NationStates Jolt Archive

And don't even get me started on how you can't fight terror at all (since it's a feeling)...

You can fight depression with drugs and you can fight terror with guns. Of course, that's only one definition of terror; in this particular context, terror refers to the following: "violence or threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion; terrorism."

Dude--don't even try to pawn his sorry ass off on our side.

You seem petrified by the thought of that. Who knows? It might be true.

This is the cop-out answer given by pro-war groups every time the U.S. -- or any country, really -- loses a war. "The treacherous anti-war group stabbed us in the back, or we would have won!" Completely untestable, unverifiable nonsense, the right-wing version of Cheney-is-behind-every-evil-thing-in-the-world lefty conspiracy theorists.

It's how the Germans came to blame the Jews for losing WWI. Is that the sort of example you want to follow?

And just from a practical perspective, think about how absurd it is. "We'd be able to stop all those car bombings and IEDs and get the Sunnis and Shiites to hug and make up and get the government to start functioning and put the clamps down on all the revenge killings and sectarian violence and seal the porous borders IF ONLY THE TROOPS FELT BETTER ABOUT THE MISSION!"

Iraq is unwinnable because there are no military objectives to achieve. The military can't solve diplomatic, political, and policing problems, especially not in a country where the vast majority of the population wants them to pack up and go home ASAP.:headbang:

Freedom I hardly think the heat of conflict and battle that an American soldier would be thinking 'Hmmm, should I stop fighting, I mean this war was unjustified from the beginning with no WMDs etc, why should I fight', I think more likely they would be thinking, 'How am I going to survive this encounter' if that.

The military can't solve...policing problems

Actually, it most certainly can. The military can serve as a highly efficient police force if the need arises; they receive training to that effect. It's not as if the military is completely clueless when it comes to engaging in police actions. Or do you think we should export the NYPD to Baghdad?

especially not in a country where the vast majority of the population wants them to pack up and go home ASAP.:headbang:

False. Only 37% of the Iraqi populace wish for American forces to withdraw within 6 months.

http://diy.despair.com/output/poster37556097.jpg

I say good for the Americans then, they can have subversive/traitorous thoughts without having the thought-police breaking their doors down.

If you bothered to read my original post, you would have realized that I stated that the enemy who detracts most from our war effort is not the insurgent, but he who spews anti-war propaganda. Conversely, he who contributes most to our war effort is not the soldier, but he who advocates a pro-war stance. Although I am certain that our men and women in uniform are much more crucial to the war effort than I, I feel that my service can best be rendered thusly and not by joining the army.
That is the same stance taken by our dear departed friend MeansToAnEnd:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973255&postcount=112

Originally Posted by MeansToAnEnd
If you feel that way, move to a different country. By choosing to live in the US, you owe something to the country. Freedom isn't free -- you need to fight for it in order to perpetuate it.

Originally Posted by MeansToAnEnd
What's the point of dying for a cause? You can't enjoy the cause if you're dead, you know. If other people are irrational enough to give up their lives for a cause, so be it. I'm not going to -- I'm not completely bonkers.
FreedomAndGlory, MeansToAnEnd, and RealAmerica all same no difference.

False. Only 37% of the Iraqi populace wish for American forces to withdraw within 6 months.

Well a rather sad attempt to mislead. The full figures are 37% wish US troops to withdraw within 6 months plus 34% within 1 year, which means 71% of Iraqis want the US forces to withdraw. A majority by anybodies standards.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/21/iraqi-people-withdrawal/

MeansToAnEnd, from what I've read of his topics, was "fun" due to his incessant posting of preposterous ideas and ridiculous schemes. They bore no semblance to reality; not even the most gossamer ties connected them to real life. But, because of that, they were "fun."

I, on the other hand, am not trying to be original. Many people have previously espoused my viewpoints. I am not trying to be "fun." I am trying to communicate my stance on war-time dissent effectively and clearly.

Well, OK. I don't find you advocacy effective or even clear.

Do you want some help with it ?

Anyway, most of the threads on this board repeat in a one-month cycle, so you can't really claim that "originality" is even remotely attained on this forum.

Here's a hint: read 10 to 1.
Look at the front page. Look at the number of thread posts vs. the number of thread reads. The two columns on the far right.
10:1 is the average read: post ratio.

If you consider yourself a decent poster, your ratio should be better than that, not worse.

Now pick a poster. Look at their opinion on, say, the Iraq war from two years ago ... from one year ago ... from this thread. Is there any change ?

That is what you are dealing with here. Real people and their real opinions. If you are serious about this "changing the world by ranting" thing, you should see that a person's opinions will influence how they act in the real world.

But your statements about "monthly cycles" show that you don't really care about us, the real people who might read your opinions, who have in many cases tried to engage you in a real relationship of mutual persuasion.
To you, it seems, we are just an audience for your sad frustrated rants.

YES, you have a chance to change the world by posting to NSG.
NO, you are not doing it right.

Well a rather sad attempt to mislead. The full figures are 37% wish US troops to withdraw within 6 months plus 34% within 1 year, which means 71% of Iraqis want the US forces to withdraw. A majority by anybodies standards.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/21/iraqi-people-withdrawal/

I think the real number is closer to 100%, who would like us to withdraw eventually. That's the idea, after all. :p

Anyone else getting sick of FAG's 'drive-by shooting' threads?

Well, either he has a baby to look after, or he's off "spreading the word" on some other forum.
Hasn't got a Tabbed Browser either LOL

Well a rather sad attempt to mislead. The full figures are 37% wish US troops to withdraw within 6 months plus 34% within 1 year, which means 71% of Iraqis want the US forces to withdraw. A majority by anybodies standards.

It is not I who is attempting to mislead, but you. The poster to whom I was replying stated that the "vast majority" of Iraqis wanted the US to withdraw "immediately." I was simply refuting that egregiously false statement. I stated the cold, hard facts -- perhaps reality has a misleading conservative bias, though.

It is not I who is attempting to mislead, but you. The poster to whom I was replying stated that the "vast majority" of Iraqis wanted the US to withdraw "immediately." I was simply refuting that egregiously false statement. I stated the cold, hard facts -- perhaps reality has a misleading conservative bias, though.

oh my god, he's still talking after 262 posts? people, don't feed the troll.

FreedomAndGlory, just two questions.

How do you value the lives of the iraqui citizens?.

And how exactly do you think the occupation of Iraq improves the lives of each american citizen?

Thanks for answering.

Well a rather sad attempt to mislead. The full figures are 37% wish US troops to withdraw within 6 months plus 34% within 1 year, which means 71% of Iraqis want the US forces to withdraw. A majority by anybodies standards.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/21/iraqi-people-withdrawal/
Remember that that poll was released in Sept. 2006. That means that almost a year is up (majority wanted troops gone within a year) and instead of ANY forces being withdrawn, the US has actually increased troop levels by another 30,000.

Edit: the results of the poll were released in Sept. 2006. The actual poll was conducted in Sept 1 to 4. 2006. That means that 37% of Iraqis wanted US troops gone by March 2007. A further 34% wanted US troops gone by Sept. 2007, and a further 20% want US troops gone by Sept. 2008.

Therefore FAG is errant in his claims. The fact is that 71% want US troops gone by Sept. 2007!!

It is not I who is attempting to mislead, but you. The poster to whom I was replying stated that the "vast majority" of Iraqis wanted the US to withdraw "immediately." I was simply refuting that egregiously false statement. I stated the cold, hard facts -- perhaps reality has a misleading conservative bias, though.

You are technically correct - the best *kind* of correct. :p

Ah, I gotta stop zoning out to cartoon reruns. ;)

You are technically correct - the best *kind* of correct. :p

Ah, I gotta stop zoning out to cartoon reruns. ;)

No don't stop - Futurama quotes are always good.

I'm not sure where to begin. Democracy is based upon allowing dissent. Whether it is our modern democracy, or going back to ancient Greece, dissent existed and was considered necessary.

Dissent does not damage troop morale. What occurred in relatively rare incidents after Vietnam where protesters turn on the soldiers themselves... that would damage morale. The concept that all Vietnam vets were villified by the populace is a right wing fallacy. Did it happen yes, was it common no. Was it the belief of most of the US? No. It was the attitude of the late 60's and early 70's counterculture. Which was mostly a few million young people. Most of the society had no animosity for our troops. They did have a great deal of animosity for our government leaders for lying to us and keeping us in another countries civil war. If you don't think Vietnam was a civil war, then you need to study the historical background on the war then comeback and say something which is not uninformed.

Dissent is the RIGHT, of citizens in a Democracy. In times of strife, it is our DUTY. The political philosophers from whom our founding fathers based their ideals made it clear. When oppressed by a government (as I believe we are now) we should resist. IF it goes on long enough and is bad enough we should overthrow that government. (We aren't there yet, but another questionable election and I'm taking up arms) Read some John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Unless you have, you pretty much have no place opening your mouth and commenting on this. You have the right to say it, you are just totally ignorant on the basis for our democracy. Its like a four year old telling you what to do.

Interesting that you say Islamo-fascism is a threat. Dissent is unpatriotic... exactly the kinds of things dictators say to quell dissent. SO, you are for totalitarianism? It is clear you are massively ignorant of even basic political philosophy and rights theory. It is clear you are massively ignorant of history. It is clear YOU ARE the problem with America today. People don't know enough, don't think enough or reflect enough on what happens. People like you got us into this. I just hope that it doesn't take a civil war of our own to get us out of it...

I didn't respond to convince you of the error of your ways... that would be doing this :headbang: I won't even bother to deconstruct your argument. The logical fallacies in it are copious. I posted to let others know there is another person with thinks you are full of it. Oh and welcome to ignore. My 1st one.

One of the most infuriating messages which I have seen ubiquitously splashed about on bumper stickers is the following: "dissent IS patriotic," or some other variant thereof. Under the current circumstances with which we are faced (namely, the terrible specter of Islamo-fascism, silently hovering above us and patiently awaiting a chance to strike), the statement should read: "dissent IS traitorous."

... (rest of rant snipped for mercy)


Here, in the western democracies, we believe that dissent is vital to democracy itself, because we have seen that, when dissent is called treason, dictatorship begins.

Other non-Western and/or non-democratic countries may have different views about that, of course.

He who doesn't accept dissent, doesn't accept democracy. Period.

While dissent is vital to a democratic system, it is not, by default, "patriotic".

It is an exercise of an essential freedom, and nothing more.

Dissent is not by default, "always right and correct and full of value" either.

While dissent is vital to a democratic system, it is not, by default, "patriotic".

It is an exercise of an essential freedom, and nothing more.

Dissent is not by default, "always right and correct and full of value" either.

That's because patriotism is totally dependant on the values we attach to that piece of non-submerged earth crust we call "homeland" or "fatherland" or "motherland" or "my country".

If my country were ruled by a dictator, I would be proudly "antipatriotic" - although I would think that the dictator is the one who's really antipatriotic.
Since my country is a democracy, I feel absolutely patriotic.

We are the Administration. Resistence is futile.

Conversely, he who contributes most to our war effort is not the soldier, but he who advocates a pro-war stance.

I always thought it was the chef takin advantage of supply... An army doesn't march on an empty stomach you know

Crossbreed them with roaches. Nothing can kill roaches.

10 times the max radiation for humans will :p .

oh my god, he's still talking after 262 posts? people, don't feed the troll.

You don't have to participate. There are other threads.

Crikey, it's F&G's thread. Don't go under the bridge if you don't want to meet the troll.

Sadly, you're using a straw-man argument in an attempt to enhance a valid point.

Said the scarecrow.

Did I ever suggest that American soldiers would curl up in the fetal position as a reaction to dissent? No. I simply stated that some would no longer perform their duties to their utmost capacity. Common sense dictates this.

What evidence do you have to support this? I know this has been said ad nauseum, but exactly how does that work? How does disagreeing with this administration (or any administration) demoralize the troops? I'd appreciate an answer that is a little more profound than "because it does".

Let me ask you the inverse of my thesis: do you believe that a man who devoutly believes in a cause will more staunchly fight for it than a man who does not?

Probably, yes. What's that got to do with anything? Are you seriously claiming that the average U.S. serviceman is a) unable to figure out that things aren't going well unles he hears that from someone else, and b) cannot concentrate on his/her job because people disagree with the President's policy? Or are you still stuck in a Vietnam era mentality, when some in the anti-war movement made the mistake of blaimng the soldiers instead of placing the blame where it belonged -- on the President?

If so, then it follows that as confidence in the war drops, so too does the effort expended by our troops decrease.

No, it does not. You've yet to prove a causal relationship. You haven't proven "If A, then B". You seem to have this habit of stating your opinion, then sitting back, and expecting people to bask in the glory of your wisdom. Your opinion is just that -- opinion. As such, it falls to you to provide a valid reason that others should agree with it. You are welcome to your opinion, but your right to express yourself stops at slander and libel. Unless you have proof that those against the war are indeed giving aid and comfort to Al Qaeda, that is precisely what your use of the word treason is.

To F&G:

Your days of propagandizing here are done. NSG has got better, while you have disdained the opportunity to grow with it.

You're still peddling the same brand of hit-and-run, hot-button, pick-the-soft-target trash that got you by a few months (years?) ago.

I hope you've enjoyed yourself, if it's all just been a game. If not, I hope you can overcome your disappointment at not winning a single point.

Even with your level of self-delusion, it must be painfully clear to you that you're getting owned, repeatedly.

Your self-respect can't stand it, and it's only going to get worse for you as we get better.

The forest has come to Dunsenain. It's over, mate.

Speaking as a former soldier, the only thing that matters is the public perception of soldiers when I get home.

It's currently a concern on the other forum I inhabit. They're expecting that the same people who say, "the war was illegal" or "the war sucks" are going to be the same people who spit on them when they get home.

There's been plenty of hostility when people come home on leave - more than enough to convince them that this will be the case.

Once Bush leaves office (which isn't long from now), and the drawdown occurs (Sen. Levin says it wouldn't be able to start until next year, and he's the Democrat on the relevant committee), the same people will look for people to blame aside from Bush. And I'm convinced that they'll blame the soldiers.

Speaking as a former soldier, the only thing that matters is the public perception of soldiers when I get home.

It's currently a concern on the other forum I inhabit. They're expecting that the same people who say, "the war was illegal" or "the war sucks" are going to be the same people who spit on them when they get home.

There's been plenty of hostility when people come home on leave - more than enough to convince them that this will be the case.

Once Bush leaves office (which isn't long from now), and the drawdown occurs (Sen. Levin says it wouldn't be able to start until next year, and he's the Democrat on the relevant committee), the same people will look for people to blame aside from Bush. And I'm convinced that they'll blame the soldiers.

A few, maybe, but this isn't Vietnam. I think most people would know better now. We may not have learned much from Vietnam, but I think we've learned that.

Thanks to this thread, I am no longer bored.

*gets bowl of ice cream*

Anyone want some?

If the US were to become a nation that punishes dissent it would cease to be a country worth defending.

Quite

A few, maybe, but this isn't Vietnam. I think most people would know better now. We may not have learned much from Vietnam, but I think we've learned that.

People have already done the "calling the troops babykillers" thing. Spat on them, etc.

I think that there are plenty of jerks willing to say and do those things.

Not saying that *all* opponents of the war are doing this - but there are plenty already.

Last time I looked America was still a democracy. Its policies do revolve around what the voters think.

Not necessarily. Politicians regularly do the opposite of what they promise to do. Examples: "We are not going to send American boys 9,000 or 10,000 miles away to do what Southeast Asian boys ought to be doing themselves."

"I've said it before and I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent to fight any foreign wars."

"Read my lips: No new taxes."

And of course, George W. Bush's nonsense about "no more nation building."

Speaking as a former soldier, the only thing that matters is the public perception of soldiers when I get home.

It's currently a concern on the other forum I inhabit. They're expecting that the same people who say, "the war was illegal" or "the war sucks" are going to be the same people who spit on them when they get home.

There's been plenty of hostility when people come home on leave - more than enough to convince them that this will be the case.

Once Bush leaves office (which isn't long from now), and the drawdown occurs (Sen. Levin says it wouldn't be able to start until next year, and he's the Democrat on the relevant committee), the same people will look for people to blame aside from Bush. And I'm convinced that they'll blame the soldiers.

I understand what you are fearing, I do, but I don't think that is how it is going to happen.

I live in a highly anti-Iraq war state (Massachusetts), and have never ran into a person IRL who blamed the troops for the war. I have run into some who (and I think rightly) blamed small numbers of troops for certain acts, such as torture of Abu Grab, but never the entire military, or even the military itself. They blamed those particular bad people, to the point of declaring them as "dishonoring our good men and women of the service".

More than any war in our history, people see this one as the fault of this administration, not of the military. They even have seen numerous examples where the military has tried to steer the conflict, both before it started and during it, on different and more successful courses, only to be shot down by the administration.

The staunchest anti-war protestors I know are also large contributors to projects like the local "LTC Dad" project. This is something where we create care packages of fun food and such that we send to troops currently stationed in Iraq. We even started sending school supplies and children's toys when the soldiers asked if we could send stuff to give to the Iraqi children.

As a member of Civil Air Patrol (US Air Force auxiliary), I wear an Air Force uniform. I have only once in this entire war EVER been mistreated for wearing the uniform, and it was while purchasing donuts for a staff meeting I was attending in April 2003. Someone shouted "murderer" at me (rather comical since the primary role I played at the time was search and rescue of crashed aircraft in the US, my job was to save lives), and one of the employees promptly threw them out of the store and gave me a free donut.

These days, I receive thanks for my service (and sadly have to tell them that I am not in the full military, what I do, etc.).

I really don't think we are going to have a situation where the troops come home to be blamed for this war. In fact the biggest worry on treatment I see is from the administration itself. They already mistreat injured veterans coming back, what are they going to do when the rest of the troops come home?

Which is more traitorous and un-American- questioning a war which we were led into under false pretenses and has now cost the lives of well over 3,000 American soldiers, or blindly supporting it no matter how many lies it was based on?

And supporting the troops and supporting the war does not have to be the same thing.

I really don't think we are going to have a situation where the troops come home to be blamed for this war. In fact the biggest worry on treatment I see is from the administration itself. They already mistreat injured veterans coming back, what are they going to do when the rest of the troops come home?

If you read the comments on Daily Kos, they are already being blamed.

There has been at least one very public yet questionable spitting incident.

There has been incidents where soldiers in hospital were mailed cards saying, "I hope you die of your injuries".

I've been cursed at and called "babykiller" at protests.

Like I said - not the majority of anti-war people. But enough of them to make the feeling stick.

Speaking as a former soldier, the only thing that matters is the public perception of soldiers when I get home.

It's currently a concern on the other forum I inhabit. They're expecting that the same people who say, "the war was illegal" or "the war sucks" are going to be the same people who spit on them when they get home.

Well, I would never disrespect a soldier for fighting under orders. It's what they are supposed to do. Perhaps the structure of armies should be different, more like a guerilla force or a people's militia, but it certainly isn't on the scale of any big nation. In so far as they followed orders, and those orders were determined by a democratic government, I must respect them.

"Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die." ... in the words of a poet recording a foolish and callous sacrifice of troops, from the safety of the homeland.

There's been plenty of hostility when people come home on leave - more than enough to convince them that this will be the case.

And that's fucked.

Once Bush leaves office (which isn't long from now), and the drawdown occurs (Sen. Levin says it wouldn't be able to start until next year, and he's the Democrat on the relevant committee), the same people will look for people to blame aside from Bush. And I'm convinced that they'll blame the soldiers.

Well, one thing that could prevent, or at least ameliorate that, is that veterans and even serving soldiers speak out against the war, while still honouring their commitment to serve.

As John Kerry did during ... h-hem ... that other war.

As John Kerry did during ... h-hem ... that other war.

Well, I think what people might consider "unpatriotic" is lying to the public in order to influence them.

So, people are upset at Bush for his reasons for invading Iraq (it's still questionable to me whether Bush lied, or Tenet lied, or what). Either way, the reasons turned out to be BS and there you go - people say it's unpatriotic.

We could take all of Kerry's Winter Soldier bullshit and call him unpatriotic as well.

Dissent IS patriotic...and here's why! This country was founded and further refined by our constitution and bill of righs! In the last four years, We have seen these rights being trampled or outright violated! We have innocent men and women being incarcerated daily for crimes they did not commit! We have gone to war without popular support nor congressional approval. Our President and his cronies have all but removed our country from international courts, They have violated countless Geneva convention articles, and have murdered THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of innocent men, women, and CHILDREN!!! This war is nothing more than a show of imperial force! And for YOU to have the guts to call me unpatriotic for speaking out against these outright atrocities is just ridiculous. You need to gather some facts before you judge people! Why not read up on the PNAC and read their thoughts on the fact that our country NEEDS a new "Pearl Harbor" and read about how the tried to pass the patriot act when CLINTON was still in office! I could go on for days you uneducated, narrow minded neocon! Hey, how bout we kill your family and we'll see if you dont take up arms against us! Do you not think about that? That we have our troops in THEIR country everyday killing innocent civilians! How are they supposed to react when we rob them of their dignity EVERY SINGLE DAY! and I'M unpatriotic! fuck you, fuck you very much sir!!!!!:upyours:

Presumably F&G would consider the right to bear arms as a protection against government tyranny also treason.

Presumably F&G would consider the right to bear arms as a protection against government tyranny also treason.

No. Why would you think that?

Presumably F&G would consider the right to bear arms as a protection against government tyranny also treason.

Only during war time.

No. Why would you think that?

It is a natural extension of your argument that showing any dissent against government is traitorous.

No. Why would you think that?

Well, let's see...you say you support free speech, but say it's wrong and possibly should be illegal to oppose the war in Iraq. Why not hold some disgusting mold of doublethink and horseshit as a view on the Second Amendment as well?

You have lost the ability to claim "I am not a troll" without being laughed at. That statement coming from you is now officially as ridiculous as Richard Nixon saying "I am not a crook."

Let me ask you the inverse of my thesis: do you believe that a man who devoutly believes in a cause will more staunchly fight for it than a man who does not?Probably, yes.

Very well: we are in agreement. Progressing further along this line of thought, do you feel that a soldier's belief in the sanctity of a cause is undermined by a media which constantly assaults the fundamental tenets of the cause, and even goes so far as to deem it "futile"?

It is a natural extension of your argument that showing any dissent against government is traitorous.

Against a democratically-elected government, yes.

Against a democratically-elected government, yes.

Our government allows and supports freedom of speech.

You disagree with that, hence dissent.

Hence, you are a traitor.

:) :) :)

Want a towel?

Our government allows and supports freedom of speech.

Naturally, there are some limitations on the right to free speech; exceptions must be made for instances in which unrestricted free speech would cause otherwise avoidable suffering. For example, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre nor are you able to instruct someone to commit murder. Similarly, you should not be able to recklessly damage the welfare of our troops.

Naturally, there are some limitations on the right to free speech; exceptions must be made for instances in which unrestricted free speech would cause otherwise avoidable suffering. For example, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre nor are you able to instruct someone to commit murder. Similarly, you should not be able to recklessly damage the welfare of our troops.

Yes, yes. It's not dissent when YOU do it.

Whatever, traitor. Go hang yourself.

Naturally, there are some limitations on the right to free speech; exceptions must be made for instances in which unrestricted free speech would cause otherwise avoidable suffering. For example, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre nor are you able to instruct someone to commit murder. Similarly, you should not be able to recklessly damage the welfare of our troops.

If a their is a trend of cops beating up innocents I think it is fair to sacrifice their morale to improve their working practices. My opinion goes for soldiers as well. If they are doing something I don't agree with then their morale is fair game

Whatever, traitor. Go hang yourself.

I must admit: I don't much like your attitude.

Naturally, there are some limitations on the right to free speech; exceptions must be made for instances in which unrestricted free speech would cause otherwise avoidable suffering. For example, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre nor are you able to instruct someone to commit murder. Similarly, you should not be able to recklessly damage the welfare of our troops.

Actually, you can do both of those things, although the latter one could potentially lead to charges of conspiracy to commit murder. As for "recklessly damaging the welfare of our troops," perhaps that wouldn't be an issue if we were fighting a war that was publicly supported and benefited the USA. And, for a final quote to cap it all off... "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

Naturally, there are some limitations on the right to free speech; exceptions must be made for instances in which unrestricted free speech would cause otherwise avoidable suffering. For example, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre nor are you able to instruct someone to commit murder. Similarly, you should not be able to recklessly damage the welfare of our troops.

You are unable to prove that the latter is occurring beyond saying "because I say it is".

Before we start restricting speech, it needs to be PROVEN that it is even a problem. I can find news stories and events where yelling "fire" in a crowded theater killed people.

Prove your point.

I must admit: I don't much like your attitude.

That's funny. I was just thinking how much I loved your attitude.

What undermines the morale of the troops is not dissent at home, it's lack of leadership in the government, and this particular government has shown an appalling lack of leadership. A plan whereby our troops could actually do their job, instead of foo-fooing around, and then come home to country that respects them would do more for morale than silencing the people who want them home and not in Iraq.

There has been at least one very public yet questionable spitting incident.

4+ years of war and one spitting incident? I'm sorry, but that can be written off as that person being an asshole, not an epidemic of anti-soldier belief.

There has been incidents where soldiers in hospital were mailed cards saying, "I hope you die of your injuries".

And what has the public response been? What is the number of people actually writing those? I bet it is something on the scale of the number in the WBC protests at funerals.

I've been cursed at and called "babykiller" at protests.

I hate to say this, but I genuinely doubt that.

That's funny. I was just thinking how much I loved your attitude.

http://www.juggle.co.za/non-seq-970522.gif

What undermines the morale of the troops is not dissent at home, it's lack of leadership in the government, and this particular government has shown an appalling lack of leadership. A plan whereby our troops could actually do their job, instead of foo-fooing around, and then come home to country that respects them would do more for morale than silencing the people who want them home and not in Iraq.

It also undermines morale to say, "we appreciate your effort so far, but despite the fact that you've lost a few friends and want some payback, we're going to bring you home and call it a wash - we'd like you to know that this has all been for nothing, and whether or not you're tired of it, we're tired of seeing it on TV every night (yeah, the war doesn't really affect us - funny, that)."

It also undermines morale to say, "we appreciate your effort so far, but despite the fact that you've lost a few friends and want some payback, we're going to bring you home and call it a wash - we'd like you to know that this has all been for nothing, and whether or not you're tired of it, we're tired of seeing it on TV every night (yeah, the war doesn't really affect us - funny, that)."

Revenge for soldiers doesn't seem like a great reason to keep a war going to be honest

If you read the comments on Daily Kos, they are already being blamed.

There has been at least one very public yet questionable spitting incident.

There has been incidents where soldiers in hospital were mailed cards saying, "I hope you die of your injuries".

I've been cursed at and called "babykiller" at protests.

Like I said - not the majority of anti-war people. But enough of them to make the feeling stick.
Personally, I think that you are full of shit. :p

Prove your point.

I'll put it simply, so that everyone can understand.

Soldier believes in Iraq War.
Soldier enlists and fights in Iraq.
Soldier listens to scary media reports.
Soldier begins to have doubts about Iraq War.
Soldier's performance begins to slip.

I'll put it simply, so that everyone can understand.

Soldier believes in Iraq War.
Soldier enlists and fights in Iraq.
Soldier listens to scary media reports.
Soldier begins to have doubts about Iraq War.
Soldier's performance begins to slip.

Doesn't work that way.

More like this:

Soldier likes being a soldier.
War happens.
Soldier is deployed (for infantry, YAY! we get to kick some ass)
Soldier fights in Iraq
Soldier listens to media reports that don't correspond to his personal experience
Soldier ignores media
People at home are tired of seeing war on TV
People at home vote to change the channel by ending war
Soldier comes home, minus a few friends, wondering WTF?

Personally, I think that you are full of shit. :p

I can say that too.

Personally, I think you're full of shit.

I'll put it simply, so that everyone can understand.

Soldier believes in Iraq War.
Soldier enlists and fights in Iraq.
Soldier listens to scary media reports.
Soldier begins to have doubts about Iraq War.
Soldier's performance begins to slip.

Soldier believes in Iraq War.
Soldier enlists and fights in Iraq.
Soldier gets PTSD from the senseless, bloody violence.
Soldier begins to have doubts about Iraq War.
Soldier's performance begins to slip.

Oops, I left out the Blame The Traitorous Media part. Silly me!

I'll put it simply, so that everyone can understand.

1)Soldier believes in Iraq War.
2)Soldier enlists and fights in Iraq.
3)Soldier listens to scary media reports.
4)Soldier begins to have doubts about Iraq War.
5)Soldier's performance begins to slip.
6)???
7) Profit.



Fixed. :)

Fixed. :)

Yeah, but where's the soldier's underwear?

It also undermines morale to say, "we appreciate your effort so far, but despite the fact that you've lost a few friends and want some payback, we're going to bring you home and call it a wash - we'd like you to know that this has all been for nothing, and whether or not you're tired of it, we're tired of seeing it on TV every night (yeah, the war doesn't really affect us - funny, that)."

I don't deny this, but my statement remains, a plan is needed whereby the troops can complete their job and come home. The leadership needed to create and implement this plan is just not there. Bush wants to throw money and troops at the problem, and what's needed is a better use of the money and troops. Unfortunately, none of the candidates I see, on both sides, seems to be able to provide any better leadership in this area than Bush.

Oh, and the war does affect me. My kids were in the military during Desert Storm and it looks like my daughter will be going back in - this time into the Air Force as an officer.

Look, I know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I'm truly flattered. But, really, you've got to stop copying everything I say. First you mimicked my "attitude" comment and now you've copied my list. Think of something original, please.

It's quite possible to make a point by changing what you said.

I can say that too.

Personally, I think you're full of shit.

Yes, but when he says it, he's right on, because you're an admitted troll. How many trolling accounts did you say you and your buddies created here again? How many times did you feel the need to lie about your RO persona being the same as your DK persona?

You're a fucking liar and nothing you say has any meaning. Sorry kid, that's how trust works - you break it, it remains broke no matter how much drivel you spew after.

It also undermines morale to say, "we appreciate your effort so far, but despite the fact that you've lost a few friends and want some payback, we're going to bring you home and call it a wash - we'd like you to know that this has all been for nothing, and whether or not you're tired of it, we're tired of seeing it on TV every night (yeah, the war doesn't really affect us - funny, that)."

Ten close friends who have been there, 5 badly injured, and one dead cousin. Please don't tell me the war doesn't effect me when I protest it.

Yeah, but where's the soldier's underwear?

Somewhere in the ???

:)

Soldier believes in Iraq War.
Soldier enlists and fights in Iraq.
Soldier gets PTSD from the senseless, bloody violence.
Soldier begins to have doubts about Iraq War.
Soldier's performance begins to slip.

Look, I know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I'm truly flattered. But, really, you've got to stop copying everything I say. First you mimicked my "attitude" comment and now you've copied my list. Think of something original, please.

Yes, but when he says it, he's right on, because you're an admitted troll. How many trolling accounts did you say you and your buddies created here again? How many times did you feel the need to lie about your RO persona being the same as your DK persona?

You're a fucking liar and nothing you say has any meaning. Sorry kid, that's how trust works - you break it, it remains broke no matter how much drivel you spew after.

Sorry, this is the Internet, where you can't even prove who you really are. Have fun believing that we really know and believe who you are.

I'll put it simply, so that everyone can understand.

Soldier believes in Iraq War.
Soldier enlists and fights in Iraq.
Soldier listens to scary media reports.
Soldier begins to have doubts about Iraq War.
Soldier's performance begins to slip.

That is not proof, that is more unproven assertions and claims.

Ten close friends who have been there, 5 badly injured, and one dead cousin. Please don't tell me the war doesn't effect me when I protest it.

You're in a distinct minority.

Plus, they weren't drafted. You might have something to say if they were drafted, but you can't say that.

That is not proof, that is more unproven assertions and claims.

Which part? Did some people believe in the Iraq War, thus prompting them to enlist in the army? Yes: that is a fact. Did some of those people fight in Iraq? Yes: that is a fact. Did some of those people listen to media reports critical of the war in Iraq? Yes: that is a fact. Did those media reports have an adverse effect upon them and undermine their belief in the Iraq War? Yes: that is common sense.

No. Just because free speech is a fundamental right does not imply that its employment cannot be traitorous.

I'm waiting for you to realize the contradiction in terms you just presented. Free speech is not freedom from hurting your feelings or ruffling your opinionated feathers. Review back to where I cited case law from findlaw.com for you and actually try to understand what free speech is.

You're in a distinct minority.

Plus, they weren't drafted. You might have something to say if they were drafted, but you can't say that.

I was talking about the Iraq war, there is no draft. My cousin died in 2004, not 1968.

I'll put it simply, so that everyone can understand.

Soldier believes in Iraq War....................................YES! I qualify.
Soldier enlists and fights in Iraq............................No. I didn't.
Soldier listens to scary media reports...................No. I wouldn't.
Soldier begins to have doubts about Iraq War.....No. I can't.
Soldier's performance begins to slip....................YES! My performance is slipping.

Why do you answer not one of my posts ?

Even the most derisory or mendacious answer would indicate that you don't have me on /IGNORE

Anything else is cowardice.

You soldier for the truth, you great patriot, you.

Which part?

All of it.

Did some people believe in the Iraq War, thus prompting them to enlist in the army? Yes: that is a fact.

Saying "it is a fact" does not make it evidence. Evidence would be presenting data showing that a large percentage of troops joined the service stating that they wanted to go to Iraq. You have stated no such data.

Did some of those people listen to media reports critical of the war in Iraq? Yes: that is a fact.

Again, no it is not a fact, it is a claim you are making with no supporting evidence or data.

Did those media reports have an adverse effect upon them and undermine their belief in the Iraq War? Yes: that is common sense.

"Common sense" is not supporting evidence, particularly when it is based on unproven claims and assertions (as you have done) and when those who have actually served are telling you that you are wrong. Present EVIDENCE, data, etc., not more unproven claims and assertions.

Look, I know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I'm truly flattered. But, really, you've got to stop copying everything I say. First you mimicked my "attitude" comment and now you've copied my list. Think of something original, please.

I didn't copy "your" list. I improved it for accuracy, and in so doing (again) shredded your inane "argument."

But it's no surprise you ignore that. You're a troll, if you conceded the thread would be over.

Incidentally, as for "think of something original," how about I just throw your own words back at you and make you swallow them?

I, on the other hand, am not trying to be original. Many people have previously espoused my viewpoints. I am not trying to be "fun." I am trying to communicate my stance on war-time dissent effectively and clearly.

Anyway, most of the threads on this board repeat in a one-month cycle, so you can't really claim that "originality" is even remotely attained on this forum.

Eat up.

If you bothered to read my original post, you would have realized that I stated that the enemy who detracts most from our war effort is not the insurgent, but he who spews anti-war propaganda. Conversely, he who contributes most to our war effort is not the soldier, but he who advocates a pro-war stance. Although I am certain that our men and women in uniform are much more crucial to the war effort than I, I feel that my service can best be rendered thusly and not by joining the army.

Holy Shite, you just claimed that being a chickenhawk cheerleader is more valuable than the soldiers who fight the war itself. I'll be sure to bring that back to the boys next time at training.

"Gentlemen, I come here today with a pearl of wisdom from a brave commando on the internet. He has informed me that you should be indebted to him as he supports the case for the war in which you have fought and may return to. He will not fight alongside you as his "service can best be rendered" by speaking out on NSG. Be proud to calim yourself to be amongst his greatness as an American. For without him and people like him the case for war would all be for naught. Let his thrusting arguments inspire you as you face the enemy abroad and always remember that he is with you in spirit. This is why we are the few, the proud, the Marines. And that is why he sits at his keyboard, every ready to support our great cause." HAHAHA

Doesn't work that way.

More like this:

Soldier likes being a soldier.
War happens.
Soldier is deployed (for infantry, YAY! we get to kick some ass)
Soldier fights in Iraq
Soldier listens to media reports that don't correspond to his personal experience
Soldier ignores media
People at home are tired of seeing war on TV
People at home vote to change the channel by ending war
Soldier comes home, minus a few friends, wondering WTF?

That pretty much how my Iraq experience went, up to step six. I was in OIF 1, so people weren't quite so tired of it yet.

Sorry, this is the Internet, where you can't even prove who you really are. Have fun believing that we really know and believe who you are.

No one has to prove who they "really are." Innocent until proven guilty.

You however, have proven that you're a lying troll. Proven guilty.

Maybe you should create a new persona, if you haven't already? You know, one with more credibility, until you fuck up again.

Eat up.

You're simply trolling in thus thread; thus, the onus is on you to be original. You have failed in that requirement: your trolling is not entertaining in the least.

Ah, so your valiently taking the fight to the evil denizens of NSG is heroic, not just pitiable?

Incidentally, why are anti-war sentiments propaganda, and their pro-war opposites a stance?

because you are not on the side of the great keyboard commando F.A.G.

You're simply trolling in thus thread; thus, the onus is on you to be original. You have failed in that requirement: your trolling is not entertaining in the least.

Whereas yours is so entertaining that you have actual veterans of the army you profess to admire really quite pissed at you.

Answer them, coward.

That pretty much how my Iraq experience went, up to step six. I was in OIF 1, so people weren't quite so tired of it yet.

I think that's why the first one was ended quickly - I think that Powell knew from personal experience with Vietnam that US voters want their wars over in a week, and to come home and declare victory.

Anything else is "failure" or "quagmire" or "failure to plan the peace" or something like that.

I'm sure that if we had the same mentality during WW II, we would have declared our efforts in WW II a failure after the battle of Kasserine Pass, and signed a peace treaty with Germany and Japan.

No one has to prove who they "really are." Innocent until proven guilty.

You however, have proven that you're a lying troll. Proven guilty.

Maybe you should create a new persona, if you haven't already? You know, one with more credibility, until you fuck up again.

No, on the Internet, you have no credibility in a forum where no one's identity is confirmed. Maybe you should create a new persona.

I think that's why the first one was ended quickly - I think that Powell knew from personal experience with Vietnam that US voters want their wars over in a week, and to come home and declare victory.

Anything else is "failure" or "quagmire" or "failure to plan the peace" or something like that.

I'm sure that if we had the same mentality during WW II, we would have declared our efforts in WW II a failure after the battle of Kasserine Pass, and signed a peace treaty with Germany and Japan.

By 4+ years into World War II the German army was a shell of its former self, our troops had captured and secured most of Europe, the cream of the Japanese navy was gone, and we were well into our island hopping campaign. We had countless distinct and large victories and accomplishments to point to that more than outweighed the early defeats we had.

In Iraq, 4+ years on, we have an enemy growing in strength, a capital that was captured 4 years ago yet we cannot secure, rest of the nation we cannot secure, and on a simple test to see how our accomplishments are doing we scored an 8 out of 18.

The two are not nearly comparable.

No, on the Internet, you have no credibility in a forum where no one's identity is confirmed. Maybe you should create a new persona.

A new personality might help him as well, but I fear even then he'd be intolerable.

I think that's why the first one was ended quickly - I think that Powell knew from personal experience with Vietnam that US voters want their wars over in a week, and to come home and declare victory.

Anything else is "failure" or "quagmire" or "failure to plan the peace" or something like that.

I'm sure that if we had the same mentality during WW II, we would have declared our efforts in WW II a failure after the battle of Kasserine Pass, and signed a peace treaty with Germany and Japan.

Well, the American people were rather more emotionally involved with WWII. It wasn't hard to convince the people that Germany and Japan actually were a threat to the safety of the United States. Iraq not so much. Americans seem to be fine with less justified wars as long as they're quick and to the point, but anything longer than the "week-long war" and they want it to be for what they feel is worth it. And I think it's pretty obvious that very few Americans think the Iraq War is remotely as necessary as WWII.

By 4+ years into World War II the German army was a shell of its former self, our troops had captured and secured most of Europe, the cream of the Japanese navy was gone, and we were well into our island hopping campaign. We had countless distinct and large victories and accomplishments to point to that more than outweighed the early defeats we had.

In Iraq, 4+ years on, we have an enemy growing in strength, a capital that was captured 4 years ago yet we cannot secure, rest of the nation we cannot secure, and on a simple test to see how our accomplishments are doing we scored an 8 out of 18.

The two are not nearly comparable.

Yes, they are. The US was full of fail in the early stages of the war (up until 1943). We would have had politicians clamoring for us to get out, and there would have been plenty of blame for the President.

We wouldn't have lasted 4+ years in WW II with the current mentality.

We also did things like shoot at parachuting airmen, firebomb cities, lay waste to major industrial areas with indiscriminate carpet bombing, and we used nuclear weapons in WW II.

Our allies, such as the UK, regularly executed prisoners without trial for the offense of wearing camouflage clothing, or dressing as Allied troops.

We had a different mentality all around back then. It was evidently successful.

Even after the occupation of Germany, armed resistance to Allied occupation occurred until 1948. To stop it, the French did things like shell villages in reprisal.

It worked.

No, on the Internet, you have no credibility in a forum where no one's identity is confirmed.

Nonsense. If I say one thing, and then say something directly contradictory, that ruins credibility. The fact that it's the Internet is irrelevant. I have credibility because I do not go around lying to people just for attention. You don't, because you do.

At this point your lack of understanding on this is just more trolling, unless you really are that dumb. I don't think you are though.

You're simply trolling in thus thread; thus, the onus is on you to be original. You have failed in that requirement: your trolling is not entertaining in the least.

1) I'm not trolling. If you think I am, by all means report me.
2) There is no "onus" to be original in trolling. Trolling is not about originality.
3) I notice you continue to ignore the successful counter-arguments. You know why? Because YOU are trolling. Q.E.D.

Yes, they are. The US was full of fail in the early stages of the war (up until 1943). We would have had politicians clamoring for us to get out, and there would have been plenty of blame for the President.

We wouldn't have lasted 4+ years in WW II with the current mentality.

The 4+ years we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan disagree with you. Hell, even by 1943 we had large and distinct victories, such as the bombing of Tokyo, the victory at Midway, the successful invasion of North Africa, etc. Those happened in 1942.

We also did things like shoot at parachuting airmen, firebomb cities, lay waste to major industrial areas with indiscriminate carpet bombing, and we used nuclear weapons in WW II.

Our allies, such as the UK, regularly executed prisoners without trial for the offense of wearing camouflage clothing, or dressing as Allied troops.

We had a different mentality all around back then. It was evidently successful.

Even after the occupation of Germany, armed resistance to Allied occupation occurred until 1948. To stop it, the French did things like shell villages in reprisal.

It worked.

World War II was a total war, the current one simply isn't. The president even clearly states that we aren't at war with the people of Iraq, he won't even go to congress and ask for a declaration of war. Maybe you should be harping on him to meet the pre-requisites of resembling World War II before you have us fight in that style?

As for "armed resistance" through 48, it was nothing, NOTHING on the level of what we face every week in Iraq.

A new personality might help him as well, but I fear even then he'd be intolerable.

Since to you, being an immigrant, or being Muslim, or being any minority not in league with your fascist ideals is "intolerable," I will take that as a compliment. Perhaps you should try harder at your insults... you know, do the whole "lol ur dumb" comments which were so incredibly witty. ;)

*OP Snip*

...Whut?

So let me get this straight...Your name is "FreedomAndGlory", and you love America. And yet at the same time you speak against one of its most important rights: the right to speak freely. Is America the people? Or is America the government.

If you believe the latter is true... then are you sure you shouldn't be hanging out in North Korea or Iran?












...Or are you just a puppet?

What do you have to say now, F&G ?

Waiting for some pathetic liberal whose measure you have, to pick up one of your earlier ... er, "strident" ... comments, so you can go back to the game you know?

Why not weigh in to the debate (yes, debate) between OCobra and RObserver ? It's right on topic!

Too hard for you ?

Or can you not bring yourself to contradict either, because that would be undermining the "morale" of soldiers ?

Here, take the easy option. Debate the drunken Aussie celibate guy, five hours past his bedtime. Even if I win, I'll say something nice about what you said. I'll think of something.

Or be a coward and slink away.

The 4+ years we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan disagree with you. Hell, even by 1943 we had large and distinct victories, such as the bombing of Tokyo, the victory at Midway, the successful invasion of North Africa, etc. Those happened in 1942.

Sorry, the invasion of North Africa was initially a fiasco.

Read your history books. Also, the bombing of Tokyo was a sham and a PR stunt. It would have been revealed as such in our current climate.

Also, in 1943, we were still trying to figure out how to fight night battles at sea, with several disastrous consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Savo_Island

In 1942, we were fuckups at sea - it would have been played in the press with our current mentality as an unmitigated disaster.

Sorry, the invasion of North Africa was initially a fiasco.

Read your history books. Also, the bombing of Tokyo was a sham and a PR stunt. It would have been revealed as such in our current climate.

Also, in 1943, we were still trying to figure out how to fight night battles at sea, with several disastrous consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Savo_Island

In 1942, we were fuckups at sea - it would have been played in the press with our current mentality as an unmitigated disaster.

That just demonstrates that the media evolved into money-hungry bastards with no respect for news. Hell, they wouldn't report JFK hittin broads every other day in the WH pool out of common decency.

That just demonstrates that the media evolved into money-hungry bastards with no respect for news. Hell, they wouldn't report JFK hittin broads every other day in the WH pool out of common decency.

And that's my point.

We don't live in a society that can handle a war that will last longer than two weeks, or a society that has news organizations that don't peddle steamy scandal stuff, or a society that can honestly commit themselves to any major cause for longer than it takes to get tired of it on TV.

Sorry, the invasion of North Africa was initially a fiasco.

And still had major victories by the end of 1942, and within the first 6 months of 43 was over with an Allied victory.

Read your history books. Also, the bombing of Tokyo was a sham and a PR stunt. It would have been revealed as such in our current climate.

Read them, and yes, it was a symbolic victory, but a victory none the less. The best the administration can usually come up these days is to lie about the results of its own intelligence.

Also, in 1943, we were still trying to figure out how to fight night battles at sea, with several disastrous consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Savo_Island

In 1942, we were fuckups at sea - it would have been played in the press with our current mentality as an unmitigated disaster.

Which somehow discounts concrete victories that occurred and where usable as examples? Midway? Coral Sea? etc.?

No, sorry, the fact that the war wasn't won yet doesn't mean that there were not copious amounts of measurable victories to present to the American people, where today we can't.

In addition, you are still tearing apart one year into the war. We aren't one year into Iraq, we just aren't. We are 4 years in, and still can no where near convince the American people of the good that was could be demonstrate after one year in WW2.

And that's my point.

We don't live in a society that can handle a war that will last longer than two weeks, or a society that has news organizations that don't peddle steamy scandal stuff, or a society that can honestly commit themselves to any major cause for longer than it takes to get tired of it on TV.

Explain to me Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan (which still has popular support, even many Americans wishing we had more troops there), etc. Even Iraq. They all lasted beyond two weeks.

And still had major victories by the end of 1942, and within the first 6 months of 43 was over with an Allied victory.

Sorry, you can't spin it that way. You have to find only the negative news, and spin that as negative. That's today's way.

Oh, there are victories. How quickly was Saddam's army defeated? How quickly were the Taliban run out into Pakistan? Did we have elections? Did we have restoration of infrastructure that didn't exist prior to the invasions?

Oh, those are spun as bad, even if they are published. Which generally they are not.

And are our enemies vilified in the press? No, because the New York Times likes them.

Ever going to read a story like this in the mainstream media?

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm

Ah, no. Not interested.

How about this one?

http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm

Nope - contradicts the Democratic view that only bad US soldiers kill people
(thanks to Mr. Murtha)

You know, it occures to me that the easiest way to solve the split opinion on the war would be for everyone of age and able body who supports it to take up arms and go over there and fight. And I mean EVERYONE. Wealthy or poor. Farmer or government official. If you want your country to go fight so badly, go over there, stop bitching that not everyone agrees with you and HELP! I'm sure there will be more than enough people left behind in America to keep the country running smoothly, and there will be far less arguing in the end.

Everyone's happy, eh?

You know, it occures to me that the easiest way to solve the split opinion on the war would be for everyone of age and able body who supports it to take up arms and go over there and fight. And I mean EVERYONE. Wealthy or poor. Farmer or government official. If you want your country to go fight so badly, go over there, stop bitching that not everyone agrees with you and HELP! I'm sure there will be more than enough people left behind in America to keep the country running smoothly, and there will be far less arguing in the end.

Everyone's happy, eh?

Been there, done that.

24 pages all off one post.

Not a bad troll really.

Ever going to read a story like this in the mainstream media?

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm

Ah, no. Not interested.

How about this one?

http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm

Nope - contradicts the Democratic view that only bad US soldiers kill people
(thanks to Mr. Murtha)


Yeah...Now ideally you'd put that in the newsmedia in context...juxtapose it with the hundreds of thousands dead, the millions of refugees, the money wasted, the world far more dangerous than it was.....

24 pages all off one post.

Not a bad troll really.

Not that it's that hard to get several pages of responses on NSG. I bet a blank OP would get at least 10.

Yeah...Now ideally you'd put that in the newsmedia in context...juxtapose it with the hundreds of thousands dead, the millions of refugees, the money wasted, the world far more dangerous than it was.....

I think they don't print that sort of story because it's not the official Murtha line that US troops are evil.

I think that they don't print it because even if it does make the invasion look bad, it makes the al-Q guys look even worse, and we can't have that now.

Not that it's that hard to get several pages of responses on NSG. I bet a blank OP would get at least 10.

Call it concept art and you might get away with it ;)

If you bothered to read my original post, you would have realized that I stated that the enemy who detracts most from our war effort is not the insurgent, but he who spews anti-war propaganda. Conversely, he who contributes most to our war effort is not the soldier, but he who advocates a pro-war stance. Although I am certain that our men and women in uniform are much more crucial to the war effort than I, I feel that my service can best be rendered thusly and not by joining the army.

OKaay. So, you're a hypocrite and a coward. All talk and no action. Or are you like my ex-husband? During Viet Nam there was a draft - he was 4F (diabetes) - oh, he talked a great fight about those nasty draft dodgers and people who disagreed with our being in Viet Nam - all from the safety of his 4F status. He could watch other men forced to go to war and valiantly fight his puny war of words.

Either you aren't able to volunteer, or you won't, but your anti-freedom screed brings you no credibility as long as you are a self-admitted coward.

OKaay. So, you're a hypocrite and a coward. All talk and no action. Or are you like my ex-husband? During Viet Nam there was a draft - he was 4F (diabetes) - oh, he talked a great fight about those nasty draft dodgers and people who disagreed with our being in Viet Nam - all from the safety of his 4F status. He could watch other men forced to go to war and valiantly fight his puny war of words.

Either you aren't able to volunteer, or you won't, but your anti-freedom screed brings you no credibility as long as you are a self-admitted coward.

Maybe he's in this video somewhere (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/generation-chickenhawk-t_b_56676.html).

Perhaps you recall the elementary school rhyme: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Unfortunately, when applied to the modern conditions, this is patently false. Not only can words hurt, but they can kill. The war in Iraq was deadly, fatal and injurious to the American people.


fixed

Welcome to my ignore list.

I think they don't print that sort of story because it's not the official Murtha line that US troops are evil.

I think that they don't print it because even if it does make the invasion look bad, it makes the al-Q guys look even worse, and we can't have that now.


Ahh yes, the usual shit. By the way, some US troops are evil, by the law of averages. Its painting them all as being that way thats incorrect.

Just to check - do we have a link to where this murtha said 'US troops are evil'?

And Where in the mainstream can we see direct support of Al Qaida?

Ahh yes, the usual shit. By the way, some US troops are evil, by the law of averages. Its painting them all as being that way thats incorrect.

Just to check - do we have a link to where this murtha said 'US troops are evil'?

And Where in the mainstream can we see direct support of Al Qaida?

I never said "none" of them were evil.

Check Murtha's comments on the guilt of the Marines at Haditha - most of whom will not see trial now, as the investigators have found no evidence of a crime (a few remain now).

Mainstream support of al-Q is found in their loathing to cover any al-Q atrocities.

I never said "none" of them were evil.
.

Thats good.


Check Murtha's comments on the guilt of the Marines at Haditha - most of whom will not see trial now, as the investigators have found no evidence of a crime (a few remain now)..

Polticians commenting on trials in progress is never a good idea. This is what he said?

I know there was a cover-up someplace. They knew about this a few days afterwards and there’s no question the chain of command tried to stifle the story. I can understand why, but that doesn’t excuse it. Something like this has to be brought out to the public, and the people have to be punished.

Ill-advised but again, not blanket condmenation of troops by any means...


Mainstream support of al-Q is found in their loathing to cover any al-Q atrocities.


Ok......

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/27/iraq.main/index.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/19/world/main3073532.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6902349.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6906220.stm

Thats Iraq, Pakistan and Lebanon.....

Why is this thread still going?

Just to check - do we have a link to where this murtha said 'US troops are evil'?
He didn't. What he said was:

There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood

It was the "in cold blood" part that made some people react.

Perhaps you recall the elementary school rhyme: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Unfortunately, when applied to the modern conditions, this is patently false. Not only can words hurt, but they can kill. Speeches decrying the war in Iraq are deadly, fatal to our just cause and injurious to the American people.

Not nearly as injurious as the loss of the ability to express our opinions freely.

A domestic state that is free from dissenting opinion is far more dangerous than any foreign state could ever be.

Why is this thread still going?

Because NSGers still believe in the myth that it's possible to have a reasonable debate with FAG.

I'll put it simply, so that everyone can understand.

Soldier believes in Iraq War.
Soldier enlists and fights in Iraq.
Soldier listens to scary media reports.
Soldier begins to have doubts about Iraq War.
Soldier's performance begins to slip.
Or possibly -

1-6) How the fuck could you know?, for you're not even the beginnings of a soldier, you're not even in the National Guard. Instead you choose to 'serve' by arguing with people whose opinions on the war will probably worsen because of sheer volume of crap that you talk whilst claiming to support the troops.

...Whut?

So let me get this straight...Your name is "FreedomAndGlory", and you love America. And yet at the same time you speak against one of its most important rights: the right to speak freely. Is America the people? Or is America the government.

If you believe the latter is true... then are you sure you shouldn't be hanging out in North Korea or Iran?

...Or are you just a puppet?
Come on people, wake up!! FreedomAndGlory = MeansToAnEnd

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12888876&postcount=258

Because NSGers still believe in the myth that it's possible to have a reasonable debate with FAG.


Fuck no. I just read RO's name on a post and decided to show him up and see if there was giggles in store. I was hoping for some assinine amateur drama comment along the lines of 'I've been there....the things I've seen with these eyes.....' but no. it was just lies and distorions as per usual...

Similarly, you should not be able to recklessly damage the welfare of our troops.

And yet you would tell them to just go off to die in a place they never should have been sent to in the first place. Yeah, there's a real morale booster.

You can't put a pretty picture on the situation. You need to face reality and admit that. We're in a war that never should have happened, we have a president who has no respect for the country or it's laws or freedoms, the voice of the people is being ignored, and no matter how you look at it politically this is one of the worst periods in our country's history.

I mean, for the love of all hell we can have thousands of troops mobilized and ready to go to invade a country for no other reason than the president wants to invade it but we can't do the same within our own borders when horrible natural disasters strike?

If you try to say you like things being that way people are either going to get very mad at you or assume you're off in la-la-land, which I think you are.

In the meantime, I'm going to keep counting down the days until Bush finally leaves office (550 days, 19 hours, and 49 minutes last time I checked - go here to see the countdown (http://www.bushslastday.com/)) and consider his leaving office to be the best thing he ever does for this country.

Dissent is the bread and butter of a functioning democracy.

My, my, you seem to be perfect proof that hatred begets hatred. You dislike what you perceive as hatred for the truth, so in turn you spew out more hatred. Allow me let you in on a little secret. Fighting hatred with hatred is about as efficacious as fighting forest fires with buckets of gasoline. You are merely fueling the dissent on which the enemies of this country prey, and singularly defeating your own purpose of helping this country in the process. You are inherently damning the very rights for which this country's fine fighting force is dying for. Who are you to belittle their sacrifices? This is not to say that I agree or disagree with the dissenters. But do not add to the flames with your own misplaced venom.

Come on people, wake up!! FreedomAndGlory = MeansToAnEnd

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12888876&postcount=258

Congratulations: you've managed to show that neither of us serve in the army (albeit for different reasons). That makes us just like 98% of all other Americans. But no, we must be the same person, according to your excellent reasoning skills!

Snip.

One would think you'd be a tad less given to argue after, y'know, being beaten by a song.

It's not original; many people have said this before me, and hopefully they will persist in informing the American people of the mortal peril of dissent.
Since you are asking the same of us.
STFU.

F&G, prove that morale is tied to dissent.

You can't.

How can you claim that dissent, which is criticism, hurt troop morale when they are exposed to much more that can hurt their morale?

Which is more damaging to a soldier's morale, knowing that someone in his/her home nation disagrees with the war or seeing one of their peers, who they've probably come to think of family die in front of them?

Yes death is a reality in war and conflict, but let's face it, seeing someone die would have a greater impact on one's morale and make them think about their own morality more realistically.

Dissent is the least of a soldier's worries when he/she's exposed to a barrage of bullets from an enemy he/she cannot see but knows is there. That is reality; death is waiting around the corner and you don't know who will die. It's either you or the asshole shooting at you... and when your friends get mowed down, that's a blow to morale because that means that's one less ally you've got and one more small victory for the enemy.

Until you can prove that dissent is a legitimate threat to soldier morale, you are not to quote me in your signature.

How can you claim that dissent, which is criticism, hurt troop morale when they are exposed to much more that can hurt their morale?

Men are willing to stoically bear remarkable burdens and heroically make extraordinary sacrifices if they staunchly believe their cause is righteous. However, once the media starts undermining their confidence in the justness of their actions, then they might crumble under the pressure. It is imperative that soldiers be fervently dedicated to the nobleness of the war effort -- that is their keystone, that is what drives them to persevere, day after day, even in the face of grave adversity and atrocious bloodshed. Eliminate it, and you eliminate troop morale.

If the US were to become a nation that punishes dissent it would cease to be a country worth defending.

http://www.necroticobsession.com/bb/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

I agree with you 100%

Men are willing to stoically bear remarkable burdens and heroically make extraordinary sacrifices if they staunchly believe their cause is righteous. However, once the media starts undermining their confidence in the justness of their actions, then they might crumble under the pressure. It is imperative that soldiers be fervently dedicated to the nobleness of the war effort -- that is their keystone, that is what drives them to persevere, day after day, even in the face of grave adversity and atrocious bloodshed. Eliminate it, and you eliminate troop morale.

If and might. You have given oipinion not proof and proved nothing. Again.

Why oh why can I not ignore you? :rolleyes:

Men are willing to stoically bear remarkable burdens and heroically make extraordinary sacrifices if they staunchly believe their cause is righteous. However, once the media starts undermining their confidence in the justness of their actions, then they might crumble under the pressure. It is imperative that soldiers be fervently dedicated to the nobleness of the war effort -- that is their keystone, that is what drives them to persevere, day after day, even in the face of grave adversity and atrocious bloodshed. Eliminate it, and you eliminate troop morale.

And what if their cause is truly, indeed, obviously, noxiously, NOT just?

And what if their cause is truly, indeed, obviously, noxiously, NOT just?

Gah, you took it! I wanted to say it!

*pouts*

Men are willing to stoically bear remarkable burdens and heroically make extraordinary sacrifices if they staunchly believe their cause is righteous. However, once the media starts undermining their confidence in the justness of their actions, then they might crumble under the pressure. It is imperative that soldiers be fervently dedicated to the nobleness of the war effort -- that is their keystone, that is what drives them to persevere, day after day, even in the face of grave adversity and atrocious bloodshed. Eliminate it, and you eliminate troop morale.

Even if a man can stoically bear the burden of being exposed to the death of his peers/allies, he is still human inside and the pain will hurt. He has seen what most of us have only heard of through the media. He can put on a brave face but inside he may be suffering. The soldier can still use confidence to push on but it doesn't change that they are inside like us, human and they have human emotions.

They may have been subject to death many times over to the point of ad nauseum, leading the public to believe that these soldiers are immune to it but we don't know for sure because like you've said, they put on a "brave face". It's how they probably make it through the day. They have to suppress the emotions they are feeling. It's not nice but part of the job.

If the soldier feels that the bullshit espoused by the media is a threat to their morale and confidence, they must not have the strong sense of self-righteousness needed to serve in the armed forces.

Of course, how can the media fervently support any war effort if there is no war? Remember, Congress didn't actually declare war so there is no actual war effort to speak of, and with "Mission Accomplished" claimed and a statement that all major combat operations were over, how can we continue to say that the war effort is being undermined by dissent and the media when there is no bloody war to speak of?

There may be conflicts but there is no official war. There is no actual war.

You can stamp your feet in a childish manner and ignorantly declare that the war effort is being undermined by "dissent" on the home front but that doesn't mean that there is an actual war. There can't be war until there is a declaration of war. There may be combat but that is not the same as war.

You can call this a war until the cows come home but until Congress declares war, there is no war effort to speak of.

If you want to have a legitimate debate about damaging troop morale, try and look at all the aggravating factors instead of focusing on one issue, dissent. There are plenty of contributing factors that can lower or raise troop morale respectively and if you fail to realise that these all play a significant role in their own way.

However, in the end, you have failed to prove that troop morale is damaged by dissent so remove the quote from your signature and don't quote me ever again until you can learn to back up your asinine bullshit with a little thing called "facts".

Gah, you took it! I wanted to say it!

*pouts*

*Hands you a cookie to make up for it*

And what if their cause is truly, indeed, obviously, noxiously, NOT just?

That's irrelevant; the only pertinent variable is their belief in the justness of their cause.

That's irrelevant; the only pertinent variable is their belief in the justness of their cause.

Glad to know you only see them as fodder.

Actually, it most certainly can. The military can serve as a highly efficient police force if the need arises; they receive training to that effect. It's not as if the military is completely clueless when it comes to engaging in police actions. Or do you think we should export the NYPD to Baghdad?

I think having a police force that actually speaks the language would be somewhat effective.
I think having enough troops to effectively police the whole country might help.
But I think both of these things would be too little, too late. The genie's out of the bottle, we can't stuff him back in so easily now.


False. Only 37% of the Iraqi populace wish for American forces to withdraw within 6 months.

Perhaps I overstated the case a bit. But the actual data is that "70% of Iraqis favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces. " That means 70% want us out either within 6 months or within 2 years, with the rest saying troop levels should depend on the security situation.

And look at these numbers:
-Overall, 47% say they approve of “attacks on US-led forces” (23% strongly).
-67% believe day-to-day security would increase if US-led forces leave.
-73% think there will be an increase in the willingness of factions to cooperate in Parliament if the US leaves in 6 months.
-67% think basic services would improve if the US left in 6 months.

Those numbers are from:http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg2



Also, you cherry-picked my post. That's not good enough to win an argument.

Do you know how enjoyable this thread is when you can't see FAG's posts? :D

Do you know how enjoyable this thread is when you can't see FAG's posts? :D

:p

F&G, prove that morale is tied to dissent.

You can't.

How can you claim that dissent, which is criticism, hurt troop morale when they are exposed to much more that can hurt their morale?

Which is more damaging to a soldier's morale, knowing that someone in his/her home nation disagrees with the war or seeing one of their peers, who they've probably come to think of family die in front of them?

Yes death is a reality in war and conflict, but let's face it, seeing someone die would have a greater impact on one's morale and make them think about their own morality more realistically.

Dissent is the least of a soldier's worries when he/she's exposed to a barrage of bullets from an enemy he/she cannot see but knows is there. That is reality; death is waiting around the corner and you don't know who will die. It's either you or the asshole shooting at you... and when your friends get mowed down, that's a blow to morale because that means that's one less ally you've got and one more small victory for the enemy.

Until you can prove that dissent is a legitimate threat to soldier morale, you are not to quote me in your signature.

Lack of home support sure fucked us in Vietnam...

Do you know how enjoyable this thread is when you can't see FAG's posts? :D

Yes...running away from a problem has its advantages.

Lack of home support sure fucked us in Vietnam...

And it has nothing to do with the fact that the Viet Cong sure as hell didn't want your lot there? :rolleyes: No wonder the French and English left it to you.

It IS possible to support our troops while criticizing the President and/or whatever war he sends the troops to.

It IS possible to be patriotic about our country while protesting and keeping in check those who run it.

If we're supposed to quash all opposing viewpoints just because there's a war going on, we'd be no better than the Nazis or the Communists.

Lack of home support sure fucked us in Vietnam...

And a lack of questioning authority sure would have gotten us fucked in Watergate, Iran-Contra, all those 2006 congressional scandals, etc.

And it has nothing to do with the fact that the Viet Cong sure as hell didn't want your lot there? :rolleyes: No wonder the French and English left it to you.

You don't know much about the war do you? Some research, even preliminary, and you would find that the VC acknowledged that they did not win the war, but that it was the American people who lost it.

Militarily, the the US won. Strategically, we lost. To dumb it down, some simple statistics. We lost ca. 70,000 troops. The Vietnamese lost over a million. From a tactical standpoint, we should not have had to pull out. But the antiwar movement at home forced us out...creating a hostile home environment that permeated the ranks abroad and created an enormous detriment to morale. Yes, home support matters tremendously when conducting combat operations.

And despite your semantics, there is a war going on. An undeclared war is still a war.

It IS possible to support our troops while criticizing the President and/or whatever war he sends the troops to.

It IS possible to be patriotic about our country while protesting and keeping in check those who run it.

If we're supposed to quash all opposing viewpoints just because there's a war going on, we'd be no better than the Nazis or the Communists.



And a lack of questioning authority sure would have gotten us fucked in Watergate, Iran-Contra, all those 2006 congressional scandals, etc.

Who knows? What might have happened is a matter of opinion. When discussing the present, what actually happened--and the reasons for it--are what matters.

Lack of home support sure fucked us in Vietnam...

Check out "The Fog of War". The US went in not having a clue about the enemy. Not what the enemy was fighting for. Not the goals and values of the enemy. Not the culture of the enemy. Not the beliefs of the enemy. NOTHING.

Something like Bushnam. Will we never learn?

You don't know much about the war do you? Some research, even preliminary, and you would find that the VC acknowledged that they did not win the war, but that it was the American people who lost it.

Militarily, the the US won. Strategically, we lost. To dumb it down, some simple statistics. We lost ca. 70,000 troops. The Vietnamese lost over a million. From a tactical standpoint, we should not have had to pull out. But the antiwar movement at home forced us out...creating a hostile home environment that permeated the ranks abroad and created an enormous detriment to morale. Yes, home support matters tremendously when conducting combat operations.

And despite your semantics, there is a war going on. An undeclared war is still a war.
Umm--the only way the US would have won in Vietnam would have been to have wiped out every single person there. They were fighting for independence, and you don't defeat that sort of an enemy--you can only kill him.

Congratulations: you've managed to show that neither of us serve in the army (albeit for different reasons). That makes us just like 98% of all other Americans. But no, we must be the same person, according to your excellent reasoning skills!
Actually my analysis goes much deeper than you evading serving your country. It is also based on your writing style and that of MTAE. Not only do I believe that you are MTAE but you are also RealAmerica. You leave huge fingerprints everytime you type. :D

This guy is either one of the most ignorant people I've seen in a long time, or the best troll I've seen in an equally long time.

The title of the thread is what makes me think of trolls, it's so obviously inflamatory and misguided that I don't think anyone can honestly defend the viewpoint.

*counts pages*

Very successful troll though.

Read your history books. Also, the bombing of Tokyo was a sham and a PR stunt. It would have been revealed as such in our current climate.



Fire bombing 96 cities destroying 30-98% of each, killing more in each than the atomic bomb was a little more than a stunt.

1-6) How the fuck could you know?, for you're not even the beginnings of a soldier, you're not even in the National Guard.

Hey now, what's wrong with the National Guard?

Men are willing to stoically bear remarkable burdens and heroically make extraordinary sacrifices if they staunchly believe their cause is righteous. However, once the media starts undermining their confidence in the justness of their actions, then they might crumble under the pressure. It is imperative that soldiers be fervently dedicated to the nobleness of the war effort -- that is their keystone, that is what drives them to persevere, day after day, even in the face of grave adversity and atrocious bloodshed. Eliminate it, and you eliminate troop morale.

What on earth makes you think you have any idea what you're talking about? Last I heard they didn't issue combat patches in the 101st Fighting Keyboarders. I'll tell you what motivates troops: Their buddies. Troops make "extraordinary sacrifices" for the guy next to them, not for "the cause". A soldier's motivation is the wellbeing of his comrades in arms, because he knows their motivation is his wellbeing. When you're taking fire the last thing on your mind is any political bullshit like that, it's ensuring your buddies and you (in that order) survive this engagement.

Don't ever pretend you know what it's like to be a soldier. Your accusations against the professionalism (by stating that criticism effects them in the slightest, because it doesn't) of the United States military is far more injurious to them than any criticism currently being offered by the media.

I think that's why the first one was ended quickly - I think that Powell knew from personal experience with Vietnam that US voters want their wars over in a week, and to come home and declare victory.

Anything else is "failure" or "quagmire" or "failure to plan the peace" or something like that.

I'm sure that if we had the same mentality during WW II, we would have declared our efforts in WW II a failure after the battle of Kasserine Pass, and signed a peace treaty with Germany and Japan.

The difference is in WW2 we fought the nations that had declared war on the US.

When the towers came down my first words were "this is war". But I assumed we would attack and utterly destroy those that had attacked us. I never expected we would pick a nation at random and attack without provocation.

I am ashamed of the actions we took.

Ok, FaG, just for S&Gs, I told my kids, both veterans of Desert Storm, about your idiotic opinion. My daughter said that one of the reasons she joined the Navy was precisely because she wanted a part in defending freedom to dissent. My son said substantially the same thing. Both agreed that they find it annoying, but not demoralizing, when people expressed disagreement with government policy. They did not, however, consider it treason, and were pleased that people felt free to dissent. They both expressed the opinion that you must be either stupid, ignorant or incredibly young.

Ok, FaG, just for S&Gs, I told my kids, both veterans of Desert Storm, about your idiotic opinion. My daughter said that one of the reasons she joined the Navy was precisely because she wanted a part in defending freedom to dissent. My son said substantially the same thing. Both agreed that they find it annoying, but not demoralizing, when people expressed disagreement with government policy. They did not, however, consider it treason, and were pleased that people felt free to dissent. They both expressed the opinion that you must be either stupid, ignorant or incredibly young.
or ??? :p

or ??? :p

Point taken.

While dissent is vital to a democratic system, it is not, by default, "patriotic".

It is an exercise of an essential freedom, and nothing more.

Dissent is not by default, "always right and correct and full of value" either.

By your own logic, then, neither is it treason.

People have already done the "calling the troops babykillers" thing. Spat on them, etc.

I think that there are plenty of jerks willing to say and do those things.

Not saying that *all* opponents of the war are doing this - but there are plenty already.

This is such a tiny minority that it takes some searching to find it. Read on...

4+ years of war and one spitting incident? I'm sorry, but that can be written off as that person being an asshole, not an epidemic of anti-soldier belief.



And what has the public response been? What is the number of people actually writing those? I bet it is something on the scale of the number in the WBC protests at funerals.



I hate to say this, but I genuinely doubt that.

Unfortunately, the "baby-killer" charge is not fictional. My close friend, Captain Steven R. Hobbs, US Army Infantry (Res.) came home from 18 months in Iraq in Febrary of 2005. He has always wanted to serve as an elected official in his home region (Puget Sound, near Everett, WA). His first campaign for state representative in 2005 (for which I briefly served as treasurer) was unsuccessful as he lost in the primary. The reason he lost was that the Snohomish County Demoncratic Party has within its ranks a loud minority who attempted to paint Steve as a hawk, a war-monger and a baby-killer.

These people are far-left, tie-dyed, grey-ponytail hippies who haven't had a cogent political thought since about 1974. They're out there, and they give liberals a bad name (much like Fred Phelps gives Christianity a bad name or Ann Coulter gives conservatives a bad name). The good news is that Steve ran for state senator in 2006 and won, despite some very underhanded campaigning and outright slander/libel by these aging would-be anarchist assholes. He's now in his two-week summer service for the Army Reserve, and prefers to be addressed by his civilian title: Senator Steve Hobbs (D-Lake Stevens).

So I don't doubt RO's story. I do question his attempt to play it up as being more prevalent than it actually is.

Which part? Did some people believe in the Iraq War, thus prompting them to enlist in the army? Yes: that is a fact. Did some of those people fight in Iraq? Yes: that is a fact. Did some of those people listen to media reports critical of the war in Iraq? Yes: that is a fact. Did those media reports have an adverse effect upon them and undermine their belief in the Iraq War? Yes: that is common sense.

See, that last one? That's called a non sequitur, from the Latin for "it does not follow". "Common sense" as a two-word attempt at refutation is complete crap. It's just another way of saying "because I said so". Which brings to mind another Latin phrase identifying fallacy: post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Holy Shite, you just claimed that being a chickenhawk cheerleader is more valuable than the soldiers who fight the war itself. I'll be sure to bring that back to the boys next time at training.

"Gentlemen, I come here today with a pearl of wisdom from a brave commando on the internet. He has informed me that you should be indebted to him as he supports the case for the war in which you have fought and may return to. He will not fight alongside you as his "service can best be rendered" by speaking out on NSG. Be proud to calim yourself to be amongst his greatness as an American. For without him and people like him the case for war would all be for naught. Let his thrusting arguments inspire you as you face the enemy abroad and always remember that he is with you in spirit. This is why we are the few, the proud, the Marines. And that is why he sits at his keyboard, every ready to support our great cause." HAHAHA

Yeah, when F&G posted this:
Conversely, he who contributes most to our war effort is not the soldier, but he who advocates a pro-war stance.

I immediately posted it to everywhere I could, from MySpace to Military.com -- suffice it to say that it has not garnered a favorable response. That post was how I knew F&G was just a troll, or at least just someone looking to get a rise out of NSG (like that's hard -- what's next? Stealing pacifiers from infants?)

I think that's why the first one was ended quickly - I think that Powell knew from personal experience with Vietnam that US voters want their wars over in a week, and to come home and declare victory.

Anything else is "failure" or "quagmire" or "failure to plan the peace" or something like that.

I'm sure that if we had the same mentality during WW II, we would have declared our efforts in WW II a failure after the battle of Kasserine Pass, and signed a peace treaty with Germany and Japan.

I'm sorry, you're being so deliberately obtuse that it's hard to see in here. Did you just claim that WWII, a war with clearly-defined sides (they even wore different colored uniforms and everything!), clear provocations from state-sponsored armies, a clear objective and the ability to be able to know when the job would be done...did you just claim that WWII is ANYTHING like what's happening now? I mean, beyond an actual congressional declaration of war (that one had it, this one doesn't), what more do you need to see that Iraq is in no way, shape, or form like WWII?

Sorry, you can't spin it that way. You have to find only the negative news, and spin that as negative. That's today's way.

Oh, there are victories. How quickly was Saddam's army defeated? How quickly were the Taliban run out into Pakistan? Did we have elections? Did we have restoration of infrastructure that didn't exist prior to the invasions?

Oh, those are spun as bad, even if they are published. Which generally they are not.

And are our enemies vilified in the press? No, because the New York Times likes them.

Ever going to read a story like this in the mainstream media?

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm

Ah, no. Not interested.

How about this one?

http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm

Nope - contradicts the Democratic view that only bad US soldiers kill people
(thanks to Mr. Murtha)

Those links aren't even to news sources...those are blogs. And what do you mean the defeat of Saddam's army wasn't covered? Shitloads of video of Saddam's statues being torn down and a biiiiig fuck-off banner reading "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED". I dunno...that looked like coverage to me.

"Restorarion of infrastructure"?!? Are you high? Every civilian interviewed in Iraq has told the same story! With appallingly few exceptions, water and power are more intermittent or gone altogether post-invasion!

Yes, they had elections -- and what's happening now? Oh yeah, they're taking August off because it's too hot. WHAT!?! Our soldiers are over there trying to pry your nation out of perdition in 60+ pounds of gear and full battle dress, and it's just too darn hot for you?!? They had an election, all right, but it doesn't seem like they're interested in doing anything but squabbling over trivialites and takin' a break...y'know, a break from trying to rebuild their nation...whose infrastructure WE destroyed.

Maybe he's in this video somewhere (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/generation-chickenhawk-t_b_56676.html).

Y'know, that's brilliant documentation of the entire chickenhawk movement. Beautiful.

Something else? Back when the invasion was first being planned out (it had been theorized in neocon circles for at least 5 years before 9/11, revenge and all that), the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General John Shalikashvili said that it would take at least 200,000 troops to occupy Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld and others disagreed. When the coalition forces booted Saddam out of Kuwait, they numbered short of 400,000 troops (the necessity of allies). We went in this time with 140,000 US troops and 8,000 British troops. Without a draft, there was no way we were going to be able to secure anything in a country the size of Callifornia, with 27 MILLION people in it. 148,000 soldiers wouldn't even make a persuasive voting bloc.

To do this right, my government needed to instate a draft, and there was no way in hell that was going to happen. The National Guard wouldn't be a safe haven this time! I wonder how the rich and powerful would have hept their progeny out of service this time, had a draft been established? I'm certain we'd have seen a dramatic increase in College Republican chapters at Canadian colleges.

Myself, I'd have volunteered for the draft. My brother (82d Abn. Desert Shield/Storm), father (USN 1959-1962) and uncle (can't remember offhand) all served as volunteers. I'm nobody's soldier, but I would have done what I could and would do so now if there was a draft. Why not volunteer? Because there's not enough boots on the ground in Iraq to do anything but get people killed. Infrastructure can't be replaced if insturgents keep attacking. I'm not volunteering for anything that could cost me my life if it's this poorly planned, this poorly reasoned and they had to lie to us to get us behind it.

It makes me wonder if we'd have found Osama if we sent the bulk of our forces into Afghanistan and left Iraq alone. We've retaliated far outside the scope of the 9/11 attacks, and we are justly criticized for it around the world.

And if expressing these opinions is treason, F&G, why not A) reply to ANY of my posts, you coward, and B) call the FBI, the US Marshals or the Shore Patrol for all I care, and report all of us? Why not? Because you know you're full of shit and you're just poking the hornet's nest because the buzzing keeps the voices in your head still.

They are men, not machines. They are not impervious to criticism.
What the fuck do you think the drill sergeants say to them in boot camp?

"Oh, it's okay that you didn't make it through the obstacle course, you can try again tomorrow. Here, have some ice cream."???

It's more like:

"You are a worthless little maggot! You do not deserve to be in my Corps!"
"Yes Drill Sergeant!"

By your own logic, then, neither is it treason.



This is such a tiny minority that it takes some searching to find it. Read on...



Unfortunately, the "baby-killer" charge is not fictional. My close friend, Captain Steven R. Hobbs, US Army Infantry (Res.) came home from 18 months in Iraq in Febrary of 2005. He has always wanted to serve as an elected official in his home region (Puget Sound, near Everett, WA). His first campaign for state representative in 2005 (for which I briefly served as treasurer) was unsuccessful as he lost in the primary. The reason he lost was that the Snohomish County Demoncratic Party has within its ranks a loud minority who attempted to paint Steve as a hawk, a war-monger and a baby-killer.

These people are far-left, tie-dyed, grey-ponytail hippies who haven't had a cogent poliltical thought since about 1974. They're out there, and they give liberals a bad name (much like Fred Phelps gives Christianity a bad name or Ann Coulter gives conservatives a bad name). The good news is that Steve ran for state senator in 2006 and won, despite some very underhanded campaigning and outright slander/libel by these aging would-be anarchist assholes. He's now in his two-week summer service for the Army Reserve, and prefers to be addressed by his civilian title: Senator Steve Hobbs (D-Lake Stevens).

So I don't doubt RO's story. I do question his attempt to play it up as being more prevalent than it actually is.



See, that last one? That's called a non sequitur, from the Latin for "it does not follow". "Common sense" as a two-word attempt at refutation is complete crap. It's just another way of saying "because I said so". Which brings to mind another Latin phrase identifying fallacy: post hoc, ergo propter hoc.



Yeah, when F&G posted this:


I immediately posted it to everywhere I could, from MySpace to Military.com -- suffice it to say that it has not garnered a favorable response. That post was how I knew F&G was just a troll, or at least just someone looking to get a rise out of NSG (like that's hard -- what's next? Stealing pacifiers from infants?)



I'm sorry, you're being so deliberately obtuse that it's hard to see in here. Did you just claim that WWII, a war with clearly-defined sides (they even wore different colored uniforms and everything!), clear provocations from state-sponsored armies, a clear objective and the ability to be able to know when the job would be done...did you just claim that WWII is ANYTHING like what's happening now? I mean, beyond an actual congressional declaration of war (that one had it, this one doesn't), what more do you need to see that Iraq is in no way, shape, or form like WWII?



Those links aren't even to news sources...those are blogs. And what do you mean the defeat of Saddam's army wasn't covered? Shitloads of video of Saddam's statues being torn down and a biiiiig fuck-off banner reading "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED". I dunno...that looked like coverage to me.

"Restorarion of infrastructure"?!? Are you high? Every civilian interviewed in Iraq has told the same story! With appallinggly few exceptions, water and power are more intermittent or gone altogether post-invasion!

Yes, they had elections -- and what's happening now? Oh yeah, they're taking August off because it's too hot. WHAT!?! Our soldiers are over there trying to pry your nation out of perdition in 60+ pounds of gear and full battle dress, and it's just too darn hot for you?!? They had an election, all right, but it doesn't seem like they're interested in doing anything but squabbling over trivialites and takin' a break...y'know, a break from trying to rebuild their nation...whose infrastructure WE destroyed.



Y'know, that's brilliant documentation of the entire chickenhawk movement. Beautiful.

Something else? Back when the invasion was first being planned out (it had been theorized in neocon circles for at least 5 years before 9/11, revenge and all that), the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General John Shalikashvili said that it would take at least 200,000 troops to occupy Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld and others disagreed. When the coalition forces booted Saddam out of Kuwait, they numbered short of 400,000 troops (the necessity of allies). We went in this time with 140,000 US troops and 8,000 British troops. Without a draft, there was no way we were going to be able to secure anything in a country the size of Callifornia, with 27 MILLION people in it. 148,000 soldiers wouldn't even make a persuasive voting bloc.

To do this right, my government needed to instate a draft, and there was no way in hell that was going to happen. The National Guard wouldn't be a safe haven this time! I wonder how the rich and powerful would have hept their progeny out of service this time, had a draft been established? I'm certain we'd have seen a dramatic increase in College Republican chapters at Canadian colleges.

Myself, I'd have volunteered for the draft. My brother (82d Abn. Desert Shield/Storm), father (USN 1959-1962) and uncle (can't remember offhand) all served as volunteers. I'm nobody's soldier, but I would have done what I could and would do so now if there was a draft. Why not volunteer? Because there's not enough boots on the ground in Iraq to do anything but get people killed. Infrastructure can't be replaced if insturgents keep attacking. I'm not volunteering for anything that could cost me my life if it's this poorly planned, this poorly reasoned and they had to lie to us to get us behind it.

It makes me wonder if we'd have found Osama if we sent the bulk of our forces into Afghanistan and left Iraq alone. We've retaliated far outside the scope of the 9/11 attacks, and we are justly criticized for it around the world.

And if expressing these opinions is treason, F&G, why not A) reply to ANY of my posts, you coward, and B) call the FBI, the US Marshals or the Shore Patrol for all I care, and report all of us? Why not? Because you know you're full of shit and you're just poking the hornet's nest because the buzzing keeps the voices in your head still.

Terrific post.

And in conclusion, we can all say FreedomAndGlory is an attention whore on par with Cindy Sheehan. So let's all treat FAG the way we would all treat Cindy Sheehan.

In other words if you have any common sense, you ignore the hell out of them both.

Terrific post.

And in conclusion, we can all say FreedomAndGlory is an attention whore on par with Cindy Sheehan. So let's all treat FAG the way we would all treat Cindy Sheehan.

In other words if you have any common sense, you ignore the hell out of them both.

A fine idea, and thank you.

That's irrelevant; the only pertinent variable is their belief in the justness of their cause.

Then why didn't the Japanese win WW2?

Ah dammit, I fell into posting in one of FrAG's post's again :( .

Speaking as a former soldier, the only thing that matters is the public perception of soldiers when I get home.

It's currently a concern on the other forum I inhabit. They're expecting that the same people who say, "the war was illegal" or "the war sucks" are going to be the same people who spit on them when they get home.

There's been plenty of hostility when people come home on leave - more than enough to convince them that this will be the case.


I don't have direct sources, but most of the US anti-war protest I see here on the italian and european media are more on the line of "we don't want our fellow americans die in a stupid and unjust war". It's more anti-war than anti-soldier, in a nutshell.
Of course, things like the systematical abuses perpetrated in places like Abu Grahib and Guantanamo aren't going to improve the public opinion about the US military forces in general; but I that the guilt thereof is given by the US public more to the commanding officers and the Bush cabinet, than to the lower ranks of the military.

To do this right, my government needed to instate a draft, and there was no way in hell that was going to happen. The National Guard wouldn't be a safe haven this time! I wonder how the rich and powerful would have hept their progeny out of service this time, had a draft been established?


Like they did during the Vietnam war. Sadly, the power of bribery and power-brokering isn't restricted to Italy, you know.

Like they did during the Vietnam war. Sadly, the power of bribery and power-brokering isn't restricted to Italy, you know.

True. But during Vietnam, the privileged got out of service by getting into the National Guard. The National Guard, to a great degree, is already in Iraq. If a draft were implemented on top of that, which it would need to be, given that at least 400k troops would be needed to quell 15+million able-bodied potential insurgents, where would mummy and poppy send their argentoglossic darlings?

True. But during Vietnam, the privileged got out of service by getting into the National Guard. The National Guard, to a great degree, is already in Iraq. If a draft were implemented on top of that, which it would need to be, given that at least 400k troops would be needed to quell 15+million able-bodied potential insurgents, where would mummy and poppy send their argentoglossic darlings?

Mummy and Poppy would suddenly throw their voices and money into the anti-war effort. Urban legend has it that Vietnam really didn't start to end as a conflict until the U.S. military ran out of minorities and lower-class recruits and had to actually draw upon the Fortunate Sons to fill their ranks.

True. But during Vietnam, the privileged got out of service by getting into the National Guard. The National Guard, to a great degree, is already in Iraq. If a draft were implemented on top of that, which it would need to be, given that at least 400k troops would be needed to quell 15+million able-bodied potential insurgents, where would mummy and poppy send their argentoglossic darlings?


Canada?

Mummy and Poppy would suddenly throw their voices and money into the anti-war effort. Urban legend has it that Vietnam really didn't start to end as a conflict until the U.S. military ran out of minorities and lower-class recruits and had to actually draw upon the Fortunate Sons to fill their ranks.

CCR. :cool:

Funny how that song is played kinda patriotically sometimes nowadays.

I can't believe you guys are actually replying to this thread with more than a "lawl".

I can't believe you guys are actually replying to this thread with more than a "lawl".

I get bored. I'm fully convinced that FAG is a constructed persona, but it's mildly entertaining at times.

FreedomAndGlory, let me extend a hand and say I won't ignore you because you're excersizing your freedom of speech in a way I don't agree with.

That being said,

The problem you're having with is not people, but democracy. Democracy hates war, with a passion. At least, in the modern world. Before these times, democracies have gone to war, and even with each other.

Democracy allows for protests, and allows for dissent. If you want to change this, you need to do away with democracy.

So it looks like F&G has convinced everyone to argue against the American revolution in the course of getting people to acknowledge his position as having some degree of legitimacy. Well you don't have to do either:

If dissent is traitorous in the time of war, then war would never end and there could be no freedom.

Checkmate.

Well you don't have to do either:

If dissent is traitorous in the time of war, then war would never end and there could be no freedom.

Checkmate.

You need learn chess a bit better before making such a pronouncement.

First of all, you have a misconceived definition regarding freedom. You define it as the right to dissent against authority without fear of retribution. Accepting this as our standard, even a prisoner would have "freedom" because, despite being cooped up in a small enclosure, he could complain with impunity. Is he free? Certainly not. Thus your basic axiom is fundamentally flawed. However, you errors do not end there: you also misrepresented my position. I only claimed that dissent against the conduct of the war is traitorous, not dissent in general.

You don't know much about the war do you? Some research, even preliminary, and you would find that the VC acknowledged that they did not win the war, but that it was the American people who lost it.

Militarily, the the US won. Strategically, we lost. To dumb it down, some simple statistics. We lost ca. 70,000 troops. The Vietnamese lost over a million. From a tactical standpoint, we should not have had to pull out. But the antiwar movement at home forced us out...creating a hostile home environment that permeated the ranks abroad and created an enormous detriment to morale. Yes, home support matters tremendously when conducting combat operations.

And despite your semantics, there is a war going on. An undeclared war is still a war.

Nice to know you support using soldiers as cannon fodder for any unjust war and shutting up opposition by calling them unpatriotic. Both Vietnam AND Iraq SHOULD end, because they were both unjust.

You need learn chess a bit better before making such a pronouncement.

First of all, you have a misconceived definition regarding freedom. You define it as the right to dissent against authority without fear of retribution. Accepting this as our standard, even a prisoner would have "freedom" because, despite being cooped up in a small enclosure, he could complain with impunity. Is he free? Certainly not. Thus your basic axiom is fundamentally flawed. However, you errors do not end there: you also misrepresented my position. I only claimed that dissent against the conduct of the war is traitorous, not dissent in general.

And I ripped your arguments to atoms. Several times. In song. With - might I add - PANACHE.

No, dissent isn't traitorous. Especially when it causes a bad strategy to be changed or a war that kills your soldiers to end, therefore SAVING the lives of soldiers that can be used against other threats. Ah, but since we can't have dissent, you'd rather let them die, right? How utterly anti-American, soldier-hating of you.

And I say it with conviction now:

Checkmate!

No, dissent isn't traitorous. Especially when it causes a bad strategy to be changed.

Policies remain unchanged unless our elected representatives are convinced that a significant portion of the electorate is dissatisfied with their policies. This message can be conveyed to them in various ways, the most conspicuous being a large-scale protest. However, the most effective would be directly writing to your elected representatives, and it would have the advantage of being private correspondence which doesn't adversely affect troop morale.

Ah, but therein lies the rub. They're not "dying." That's a PC word for "getting your face shot off while on patrol." No, no, we have to look at it like this: They gave their lives valiantly defending democracy, freedom, and Jesus himself, taking on 100 Iraqi insurgents with just a toothpick!

Because really, referring to all the casualties of this war as "dead soldiers" is showing dissent, and being unpatriotic, clearly.

Of course, considering that LACK OF dissent was just shown to kill more troops than dissent "would", I just managed to prove that F&G is a soldier-hating anti-American...

And I ripped your arguments to atoms. Several times. In song. With - might I add - PANACHE.

No, dissent isn't traitorous. Especially when it causes a bad strategy to be changed, therefore SAVING the lives of soldiers. Ah, but since we can't have dissent, you'd rather let them die, right? How utterly anti-American, soldier-hating of you.

Checkmate!

Ah, but therein lies the rub. They're not "dying." That's a PC word for "getting your face shot off while on patrol." No, no, we have to look at it like this: They gave their lives valiantly defending democracy, freedom, and Jesus himself, taking on 100 Iraqi insurgents with just a toothpick!

Because really, referring to all the casualties of this war as "dead soldiers" is showing dissent, and being unpatriotic, clearly.

Because really, referring to all the casualties of this war as "dead soldiers" is showing dissent, and being unpatriotic, clearly.

Although I understand your point of view, and agree with it somewhat, I believe that our troops are already so innured with the idea of ghastly carnage in Iraq that a word to that effect in the media would not be to their significant detriment. They see people dying -- that's worse than reading about it in the New York Times.

Policies remain unchanged unless our elected representatives are convinced that a significant portion of the electorate is dissatisfied with their policies. This message can be conveyed to them in various ways, the most conspicuous being a large-scale protest. However, the most effective would be directly writing to your elected representatives, and it would have the advantage of being private correspondence which doesn't adversely affect troop morale.

As I sang to you, "I have no fucking gear" hurts troop morale a bit more than "Joe I don't know who held a sign against the war".

Although I understand your point of view, and agree with it somewhat, I believe that our troops are already so innured with the idea of ghastly carnage in Iraq that a word to that effect in the media would not be to their significant detriment. They see people dying -- that's worse than reading about it in the New York Times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Of course, considering that LACK OF dissent was just shown to kill more troops than dissent "would", I just managed to prove that F&G is a soldier-hating anti-American...

You've proven nothing except the fact that you are unoriginal (yet again). This time, you simply repeated the word "checkmate." Try thinking for yourself for a change and not parroting previous posters. You might find it edifying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

What do you mean? I wasn't being sarcastic.

You've proven nothing except the fact that you are unoriginal (yet again). This time, you simply repeated the word "checkmate." Try thinking for yourself for a change and not parroting previous posters. You might find it edifying.

I didn't read the previous posters besides the "checkmate" one, dearie. Now tell me why are you un-American enough to want soldiers to die due to a lack of strategy going unchecked? Why do you hate America?

As I sang to you, "I have no fucking gear" hurts troop morale a bit more than "Joe I don't know who held a sign against the war".

Didn't anybody ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?

What do you mean? I wasn't being sarcastic.

I am well aware. If you were responding to a poster and YOU weren't sarcastic, who does that leave to be the reference of my "sarcasm" remark?

I am well aware. If you were responding to a poster and YOU weren't sarcastic, who does that leave to be the reference of my "sarcasm" remark?

Oh, you're being sarcastic? Sorry, I didn't notice.

Didn't anybody ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?

1- You have yet to prove protesting or dissent is a wrong.

2- By your own logic, Bush is much more traitorous - as his actions got more soldiers killed.

By all the gods, why don't I ever get to argue with a decent opponent?

Oh, you're being sarcastic? Sorry, I didn't notice.

No, genius, I referred to the guy you responded to.

(NOW I was sarcastic. Guess where?)

1- You have yet to prove protesting or dissent is a wrong.

I have amply shown how it degrades troop morale already. I do not wish to repeat myself. If you do not belief that a marked reduction in the belief of one's mission has an adverse effect upon performance, you may persist in your obdurateness.

2- By your own logic, Bush is much more traitorous - as his actions got more soldiers killed.

If I recall correctly (and I do, mind you), it was the Democrats who wished to cut off all funding for the war, not Bush.

It would've been funnier if you hadn't pointed it out.

Ah well.

No, genius, I referred to the guy you responded to.

(NOW I was sarcastic. Guess where?)

It would've been funnier if you hadn't pointed it out.

I have amply shown how it degrades troop morale already. I do not wish to repeat myself. If you do not belief that a marked reduction in the belief of one's mission has an adverse effect upon performance, you may persist in your obdurateness.



If I recall correctly (and I do, mind you), it was the Democrats who wished to cut off all funding for the war, not Bush.

You didn't show, you claimed.

Also, the troops had no equipment WAY BEFORE, when the Dems gave Dubya a blank check. So, yes, he has soldier blood in his hand and you - by your logic - just became a traitor for supporting him.

No, genius, I referred to the guy you responded to.

(NOW I was sarcastic. Guess where?)

You're really starting to confuse me. Were you being sarcastic about being sarcastic? Or are you a girl?

You're really starting to confuse me. Were you being sarcastic about being sarcastic? Or are you a girl?

Oh my God.

Also, the troops had no equipment WAY BEFORE,

When the Russians fought the Germans at Stalingrad, not every soldier was given a rifle. Instead, they were given 5 bullets and told to acquire a rifle from a dead comrade. Did they complain? No. Now, Bush has given each soldier not only a machine gun, but also provided him with certain motor vehicles. However, the soldiers are complaining that these transports don't have armor. Perhaps such cowards can learn a lesson from the Soviets and do their duty like men. They cast a dark shadow over the brave and noble troops who perform their duty compliantly, day after day, at great risk to themselves.

So, yes, [Bush] has soldier blood in his hand

He has soldier blood in his entire body -- after all, his father was a highly decorated WWII veteran and he served in our nation's armed forces during the war in Vietnam. I believe the expression you are looking for is that he was soldiers' blood on his hands.

It would've been funnier if you hadn't pointed it out.

Turns out you were wrong. Check his response.

When the Russians fought the Germans at Stalingrad, not every soldier was given a rifle. Instead, they were given 5 bullets and told to acquire a rifle from a dead comrade. Did they complain? No. Now, Bush has given each soldier not only a machine gun, but also provided him with certain motor vehicles. However, the soldiers are complaining that these transports don't have armor. Perhaps such cowards can learn a lesson from the Soviets and do their duty like men. They cast a dark shadow over the brave and noble troops who perform their duty compliantly, day after day, at great risk to themselves.



He has soldier blood in his entire body -- after all, his father was a highly decorated WWII veteran and he served in our nation's armed forces during the war in Vietnam. I believe the expression you are looking for is that he was soldiers' blood on his hands.

Yeah, ON his hands.

Also, you are criticizing the troops! Traitor! Traitor!

http://www.vvaw.org/gallery/images/fall03photos/cheney-halliburton.jpg

Turns out you were wrong. Check his response.

I have been, and I'm just as amazed as you are.

It's already been shown that FAG is a "dissenter" and thus, by his own trollish logic, "traitorous."

Thread over, thread won.

While I am partial to many of Bush's policies, my post was completely apolitical. Its content would have been the same had Nader been managing the war. The point is that dissent in war-time is unpatriotic, not that blind party allegiance is necessary.

So a German protesting the slaughter of Jews in WWII would have been wrong for being a traitor? The reason why dissent is patriotic is that the Iraq War was wrong and stupid. No one complains about Afghanistan just Iraq cause Bush lied to the American public deliberately in order to go after a man that had the audacity to put a contract on lil' bush's daddy. Poor little boy. Did I mention the oil? Oh yeah and dissent of americans protesting the war didn't hurt my morale when I was in Iraq. I was there in 05 keeping IED's from blowing up...maybe not successful but we did our best....where were you FAG?

Oh yeah I forgot revealing a spy during war time is traitorous....but bush let cheney's man walk. DEATH TO TRAITORS!!

You're really starting to confuse me.

How? Did he put you in a barrell and ask you to piss in the corner?

Yes...running away from a problem has its advantages.

Well, it's infinitely more rewarding than arguing with him.

:p

Yeah, I know.

No, but the troops do. Don't hurt them because of a personal vendetta with their commander-in-chief.

I have no vendetta with GWB. I think he's generally an asswipe, but I've agreed with some things he's done (not many) and disagreed with others. But to throw away one of our most precious liberties because of some hypothetical damage it may or may not do to our troops is a betrayal of everything we supposedly hold dear as Americans. Freedom of speech is more important when you're saying controversial things, not less.

Or, let's put it another way. I didn't hear any liberals or Democrats bitching that Republican criticism of the actions of the Clinton administration in Bosnia, Somalia, etc was treason. Strange how tetchy the Republicans get when the tables turn, isn't it?

You need learn chess a bit better before making such a pronouncement.

First of all, you have a misconceived definition regarding freedom. You define it as the right to dissent against authority without fear of retribution. Accepting this as our standard, even a prisoner would have "freedom" because, despite being cooped up in a small enclosure, he could complain with impunity. Is he free? Certainly not. Thus your basic axiom is fundamentally flawed. However, you errors do not end there: you also misrepresented my position. I only claimed that dissent against the conduct of the war is traitorous, not dissent in general.

Strawman. Dissent can be categorized as many things, from an opinion to armed action. I'll not allow you to equate these things when responding to my arguments. Obviously people here are talking about political dissent in the form of speech, as am I, and as do most sane individuals. If that is traitorous, then war would never end, and there would be no freedom.

Second game goes to me? oh yay!

When the Russians fought the Germans at Stalingrad, not every soldier was given a rifle. Instead, they were given 5 bullets and told to acquire a rifle from a dead comrade. Did they complain? No. Now, Bush has given each soldier not only a machine gun, but also provided him with certain motor vehicles. However, the soldiers are complaining that these transports don't have armor. Perhaps such cowards can learn a lesson from the Soviets and do their duty like men. They cast a dark shadow over the brave and noble troops who perform their duty compliantly, day after day, at great risk to themselves.

Why do you hate our soldiers, traitor?

When the Russians fought the Germans at Stalingrad, not every soldier was given a rifle. Instead, they were given 5 bullets and told to acquire a rifle from a dead comrade. Did they complain? No.


Somebody has been watching "Enemy at the Gates"

Now, Bush has given each soldier not only a machine gun, but also provided him with certain motor vehicles. However, the soldiers are complaining that these transports don't have armor. Perhaps such cowards can learn a lesson from the Soviets and do their duty like men. They cast a dark shadow over the brave and noble troops who perform their duty compliantly, day after day, at great risk to themselves.


Sorry Stalingrad and Iraq don't compare.


He has soldier blood in his entire body -- after all, his father was a highly decorated WWII veteran and he served in our nation's armed forces during the war in Vietnam. I believe the expression you are looking for is that he was soldiers' blood on his hands.

Eh what? Poppy Bush had some balls; flying the planes he did. A father being a great soldier does not mean the son will be great.

Shrub was never in Vietnam. Don't even compare him with the guys that were over there.....

One of the most infuriating messages which I have seen ubiquitously splashed about on bumper stickers is the following: "dissent IS patriotic," or some other variant thereof. Under the current circumstances with which we are faced (namely, the terrible specter of Islamo-fascism, silently hovering above us and patiently awaiting a chance to strike), the statement should read: "dissent IS traitorous."

Perhaps you recall the elementary school rhyme: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Unfortunately, when applied to the modern conditions, this is patently false. Not only can words hurt, but they can kill. Speeches decrying the war in Iraq are deadly, fatal to our just cause and injurious to the American people.

Enemy combatants employ many techniques to wound our troops. Some use rifles, others use IEDs; some use machine guns, others use grenade launchers. However, the most maleficent foes take advantage of a more subtle, far-reaching, and corrosive method: anti-war commentary. They sabotage the American nation stealthily, slowly poisoning those who are oblivious to their vile intent. They spew treacherous pronouncements with impunity. The morale of our troops ebbs as they are subjected to this constant, unceasing onslaught of pessimistic outlooks, bleak prognoses, and biased reports.

The constant barrage of slanted media commentary imbues our troops with the notion that they are fighting in vain: that the cause is lost and their mission is meaningless. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many are neglecting to endeavor in performing their duties to their utmost capacity; as a result, the enemy is strengthened and more American troops die. The security of the mainland US cannot be guaranteed if the only thing standing between us and another 9/11 is a line composed of disgruntled and disillusioned soldiers, continuously tormented and harried by the barbaric media.

But the media isn't the only wrongdoer here; all those who speak out against the war are giving succor to the enemy. They are actively contributing to the climate of hostility towards our mission in Iraq which currently exists; thus, they are allowing the media to air their disturbing coverage of the war in Iraq. They are even tainting those who previously supported the war with their insidious message of despair and gloom. Our troops need a stable platform on the home front if they are to persist in heroically carrying out their noble duty, yet this very platform is being chipped away at by those who condemn the war, and the soldiers are suffering. They're dying and the American populace does not appreciate their effort -- they're saying that despite the tireless work of American forces, Iraq is ruined, destroyed, desolate, irrevocably damaged.

If you insult the way the war is being handled, you might as well be taking up arms against the American forces yourself. Now, I'm not saying that the war has been handled well -- that's not the point. The fact of the matter is that whether or not the war has been smoothly and properly executed, saying that the war is a failure, that American troops should withdraw, or that the commanders are misjudging the situation imperils troop morale and the lives of American soldiers. As the disaffection of the American people mounted, so too did the death toll of the US forces in Iraq -- that tells us something.

I find it despicable that the very men and women who are so busily engaged in bedeviling US forces claim to be patriots. Those who are contributing to the deaths of our soldiers say that they love their country. No, they are not patriots, but rather in a league with the insurgents and bin Laden.

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then.”

You lose. Long live the First Amendment.

Freedom is something most people take for granted, or they want to only think of freedom when it fits them.

The same could be said of patriotism.

Patriotism isn't hanging the American Flag off your porch when things or good or when you should. True Patriotism is hanging the flag when things are bad and still believing everything it stands for and represents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomAndGlory View Post
Which part?
All of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomAndGlory View Post
Did some people believe in the Iraq War, thus prompting them to enlist in the army? Yes: that is a fact.

Saying "it is a fact" does not make it evidence. Evidence would be presenting data showing that a large percentage of troops joined the service stating that they wanted to go to Iraq. You have stated no such data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomAndGlory View Post
Did some of those people listen to media reports critical of the war in Iraq? Yes: that is a fact.

Again, no it is not a fact, it is a claim you are making with no supporting evidence or data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomAndGlory View Post
Did those media reports have an adverse effect upon them and undermine their belief in the Iraq War? Yes: that is common sense.

"Common sense" is not supporting evidence, particularly when it is based on unproven claims and assertions (as you have done) and when those who have actually served are telling you that you are wrong. Present EVIDENCE, data, etc., not more unproven claims and assertions.

This was certainly my most favorite post. While I never would post on an quarrel this vehement, I had to at least point out that OurobourosCobra is very proficient in argumentation. As I have my degree in Communication, I can say that I have studied debate, persuasion, and argumentation. So, I found this post was sublime. Not only does it completely dismantle FreedomANDGlory's "argument," but it does so without needing to prove any point on his own. I mean, why argue if your opponent cannot? Everyone went to great lengths to prove their points, which is commendable (everyone except FreedomANDGlory, who was entirely incapable of proving any of his points even though some of them were entirely provable) but OurobourosCobra's argument was parsimonious and elegant. I had to pop in and and say, "Bravo!"

I'd reply properly to this, but I'm guessing loads of people have already shouted you down and shouted down the stupidity of patriotism without thinking logically about why you're being patriotic

P.S. FreedomAndGlory, you sound like Bush - "you're either with us or against us... you're all terrorists... zomg!"

I have amply shown how it degrades troop morale already. I do not wish to repeat myself. If you do not belief that a marked reduction in the belief of one's mission has an adverse effect upon performance, you may persist in your obdurateness.


You have shown no such thing. You have claimed. You have parroted. You have shown very little apart from your ability to manufacture ridiculous comparisons. You've not responded to a single one of my posts simply because you cannot. You have not shown anything approaching a "marked reduction in the belief of one's mission" being caused by dissent. Soliders of MY country (I've no idea what odd little construct you live in) defend dissent, as the Continental Army did in the time of Washington Jefferson, Paine, Henry, Allen, Franklin, Revere, Adams, Hancock, Madison, Hamilton, and many more.

If anything, PERFORMING this ill-conceived, ill-planned, and ill-commander-in-chiefed mess in Iraq has degraded more troop morale than anything the troops see or read. Hell, most troops in the field either don't have time to watch or don't get access to anything remotely resembling dissenting opinions.

When the Russians fought the Germans at Stalingrad, not every soldier was given a rifle. Instead, they were given 5 bullets and told to acquire a rifle from a dead comrade. Did they complain? No. Now, Bush has given each soldier not only a machine gun, but also provided him with certain motor vehicles. However, the soldiers are complaining that these transports don't have armor. Perhaps such cowards can learn a lesson from the Soviets and do their duty like men. They cast a dark shadow over the brave and noble troops who perform their duty compliantly, day after day, at great risk to themselves.

Really? You're really going there? Oh, balls, do you have my pity.

*okay, deep breath and adopt the tone you take when guest conducting the childrens' choir*

The Russians were under attack on their home soil by the Germans. The Russians HAD to take such desperate measures becuase if they hadn't, their country would have been conquered by the Germans. They didn't complain because their alternative was death -- or worse, given the way Germans were treating undesirables in that war.

Now, the USA, well, we've INVADED another land some 10,000 miles from our own home. WE are the ones encroaching upon someone else's home soil, okay? That being the case, WE are the ones who wil be met with the level of desperation and valor you're correctly ascribing to the Russians on the eastern front of WWII. As such, WE are the ones who need to be as heavily armored as we can possibly be, because an opposing force who's defending its home is not going to be picky about how and where they kill the invader, so long as they kill the invader.

By the way, calling US soldiers "cowards" in the above post pretty much makes you a complete hypocrite and invalidates every further attempt you make at prolonging this thread. As such, after the next paragraph, I'm through replying to you, and you'll be on ignore. I have no need to defeat you any more than the dozen times I've already done it on this thread alone.

He has soldier blood in his entire body -- after all, his father was a highly decorated WWII veteran and he served in our nation's armed forces during the war in Vietnam. I believe the expression you are looking for is that he was soldiers' blood on his hands.

Just his father. Any other Bushes serve? Did Prescott? Neil? Jeb?

W most certainly did not serve during the war in Vietnam. He poked and pretended at service much like a child trying to rearrange his unpalatable meal to make it look like he's eaten some of it in order to be excused from the table. The facts of his attendance at guard duty (shortcut out of any real Vietnam service and you know it) are largely hazy, and I'll not debate them here out of benefit of the doubt to the man. But to use avoidance of in-theater service of any kind as a parallel to having your plane shot down as his father did, and to claim that this somehow makes legitimate any claim to knowing about service...well that's just ludicrous.

Son, for all I know, you're laughing it up at our expense because you're a reverse troll who is just seeing how many posts he can get be being deliberately dense and using deliberately inaccurate examples to make points so easy to refute, it's like Yao Ming playing badminton against Vernon Troyer.

So I won't be replying you again. In any thread, ever. Good luck, and God bless.

CHARGE THE WAVE MOTION IGNORE GUN!

Freedom's saying for the day: You have no body armor but the man in front of you!

:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:



@OP

One of the most infuriating messages which I have seen ubiquitously splashed about on bumper stickers is the following: "dissent IS patriotic," or some other variant thereof. Under the current circumstances with which we are faced (namely, the terrible specter of Islamo-fascism, silently hovering above us and patiently awaiting a chance to strike), the statement should read: "dissent IS traitorous."

Perhaps you recall the elementary school rhyme: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Unfortunately, when applied to the modern conditions, this is patently false. Not only can words hurt, but they can kill. Speeches decrying the war in Iraq are deadly, fatal to our just cause and injurious to the American people.

Enemy combatants employ many techniques to wound our troops. Some use rifles, others use IEDs; some use machine guns, others use grenade launchers. However, the most maleficent foes take advantage of a more subtle, far-reaching, and corrosive method: anti-war commentary. They sabotage the American nation stealthily, slowly poisoning those who are oblivious to their vile intent. They spew treacherous pronouncements with impunity. The morale of our troops ebbs as they are subjected to this constant, unceasing onslaught of pessimistic outlooks, bleak prognoses, and biased reports.

The constant barrage of slanted media commentary imbues our troops with the notion that they are fighting in vain: that the cause is lost and their mission is meaningless. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many are neglecting to endeavor in performing their duties to their utmost capacity; as a result, the enemy is strengthened and more American troops die. The security of the mainland US cannot be guaranteed if the only thing standing between us and another 9/11 is a line composed of disgruntled and disillusioned soldiers, continuously tormented and harried by the barbaric media.

But the media isn't the only wrongdoer here; all those who speak out against the war are giving succor to the enemy. They are actively contributing to the climate of hostility towards our mission in Iraq which currently exists; thus, they are allowing the media to air their disturbing coverage of the war in Iraq. They are even tainting those who previously supported the war with their insidious message of despair and gloom. Our troops need a stable platform on the home front if they are to persist in heroically carrying out their noble duty, yet this very platform is being chipped away at by those who condemn the war, and the soldiers are suffering. They're dying and the American populace does not appreciate their effort -- they're saying that despite the tireless work of American forces, Iraq is ruined, destroyed, desolate, irrevocably damaged.

If you insult the way the war is being handled, you might as well be taking up arms against the American forces yourself. Now, I'm not saying that the war has been handled well -- that's not the point. The fact of the matter is that whether or not the war has been smoothly and properly executed, saying that the war is a failure, that American troops should withdraw, or that the commanders are misjudging the situation imperils troop morale and the lives of American soldiers. As the disaffection of the American people mounted, so too did the death toll of the US forces in Iraq -- that tells us something.

I find it despicable that the very men and women who are so busily engaged in bedeviling US forces claim to be patriots. Those who are contributing to the deaths of our soldiers say that they love their country. No, they are not patriots, but rather in a league with the insurgents and bin Laden.

So summarized: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd9RunsNwfI

So summarized: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd9RunsNwfI
lol

'We just voted Democrat'

lol

'We just voted Democrat'

TERRORISM!

When the Russians fought the Germans at Stalingrad, not every soldier was given a rifle. Instead, they were given 5 bullets and told to acquire a rifle from a dead comrade. Did they complain? No.
And do you know why they didn't complain?

Because they were being invaded and were saving their lands.
Because the NKVD would have shot them and made life hell for their families after the war had they complained.
Because there were enormous amounts of rifles to be found.

Incidentally, this isn't even all true.

That was the case for about a week in the middle of the fighting, before the Russians a) recaptured many factories and got to work on PPS42/3s, which were extremely crude but effective sub-machine guns and b) could start to supply troops over the frozen lakes and rivers nearby.

But hey, as with all of your arguments, don't let a good few facts get in the way of it all.
Now, Bush has given each soldier not only a machine gun
No he hasn't.

Suppliers such as Colt have, at a price, given troops their weapons, which are, in the main, assault rifles with a single/burst fire configuration, rather than being 'machine guns' as you so quaintly put it.
but also provided him with certain motor vehicles.
Of a great many types.

I assume that you're on about the Humvee, which started being produced about the same time as Boy George was cool.

They were kind of seemingly not meant so much for what they're being used for. IIRC they were designed to be, essentially, scout vehicles, and good for artillery forward observation etc.

Not really what they're being used for, which is low-intensity warfare and MOUT.

Not only that, but I hear that they're not particularly reliable, and that things get worse when you start putting on hillbilly armour so that 7.62x39 rounds can't punch holes in your vehicle quite so effectively.

Hence why people are complaining.
However, the soldiers are complaining that these transports don't have armor.
And they raise a good point. The Stryker system need to get distributed sharpish, so that troops can have a better go of it, instead of getting holes punched in their vehicles by DshKs and small arms fire, not to mention RPGs.

If your career was to shoot and be shot at, as well as other duties such as general reconstruction, wouldn't you kind of want to be able to do it properly?
Perhaps such cowards can learn a lesson from the Soviets and do their duty like men.
Perhaps if they were defending their homeland which someone quite so evil as Hitler was kind of raping, looting and burning, they'd be more inclined to, as opposed to being stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan with no clear objectives and being somewhat undertrained for their new position as peacekeepers.

See how British killed : wounded totals are at 159 : 2,786 (inc. 350 WIA and incapable of fighting further).

Now compare this to US totals of 3,615 : 27,689 US (Injured), with 26,558 US, largely Purple Hearts incapable of fighting further.

The problem is that US forces seemingly aren't as well-trained for peacekeeping as they are at full-scale warfare.

Fine, they annihilated Saddam's army, but they were kind of screwed as to what do afterwards.
They cast a dark shadow over the brave and noble troops who perform their duty compliantly, day after day, at great risk to themselves.
1) It appears you're lowering troop morale. The next time troops get killed with a carbomb in Baghdad, it's your fault, as you have 'amply shown'.

2) Get off your fat lazy arse and join up then, and fight 'like a man'. Or are you too puss?
He has soldier blood in his entire body -- after all, his father was a highly decorated WWII veteran and he served in our nation's armed forces during the war in Vietnam. I believe the expression you are looking for is that he was soldiers' blood on his hands.
IIRC he actually skipped his Air Force reservists work to go and snort coccaine and become an alcoholic with his fratboy friends.

1- You have yet to prove protesting or dissent is a wrong.

2- By your own logic, Bush is much more traitorous - as his actions got more soldiers killed.

By all the gods, why don't I ever get to argue with a decent opponent?

You're in an FG thread. There is no debate, there is no logic, there is no chance make your time. All your government are belong to us.

The only effective thing you can do in an FG thread is lawl. Lawl like the wind!

1- You have yet to prove protesting or dissent is a wrong.

Your inability to grasp my proof does not equate to a lack of proof. Lowering our troops' morale is a wrong.

2- By your own logic, Bush is much more traitorous - as his actions got more soldiers killed.

While his actions led to the deaths of some soldiers, they did not die needlessly. They died for a cause. Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers died during WWII, but they died vying to bring freedom to countries under the dark specter of totalitarianism. The same applies to the war in Iraq.

Your inability to grasp my proof does not equate to a lack of proof. Lowering our troops' morale is a wrong.



While his actions led to the deaths of some soldiers, they did not die needlessly. They died for a cause. Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers died during WWII, but they died vying to bring freedom to countries under the dark specter of totalitarianism. The same applies to the war in Iraq.

Lowering troops morale is wrong. The current administration has done more to lower their morale than any anti war proterstor or any member of the media, therefore by your logic they are the greatest traitors.

WWII and Iraq are not even closely comparable. And since whem did Iraq become a war to remove a totalitarian leader? I thought it was to destroy WMDs. BTW, where are they?

Lowering troops morale is wrong. The current administration has done more to lower their morale than any anti war proterstor or any member of the media, therefore by your logic they are the greatest traitors.

No, because this particular lowering of the troops' morale, associated with stressful fighting, is necessary for bringing freedom to a long-suffering people. As I previously stated, the troops' morale will, to some extent, be compromised in any war; that does not make the perpetrators of the war traitorous, because the war might be for a noble cause (ie, the Second World War and the Second Iraq War) that outweighs other details.

And since whem did Iraq become a war to remove a totalitarian leader? I thought it was to destroy WMDs. BTW, where are they?

We invaded Iraq for a multitude of reasons, one of which was to free the Iraqi people from the cold, iron grip of its maniacal leader, Saddam. Furthermore, the WMDs have been shipped to African nations and the facilities for constructing them mostly obliterated (although some such facilities remain and have been discovered by US forces).

No, because this particular lowering of the troops' morale, associated with stressful fighting, is necessary for bringing freedom to a long-suffering people. As I previously stated, the troops' morale will, to some extent, be compromised in any war; that does not make the perpetrators of the war traitorous, because the war might be for a noble cause (ie, the Second World War and the Second Iraq War) that outweighs other details.

We invaded Iraq for a multitude of reasons, one of which was to free the Iraqi people from the cold, iron grip of its maniacal leader, Saddam. Furthermore, the WMDs have been shipped to African nations and the facilities for constructing them mostly obliterated (although some such facilities remain and have been discovered by US forces).

Why Irak and not, let's say, Zimbabwe? Or any other nation under the grip of a cold ruthless dictator? Why not even Saudi Arabia? Or North Korea? I wonder about the reasons to target Irak specifically.

No one familiar with the history of his country, can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating. But the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one, and the Junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. His primary achievement has been confusing the public mind as between the internal and the external threats of communism. We must not confuse dissent from disloyalty. We must remember always, that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another, we will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason. If we dig deep into our history and our doctrine, we will remember we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who dared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Sen. McCarthy's methods to keep silent or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom where ever it still exists in the world. But we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the Junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And who's fault is that? Not really his, he didn't create this situation of fear he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassius was right, the fault dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves. Good night, and good luck.


Edit: To put it simply: WHY is this thread still going?

Why Irak and not, let's say, Zimbabwe? Or any other nation under the grip of a cold ruthless dictator? Why not even Saudi Arabia? Or North Korea? I wonder about the reasons to target Irak specifically.

Iraq was a potential threat to neighboring countries (in the 15 years leading up to the American humanitarian intervention, it had ruthlessly assaulted both Iran and Kuwait). Saddam had been engaged in the widespread genocide of a minority ethnic group (Kurds in the al-Anfal campaign), leading to the deaths of 200,000 civilians. Furthermore, he had utilized WMDs in the past and was in possession of such weapons near the time of the incursion, having blatantly refused the requests of weapons inspectors to perform their duties without interference.

Edit: To put it simply: WHY is this thread still going?

Amen.

No one familiar with the history of his country, can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating. But the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one, and the Junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. His primary achievement has been confusing the public mind as between the internal and the external threats of communism. We must not confuse dissent from disloyalty. We must remember always, that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another, we will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason. If we dig deep into our history and our doctrine, we will remember we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who dared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Sen. McCarthy's methods to keep silent or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom where ever it still exists in the world. But we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the Junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And who's fault is that? Not really his, he didn't create this situation of fear he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassius was right, the fault dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves. Good night, and good luck.


Edit: To put it simply: WHY is this thread still going?

Good question. I'll repeat myself, since everyone else seems to be repeating themselves.

Dissent is an essential element of freedom. While not all dissent is "patriotic", neither is unconditional support for the government and its policies necessarily "patriotic".

Good question. I'll repeat myself, since everyone else seems to be repeating themselves.

Dissent is an essential element of freedom. While not all dissent is "patriotic", neither is unconditional support for the government and its policies necessarily "patriotic".

That's a very rational position for you to take.

That's a very rational position for you to take.

And?

"Fish and visitors stink after three days." - Benjamin Franklin

So does this thread.

The Freedom and Glory arguments about the notion of dissent as anti patriotic seem pretty similar to certain policies of my current goverment officials, who also tend to disregard dissent as treason against the nation. The funny thing is, that Freedom and Glory has a totally opposed ideological view when compared to my goverment, (the goverment of Venezuela).

I'm glad to be a moderate. It is indeed a paradox to see how much the two ends of the spectrum tend to be similar when they reach extremism. It's not about left and right, it seems.

I value dissent as the central pillar of any free and democratic regime. No matter what are you proposing or defending, you need to value dissent at least as a way to critic, and improve, your own political actions.

And?


Its about as close to a compliment as you've got in a long time. Don't knock it.

"Fish and visitors stink after three days." - Benjamin Franklin

So does this thread.

Seconded.

"Fish and visitors stink after three days." - Benjamin Franklin

So does this thread.

This thread stank the moment FrAG made it.

LOL that was exactly what I was thinking.

YOU WILL O-BEY OR YOU WILL BE EX-TER-MIN-AT-ED! THE DALEK SUP-REME (aka George W. Bush) WILL NOT BE DIS-O-BEYED!

The Parting of Ways came up with a line that's even more Bush-appropriate:

"WOR-SHIP HIM!! WOR-SHIP HIM!!"

Edit: To put it simply: WHY is this thread still going?

Partly because you posted a quote not even tangentially pertinent to this discussion, thus "bumping" it.

We invaded Iraq for a multitude of reasons, one of which was to free the Iraqi people from the cold, iron grip of its maniacal leader, Saddam. Furthermore, the WMDs have been shipped to African nations and the facilities for constructing them mostly obliterated (although some such facilities remain and have been discovered by US forces).

THAT IS JUST............. LOL!

I really never took you for a whacko conspiracy theorist, a whacko, but not a conspiracy theorist. That statement is just unbeleivable. You just relinquished your own tenuous (sp?) grip on reality. A tin foil hat is now winging its way to you.

Partly because you posted a quote not even tangentially pertinent to this discussion, thus "bumping" it.

It was an evaluation of the thread. I think what you label the discussion turned into a blood sport involving you vs. the world after a few pages.

No, because this particular lowering of the troops' morale, associated with stressful fighting, is necessary for bringing freedom to a long-suffering people.

We invaded Iraq for a multitude of reasons, one of which was to free the Iraqi people from the cold, iron grip of its maniacal leader, Saddam.
Your concern for the Iraqi people is so touching......NOT (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12762219&postcount=24)!!

Do you think that the Muslims will drop their antiquated traditions when making the voyage to Malta? Don't be ridiculous; we've seen the perils of unrestricted cultural infiltration in many European nations, where Muslims are imposing their own viewpoints on the country while the petrified citizens dare not do anything to offend the followers of Islam. The Muslims refuse to be integrated into society; this is true for Europe and Malta. While the Muslims may not be actively seeking to turn Malta into an Islamic state, if they emigrate in sufficient numbers and the population becomes predominantly Muslim, Malta may go down the path of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, and virtually every other Arab nation: towards authoritarianism, economic stagnation, and despair.
Sooooo.....are you going to FREE all the people from those countries as well?

Oh, I forgot......you don't want to risk your life!!

Your inability to grasp my proof does not equate to a lack of proof. Lowering our troops' morale is a wrong.


Right when I think I get out, they pull me back in, to pare a phrase.

It "is a wrong" if it can be demonstrated that it's actually happening. You have not done that. You've merely said that it's happening. Our inability to grasp NOTHING should not be held against us. The burden of proof is on you who makes the charge. So far, burden 10, proof 0.

No, because this particular lowering of the troops' morale, associated with stressful fighting, is necessary for bringing freedom to a long-suffering people. As I previously stated, the troops' morale will, to some extent, be compromised in any war; that does not make the perpetrators of the war traitorous, because the war might be for a noble cause (ie, the Second World War and the Second Iraq War) that outweighs other details.



We invaded Iraq for a multitude of reasons, one of which was to free the Iraqi people from the cold, iron grip of its maniacal leader, Saddam. Furthermore, the WMDs have been shipped to African nations and the facilities for constructing them mostly obliterated (although some such facilities remain and have been discovered by US forces).

No, no and no. What of the maniacal leaders who've killed just as many people whose land is not sitting atop oil reserves?

Iraq was a potential threat to neighboring countries (in the 15 years leading up to the American humanitarian intervention, it had ruthlessly assaulted both Iran and Kuwait). Saddam had been engaged in the widespread genocide of a minority ethnic group (Kurds in the al-Anfal campaign), leading to the deaths of 200,000 civilians. Furthermore, he had utilized WMDs in the past and was in possession of such weapons near the time of the incursion, having blatantly refused the requests of weapons inspectors to perform their duties without interference.

As have other dictators whose land is, let me say it again, not over oil. You are the Saran Wrap of debaters.

I really never took you for a whacko conspiracy theorist, a whacko, but not a conspiracy theorist. That statement is just unbeleivable. You just relinquished your own tenuous (sp?) grip on reality. A tin foil hat is now winging its way to you.

Imagine you were a maniacal, nihilistic, power-hungry dictator for a second, standing on the brink of a cataclysmic confrontation with the forces of good in the world. A powerful and righteous nation was about to overrun your armies and liberate your country. You had committed grievous violations of human rights and had been pursuing a WMD program which had yielded fruits. What would you do? Would you allow the invading state to be completely vindicated by the presence of your diabolical weapons, thus further besmirching your reputation in the face of the world? Or would you secretly scheme to send those weapons elsewhere, thus casting doubts on the noble intentions of the invader and the campaign in general and possibly prolonging your life? Certainly, you would opt for the latter. But where to send the weapons? The most logical choice would be a lawless African nation, as corrupt and devoid of morals as yourself, far away from the prying eyes of the West.

Imagine you were a maniacal, nihilistic, power-hungry dictator for a second, standing on the brink of a cataclysmic confrontation with the forces of good in the world. A powerful and righteous nation was about to overrun your armies and liberate your country. You had committed grievous violations of human rights and had been pursuing a WMD program which had yielded fruits. What would you do? Would you allow the invading state to be completely vindicated by the presence of your diabolical weapons, thus further besmirching your reputation in the face of the world? Or would you secretly scheme to send those weapons elsewhere, thus casting doubts on the noble intentions of the invader and the campaign in general and possibly prolonging your life? Certainly, you would opt for the latter. But where to send the weapons? The most logical choice would be a lawless African nation, as corrupt and devoid of morals as yourself, far away from the prying eyes of the West.

All moot since none were found. ANYWHERE, and we'd have seen the "masses of weapons" you claim leaving via satellite. Keep tryin', tin man.

As have other dictators whose land is, let me say it again, not over oil. You are the Saran Wrap of debaters.

Humor me. Name some equally repugnant dictators and I shall tell you why ousting Saddam was preferable to deposing them.

Humor me. Name some equally repugnant dictators and I shall tell you why ousting Saddam was preferable to deposing them.

They others didn't have oil

...we'd have seen the "masses of weapons" you claim leaving via satellite.

Actually, nuclear warheads are much smaller than most people believe. When not attached to a ballistic missile, they can easily be enclosed within a lead box and hidden within a medium-sized vehicle. They could then be transported out of the country through Iran's porous borders (which currently allow many foreign terrorists within the country without our knowledge) and to the African nation of Saddam's choosing. We cannot constantly monitor every square inch of Iraq's borders, and even if we could, we would be unable to detect the nuclear warheads.

Imagine you were a maniacal, nihilistic, power-hungry dictator for a second, standing on the brink of a cataclysmic confrontation with the forces of good in the world. A powerful and righteous nation was about to overrun your armies and liberate your country. You had committed grievous violations of human rights and had been pursuing a WMD program which had yielded fruits. What would you do? Would you allow the invading state to be completely vindicated by the presence of your diabolical weapons, thus further besmirching your reputation in the face of the world? Or would you secretly scheme to send those weapons elsewhere, thus casting doubts on the noble intentions of the invader and the campaign in general and possibly prolonging your life? Certainly, you would opt for the latter. But where to send the weapons? The most logical choice would be a lawless African nation, as corrupt and devoid of morals as yourself, far away from the prying eyes of the West.
MTAE logic, through and through. :p

They others didn't have oil

That was not one of our concerns when making the decision to invade.