NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that among the more rabid of the war hawks on this board, it is fashionable to accuse those who disagree with the Iraq war of being traitors, seditious, and of helping terrorists.

Now I support the war, but I would prefer to debate sensibly with war opponents than to hysterically attack them.

I have a few reasons for my aversion to accusing war opponents of treachery. Firstly, I am not convinced that criticism of the war is sufficiently consequential to reach the ears of insurgents. Second, all the accusation of sedition and lack of patriotism reminds me of the fascist regime in Japan in the 1930s and 1940s. It's frightening. Aren't we supposed to be fighting for democracy and freedom of speech?

I would like to think that you're not including me in this, but I suspect that you are. The reason I attack the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan is because she truly is a manipulative, demented little person. As long as someone is against the war, has rational reasons for so doing, and doesn't do so in such a way as to dishonor the military or the war dead, I have no problem whatsoever with their speaking up.

Aren't we supposed to be fighting for democracy and freedom of speech?

What's this 'we' business? Your country is officially neutral (the use of Shannon notwithstanding).

I would like to think that you're not including me in this, but I suspect that you are. The reason I attack the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan is because she truly is a manipulative, demented little person. As long as someone is against the war, has rational reasons for so doing, and doesn't do so in such a way as to dishonor the military or the war dead, I have no problem whatsoever with their speaking up.
You certainly are included in this. I don't know or really care about Sheehan's mental state, but it seems that in the eyes of people like you, it is becoming increasingly difficult to criticise the war without "dishonouring the military" or "aiding the enemy".

What's this 'we' business? Your country is officially neutral (the use of Shannon notwithstanding).
Our "neutrality" is a joke! We're about as "neutral" as America was in WW2 pre-December 1941.

I also meant we in the sense of all of those who agree that it is right to fight a war for democracy and human rights.

Whilst not getting into my views of this conflict, I believe there should be a difference between sensibly opposing the war, and attacking the soldiers themselves.

This was so important, you had to make yet another Cindy Sheehan thread?

I also meant we in the sense of all of those who agree that it is right to fight a war for democracy and human rights.

Which just raises the question of whether this war is being fought for democracy and human rights, but this is not the thread for that discussion.

This was so important, you had to make yet another Cindy Sheehan thread?
Actually the only person who mentioned her was Eutrusca.

Whilst not getting into my views of this conflict, I believe there should be a difference between sensibly opposing the war, and attacking the soldiers themselves.
Nobody is spitting on soldiers á la Vietnam, but the accusations are still there.

I have a few reasons for my aversion to accusing war opponents of treachery. Firstly, I am not convinced that criticism of the war is sufficiently consequential to reach the ears of insurgents. Second, all the accusation of sedition and lack of patriotism reminds me of the fascist regime in Japan in the 1930s and 1940s. It's frightening. Aren't we supposed to be fighting for democracy and freedom of speech?Well, you see especially anyone foreign is especially guilty of treason against the United States of America... :p

Actually the only person who mentioned her was Eutrusca.


Nobody is spitting on soldiers á la Vietnam, but the accusations are still there.


I don't see the point of accusing the soldiers. It isn't their fault they are in Iraq. They are just there on orders oif their superiors. You should only rightly criticise the government for sending them there. The soldiers are merely doing what they are told.

"Demonstrations in opposition to the war, are the single greatest threat to the war effort."
-Richard Nixon.

People who support warmongering, and foolish agendas, HATE it when you openly point out how foolish they are.
Thus, it angers them.
They hate to be told that they are wrong.

I also meant we in the sense of all of those who agree that it is right to fight a war for democracy and human rights.The United States isn't fighting this war in the name of human rights, as enough incidents have shown. So you can't really say we all agree, since some people in places of power obviously don't.

The soldiers are merely doing what they are told.


Hmmm... should I Godwin here or not?

I don't mind opposing the war, as long as its civil and not against the soldiers themselves.

Nobody is spitting on soldiers á la Vietnam, but the accusations are still there.
Nor will they be, if I have anything to say about it. When that happened to me, I swore that I would never allow anyone to do that to another soldier as long as there was life in my body. This "protest" movement is starting the same way the Vietnam war "protest" movement started, which is why I'm so touchy about it. :mad:

she truly is a manipulative, demented little person.
*coughcoughgeorgebushcoughcoughphlem*

I don't see the point of accusing the soldiers. It isn't their fault they are in Iraq. They are just there on orders oif their superiors. You should only rightly criticise the government for sending them there. The soldiers are merely doing what they are told.
I agree.

Hmmm... should I Godwin here or not?

Oh yes, lets do. Bring the thread crashing down...

...Look, I know its a fragile argument at best...but what do you want the soldiers to do? Drop their weapons and sit down? The insurgents won't just stop then, you know. Most soldiers are just decent men and women trying to do an extremely difficult job.

Hmmm... should I Godwin here or not?
Please don't. In any case, the situation is rather different.

Oh yes, lets do. Bring the thread crashing down...

...Look, I know its a fragile argument at best...but what do you want the soldiers to do? Drop their weapons and sit down? The insurgents won't just stop then, you know. Most soldiers are just decent men and women trying to do an extremely difficult job.
Yes, they are. But most of the frackkin' "protestors" couldn't care less about that, them, or the Country. All most of them are concerned about is attracting media attention and raising hell, fuck everybody else! :mad:

Nor will they be, if I have anything to say about it. When that happened to me, I swore that I would never allow anyone to do that to another soldier as long as there was life in my body. This "protest" movement is starting the same way the Vietnam war "protest" movement started, which is why I'm so touchy about it. :mad:



Youre a Nam Vet.
We all know that.

Let me ask you this.

What the hell was that war about?
What purpose did it serve?

WHY did we ship our boys off to that place?

As a demonstration against communism?

How many friends did you lose over there, and for what?
What GOOD did any of it accomplish?

None, really, in the end.

So why, now, that someone has lost a son in the war, a simliar war, with no real enemy, and no real battlelines, just like you lost friends, when that person speaks out against what she feels is wrong, why on earth do you get so bent out of shape?

Dont you feel the least bit hippocritical?

Please don't. In any case, the situation is rather different.

Indeed, just pointing out that 'just following orders' does not automatically absolve the lower echelons of all responsibility.

Side note: I find it amusing that 'just following orders' is sometimes used as a way of deflecting any possible blame from the lower echelons, but never in my experience as a way of deflecting possible praise from them.


Anyhow, I'm veering wildly OT here.

What does that mean ... "to Godwin?" Referring to some demented lil poster???

Yes, they are. But most of the frackkin' "protestors" couldn't care less about that, them, or the Country. All most of them are concerned about is attracting media attention and raising hell, fuck everybody else! :mad:

Well now, I believe most protesters are genuinely against the war, for whatever reasons. Its merely the few extremists and bad apples, like you get in any group, that is causing such adverse and controversial issues and attention.

Yes, they are. But most of the frackkin' "protestors" couldn't care less about that, them, or the Country. All most of them are concerned about is attracting media attention and raising hell, fuck everybody else! :mad:
Of course they are.
Just like every soldier serving in Iraq is in the habit of torturing POWs and raping civilians.
Don't be so bloody pathetic.

Of course they are.
Just like every soldier serving in Iraq is in the habit of torturing POWs and raping civilians.
Don't be so bloody pathetic.

Lets try and keep it civil, please. This is a serious thread SP created, and an interesting one.

What does that mean ... "to Godwin?" Referring to some demented lil poster???

That information is strictly on a need to know basis.

Lets try and keep it civil, please. This is a serious thread SP created, and an interesting one.
It's a fair point. If the Sheehan woman is representative of everybody who disaproves of the war, then it surely follows that the dozen or so idiots who've been court martialed for abuses over there are representative of all the coalition combatants.

It's a fair point. If the Sheehan woman is representative of everybody who disaproves of the war, then it surely follows that the dozen or so idiots who've been court martialed for abuses over there are representative of all the coalition combatants.

It may be a fair point. I didn't say, one way or the other. I merely requested you refrain from accusations and bad language.

It may be a fair point. I didn't say, one way or the other. I merely requested you refrain from accusations and bad language.
I merely used a mild term to add emphasis.

Nor will they be, if I have anything to say about it. When that happened to me, I swore that I would never allow anyone to do that to another soldier as long as there was life in my body. This "protest" movement is starting the same way the Vietnam war "protest" movement started, which is why I'm so touchy about it. :mad:

You have every right to be touchy. I have no doubt that you went through hell. The problem is that when you react so strongly against people who are merely againt the war, you are being counter-productive to your goal. Instead of focusing on the rights and honor of the soldiers, you seemingly try to quell all questioning of the war and the real causes and motivations for the war.

I agree that our men should be treated with respect. So should people who get off their duffs and try to make a difference by ending the war sooner in a non-violent way. Instead of focusing on people who wrongheadedly antagonize the soldiers, you attack a woman, a confused and distraught woman sometimes, who has never said a bad word about the men and women in uniform.

Sheehan has her reasons to dislike Bush. She likely does have a political agenda. Most people do. But to say she is dishonoring her son weakens the meritorious arguments you might have. It becomes much easier to discount your words as mere hysteria.

You need to focus on your goal, the honor of our soldiers, instead of mucking it up with politics.

It may be a fair point. I didn't say, one way or the other. I merely requested you refrain from accusations and bad language.And Eutrusca made no accusation?
All most of them are concerned about is attracting media attention and raising hell, fuck everybody else!That sounds like an accusation to me...

Since when is the united states of america democratic ?
I agree that these montheistic fanatics must be stopped but not in the name of other monotheistic cults.
I mean "god bless america" ?

And Eutrusca made no accusation?
That sounds like an accusation to me...

Yeesh. I try and keep the thread civil...and people turn on me for trying to do something good? I missed out Eutrusca. So sue me. I'll stop trying to keep the thread civil.

Eutrusca: Please keep it civil in the thread.

Happy?

Yeesh. I try and keep the thread civil...and people turn on me for trying to do something good? I missed out Eutrusca. So sue me. I'll stop trying to keep the thread civil.

Eutrusca: Please keep it civil in the thread.

Happy?
I have not yet resorted to incivility.

Youre a Nam Vet.
We all know that.

Let me ask you this.

What the hell was that war about?
What purpose did it serve?

WHY did we ship our boys off to that place?

As a demonstration against communism?

How many friends did you lose over there, and for what?
What GOOD did any of it accomplish?

None, really, in the end.

So why, now, that someone has lost a son in the war, a simliar war, with no real enemy, and no real battlelines, just like you lost friends, when that person speaks out against what she feels is wrong, why on earth do you get so bent out of shape?

Dont you feel the least bit hippocritical?
Hell no! There are ways to make your voice heard without dishonoring your own son's memory, or attacking the families of other soldiers who died by illegally using their dead children's names in your fucking protests!

The dishonorable Ms. Sheehan and her fellow-travellers are nothing more nor less than publicity hounds. And why do they not reveal where the one MILLION dollars for their upcoming newspaper advertising campaign is coming from, eh?

As to your stating that there is "no real enemy," that's nothing more than unadulterated bullshit and you should at least have sufficient intellect to realize that. If not, well ... you have my sympathies, but not my agreement.

Happy?Am now! :D

Hell no! There are ways to make your voice heard without dishonoring your own son's memory, or attacking the families of other soldiers who died by illegally using their dead children's names in your fucking protests!

The dishonorable Ms. Sheehan and her fellow-travellers are nothing more nor less than publicity hounds. And why do they not reveal where the one MILLION dollars for their upcoming newspaper advertising campaign is coming from, eh?

As to your stating that there is "no real enemy," that's nothing more than unadulterated bullshit and you should at least have sufficient intellect to realize that. If not, well ... you have my sympathies, but not my agreement.


and thanks for not taking the opportunity I handed you to give yourself some validity.

Thanks for sticking to the same old rhetoric and dodging every one of the questions I asked you.

This country was founded on the idea of free speech.
You fought for this ideal once, but you clearly never supported the idea, did you?

As to your stating that there is "no real enemy," that's nothing more than unadulterated bullshit and you should at least have sufficient intellect to realize that. If not, well ... you have my sympathies, but not my agreement.


May I ask in all seriousness. Who is the enemy? Specifically please.

--snip--

I just can't see that Casey would think that his mother is dishonoring him. Then again, I didn't know him.

Neither did you.

She did.

I've seen you call her horrible names. That, more than anything, dishonors his memory. Right? Even if Casey disagreed with his mothers actions and affiliations, I have no doubt whatsoever that he'd gladly dismantle your face for some of the things you've said about her. In other words, by reacting so strongly, you run afoul of the very thing you're trying to avert. You dishonor his memory by failing to take his feelings into account.

As for being publicity hounds...well duh! Protestors, Politicians, Actors, Journalists, Lawyers...they're all publicity hounds. You can't get anything done unless you attract a sufficient amount of attention. Do you think the Texas evacuations would be happening so early and so nearly completely if the public hadn't been made aware of the dangers via Katrina?

Would the anti-war effort make any headway at all if they all stayed at home and remained quiet?

Would candidates get any votes if they didn't try to find the limelight?

Would you call Martin Luther King Jr. a publicity hound?

How about the Women's sufferage protestors? Without the signs and the newspapers, women would remain unrepresented.

Does anything get done in this country, or anywhere for that matter, unless you grab some publicity and rub people's noses in it?

Finally, let's imagine that you're running a "respect the soldiers" campaign and Kenneth Lay came up and said, "Here's $1,000,000 for your campaign," would you turn him away because he's possibly a criminal and at the very least a politically and capitally motivated scumbag?

Saying that cindy Sheehan has no right to protest and organise and state her views is an insult to every American soldier who swears an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States . Its an insult to the hundreds of thousands who have died to protect our country and our Constitution . its an insult to the millions who have been injured in the course of protecting our rights to FREE expression . She may be the biggest asshole dweeb fanatic radical liberal scum BUT she has the right to be . She has every right to stand up to what she feels is wrong no matter how deluded she may be .
Her rights to stand against the tide are what makes us Americans . Wake up .

OK, couple of points and questions:

1. How is she dishonouring her sons memory, if anyone knew if she was wouldn't it be her?

2. Legitimate question, why is using the names of other dead soldiers illegal?

3. Anyone that seeks to spread their opinion through the media are in some way seeking publicity. Anyway, have you stopped to think that if the media is a representation of the society in which it operates then why do they keep publisising her cause? If they really disagreed with what she was saying then they wouldn't draw any attention to her at all.

4. Who is the enemy? They are a versatile group of militia that can easily disappear into the background, like when Faluja was "captured" by American forces. The only real fighters were the ones willing to die, all of the others escaped to fight another day, much like the Vietcong managed to do using their traps and tunnels. I'm not condoning their actions but I do oppose any war that is unescesary, and they have a right to defend against an armed force, just as America did when it won its liberty from the English.

You start an arguement but dont back it up with proof, which is what everyone wants to see. When the possibility of war against Iraq first appeared, my thinking was that if they go in and find WMD good for them, but if they dont then they need to provide answers as to why they didnt find any. Simpy saying they're too well hidden is a pansy ass answer from one of the most powerful nations in the world.

Simpy saying they're too well hidden is a pansy ass answer from one of the most powerful nations in the world.

Maybe they'll use the same claim by that England person. Mitigation by stupidity.

"Your honor, our troops were too stupid to find it."

Somehow, if WMDs in Iraq were ever to become a hot topic again, they will probably come up with a sacrificial goat. Some neo-cons would probably proclaim them "laberals" to be hiding them :p

All most of them are concerned about is attracting media attention and raising hell, fuck everybody else!
Eutrusca, please listen. As someone who is in almost constant contact with anti-war protestors, I can assure you that this is not true. They genuinely believe that the war was wrong.

Why do you always have to assign the worst possible motives to your political opponents?

What does that mean ... "to Godwin?" Referring to some demented lil poster???
Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law)

I would like to think that you're not including me in this, but I suspect that you are. The reason I attack the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan is because she truly is a manipulative, demented little person. As long as someone is against the war, has rational reasons for so doing, and doesn't do so in such a way as to dishonor the military or the war dead, I have no problem whatsoever with their speaking up.

Funny...I was just about to say that I attack Bush because he is a manipulated, demented little person.

You know, when I saw this thread title and the original post, I wasn't thinking about any of the posters on this forum (although some of them certainly fit the bill).

I was thinking about Bill O'Reilley.

That's the kind of stupid, ignorant, fucked-up reasoning he uses, day in and day out, and if I saw him on fire on the street, I wouldn't spit on him to put him out.

Eutrusca, please listen. As someone who is in almost constant contact with anti-war protestors, I can assure you that this is not true. They genuinely believe that the war was wrong.

Why do you always have to assign the worst possible motives to your political opponents?
I don't; only to those who utilize the tactics used by the so-called "Vietnam anti-war protestors." All I can see with the likes of the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan is the same starting rounds in what eventually became "the war at home" begun by the protestors during Vietnam.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being opposed to any action taken by our government. People opposed to the war in Iraq have every right to raise their voices in objection. It's only when I see them resorting to the same or similar tactics as those used during Vietnam that all my warning indicators go off.

Our "neutrality" is a joke! We're about as "neutral" as America was in WW2 pre-December 1941.

Or as neutral as you were during WW2... ;)

Saying that cindy Sheehan has no right to protest and organise and state her views is an insult to every American soldier who swears an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States . Its an insult to the hundreds of thousands who have died to protect our country and our Constitution . its an insult to the millions who have been injured in the course of protecting our rights to FREE expression . She may be the biggest asshole dweeb fanatic radical liberal scum BUT she has the right to be . She has every right to stand up to what she feels is wrong no matter how deluded she may be .
Her rights to stand against the tide are what makes us Americans . Wake up .
Precisely. The way your country's heading at the moment, the chimp is far more of a threat to the American Constitution than Cindy Sheehan or anyone in Iraq could ever become. I can't see any defense for this Patriot Act nonsense of his.

I would like to think that you're not including me in this, but I suspect that you are. The reason I attack the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan is because she truly is a manipulative, demented little person. As long as someone is against the war, has rational reasons for so doing, and doesn't do so in such a way as to dishonor the military or the war dead, I have no problem whatsoever with their speaking up.
Ditto - not to mention that she proved her loonieness with her Occupied New Orleans rant...

(Psst, I opposed the invasion - I thought Saddam was/is a vicious, genocidal pig, but he kept the Muslim Factions at bay.)

Suggested reading.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445577
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445577
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445577
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445577

Those who oppose the war are the true patriots. To support a war that is killing our troops, draining our treasury, killing thousands of innocent people, crippling our military, jeopardizing our national security, and dividing our people, is truly unpatriotic. Someone who genuinely cared about the troops would want them out of this quagmire, and would oppose them fighting in a war with no purpose and no end, a war which is actually fostering the growth of terrorism and putting them needlessly in harm's way.

"Demonstrations in opposition to the war, are the single greatest threat to the war effort."
-Richard Nixon.

People who support warmongering, and foolish agendas, HATE it when you openly point out how foolish they are.
Thus, it angers them.
They hate to be told that they are wrong.

people who oppose sacrifice for others (us sacrificing troops' lives for iraqis' freedom) hate it when you point out how naive and/or apathic they are.

...also hypocritical, since so often these same anti-war people are those most vocal about providing/preserving freedom. (here we are trying to give it to the Iraqis... and they're against that. lol)

I don't; only to those who utilize the tactics used by the so-called "Vietnam anti-war protestors." All I can see with the likes of the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan is the same starting rounds in what eventually became "the war at home" begun by the protestors during Vietnam.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being opposed to any action taken by our government. People opposed to the war in Iraq have every right to raise their voices in objection. It's only when I see them resorting to the same or similar tactics as those used during Vietnam that all my warning indicators go off.



YEs, the spitting on soldier was not the starting point of protests during Nam.

But beyond this actually being a protest, what specific correlation are you suggesting this has to then?

It seems you could make that statement about ANY form of dissent, and that you do do so in some misguided attempt to ensure that what happened then doesn;t happen now, but in reality all you come across as is a bitter man trying to quash any political discussion on the issue.



Until such time as the protest truly does start to denigrate soldiers instead of political leaders, frankly you have no basis on which to make this specious claim of yours. Because up to now it seems that the anti-war movement HAS indeed learned from the past and has been directly targeted at the leadership instead of the men and women in uniform. The only time the soldiers have come up in the popular discourse have been in specific cases where specific servicepeople DESERVED public outrage such as the direct participants at Abu Ghraib.


Your case is weak dude. And the way you rant on about it really reflects poorly on you and on the freedoms that the soldiers are tasked with defending.

...also hypocritical, since so often these same anti-war people are those most vocal about providing/preserving freedom. (here we are trying to give it to the Iraqis... and they're against that. lol)
Precisely how does installing a shi'ite government count as giving anybody freedom?

Precisely how does installing a shi'ite government count as giving anybody freedom?

Oh, you want to give them freedom, but not democracy?

I'd like to know how I am being dishonorable...

Oh, you want to give them freedom, but not democracy?


You mean the sort of freedom and democracy where the occupier credentials the allowable candidates up for election and retains veto power over all laws - including the new Constitution?

Or as neutral as you were during WW2... ;)
AHAHA! Brilliant! :D

I was wondering would anyone pick up on that one :D Kudos and have a cookie.

...also hypocritical, since so often these same anti-war people are those most vocal about providing/preserving freedom. (here we are trying to give it to the Iraqis... and they're against that. lol)
Just as the hawks so intent on giving "freedom" to Iraqis so often are against actually having it in America.

In response to the OP, this has been a common phenomenon ever since 9/11.

People then advocated, in all seriousness, 'nuking the middle east.'

I disagreed; I was labelled, frequently, a 'terrorist' or 'traitor.'

Welcome to America.

It's like this mad thing that this coke-snorting, spoilt son of a former president is seen as the 'tough guy' of American politics in contrast with a decorated soldier from the Vietnam War. It's all in the marketing, I suppose.

It's like this mad thing that this coke-snorting, spoilt son of a former president is seen as the 'tough guy' of American politics in contrast with a decorated soldier from the Vietnam War. It's all in the marketing, I suppose.

You missed "draft dodging" from your description of Bush...

I've been libeled an US-hater by the hawks. I've got banned from a channel in MIRC because of it. I don't even believe in countries, but, by all means, let them think that, by giving them info that would PREVENT MORE loss of life in Iraq such as "you shouldn't have gone there and now you should leave", I actually want to see them die there. Bush is making them die there, not me nor Cindy Sheehan nor ANYONE that disagrees with the war. It's the right of EVERYONE to speak their minds, and I DARE a chickenhawk to TRY to prevent me.

It's only when I see them resorting to the same or similar tactics as those used during Vietnam that all my warning indicators go off.
Nobody, not even Sheehan, is doing that now.

Or as neutral as you were during WW2... ;)
Exaggeration and lies! It was not a war, but an Emergency!

people who oppose sacrifice for others
-snip-
So how 'bout those taxes for welfare, Frangland? ;)

It's like this mad thing that this coke-snorting, spoilt son of a former president is seen as the 'tough guy' of American politics in contrast with a decorated soldier from the Vietnam War. It's all in the marketing, I suppose.

What do you think you know about that scum bag Kerry ? That he stabbed his friends and his fellow soldiers in the back and called them all war criminals ? The only possibile lying sack of shit that could have been so reviled himself that he could actually lose to Bush in 2004 ? What exactly do you think you know about that so called soldier ?

What do you think you know about that scum bag Kerry ? That he stabbed his friends and his fellow soldiers in the back and called them all war criminals ? The only possibile lying sack of shit that could have been so reviled himself that he could actually lose to Bush in 2004 ? What exactly do you think you know about that so called soldier ?
I think he was more of a soldier that either you or Bush could ever hope to be, and I think that if you found yourself face to face with him in a locked room, you'd shit your pants from fear. And so would Bush.