30+ years past.

I should like Eutrusca to meet up with some of the actual veterans of war I've met, if only to see whether he'd come out of it without a blackened eye.

All things being equal, I'd agree with you insofar as to whether or not Eut is in fact a veteran is not relevant.

However, all things are not equal in the case of Eutrusca. Eutrusca has cultivated an environment where he is held over and above his fellows due to some bizarre pseudo-Medieval belief that former soldiers, and their opinions, are of greater intrinsic value than the common folk. Now, that might not be Eutrusca's fault - I blame lopsided American "values" for that - but he certainly has availed himself of the unspoken benefits to his position, and all completely on one person's say-so - his own.

I say it's wrong to pull the wool over people's eyes, especially wool that will potentially see young people fighting and dying in wars for all the wrong reasons... the least of which is that some unseen person, posting online, who claims, unsubstantiated, to have served the military and been denigrated for so doing by the spittle of boogeymen of 30+ years past.

I should like Eutrusca to meet up with some of the actual veterans of war I've met, if only to see whether he'd come out of it without a blackened eye.


But isn't all of that off topic? You tried to turn this thread into a discussion of Eutrusca. And while he might be one real interesting cat, I don't want to hear that much about him to be honest (no disrespect meant to the dude). I came into this thread to debate that coming home article - not Eutrusca's political resume.

All things are not equal with Eutrusca you say. What the hell does that matter? Seriously. He can't have pissed you off THAT bad that you have to spend so much time writing about him.

But isn't all of that off topic? You tried to turn this thread into a discussion of Eutrusca. And while he might be one real interesting cat, I don't want to hear that much about him to be honest (no disrespect meant to the dude). I came into this thread to debate that coming home article - not Eutrusca's political resume.
Well, then by all means go ahead and discuss that to your heart's content.

Well, then by all means go ahead and discuss that to your heart's content.

No thanks. Not Eutrusca. Just saying its time to give it a rest man.

All things are not equal with Eutrusca you say. What the hell does that matter? Seriously. He can't have pissed you off THAT bad that you have to spend so much time writing about him.
Says you. I have a distinct aversion to snake oil salesmen who would see lives full of promise destroyed by old men in suits, as they drink highballs and plot how to further line their pockets while still convincingly wrapping themselves in flags.

No thanks. Not Eutrusca. Just saying its time to give it a rest man.
What do you want? I conceded. Discuss the pillorying of US troops some 30-odd years ago, and how it relates to the here and now. Otherwise - you try giving it a rest. Man.

Says you. I have a distinct aversion to snake oil salesmen who would see lives full of promise destroyed by old men in suits, as they drink highballs and plot how to further line their pockets while still convincingly wrapping themselves in flags.

Whatever. It's time for that tangent to die bro.

Whatever. It's time for that tangent to die bro.
Like I said. Anyway, I was responding to your last-minute "add-on" statement.

So you've got what you wanted. Let it die yourself, Nerion.

I know that you can call me a liar as well, but, I have personal knowledge that Eut is a Nam vet. However, before you resort to that tactic, you better consider who I am and the reputation I value and maintain. I don't advise it.

Personally I don't know if Eut is a vet or not and really doesn't make a difference to me as far as his postings on these forums.

However, given I recall when you joined NS, as do many others who have been here far longer and more involved in NS on many levels than you, I was just curious as to what you mean by what I've bolded in your text. Your nobody just like the rest of us on here. Don't think otherwise, you'll be in for one heck of a let down!

PeYour nobody just like the rest of us on here.

If we're all nobody's then why do people think they are always the best at certain things? Face it steph, this is a contradictory statement coming from you. I've seen you post things and think your somebody before so why do you think your a nobody now?

If we're all nobody's then why do people think they are always the best at certain things? Face it steph, this is a contradictory statement coming from you. I've seen you post things and think your somebody before so why do you think your a nobody now?

In my own real life yes, on an Internet forum? Umm no! None of us are. For all we know you're a 65 year old woman. Yeah know what I mean? It's an Internet forum... it's not real life.

On a side note, I guess you've given up de-coding Dobbs and think you're moving onto me? Haha, Don't waste my time or yours.

In my own real life yes, on an Internet forum? Umm no! None of us are. For all we know you're a 65 year old woman. Yeah know what I mean? It's an Internet forum... it's not real life.

If I was a 65 yo woman, I'd put you in your place for disrespecting your elders! LOL

On a side note, I guess you've given up de-coding Dobbs and think you're moving onto me? Haha, Don't waste my time or yours.

I don't have too. I already know you've been wrong on many occassions so what's the point of getting inside your brain? I already know what I'll find! :D

I don't have too. I already know you've been wrong on many occassions so what's the point of getting inside your brain? I already know what I'll find! :D

I can admit when I'm wrong, a lesson you might want to learn. Even when you're highly educated everyone is wrong sometimes, that's the way life works. No one ever is right ALL the time. When you grow up a little more you'll hopefully learn that Corneliu. Don't say you already have, because your actions on this forum certainly suggest you haven't.

I can admit when I'm wrong, a lesson you might want to learn.

I always admit when I'm wrong. However, why should I admit something is wrong when in fact, it isn't? Sorry Stephistan.

Even when you're highly educated everyone is wrong sometimes, that's the way life works.

Then I guess your education failed you because you've been wrong this whole time about the Iraq War. Apparently, you need to ask for your money back.

No one ever is right ALL the time.

Remember that.

When you grow up a little more you'll hopefully learn that Corneliu.

I already know this to be true Stephistan. My parents, mostly my mother, raised me to know that not everyone is always right.

Don't say you already have, because your actions on this forum certainly suggest you haven't.

My actions have been nothing but truthful in this case. I know the Iraq War was Legal. I know that Bush didn't lie to get us into it. I know that the Intelligence was faulty. I know that Russia and France have been selling weapons to the Iraq even after the resolutions said they couldn't. I know of Saddam's violations of Human Rights. I know of his violations of International Law. I know that we are there to liberate Iraq from this tyrant and that we aren't there for Oil.

What do you know?

Then I guess your education failed you because you've been wrong this whole time about the Iraq War. Apparently, you need to ask for your money back.

It's not me you should be sorry for, because on this one I am right. I'm wrong about a lot, this isn't one of them.

Anyway, I'd prefer not to engage in this childish back & forth, maybe it works for you, but it doesn't for me.

Later!~

I'm not talking about the lies Bush tells that flow freely as wine from Bacchus' own cup, Corneliu - I'm talking about you. And yours.


I'm not so sure Corniliu is lying per se. I think he is just really misinformed and is unable to grasp reality because it doesn't conform to what his parents and his beloved FOX news are telling him. Most news sources that don't pander to the govt. have a different story than what Corny is trying to sell so they must just be biased.

He is fine with offering "My daddy said so" as proof and refusing to give examples that others can check out to back him up.

I'm not so sure Corniliu is lying per se. I think he is just really misinformed and is unable to grasp reality because it doesn't conform to what his parents and his beloved FOX news are telling him.

I wouldn't be talking about my parents Sumamba. My parents raised me to question everything. Did yours?

Most news sources that don't pander to the govt. have a different story than what Corny is trying to sell so they must just be biased.

I don't trust any media 100% why? They are trained to sensationalize the news. That goes back to the USS Maine incident of 1898!

He is fine with offering "My daddy said so" as proof and refusing to give examples that others can check out to back him up.

Well, since he is in the region, why shouldn't I listen to him?

It's not me you should be sorry for, because on this one I am right. I'm wrong about a lot, this isn't one of them.

Anyway, I'd prefer not to engage in this childish back & forth, maybe it works for you, but it doesn't for me.

Later!~

Take Care Steph!

Thanks for conceding.