NationStates Jolt Archive

My cousin sent me a link to the following song that was sent to her by her friend. In the e-mail the friend said she was "anti-war, but supports the troops. Well, that sent me into a rant and I sent her the following:

I was at Utapao, Thailand from March 1972 to 1973. I worked on the B-52s and was there for Linebacker II and the cease fire at the end of the war. Used to sit on the ramp in the maintenance vehicle during launch and we would make a list of the B-52’s that took off. In the morning during recovery we would cross off the ones that came back. For every one that didn’t make it back, there were six dead or captured airmen. I was on the ramp the night one crashed at the end of the runway. It got shot up and the crew was told to bail out. They didn’t do it because the lost communications with the gunner and didn’t know his condition. The gunner and two others survived the crash and the other three died. I also saw many shot up B-52s and worked on them to get them back into combat.

I know how we felt about the protesters at home. I know how we felt when we were called “baby killers” and that’s why I say it is impossible to be anti-war and support the troops. Nobody, especially the troops that are or may be fighting it want war are pro-war, but they are for bringing freedom to oppressed people and protecting America from terrorism. But the troops will do what they have been trained and sworn to do.

Those who get out and protest the war have no idea what they are doing to the moral of the troops, and worse yet the moral of the enemy. I’d still like to see Jane Fonda tried and hung for treason. I and many other troops wrote messages for her and Joan Baez on the bombs that were loaded on the B-52’s. They were in Hanoi during Linebacker II. I’m sorry the messages never got delivered to them. I’m still upset because they aren’t in jail or hung for treason.

END OF RANT

My point is you can't tell the troops I hate what you are doing and you have no reason for doing it but I love you and support you. That is a lie.

In any case, this is a great song and explains very well how the troops feel.

http://g.dwgsee.com/wake/index.htm

I agree.

I've tried to frame this in as polite a way as I can manage.

You are talking utter bollocks.

then i guess id rather not support the troops and save their lives by getting them the fuck out of a war we shouldnt be in. they can live to hate me.

Actually you can. It's very simple. I'll give an example: A vast majority of Danes think that the Danish soldiers are doing a good job. A vast majority of Danes also feel that the war is wrong and shouldn't have been started in the first place.

They disagree with the war, but feel that the soldiers are performing extraordinarily (generally). I feel pretty much the same way with regards to Danish soldiers. Seeing as how there are fewer of them, it's easier. However, I still disagree with militaries and I still disagree with wars. That doesn't mean I can't look at what they in particular are doing and say "Well, overall, they've done more good than harm." Their actions are improving a situation that has worsened everything considerably and which shouldn't have occurred in the first place.

Similarly, I have every opportunity to look at American soldiers in general and say "Overall, they've done more harm than good." Mainly because they were one of the main factors of the war existing in the first place.

I've tried to frame this in as polite a way as I can manage.

You are talking utter bollocks.

And you sir have most likely never served in the military during a war and have no idea how they feel. Am I wrong?

Iraq Veterans Against the War (http://ivaw.org/)

What are they, self-hating?

And you sir have most likely never served in the military during a war and have no idea how they feel. Am I wrong?

Not during a war, no. I left just before the whole Iraq/Afghanistan thing blow up.

I do, however, have quite a few friends and aquaintances who have served in both theatres and all are fully aware of my opinion on the conflicts. None have ever said that I'm unable to support them because of my views.

I know how we felt when we were called “baby killers” and that’s why I say it is impossible to be anti-war and support the troops.

I'm afraid this just doesn't make any sense at all.

And you sir have most likely never served in the military during a war and have no idea how they feel. Am I wrong?

That's quite irrelevant to the fact that you're talking utter bollocks.

Celt, your post is bullshit and you know it.

I can hate the war for it's bogus beginnings, it's bungling leadership and it's continued clusterfuckness and yet still not have a single bad thing to say about those forced to follow orders because that's what they signed up for. I'm sick to fucking death of ANYONE telling me what I can't think. Especially when I'm sending everything from coffee and cell phones to care packages to Iraq.

The OP example puts it right there on the goddamned line when it says they were called "baby killers" by those protesting Vietnam. Well guess what? Those anti-war protesters were fucking idiots. They couldn't figure out that the fat-cats ordering the war and profiting on it are different from those sent to do their bidding. If you can't see that difference, then God help you.

I don't tell you what you can or cannot support, so you can take your presumption and find somewhere else to stick it.

Sure you can. I support the decision that my grandfather made to serve this country. I understand his reasons he had when he did that. However, I do not support what the military does in general, ie killing, destroying etc.


Its like the old Christian saying "Love the sinner, hate the sin"

And you sir have most likely never served in the military during a war and have no idea how they feel. Am I wrong?

Completely, utterly and incomprehensibly irrelevant.

How many fucking times have you made this thread, Celt?

And you sir have most likely never served in the military during a war and have no idea how they feel. Am I wrong?
Probably not, but you certainly are insecure.

American soldiers pledge their allegiance to the country, and the ideas it is based on. That's what they should be defining themselves through, if they need personal or professional definition that they can't get from somewhere else. If someone criticises the war you're fighting, and you take that as a personal attack on your value as a soldier or as a person, that's a sign that you're defining yourself with this war, rather than what you actually should be concerned about.

If you were only concerned with the country and its ideals, then there is no harm in saying "Policy X is bad for the country and should be stopped", even if you happen to be doing a great deal of work and suffering to implement X. If you instead are primarily concerned with X because that's what you got a lot of exposure to and are emotionally invested in, criticism of X will feel like an attack on you.

The solution isn't to murder Jane Fonda, the solution is to re-evaluate what you think makes you a worthwhile person and soldier.

In any case, this is a great song and explains very well how the troops feel.

I don't know what's more hilarious, the bollocks that came before that sentence, or Celtlund's expectation that anyone would consider him to be able to speak for "the troops", or anyone else but himself, and thus tell us how they "feel". I think they both crack me up equivalently, only in different ways - the former because it's such a fine specimen of gobbledegook, the latter because it is of course bonkers in a hubristic, almost "delusion of grandeur" sense.

I know how we felt about the protesters at home. I know how we felt when we were called “baby killers” and that’s why I say it is impossible to be anti-war and support the troops. Because all anti-war people do this...Oh wait...

I can support the troops just fine. Ask my cousin. I love and support him. I disagree with the war, the very fact that he is there and there is a need for him in Iraq, but I support him.

There is no disconnect unless you can't tell the difference between those who give the orders and those who take them.

I don't know what's more hilarious, the bollocks that came before that sentence, or Celtlund's expectation that anyone would consider him to be able to speak for "the troops", or anyone else but himself, and thus tell us how they "feel". I think they both crack me up equivalently, only in different ways - the former because it's such a fine specimen of gobbledegook, the latter because it is of course bonkers in a hubristic, almost "delusion of grandeur" sense.

What I'm liking most is his assumption that the hundreds of thousands of chaps involved in the current debacle will feel exactly the same way he did 30 years ago about a completely different form of protest.

Iraq Veterans Against the War (http://ivaw.org/)

What are they, self-hating?

Just like Kerry and the Vietnam Vets against the war. Demoralizing the troops and giving hope to the enemy. Most likely misfits while they were in. Same caliber as the ones who went to Canada during Vietnam to avoid the draft. :mad:

None have ever said that I'm unable to support them because of my views.

And probably never would to your face. :eek: They are more polite than that.

Just like Kerry and the Vietnam Vets against the war. Demoralizing the troops and giving hope to the enemy. Most likely misfits while they were in. Same caliber as the ones who went to Canada during Vietnam to avoid the draft. :mad:

Sounds like the same caliber of person who would look down upon others for voicing their opinions or doing something to avoid doing what they felt was unjust, immoral, or unethical, all under the pretense that it "demoralizes the troops" and "gives hope to the enemy".

Just like Kerry and the Vietnam Vets against the war.

What, you mean "activists trying to stop a horrific war abroad"? Quite so.

But, seriously, don't dodge the question. Do they or do they not support themselves? If it's true that an anti-war stance is automatically "anti-troops", how is it that soldiers can be anti-war themselves, and campaign in the anti-war movement when they return?

Demoralizing the troops and giving hope to the enemy.

On this understanding, we should never criticize anything.

Perhaps war is an endeavor of heightened importance. But that only makes criticism more necessary.

Most likely misfits while they were in. Same caliber as the ones who went to Canada during Vietnam to avoid the draft.

Unable to fit them into your irrational dogmatic stance, you prefer to attack them personally.

Nice.

And probably never would to your face. :eek: They are more polite than that.

Seems odd that I'm still welcome in my batterys other ranks bar then?

I do, however, have quite a few friends and aquaintances who have served in both theatres and all are fully aware of my opinion on the conflicts. None have ever said that I'm unable to support them because of my views.

And probably never would to your face. :eek: They are more polite than that.

Or more intelligent.

And probably never would to your face. :eek: They are more polite than that.

You know his friends? Or are you really going to claim that 1,426,705 people area all upstanding human beings based on one aspect?

I'm afraid this just doesn't make any sense at all.

Try this. Your are a baby killer but I support you. Right, it doesn't make sense. Or, you are killing innocent civilians but I support you. That's what we were told by the protesters who knew nothing about war. Who have no concept of war. Who don't understand war.

You can't have it both ways. You can not protest the war which equals killing and destruction and support those who do the killing and destruction.

How many fucking times have you made this thread, Celt?

Once.

What I'm liking most is his assumption that the hundreds of thousands of chaps involved in the current debacle will feel exactly the same way he did 30 years ago about a completely different form of protest.

Oh, but the true gem of the schizoid rigmarole is how the troops that demonstrably don't agree with him are slandered and vilified by him, while those for which he would like to delude himself to think he can speak, people are supposed to fellate and not slander and vilify like he does to the troops that don't agree with him. It's so amusing.

Try this. Your are a baby killer but I support you. Right, it doesn't make sense. Or, you are killing innocent civilians but I support you. That's what we were told by the protesters who knew nothing about war. Who have no concept of war. Who don't understand war.

You can't have it both ways. You can not protest the war which equals killing and destruction and support those who do the killing and destruction.

Not all soldiers are baby killers, not all soldiers kill innocent civilians. I support the ones who do not, those who do should be prosecuted for their war crimes.

What I really hate are the people that say we ought to pull out of Iraq/Afghanistan, and then chant "Save Darfur!"

Just like Kerry and the Vietnam Vets against the war. Demoralizing the troops and giving hope to the enemy. Most likely misfits while they were in. Same caliber as the ones who went to Canada during Vietnam to avoid the draft. :mad:

Yes, how dare they criticize the war! I bet they haven't even served in the conflict and know what it's li...

...oh, wait, they have, and their opinions don't suddenly mean that they're traitors. You proclaim the brilliance of America's much-vaunted freedoms often enough, yet you now want these people to shut up. How...ironic

I know how we felt about the protesters at home. I know how we felt when we were called “baby killers” and that’s why I say it is impossible to be anti-war and support the troops. Nobody, especially the troops that are or may be fighting it want war are pro-war, but they are for bringing freedom to oppressed people and protecting America from terrorism. But the troops will do what they have been trained and sworn to do.

Those who get out and protest the war have no idea what they are doing to the moral of the troops, and worse yet the moral of the enemy. I’d still like to see Jane Fonda tried and hung for treason. I and many other troops wrote messages for her and Joan Baez on the bombs that were loaded on the B-52’s. They were in Hanoi during Linebacker II. I’m sorry the messages never got delivered to them. I’m still upset because they aren’t in jail or hung for treason.

END OF RANT

My point is you can't tell the troops I hate what you are doing and you have no reason for doing it but I love you and support you. That is a lie.

In any case, this is a great song and explains very well how the troops feel.

http://g.dwgsee.com/wake/index.htm

Fankly, I find it impossible to both support the troops and the war. "I like you man, but so our superiours- you know the unimaginably rich ones- can get a bit more rich, you need to die painfully, without legs." How can you support the troops, and their deaths? What does 'support the troops' even mean?

Clearly you have never been a civilian being bombed by pilots like yourself. Given that you have not, I seriously doubt your right to define exactly how bad war is or is not. Frankly, all who involved themselves in such an immoral campign as the bombing of civilians (lucky you didn't help bomb Laos, or I'd be realy pissed) have no right to inform other people that anything was unpatriotic or immoral.

Frankly, the most qualified people on the planet to decide whether American troops should be in Iraq or not, are the Iraqis. For a start, the democracy we bring implies that the decision most Iraqis make will be respected by their government, and the forces supporting their government. Unfortunately, the US has not created democracy in Iraq.

They have unequivically (except the Kurds) stated that American forces are causing more harm than they prevent, and that Iraq has a fairly good chance of patching together a society looking something like what they had in 1980, so long as the Americans leave now.

Doing that would loosen our control of Iraqi oil, and destroy our excuse for bombing Iran.

Not all soldiers are baby killers, not all soldiers kill innocent civilians. I support the ones who do not, those who do should be prosecuted for their war crimes.

Stated perfectly.

Try this. Your are a baby killer but I support you. Right, it doesn't make sense. Or, you are killing innocent civilians but I support you. That's what we were told by the protesters who knew nothing about war. Who have no concept of war. Who don't understand war.

You can't have it both ways. You can not protest the war which equals killing and destruction and support those who do the killing and destruction.

You know, it's funny. You're saying people who support the troops call them baby killers?

I think you have a case of mixing everyone into one homogenous group. Some anti-war protestors support soldiers. Some anti-war protestors do not. Some do a little bit of both.

I daresay you don't understand war yourself. Certainly every book written by elite soldiers would have you thrown in the bin for failing to qualify mentally.

You can not protest the war which equals killing and destruction and support those who do the killing and destruction.

And I don't support Bush. I wouldn't have supported Johnson or Nixon. But I don't hold the soldiers responsible for a war they are legally obligated to fight--a war that will likely go on even if they refuse to participate--so I see no contradiction in supporting them.

There's nothing whatsoever unreasonable about that.

Simple non flame Answer:

I am against the war however, I respect the lads and ladys of the armerd forces around the world now involved because they are, for the most part do a bang up job the way they are being told to do it.

Just because I don't support the war, doesn't mean i don't support the men/women out there doing their jobs! They are paid and sworn to go where they are told to. They only finish what Governments and world leaders start ;)

thus your average anti-war protestor nowadays (I dont know shit bout nam, it was before i was born) hate the government for starting it, not the soldiers for fighting it

I support the ones who do not, those who do should be prosecuted for their war crimes.

Can you really draw such a sharp line? In war, innocent people will be killed, and sometimes without any moral wrongdoing on the part of the killers.

The people to hold responsible for such horrors are those who perpetrate an unjust and unnecessary war in the first place--the politicians, not the soldiers.

Because all anti-war people do this...Oh wait...

I can support the troops just fine. Ask my cousin. I love and support him. I disagree with the war, the very fact that he is there and there is a need for him in Iraq, but I support him.

There is no disconnect unless you can't tell the difference between those who give the orders and those who take them.

let me get this right. You disapprove of the fact that he is in a war and may be killing people, but you support his doing his job and killing people? And you disapprove of the fact that he is killing people to gain freedom for others and protect your freedom, but you approve of his killing people to protect the freedom of others? I am confused.

Celtlund, the only one in this entire thread who has shown a lack of support for soldiers is you.

"Most likely misfits while they were in. Same caliber as the ones who went to Canada during Vietnam to avoid the draft."

There's something very telling about that.

let me get this right. You disapprove of the fact that he is in a war and may be killing people, but you support his doing his job and killing people? And you disapprove of the fact that he is killing people to gain freedom for others and protect your freedom, but you approve of his killing people to protect the freedom of others? I am confused.
Killing people, yes. Killing legitimate military targets,yes. Killing innocent civilians on purpose, raping, murdering, pillaging, etc. no.

Pretty simple. I dislike the idea of war, but understand that it can be necessary given current political systems. I disapprove of this war, but he did not choose to fight it. He enlisted, and other people chose where to send him. He continues to fight as ethically as possible, given the situation.

the fact that he is killing people to gain freedom for others and protect your freedom

That's not a fact. That's quite counter-factual in Iraq. Some do like to tell themselves that they're doing that, but that a fact does not make.

let me get this right. You disapprove of the fact that he is in a war and may be killing people, but you support his doing his job and killing people? And you disapprove of the fact that he is killing people to gain freedom for others and protect your freedom, but you approve of his killing people to protect the freedom of others? I am confused.

I so wish that i was allowed to attack the poster aswell as the stand point because right now, you are becoming perfect fodder for it but, this is neither the US senate or the British houses of Parliment.

You have basically missed the posters point and confused yourself. That certainly isn't whati got from that post (check mine for reference)

This isn't worth it.

Celtlund, half your posts belongs on a blog. Go get one.

The other half shows your incompetence at realizing that one can actually be against a war without having to be against the people fighting in it, because the people declaring war often aren't the same people who fight it (big surprise there for you, isn't it?).

Not all soldiers are baby killers, not all soldiers kill innocent civilians. I support the ones who do not, those who do should be prosecuted for their war crimes.

And rightly they should be prosecuted if they kill innocents intentionally. However, troops are not to blame for collateral damage, but war protesters don't understand the concept of collateral damage. They don't understand the fact that the enemy might take steps to insure collateral damage in case they are attacked so the troops will be blamed for killing innocents.

This isn't worth it.

Celtlund, half your posts belongs on a blog. Go get one.

The other half shows your incompetence at realizing that one can actually be against a war without having to be against the people fighting in it, because the people declaring war often aren't the same people who fight it (big surprise there for you, isn't it?).

Emphasis mine. Thios sums up the entire thread and agrees with something i said earlier. It is the eact reason why it is possible to be anti war but pro troops...

Don't shoot the messenger (the troops), shoot the writer (politicians) instead!

Just like Kerry and the Vietnam Vets against the war. Demoralizing the troops and giving hope to the enemy. Most likely misfits while they were in. Same caliber as the ones who went to Canada during Vietnam to avoid the draft. :mad:

Ah, so everyone that disagrees with you now is a misfit. They can't have been there and see the war as useless, as a waste of THEIR lives, as RISKING THEIR LIVES FOR NO GOOD REASON, no, sir, they are "misfits".

Come on, Celtlund. You know better than to post this kind of tripe with me around. I'll give you one chance to rethink what you say. If you ignore it, well, I will certainly enjoy myself.

What I really hate are the people that say we ought to pull out of Iraq/Afghanistan, and then chant "Save Darfur!"

Aren't the the same ones that protest the war and support the troops?

And rightly they should be prosecuted if they kill innocents intentionally. However, troops are not to blame for collateral damage, but war protesters don't understand the concept of collateral damage. They don't understand the fact that the enemy might take steps to insure collateral damage in case they are attacked so the troops will be blamed for killing innocents.

Heres the concept:

In modern Warfare, and todays political climate, Collateral Damage is un-nessicary and unacceptable. You don't carpet bomb a village of innocent civilians to get a few terrorists!

(sorry, i know thats an extreme example)

Yes, how dare they criticize the war! I bet they haven't even served in the conflict and know what it's li...

...oh, wait, they have, and their opinions don't suddenly mean that they're traitors. You proclaim the brilliance of America's much-vaunted freedoms often enough, yet you now want these people to shut up. How...ironic

No, not shut up. Just don't tell the lie that they are protesting the war and supporting the troops. They can't have it both ways. Either they want to protest the war or they want to support the troops.

And rightly they should be prosecuted if they kill innocents intentionally. However, troops are not to blame for collateral damage, but war protesters don't understand the concept of collateral damage. They don't understand the fact that the enemy might take steps to insure collateral damage in case they are attacked so the troops will be blamed for killing innocents.

Oh, for crying out loud Celt. We get it. You were abused by anti-war protestors after your service in/or near Vietnam quite unneededly, and you have a grudge against all anti-war protestors. Understandable, but you have to understand that for every idiot who screams 'babykiller' in your face there are a hundred, nay a thousand reasonable individuals who would do no such thing and can actually have reasonable discussions about the war, support the troops and yet still oppose the conflict.

Can you really draw such a sharp line?

Yes, yes I can.

In war, innocent people will be killed, and sometimes without any moral wrongdoing on the part of the killers.

When exactly does that occur?

Heres the concept:

In modern Warfare, and todays political climate, Collateral Damage is unacceptable and in some cases unavoidable. You don't carpet bomb a village of innocent civilians to get a few terrorists!

(sorry, i know thats an extreme example)

A. Corrected.
B. We do not carpet bomb any more.

No, not shut up. Just don't tell the lie that they are protesting the war and supporting the troops. They can't have it both ways. Either they want to protest the war or they want to support the troops.

Did you read my first post here?

Try this. Your are a baby killer but I support you. Right, it doesn't make sense. Or, you are killing innocent civilians but I support you. That's what we were told by the protesters who knew nothing about war. Who have no concept of war. Who don't understand war.

You can't have it both ways. You can not protest the war which equals killing and destruction and support those who do the killing and destruction.

The problem here is that you've conflated protesting with calling the troops baby killers. I think it should be pretty obvious that you can do the former without the latter.

And rightly they should be prosecuted if they kill innocents intentionally. However, troops are not to blame for collateral damage, but war protesters don't understand the concept of collateral damage. They don't understand the fact that the enemy might take steps to insure collateral damage in case they are attacked so the troops will be blamed for killing innocents.

Would you like a roller? It might be more efficient in making those wide brush strokes quickly.

What I really hate are the people that say we ought to pull out of Iraq/Afghanistan, and then chant "Save Darfur!"

You hate people who've read the Genocide Convention of 1948?

However, troops are not to blame for collateral damage, but war protesters don't understand the concept of collateral damage.

Um, yes, we do.

We just tend not to think it's a good excuse for writing off the deaths of innocent people... but again, this has to do with our opposition to the war and the harms it causes. In no sense does it imply opposition to the soldiers.

A. Corrected.
B. We do not carpet bomb any more.

Could you please now accept that you are trolling rather than discussing this. Your i'm right/your wrong attitude is stinking up this thread of yours.

The correction wasn't needed as my original statement is far more accurate.

as for B, I stand corrected and appologise.

It is obvious to me that you started this thread expecting a lot of support for your view and have, instead been shocked and/or appauled that so many people disagree.

Um, yes, we do.

We just tend not to think it's a good excuse for writing off the deaths of innocent people... but again, this has to do with our opposition to the war and the harms it causes. In no sense does it imply opposition to the soldiers.

Especially not since quite a lot actively attempt to reduce or eliminate collateral damage whenever possible.

Some, however, do not. I'd be willing to suspect Celtlund to among those who just can't be bothered, but that would be unfair of me.

as for B, I stand corrected and appologise.

You shouldn't apologize. There's a damn good reason carpet bombing isn't done anymore and it's to avoid unnecessary and unacceptable collateral damage.

Come on, Celtlund. You know better than to post this kind of tripe with me around. I'll give you one chance to rethink what you say. If you ignore it, well, I will certainly enjoy myself.

:rolleyes:

When exactly does that occur?

A legitimate military target is bombed. Some civilian bystanders are killed accidentally.

Soldiers fire on enemy combatants. Some civilian bystanders are killed accidentally.

We get it. You were abused by anti-war protestors after your service in/or near Vietnam quite unneededly, and you have a grudge against all anti-war protestors.

Most of us were "abused" by protesters and yes a lot of us still carry a grudge against anti-war protesters because we know from experience that their actions give hope to the enemy, prolong the war, and cause more of our commrads to be killed.

You shouldn't apologize. There's a damn good reason carpet bombing isn't done anymore and it's to avoid unnecessary and unacceptable collateral damage.

I'm appologizing for assuming that we still practiced carpet bombing... not that we don't do it anymore.. its a good thing we don't.

Most of us were "abused" by protesters and yes a lot of us still carry a grudge against anti-war protesters because we know from experience that their actions give hope to the enemy, prolong the war, and cause more of our commrads to be killed.

You were so inept as a soldier that people protesting in a country half the wolrd away made the war last longer?

I'm appologizing for assuming that we still practiced carpet bombing... not that we don't do it anymore.. its a good thing we don't.

Ahh, very well then.

Carpet bombing was a relic from WWII. It is indeed a good thing we have progressed technologically far enough to not have to apply such techniques anymore.

Now if we could just get rid of cluster bombs that hurt so many innocent civilians...

Would you like a roller? It might be more efficient in making those wide brush strokes quickly.

Yes please. That way I can complete the painting more quickly. :p Then maybe people will better understand.

Most of us were "abused" by protesters and yes a lot of us still carry a grudge against anti-war protesters because we know from experience that their actions give hope to the enemy, prolong the war, and cause more of our commrads to be killed.

Then grow up, grow a brain and realise that not all anti-war protesters are the same. Just because some people is a single group treated you badly in the past doesn't mean the whole group is like that.

Most of us were "abused" by protesters and yes a lot of us still carry a grudge against anti-war protesters because we know from experience that their actions give hope to the enemy, prolong the war, and cause more of our commrads to be killed.

Oh bollocks - give me one shred of evidence that actually supports that rot.

Yes please. That way I can complete the painting more quickly. :p Then maybe people will better understand.

Or you will continue to claim that all anti-war protesters are part of some massive hive-mind, despite the fact that that isn't true. Case in point, me. But continue to ignore that. You do it so well.

It is obvious to me that you started this thread expecting a lot of support for your view and have, instead been shocked and/or appauled that so many people disagree.

I have never expected support on this forum on this subject. Most people on this thread have no concept of how war protests impact the troops. Perhaps by posting my experience and telling why I feel so strongly about this subject some of them will come to realize just how their actions and words impact those who are willing to give their life to protect the freedom of others. Just listen to the song again, really listen to it and maybe you will start to understand.

It's all so clear to me now! Regardless of my views, regardless of the the idiocy of the war, regardless of everything, I must support every war we fight. Otherwise, the troops will get their feelings hurt. And the enemy will think "Hey, that guy doesn't support the war! Let's go kill Americans!"





Is that about right?

I have never expected support on this forum on this subject. Most people on this thread have no concept of how war protests impact the troops. Perhaps by posting my experience and telling why I feel so strongly about this subject some of them will come to realize just how their actions and words impact those who are willing to give their life to protect the freedom of others. Just listen to the song again, really listen to it and maybe you will start to understand.

Maybe you should try to understand that most soldiers in history have never fought for humanity's freedom.

I really fail to see why American troops, aside from their war of independence (hmm, there weren't any troops then) and possibly the civil war (and oh my god! American troops were fighting against freedom there too!) are any exception. Most of the time, they've fought wars abroad for people who frequently haven't exactly wanted them to intervene.

You hate people who've read the Genocide Convention of 1948?


The worst possible thing that could be done in Darfur is to inflame the situation by imposing American troops on them. Once the troops leave (leaving the country short a few thousand, and a lot of infastructure), the violence (which has now nearly ended) will restart, and get rid of all of the people in the camps. War, in this case, is not the solution.

And Darfur isn't even the worst disaster in Africa, let alone the world.
Darfur= ~200,000 dead.
Iraq= ~ 1,200,000 dead
Democractic Republic of Congo=~ 4-5,000,000 dead

Darfur is focused on because it is the least caused by the US. Same reason AIDS has so much attenion payed it, despite being the seventh leading disease cause of death in Africa, behind diarreah and malaria.

To the OP- Has Mr esteemed bombadier (the deliberate bombing of civilians is a war crime, mind) ever been on the recieving end of 'freedom and democracy'? Cause it doesn't feel good for those involved. And does democracy not imply that a nation will have control over, say, an occupying force's timetable for exit? So why, despite Iraq's stated demands to GTFO, are there still American troops in Iraq? Why, despite most Iraqis saying that they could get over their ethnic differences so long as the US leaves, are the US still causing (according to the Iraqis) more harm than they prevent? Why is the US army not allowing Iraqis to exercise democracy in the most important way they can?

I have never expected support on this forum on this subject. Most people on this thread have no concept of how war protests impact the troops. Perhaps by posting my experience and telling why I feel so strongly about this subject some of them will come to realize just how their actions and words impact those who are willing to give their life to protect the freedom of others. Just listen to the song again, really listen to it and maybe you will start to understand.

I listened. Basically, the soldier supported the war, didn't really give any reasons for it, then told us to trust in god. Great. Exactly what point was that supposed to prove?

No, not shut up. Just don't tell the lie that they are protesting the war and supporting the troops. They can't have it both ways. Either they want to protest the war or they want to support the troops.

72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year,
and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately
89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year

Apparently the troops don't even support Iraq.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

I have never expected support on this forum on this subject. Most people on this thread have no concept of how war protests impact the troops. Perhaps by posting my experience and telling why I feel so strongly about this subject some of them will come to realize just how their actions and words impact those who are willing to give their life to protect the freedom of others. Just listen to the song again, really listen to it and maybe you will start to understand.

Maybe you should step back and listen to yourself. You are talking absolute BS man. My mate just got back from a tour of Afghanistan. He says that he knows how the protestors feel and he doesn't blame them.

He even admitted to me that they aren't fighting for freedom in either Iraq or Afghanistan but to obtain some sort of true peace in both nations where all aspects of society can get along with each other even if they disagree.

He even admits that Iraq was never about freedom but about fear and oil.

72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year,
and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately
89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year

Apparently the troops don't even support Iraq.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Wow. So apparently the troops all hate themselves.

He even admits that Iraq was never about freedom but about fear and oil.

And America needing an enemy (although that could go under fear).

Apparently the troops don't even support Iraq.

They're probably just misfits and cowards, too. :rolleyes:

Wow. So apparently the troops all hate themselves.

No, only 72% do. ;)

And America needing an enemy (although that could go under fear).

Thats what I was hinting at :P

I should add though 'supposed' freedom was the overall outcome of this war and that Bush and Co are trying to use that to justify their arrogance, stupidity and callusnous (sp?)

The the OP: Thanks for your post. You are quite right that some people who oppose the war do so in a cowardly way. Specifically, we try to cow-tow to your framework. We want to be seen as moderates who are "patriotic too," so when we see you charging us as being unsupportive of the troops, we try to say "how insulting! Of course we support the troops." And, of course, you are right that is never going to work. So I will not proceed with any pretense of supporting the troops.


I know how we felt about the protesters at home. I know how we felt when we were called “baby killers” and that’s why I say it is impossible to be anti-war and support the troops.

It is definitely insulting that you were called "baby killers," especially because some of you weren't. Some of you were.


Nobody, especially the troops that are or may be fighting it want war are pro-war,

So are they "neutral" with respect to war? How is that a valid position?


but they are for bringing freedom to oppressed people

Freedom according to the State, that is. Still, as a debater, I believe in the principle of charity: you are right that the US often fought against tyrants. This is definitely not the case true without any exception.


and protecting America from terrorism. But the troops will do what they have been trained and sworn to do.

Sometimes we do. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that talk of terrorism has a darker side. To wit, the category "terrorist" serves to dehumanize those who struggle against cruelty and oppression and facilitate their merciless slaughter by the rulers, with the cheerleading of the public.


Those who get out and protest the war have no idea what they are doing to the moral of the troops, and worse yet the moral of the enemy.

When soldiers are doing good, they should feel good about it. But when they are doing evil, they should not feel good about it. Protesters of a war believe that the war is morally wrong (evil), and therefore, their protest should be unsurprising. Furthermore, war protesters should be unembarrassed that they have a negative effect on morale.


I’d still like to see Jane Fonda tried and hung for treason. I and many other troops wrote messages for her and Joan Baez on the bombs that were loaded on the B-52’s. They were in Hanoi during Linebacker II. I’m sorry the messages never got delivered to them. I’m still upset because they aren’t in jail or hung for treason.

Is it fair to say that because they offended you, they must die? I suggest that this is damaging your credibility.


My point is you can't tell the troops I hate what you are doing and you have no reason for doing it but I love you and support you. That is a lie.

And, again, you are quite right that many of those who oppose the war do so badly and with flawed principles.

But I suggest that there is a view you have not considered. On this view, all people are responsible moral agents. We assume that people are not stupid and that they do not take moral decisions lightly. Furthermore, we assume that people think about their moral frameworks very carefully before coming to have opinions about what is right and wrong. That is, assuming those of us who oppose the war are correct and have the right principles with which to oppose it, then the conclusion we are forced to arrive at is that people are choosing consciously and with great amounts of thinking to enlist and cooperate with something that we are charging is morally wrong (evil.)

On this view, it seems obvious to me that you are either forced to dispute our principles and claim that the war is justified or to accept and understand that many of us are not supportive of the troops.

Why should we be embarrassed about this?

The idea that you have to support the war or you are against the troops is a very old piece of propoganda. The people who use it are either exploiting the sentiments of the nieve, ignorent, or patriotic, or they are themselves being manipulated. The fact that you use "I was a soldier, so shut up," lowers my opinion of your argument even further. One of the principles of a democratic society is civillian oversight of the millitary. When this is lacking, the millitary tends to become the government. Yet acording to your argument, followed to its logical conclusion, there should be no civllian oversight of the millitary, or every President should be a former soldier, because no one else knows what they're talking about.

Here's a hypothetical situation: A friendly fire incident occurs along a disputed border, and is mistaken for an attack. When its found out that the "attack" was an accident, would you say that we should carry on with the war, because to do otherwise would be failing to support the troops. Is sending thousands of men and women to die over a mistake your idea of support? Do you really think that once a decission is made we should never back down or change our minds based on new evidence, consequences be damned? Hell, if you were in charge, we probably be living in the radioactive ruins of the post-WW3 world.

Let me tell you something. I respect any soldier who volunteers to do that job because they believe it is right. It doesn't matter wheather I support the war. When you made that post, you personally insulted me and every individual who has ever opposed a war.

War is a matter of policy. You can oppose a policy and still support those who follow it. If you don't like paying taxes, does it mean you're against everyone who's ever been a tax collector? If you dislike a particular law, does it mean you're against all judges, police, and lawyers? Perhaps you think being a soldier is different. Well let me tell you something: in a truly democratic society, there are no sacred cows. And the only way for any society to function effectively is to allow disagreement and discussion on matters of policy. You can oppose a policy and still support as fellow human beings those who support it.

War is a matter of policy. You can oppose a policy and still support those who follow it. If you don't like paying taxes, does it mean you're against everyone who's ever been a tax collector? If you dislike a particular law, does it mean you're against all judges, police, and lawyers? Perhaps you think being a soldier is different. Well let me tell you something: in a truly democratic society, there are no sacred cows. And the only way for any society to function effectively is to allow disagreement and discussion on matters of policy. You can oppose a policy and still support as fellow human beings those who support it.

Worth Repeating.

Yes please. That way I can complete the painting more quickly. :p Then maybe people will better understand.

Heh.

I didn't want to have to do this...

Oh, who am I kidding, I LOVE this.

***Sequence of all my best moves: Haiku, Brutus's Honor, Haiku, 7th Flush, Haiku, Riddler, Haiku***

***Last Word***

Celtlund pretends that
Only those that support wars
Support the troops in them.

Friends, users, NSers, lend me your eyes!
I come to bury anti-war protesters, not to praise them.
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with anti-war protesters. The noble Celtlund
Hath told you they are anti-troops;
If it is so, it is a grievous fault,
And grievously hath anti-war protesters answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Celtlund and the rest-
For Celtlund is an honorable man;
So are they all, all honorable men-
Come I to speak against the anti-war rallies.
They were for keeping troops safe, away from a mismanaged war;
But Celtlund says they are anti-troops,
And Celtlund is an honorable man.
They tried to bring the soldiers home from Iraq,
Preventing more of them from being killed.
Did this in the anti-war protesters seem anti-troops?
When that the troops were killed, anti-war protesters have wept;
Being anti-troops should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Celtlund says they were anti-troops,
And Celtlund is an honorable man.
You all did see what they want,
Troops to be safe from further harm.
Troops they do not abuse. Is this anti-troops?
Yet Celtlund says they are anti-troops,
And sure he is an honorable man.
I speak not to disprove what Celtlund spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all questioned war once, not without cause;
What cause withholds you then to questioning it now?
O judgement, thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with logics,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

And here we see that
Celtlund's claims have no basis
On reality:

The claim that only by supporting the war one supports the troops neglects to mention that these same troops get killed in the war, thus making this support all the more dangerous to them.

The claim that only by supporting the war one supports the troops neglects to mention that troops fighting for the freedom to disagree would be devoid of a point were war to be met with unconditional support.

The claim that only by supporting the war one supports the troops neglects to mention that there are MANY people in the military that speak out against the war after witnessing its horrors.

The claim that only by supporting the war one supports the troops neglects to mention that many wars are started under false pretenses, the most recent one for instance.

The claim that only by supporting the war one supports the troops neglects to mention that supporting a war under false pretenses is supporting troop endangerment under false pretenses.

The claim that only by supporting the war one supports the troops neglects to mention that the war protesters are not the ones putting the troops in harm's way for no reason.

The claim that only by supporting the war one supports the troops neglects to mention that by protesting the war, the chance of more troops making it back safely increases.

And as such we see
Celtlund's dangerous folly in
Making baseless claims.

Riddle me this: Would you want to be fighting a war under false pretenses?

Riddle me that: Would you trust the support of people that only pay lip service to you because the government told them to?

Riddle me this: Would you accept insincere support based on a need to protect your feelings all the while this "support" in all likelihood puts you MORE at risk?

Riddle me that: Would you feel better knowing that this insincere, more risky for you, pointless and lying support is behind you rather than people wanting you out of harm's way for a cause that isn't?

Riddle me this: Is THIS the support you want?

Riddle me that: Then why do you argue that only people that support the war support the troops?

And thus we see that
In easy and factual points
Celtlund's claims are bull.

Last word.

And probably never would to your face. :eek: They are more polite than that.

Because heaven forbid, they might not think the same way you do. They're probably not soldiers right? Or even maybe human.

Let's apply some of this arrogance to you. You're no soldier. A soldier follows the laws of his country, but never deserts his humanity for orders. You do, so clearly you're no soldier. Just a mindless killer who substitutes humanity for blind nationalism.

This statement is as valid as your assumption that all soldiers think the same way as you.

Why should we be embarrassed about this?

Because it reflects an urge to judge others harshly when such harshness may not be justified.

For starters, it's perfectly possible to be opposed, indeed very strongly opposed, to the war in Iraq while believing that it is possible for a person to conclude in good faith that the war is justified. If such a person serves in the war, what moral wrong has he or she committed?

Also, just because people should avoid participating in unjust wars doesn't mean we are entitled to condemn them harshly for failing to do so. None of us are morally perfect. Indeed, pretty much all of us are complicit to one degree or another with US imperialism... in the end even WUO played its game.

The right question to ask at this point is not "How do we allocate moral blame?" It is, "How do we stop it?" And the way to stop it is certainly not to alienate potential allies by attacking the troops.

Can you really draw such a sharp line? In war, innocent people will be killed, and sometimes without any moral wrongdoing on the part of the killers.


The cases where unarmed civilians were lined up and gunned down execution style or stuffed into closets before being riddled with bullets can be considered to be clearly moral wrongdoing I would imagine.

Or how about grabbing someone from his home, shooting him in the middle of the night, leaving the corpse in the road with a weapon and claiming him to be the enemy?

The cases where unarmed civilians were lined up and gunned down execution style or stuffed into closets before being riddled with bullets can be considered to be clearly moral wrongdoing I would imagine.

Or how about grabbing someone from his home, shooting him in the middle of the night, leaving the corpse in the road with a weapon and claiming him to be the enemy?

"Sometimes."

I'm not going to dispute that atrocities have occurred.

Ok, let me put it this way:

Protestors protesting at army/navy/air bases - Idiots. Those men and women are only doing their sworn duty and the job they are paid to do. more often than not they also feel they are doing the right thing. It is A very bad idea to protest against the troops.

Protestors protesting outside of parliment/city hall/municipal buildings/etc - Good, Protesting against the policy makers is the correct way to protest against a war. You are attacking the policy makers, not those who are following policy.

As a side note, i went on an anti-war demo the saturday after the second Gulf War began. i did this because i could not make it to London. On the street, some guy held up a picture of the twin towers collapsing. He verbally abused me and spat at me.

i wiped the spittle from my face, turned and very calmly said "Sir, you are a bafoon. This war has nothing to do with the Talliban or 9/11. sadam and Bin laden are not allies, infact the two men hate each other with a passion due to the events shortly after Gulf War 1. As to Sadam having WMD's, the likelyhood of him being able to strike allied targets with them is slim to none unless the Chinese or the Russians have been supplying the missiles."

He and others around him very swiftly shut up.

*snip*
Brilliant, thoght I think you messed up the scanning on Marc Anthony's sppech. ;)

I respect any soldier who volunteers to do that job because they believe it is right.

Admirable sentiment, but I think the OP's point is that it is impossible for us to respect those soldiers if we disagree with the principles and/or the decision-making process of the soldiers who volunteer. If we think soldiers are making an immoral decision, we don't respect them to the extent that what they believe to be right is irrelevant to us.

I think that the OP is right, and us war dissenters should be unapologetic about the fact that we are "unsupportive of the troops."

Admirable sentiment, but I think the OP's point is that it is impossible for us to respect those soldiers if we disagree with the principles and/or the decision-making process of the soldiers who volunteer. If we think soldiers are making an immoral decision, we don't respect them to the extent that what they believe to be right is irrelevant to us.

I think that the OP is right, and us war dissenters should be unapologetic about it.

Fair enough, but i and several others feel the OP is wrong. See my above post, i fit into the second category.

Brilliant, thoght I think you messed up the scanning on Marc Anthony's sppech. ;)

Well, surely you didn't expect me to keep it in iambic pentameter. Taihen. ;)

Well, id say that i love what our soldiers do...

But i hate the way they are lead...

You can support the guys that are out there defending your ass, without having to support what the Politicians force them to do...

Admirable sentiment, but I think the OP's point is that it is impossible for us to respect those soldiers if we disagree with the principles and/or the decision-making process of the soldiers who volunteer.

So you can't respect people you disagree with? Ever? Really?

So you can't respect people you disagree with? Ever? Really?

If that is the case it explains a lot about NSG.

Germans! The fatherland is under attack from enemies abroad and at home! Communists have burnt down the parliament! We do not want war but we will not be taken by surprise!

I have never expected support on this forum on this subject. Most people on this thread have no concept of how war protests impact the troops. Perhaps by posting my experience and telling why I feel so strongly about this subject some of them will come to realize just how their actions and words impact those who are willing to give their life to protect the freedom of others. Just listen to the song again, really listen to it and maybe you will start to understand.
I empathise. It's not easy to go through persecution from people who represent an idea and not to be turned against that idea; especially when said people are supposedly representing that idea in the act of persecuting you. I know that it's natural to think ill of people who stand up for it even when hearing about how you suffered under it. It's like trying to defend Irish Republicanism to a victim of an IRA bombing, Israeli Soverignty to a Palestinian who's just lost his home or the value of Capitalism to sweatshop workers in Taiwan.

But the thing is, sometimes what people say is their reason for acting isn't their real reason. Sometimes ideology is just a facilitator to let people get away with satisfying other desires or needs. Particularly in political activists and representatives, of course. Or even take Al Qaeda - do you really think they hate America just because its people act against a known moral code? That's just an excuse to vent their personal insecurities and fears through aggressive action - a standard fight-or-flight response.

It's not fair to block off an avenue of thought just because you've been wronged by its adherents, because you can't easily trust people to be truthful about why they're doing what they're doing. Is the child-molesting priest really just doing what God tells him to? Is the parking warden really just keeping order in the streets? Is the journalist really representing truth, the politician the people, the advertiser the product?

I'm not saying you're wrong about anti-war sentiment. I disagree with you, but then I could be wrong myself. I do think you need to look at why you're saying what you are. If the ultimate origin of your thoughts about the wrongs of protesting lie in your own experiences of protestors, then is this something that you can really apply generally?

Rubbish. You can be both anti-war and be supportive of the troops in war zone. I know because I am both.

As to supporting the troops, I think it's unwise to give a blanket sstatement of support for an entire group of people. I support some of the troops, I don't support some of them.

Heh.

I didn't want to have to do this...

Oh, who am I kidding, I LOVE this.

<snip>
I love it, too. *salaams to the raja* :D

So you can't respect people you disagree with? Ever? Really?

I think you can respect another, regardless of agreement or lack of...support is often another thing entirely.

I think you can respect another, regardless of agreement or lack of...support is often another thing entirely.

What's the difference, in your view, between "respect" and "support"?

What's the difference, in your view, between "respect" and "support"?

"Support" implies agreement.

"Respect" need not entail agreement, but you still know when to shut up and not force others to change their point of view.

"Support" implies agreement.

"Respect" need not entail agreement, but you still know when to shut up and not force others to change their point of view.

But you can still support a person that you do not agree with, you just may not support that one position/decision, but you can support them as a whole.

"Support" implies agreement.

Not support for a person, no.

Admittedly, I do think "support" is something of a stronger thing than "respect." You can choose to kill someone you respect, but I don't think you can do the same for someone you support. But you can still support someone you disagree with--for instance, you can help and comfort a friend with a problem, even if you disagree with the decisions he or she makes.

I love it, too. *salaams to the rajah* :D

So, think "Last Word" is a good name for it? :D

I see. You meant, people, not decisions.

Well, respect is non-engagement, more words than actions.

Support is engagement, more actions than merely respect.

You shouldn't apologize. There's a damn good reason carpet bombing isn't done anymore and it's to avoid unnecessary and unacceptable collateral damage.

I don't really think so. Carpet bombing was dropped for a number of reasons really. For one, it's a waste of munitions and money. For another, it needs large bombers, which suck up a lot of money again. Smart munitions can be put on smaller, faster craft which have a better chance of avoiding air defenses and can strike designated targets.

The only two military reasons for carpet bombing is because you can't pinpoint where enemy material is, but know it's approximate location, or because you want that widespread devastation, which is generally the case when leveling cities you have no interest in taking.

American war lovers like to thump the whole "America tries to avoid human losses" rubbish, but that's never the case. We're talking about a nation that had no qualms spraying chemical weapons over a large portion of a country and then denying it had any harmful effects on humans despite the evidence after all. Or even testing them on its own citizens on the sly in the 50s and 60s. America simply economized on destroying things. Less manpower and heavy bombers needed for better results with smart munitions.

Its like the old Christian saying "Love the sinner, hate the sin"
Or Love the warrior, hate the war.


I love how some of these idiots automaticly have the right to say
"If you don't 100% support the Iraq war you AUTOMATICLY hate all soldiers"

and for that I go "WTF".

I think the Iraq war was uneeded and it was bungled by those in power from the get go. The soldiers however do the best they can against political ass kissing by getting subpar supplies and support.

Part of the problem is the word "troops." When I say "I support the troops," what I mean is that I respect the decisions of the individual people enlisted and hope they live happy lives. Same with any group of people. However, some people use "troops" to mean, "people and policies of the U.S. military," which I don't support, at least not right now. I'm not sure if either is more correct, but there is definitely a "Definitional Disparity." (Wait, "definitional" is a real word? No way.)

EDIT: A link here (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34068), because it's funny.

So you can't respect people you disagree with? Ever? Really?

If that is the case it explains a lot about NSG.
Meh. I'm in a bit of a bad mood. Don't justify being a jackass, though. I retract what I said.

That was me being perfect but pretending to be fallible. ;)

However, in my defense, an anecdote: I knew someone at my high school who said "I want to join the Army so I can kill Iraqis." (Dead serious.) I told him "I hope you get killed over there."

Should I have reacted differently?

You shouldn't apologize. There's a damn good reason carpet bombing isn't done anymore and it's to avoid unnecessary and unacceptable collateral damage.

You say that as if there existed such a thing as "necessary" or "acceptable" collateral damage.

:rolleyes:



A legitimate military target is bombed. Some civilian bystanders are killed accidentally.

If it is known that civilians are near by bombs should not be used. We have weapons that can actually be aimed, use them.

Admirable sentiment, but I think the OP's point is that it is impossible for us to respect those soldiers if we disagree with the principles and/or the decision-making process of the soldiers who volunteer. If we think soldiers are making an immoral decision, we don't respect them to the extent that what they believe to be right is irrelevant to us.
I personally don't disagree with the principles or decisions of the soldier. It is not implicitly wrong to fight for your people or to obey orders without hesitation when you do so. Fighting means having to get your hands dirty, and I at the same time feel grateful and pitiful that there are people willing to do so to protect me. I'm glad they're there, but I regret the waste of life and/or innocence that results whenever their power needs to be exercised.

But the greatest battle is that which is not fought. I do believe that all application of military force is diplomatic failure - whether this is failing to assist the other in realising their mistake or in failing to recognise our own mistakes. So although I understand that the military is an invaluable resource, I would rather it never needed to be used. And Everything we've done post 9/11 is certainly a horrendously misjudged application of military force in a situation that called for Reconsiliation from the get-go.

You say that as if there existed such a thing as "necessary" or "acceptable" collateral damage.
The ends justify the means.

Should I have reacted differently?

Meh, you probably should have challenged his perspective, but people like that are to far gone IMO. I wouldn't have done it differently.

The ends justify the means.

Care to back that statement up? It's not universally accepted, as I'm sure you are aware.

Ahh, very well then.

Carpet bombing was a relic from WWII. It is indeed a good thing we have progressed technologically far enough to not have to apply such techniques anymore.

We nave HAD to apply such barbaric techniques, we CHOSE to apply them because we were able to.

Now if we could just get rid of cluster bombs that hurt so many innocent civilians...

Again, we CAN get rid of them, we simply lack the balls to do so.

Care to back that statement up? It's not universally accepted, as I'm sure you are aware.
It's theoretically sound, but only for the single detailed account of the "ends" where all consequences are positive. Where most people go wrong is that the "ends" includes a considerably negative effect that they hadn't thought of (or just don't care about).

Should I have reacted differently?

Probably, but I would have said--or at least thought--exactly the same thing.

If it is known that civilians are near by bombs should not be used. We have weapons that can actually be aimed, use them.

You think ground fighting doesn't harm civilians?

Care to back that statement up? It's not universally accepted, as I'm sure you are aware.
Sigh...

I was joking, and I was hoping that my sig would have made it clear that I was joking, But I'll concede it wasn't immediately obvious.

It's theoretically sound, but only for the single detailed account of the "ends" where all consequences are positive. Where most people go wrong is that the "ends" includes a considerably negative effect that they hadn't thought of (or just don't care about).

It doesn't take alternatives into account.

Heh.

I didn't want to have to do this...

Oh, who am I kidding, I LOVE this.

***Sequence of all my best moves: Haiku, Brutus's Honor, Haiku, 7th Flush, Haiku, Riddler, Haiku***

<SNIP>

***Last Word***
Last word.

ULTRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA COMBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

It doesn't take alternatives into account.
If all consequences are positive then the choice between alternatives is arbitrary, no?

The ends justify the means.

That's not the reasoning used in cases of collateral damage.

"Ends justify the means" is, "I can murder this innocent person to save others."

By contrast, the logic of "collateral damage"--at least when it is ethically defensible--is something more like, "We never want innocent people to die, and we always take steps to minimize civilian casualties. But sometimes civilian deaths are unavoidable."

In one case, we intend the deaths of innocent people. In the other case, we do not.

If all consequences are positive then the choice between alternatives is arbitrary, no?

If the means must be justified by an end than there must be something wrong with them, therefore consideration is necessary to choose the best option. Also just because something is positive, doesn't mean that it is the same there will be different benefits, side-affects, considerations so no, not arbitrary.

That's not the reasoning used in cases of collateral damage.

"Ends justify the means" is, "I can murder this innocent person to save others."

By contrast, the logic of "collateral damage"--at least when it is ethically defensible--is something more like, "We never want innocent people to die, and we always take steps to minimize civilian casualties. But sometimes civilian deaths are unavoidable."

In one case, we intend the deaths of innocent people. In the other case, we do not.
I was joking. I guess I'm bad at sarcasm. *points to sig* :(

I was joking. I guess I'm bad at sarcasm. *points to sig* :(

nah, there are just lots of crazy people on NSG who do hold weird opinions, so people get mixed up if they're not well known.

Probably, but I would have said--or at least thought--exactly the same thing.



You think ground fighting doesn't harm civilians?

I think there's less of a chance of a civilian being injured than if we drop a bomb that can't tell the difference between the civilians and the enemy.

I was joking. I guess I'm bad at sarcasm.

No, I understood you. I just wanted to note that, regardless of whether or not it is your position, "the ends justify the means" is not required to accept collateral damage.

Question for OP:

If being anti war (and I'm not "anti-war," I'm anti this war) and supporting our troops at the same time is an impossibility, why did anti-war candidate Ron Paul receive more military donations than everyone else combined? Did it ever occur to you that because we support them we don't want them to throw their lives away for a bullshit "cause?"

I don't want our troops to die needlessly trying to solve a "problem" that their presence is simply exacerbating. I want them home, I want them safe, and I want them to carry out their duty; e.g. the protection of our country. To suggest that our national security is in any way dependent on our presence in Iraq is idiocy of the highest order.

I'll support America's troops to the day I die, but I will never, ever support an imperialist war like the one in Iraq. Afghanastan? Sure.

Iraq? Hell no.

I was at Utapao, Thailand from March 1972 to 1973. I worked on the B-52s and was there for Linebacker II

Well done, how does it feel to be partly responsible for the murder of 1,624 innocent civilians?

Well done, how does it feel to be partly responsible for the murder of 1,624 innocent civilians?

At some point in your life you were also indirectly the cause of somebody else's death. So don't be so smug.

ULTRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA COMBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

You get me. :D

If the means must be justified by an end than there must be something wrong with them, therefore consideration is necessary to choose the best option.
While an interesting point, that lies outside the scope of the assertion. The ends justifying the means doesn't mean the means aren't themselves otherwise justified.

Also just because something is positive, doesn't mean that it is the same there will be different benefits, side-affects, considerations so no, not arbitrary.
These side-effects are encapsulated within the understanding of "the ends". If there is any chain of cause and effect from the means in question that results in some negative factor then the "ends" that we're considering does not equate to the case where "all consequences are positive".

"How positive" doesn't matter. Let's say in a Utopian society everyone is guaranteed enough money to satisfy their needs and wants. Is it unfair that some get $5 while some get $5 trillion? Not at all - everyone gets what they want out of it, and if they wanted any more then they'd just ask for it. A similar sort of thing applies here - as long as no consequence is negative, it doesn't matter whether some consequences are more positive than others.

So, think "Last Word" is a good name for it? :D

Yes, except for the fact that it isn't. Thousands of words are coming and will come after it, at least half them utter crap. It seems there's no such thing as "the last word" in this world anymore. :(

;)

Yes, except for the fact that it isn't. Thousands of words are coming and will come after it, at least half them utter crap. It seems there's no such thing as "the last word" in this world anymore. :(

;)

Well, yes, but for the style of it. I mean, "last" in the sense of "ultimate". ;)

Well, yes, but for the style of it. I mean, "last" in the sense of "ultimate". ;)
Oh, in that sense, absolutely. I mean, what else can one say after all that beauty? :D I was just wishing it really would shut certain people up for a day or two. ;)

Oh, in that sense, absolutely. I mean, what else can one say after all that beauty? :D I was just wishing it really would shut certain people up for a day or two. ;)

Mmm. I like your style. How old are you? Depending on it, can you be my fangirl? I never had a fangirl! :D

Celt, thank you for providing a near textbook perfect example of a false dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma).

Your assertation that one must accept that the war in Iraq is good and must be supported, or else one must consider all soldiers to be baby killing murderers does not bear out in facts, as Unlucky_and_unbiddable's Zogby poll shows.

Furthermore, by your black and white classifying of those who do not support the war as being those who call the troops baby killers, you've smeared the 72% of your service members who do not agree with you as baby killers, making you as bad as the protesters you detest.

72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year,
and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately
89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year

Apparently the troops don't even support Iraq.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Indeed so. And Celt appears to believe they are all baby killers.

So you can't respect people you disagree with? Ever? Really?If that is the case it explains a lot about NSG.

Indeed so it would seem.

Question for OP:

If being anti war (and I'm not "anti-war," I'm anti this war) and supporting our troops at the same time is an impossibility, why did anti-war candidate Ron Paul receive more military donations than everyone else combined? Did it ever occur to you that because we support them we don't want them to throw their lives away for a bullshit "cause?"

I don't want our troops to die needlessly trying to solve a "problem" that their presence is simply exacerbating. I want them home, I want them safe, and I want them to carry out their duty; e.g. the protection of our country. To suggest that our national security is in any way dependent on our presence in Iraq is idiocy of the highest order.

I'll agree with everything there, with one quibble - "throw their lives away for a bullshit 'cause'" implies that military persons who die in combat have wasted their lives. Even in this idioticly bungled war, that implication is disrespectful. The 4000+ US service members who've died in this FUBAR goatscrew of a war did so, for the large part*, doing what they considered being their duty. Their lives may have been wasted by GWBush, Rummy, Tommy Franks, and a long list of others, but to imply that the fighting men and women did so is disrespectful.

*I don't think I can cout that as being 100%. I'm sure there have been doubters killed in Iraq.

<snip>

However, in my defense, an anecdote: I knew someone at my high school who said "I want to join the Army so I can kill Iraqis." (Dead serious.) I told him "I hope you get killed over there."

Should I have reacted differently?

Nah, sounds like you both were on the same page, presuming you were serious.

Well done, how does it feel to be partly responsible for the murder of 1,624 innocent civilians?

If it makes you feel any better, a good half were probably bourgeois.

If it makes you feel any better, a good half were probably bourgeois.

Heck, considering "bourgeois" is a pretty fluid definition, any percentage of them, from zero to one hundred, can be it. :p

Mmm. I like your style. How old are you? Depending on it, can you be my fangirl? I never had a fangirl! :D
Hmm, tempting, but I fear you may have missed that boat. My fangirl energies are already pretty spread out, and at my age, I haven't much to go around as it is. Hell, I'm already borderline "cougar," which makes "fangirl" start to sound inappropriate in some way. ;) Just know that in an upscale cocktail bar somewhere, I am ordering extra olives for my martini in your honor.

Nobody, especially the troops that are or may be fighting it want war are pro-war, but they are for bringing freedom to oppressed people and protecting America from terrorism.

I’d still like to see Jane Fonda tried and hung for treason.
How noble!! You want to "bring freedom to oppressed people", but you don't want the people that have that "freedom", to be able to express themselves.

You sir are a hypocrite.

Hmm, tempting, but I fear you may have missed that boat. My fangirl energies are already pretty spread out, and at my age, I haven't much to go around as it is. Hell, I'm already borderline "cougar," which makes "fangirl" start to sound inappropriate in some way. ;) Just know that in an upscale cocktail bar somewhere, I am ordering extra olives for my martini in your honor.

Good enough, good enough. :D

Now let's see if my hapless opponent makes any attempt at defending himself against my points, no? And I say attempt because, well, it may be just outside the realm of possibility.

(For that matter, in the last two words of that post - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13668295&postcount=85 in case others missed it and lest Celt ignores it - kindly picture a guy sheathing a katana BEFORE the opponent falls unconscious.) :p

Any soldier worth his salt should be anti-war; yet there are still things worth fighting for.

Gen. Colin Powell, ret.

If that's your ultimatum, then I'll just not support the troops. Oh fucking well.

Good enough, good enough. :D

Now let's see if my hapless opponent makes any attempt at defending himself against my points, no? And I say attempt because, well, it may be just outside the realm of possibility.

(For that matter, in the last two words of that post - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13668295&postcount=85 in case others missed it and lest Celt ignores it - kindly picture a guy sheathing a katana BEFORE the opponent falls unconscious.) :p

So should I picture the attack as Kuzu-ryūsen, or Amakakeru Ryū no Hirameki? For that matter if he's unconscious rather than sliced to ribbons, shouldn't we be picturing a sakabatō rather than a katana?


Damn, hope I don't give anyone geek poisoning with this post.

Iraq Veterans Against the War (http://ivaw.org/)

What are they, self-hating?

I made my own post about how opposing the abuse of military personnel and veterans by incompetent and inexperienced Presidents who seek only political gain is, in fact, the essential definition of "supporting our troops;" how this position is, in fact, entirely consistent with a more general recognition of the necessity of military defense and support for the people who commit themselves to carrying out that defense.

But I deleted it, because I like Soheran's post much better.

This thread is over.

72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year,
and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately
89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year

Apparently the troops don't even support Iraq.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

OMG! The troops don't support our troops! They must hate our freedoms!

So should I picture the attack as Kuzu-ryūsen, or Amakakeru Ryū no Hirameki? For that matter if he's unconscious rather than sliced to ribbons, shouldn't we be picturing a sakabatō rather than a katana?


Damn, hope I don't give anyone geek poisoning with this post.

Well, unconscious mainly due to how it works in games. I mean, people don't die in them. :p

So, katana still. :p

The style would be towards Kuzu-ryūsen (consider the fact that I make about seven moves, with four different styles) with a bit of a focus on a combo of sorts. It's supposed to look like something out of a Chrono Cross signature move, or a fighting game ranbu super (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Fighting_game_terms#Ranbu_Super) . :D

[QUOTE=Celtlund II
blah blah blah bullshit
[/QUOTE]


I'm against the Iraq war. I support my bro, cousin and other folks that are marines that have served wasting their time in Iraq. None of them support the Iraq war. I guess that makes them traitors, at least to morons.

The most ruthless, effective and efficient collective call of "bullshit" on an OP in living memory?

Heh.



ULTRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA COMBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/117741625470.gif

I was at Utapao, Thailand from March 1972 to 1973. I worked on the B-52s and was there for Linebacker II and the cease fire at the end of the war. Used to sit on the ramp in the maintenance vehicle during launch and we would make a list of the B-52’s that took off. In the morning during recovery we would cross off the ones that came back. For every one that didn’t make it back, there were six dead or captured airmen. I was on the ramp the night one crashed at the end of the runway. It got shot up and the crew was told to bail out. They didn’t do it because the lost communications with the gunner and didn’t know his condition. The gunner and two others survived the crash and the other three died. I also saw many shot up B-52s and worked on them to get them back into combat.

Of course, those deaths would have never happened if the US soldiers had stayed back home. Which is what the anti-war protester asked for.
So, "supporting the troops" means "send them to die fighting a foreign country that didn't attack us" (as was the case for Viet Nam) or "wish better life for countrymen who happen to be soldiers at the time"?


I know how we felt about the protesters at home. I know how we felt when we were called “baby killers” and that’s why I say it is impossible to be anti-war and support the troops. Nobody, especially the troops that are or may be fighting it want war are pro-war, but they are for bringing freedom to oppressed people and protecting America from terrorism. But the troops will do what they have been trained and sworn to do.


So. The troops don't want war, you say. This is, they are anti-war. So, they hate themselves. Still they volunteered for the army.
I. Smell. Contradictions.

Anyway, what have the troops been trained to do? Maybe you should ask this one to yourself. Have they been trained to obey without thinking? Or have they been trained to kill unarmed people (it has happened)? Is this compatible with the tenets of democracy and human rights they're supposed to be defending?


Those who get out and protest the war have no idea what they are doing to the moral of the troops, and worse yet the moral of the enemy. I’d still like to see Jane Fonda tried and hung for treason. I and many other troops wrote messages for her and Joan Baez on the bombs that were loaded on the B-52’s. They were in Hanoi during Linebacker II. I’m sorry the messages never got delivered to them. I’m still upset because they aren’t in jail or hung for treason.


Great way of upholding democracy: bombing and hanging those who dissent. By the same standards, Hitler wasn't doing anything anti-democratic when he had the opposing political parties dissolved and their members sent to lagers.

My cousin sent me a link to the following song that was sent to her by her friend. In the e-mail the friend said she was "anti-war, but supports the troops. Well, that sent me into a rant and I sent her the following:

I was at Utapao, Thailand from March 1972 to 1973. I worked on the B-52s and was there for Linebacker II and the cease fire at the end of the war. Used to sit on the ramp in the maintenance vehicle during launch and we would make a list of the B-52’s that took off. In the morning during recovery we would cross off the ones that came back. For every one that didn’t make it back, there were six dead or captured airmen. I was on the ramp the night one crashed at the end of the runway. It got shot up and the crew was told to bail out. They didn’t do it because the lost communications with the gunner and didn’t know his condition. The gunner and two others survived the crash and the other three died. I also saw many shot up B-52s and worked on them to get them back into combat.

I know how we felt about the protesters at home. I know how we felt when we were called “baby killers” and that’s why I say it is impossible to be anti-war and support the troops. Nobody, especially the troops that are or may be fighting it want war are pro-war, but they are for bringing freedom to oppressed people and protecting America from terrorism. But the troops will do what they have been trained and sworn to do.

Those who get out and protest the war have no idea what they are doing to the moral of the troops, and worse yet the moral of the enemy. I’d still like to see Jane Fonda tried and hung for treason. I and many other troops wrote messages for her and Joan Baez on the bombs that were loaded on the B-52’s. They were in Hanoi during Linebacker II. I’m sorry the messages never got delivered to them. I’m still upset because they aren’t in jail or hung for treason.

END OF RANT

My point is you can't tell the troops I hate what you are doing and you have no reason for doing it but I love you and support you. That is a lie.

In any case, this is a great song and explains very well how the troops feel.

http://g.dwgsee.com/wake/index.htm
This makes no sense:

1. I was confronted with my fellow service(wo)men dying in the Vietnam War.
2. Hating the troops is not supporting the troops, and people hated me during and after the Vietnam War.
3. ?????
4. People who say they support the troops but not the Iraq War are liars. (Profit)

Some people make out anti-war soldiers to be some sort of a very serious thing. But it's just a case of somebody employed who is sent to do something he/she doesn't want. Surely all other professions can be like that. Why is it worse when it involves a soldier?

How to oppose the war but support the troops my (British) way: vote in the party that supports a quick end to the war or a quick troop withdrawal, but lobby the government to spend more money on administration of the troops, e.g. giving them enough equipment to do the job they've been told to do, giving them proper housing, giving them proper rehabilitation and compensation if they come back injured, giving their family adequate support.

Even though some of the population thinks that the two are incompatible (like some potty university students from UCL and Manchester), opposing the war and supporting the troops need not conflict.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/117741625470.gif
:D I die laughing. *but actually just falls unconscious laughing* :D

I know how we felt about the protesters at home. I know how we felt when we were called “baby killers” and that’s why I say it is impossible to be anti-war and support the troops. Nobody, especially the troops that are or may be fighting it want war are pro-war, but they are for bringing freedom to oppressed people and protecting America from terrorism. But the troops will do what they have been trained and sworn to do.


Just a question....What war would this be? WWII is long over.....

Some people make out anti-war soldiers to be some sort of a very serious thing. But it's just a case of somebody employed who is sent to do something he/she doesn't want. Surely all other professions can be like that. Why is it worse when it involves a soldier?

How to oppose the war but support the troops my (British) way: vote in the party that supports a quick end to the war or a quick troop withdrawal, but lobby the government to spend more money on administration of the troops, e.g. giving them enough equipment to do the job they've been told to do, giving them proper housing, giving them proper rehabilitation and compensation if they come back injured, giving their family adequate support.

Even though some of the population thinks that the two are incompatible (like some potty university students from UCL and Manchester), opposing the war and supporting the troops need not conflict.
This is how we'd like to do it the US, too (and by "we" I mean sane people, not the Celtlunds). The basic reasoning obviously being that you don't leave your people twisting in the wind in harm's way WHILE you organize getting them the hell out of harm's way as fast as possible.

Unfortunately, our current leadership is so corrupt that they have built not only their whole policies but their whole political strategy on exactly the kind of divisive, aggressive, obstructionist false dichotomies that the OP presents here. Every single bill presented in Congress about this war has been constructed this way, and it is crippling us. The quagmire isn't just in Iraq, it's in the US Congress, and while they slog and flail about trying to get out of it -- just trying to get clear what the hell they're talking about -- people are dying and being maimed every day over there.

And let's not forget that, while this disgusting spectacle is going on, corporate military contractors are raking in billions of dollars in war profiteering.

The horror of this situation never ends. Honestly, it's the kind of thing that used to get Roman emperors killed by their own guards.

I thought we put this stupid "You have to support the war to support the troops" horseshit to bed years ago. Apparently no amount of sound, well reasoned arguments can sway Celt from his need to hate on every war protester in existence, because some of the Vietnam protesters were assholes to him. Ah well. At least we tried.

I don't really think so. Carpet bombing was dropped for a number of reasons really. For one, it's a waste of munitions and money. For another, it needs large bombers, which suck up a lot of money again. Smart munitions can be put on smaller, faster craft which have a better chance of avoiding air defenses and can strike designated targets.

The only two military reasons for carpet bombing is because you can't pinpoint where enemy material is, but know it's approximate location, or because you want that widespread devastation, which is generally the case when leveling cities you have no interest in taking.

American war lovers like to thump the whole "America tries to avoid human losses" rubbish, but that's never the case. We're talking about a nation that had no qualms spraying chemical weapons over a large portion of a country and then denying it had any harmful effects on humans despite the evidence after all. Or even testing them on its own citizens on the sly in the 50s and 60s. America simply economized on destroying things. Less manpower and heavy bombers needed for better results with smart munitions.

I realize that. That doesn't change that were I to ever have to develop any sort of munitions, it'd be with the idea in mind that I want to strike the target and only the target. I wouldn't want to develop munitions in the first place though.

Still, if I was going to protest carpet bombing, it won't be because "It's not economical!" Because that just means they can't do it as often, which is a good thing. It will be because the effects of carpet bombing are too devastating to accept (for example, Dresden getting pretty much annihilated).

Also, some of the smart munitions of WWII near the end required larger bombers than usual ^^ But fewer of them.

You say that as if there existed such a thing as "necessary" or "acceptable" collateral damage.

That would be an error on my part. An error of redundancy.

We nave HAD to apply such barbaric techniques, we CHOSE to apply them because we were able to.

True. By have, I am referring to accomplishing a certain objective (eliminating industrial capacity, for example). Something which could later be accomplished without loss of life, due to technological advances.

I hope that clarifies my position.

Again, we CAN get rid of them, we simply lack the balls to do so.

I agree and I think some people in the upper ranks should grow those balls.

Open letter to Celt,

Dear Celt

I can't understand how people who are happy to see the troops be put in harms way, in a war that is helping a very small part of the US populace make lots of money are supporting the troops, while those that want them out of harms way aren't supporting the troops.

Celt, this seems illogical. It makes no sense. Could you come back with a wittier and more logical response than "No , Stop" to explain how my logic is so obviously wrong. I can't see it myself.

You humble padwan, awaiting your enlightened assistance.
Fishy.

OMG! The troops don't support our troops! They must hate our freedoms!

Those dirty commies!

I thought we put this stupid "You have to support the war to support the troops" horseshit to bed years ago. Apparently no amount of sound, well reasoned arguments can sway Celt from his need to hate on every war protester in existence, because some of the Vietnam protesters were assholes to him. Ah well. At least we tried.

I might say that on the bright side, it does serve as an example of the fact that there is no direct correlation between age and wisdom, should the subject arise.

I might say that on the bright side, it does serve as an example of the fact that there is no direct correlation between age and wisdom, should the subject arise.

This is true. Every thread has a silver lining :)

I might say that on the bright side, it does serve as an example of the fact that there is no direct correlation between age and wisdom, should the subject arise.Well no, it's more like a Gauss curve.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/117741625470.gif

I'm SO using this image in other opportunities. :D

Well no, it's more like a Gauss curve.

Don't oppress me with yer book learnin....

Celt. After reading your OP and your following comments, Ill take the warning. Because it needs to be said.


You are a fucking dipshit. Your post is bullshit. You should feel ashamed if you dont really believe that crap, and if you do really believe it, you should be slapped until you dont. Or waterboarded. It aint torture after all.


But you know what? I dont support the war, and idiots like you make me not support the troops. So I guess there is no conflict of interests for me here.

I thought we put this stupid "You have to support the war to support the troops" horseshit to bed years ago. Apparently no amount of sound, well reasoned arguments can sway Celt from his need to hate on every war protester in existence, because some of the Vietnam protesters were assholes to him. Ah well. At least we tried.

With his attitude towards anyone who doesnt blindly follow orders and the government however, I think I can understand why Vietnam prostesters were assholes to him.

I'm SO using this image in other opportunities. :D

dude...thats pretty much what you did LOL

dude...thats pretty much what you did LOL

I know, it was supposed to look about that way. Well, with more graphics and less graphic violence, but... ;)

I realize that. That doesn't change that were I to ever have to develop any sort of munitions, it'd be with the idea in mind that I want to strike the target and only the target. I wouldn't want to develop munitions in the first place though.

People generally don't design munitions that strike everything but the target. Carpet bombing was taking the shotgun approach to leveling factories and such since fighter bombers couldn't do the job very well.


Still, if I was going to protest carpet bombing, it won't be because "It's not economical!" Because that just means they can't do it as often, which is a good thing. It will be because the effects of carpet bombing are too devastating to accept (for example, Dresden getting pretty much annihilated).


Dresden was a firestorm. As I understand it, it got to the point where the fires were consuming oxygen so fast, gale strength winds were being generated, literally sucking people off the streets and into the pyres.

The firebombing of Tokyo was also pretty bad, and not even the ones who jumped into the rivers survived as the flames covered the water. Perfectly fine bodies, charred heads.


Also, some of the smart munitions of WWII near the end required larger bombers than usual ^^ But fewer of them.

The Tallboy wasn't really a smart munition. It was just a really big and sturdy bomb with twisted tailfins. The FritzX on the other hand, wasn't that big.

Heh.

I didn't want to have to do this...

Oh, who am I kidding, I LOVE this.

***Sequence of all my best moves: Haiku, Brutus's Honor, Haiku, 7th Flush, Haiku, Riddler, Haiku***

***Last Word***

Absofuckinglutely.

You, sir, are the MASTER.

*bows in wordsmithical supplication*

Hmm, tempting, but I fear you may have missed that boat. My fangirl energies are already pretty spread out, and at my age, I haven't much to go around as it is. Hell, I'm already borderline "cougar," which makes "fangirl" start to sound inappropriate in some way. ;) Just know that in an upscale cocktail bar somewhere, I am ordering extra olives for my martini in your honor.

See, now I know you're smokin' hot instead of having to just imagine it. Taste, refinement (and the ability to know when to abandon it), and wisdom from experience. It doesn't get much sexier.

I know how we felt about the protesters at home. I know how we felt when we were called “baby killers” and that’s why I say it is impossible to be anti-war and support the troops.

Because it's impossible to oppose a war without calling soldiers "baby killers"?

Because it's impossible to oppose a war without calling soldiers "baby killers"?

It is. I do this impossible thing every day. It feels good to do the impossible. Also, not to advertise or anything, but please remember to vote in my "support the troops thread". Remember that if you don't vote, you are a "baby-killer". Just kidding.

See, now I know you're smokin' hot instead of having to just imagine it. Taste, refinement (and the ability to know when to abandon it), and wisdom from experience. It doesn't get much sexier.
Nah, it doesn't. ;)


(And I'm so modest, too! :D)

Because it's impossible to oppose a war without calling soldiers "baby killers"?

Indeed so. That's why the 72% of the troops in the poll above are calling the other 28% "baby killer!"

It's also why, in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13668725&postcount=143), when I told another poster that saying the US Iraq war dead had thrown their lives away was disrespectful, what I really meant was that they were all baby killers who deserved to die. Yep. That's what I must have meant. There couldn't possibly have been an alternate mode of thought there.

Hmm, tempting, but I fear you may have missed that boat. My fangirl energies are already pretty spread out, and at my age, I haven't much to go around as it is.

aww, but you always have some extra for me right Mur? :p

aww, but you always have some extra for me right Mur? :p
Baby, you know you've been in my NSG boy-harem for a good while now, don't you?

Baby, you know you've been in my NSG boy-harem for a good while now, don't you?

there's a harem now? I dunno Mur, I'm sure you know, I'm usually the one who enjoys doing the collecting :p

And that martini, will it be dry or....dirty?

(I'll stop now..)

there's a harem now? I dunno Mur, I'm sure you know, I'm usually the one who enjoys doing the collecting :p

And that martini, will it be dry or....dirty?

(I'll stop now..)
Probably a good idea. :p

Btw, it's not a big harem. Very few people reach the "based solely how much I like his posting style, I'd date that person, provided he is male, hetero, single, adult, and reasonably attractive in reality" level of Muravyetsian approval. The list is currently at an all-time high of four names.

Guess who's not on it? ;)

Btw, it's not a big harem. Very few people reach the "based solely how much I like his posting style, I'd date that person, provided he is male, hetero, single, adult, and reasonably attractive in reality" level of Muravyetsian approval. The list is currently at an all-time high of four names.

Hmmm....3 on 1 huh? I can take 'em.

And by the way: "yes", "yes", "sorta", "if we're counting physical years", and "if you play your cards right you might find out"

Guess who's not on it? ;)

I'm thinking of a number between1 and "corneliu"

Because it's impossible to oppose a war without calling soldiers "baby killers"?Only a treasonous baby-killer-name-caller would assert as much.

It is. I do this impossible thing every day. It feels good to do the impossible. Also, not to advertise or anything, but please remember to vote in my "support the troops thread". Remember that if you don't vote, you are a "baby-killer". Just kidding.

If you've done six impossible things this morning, why not top it off with lunch at Milliways, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe!

Probably a good idea. :p

Btw, it's not a big harem. Very few people reach the "based solely how much I like his posting style, I'd date that person, provided he is male, hetero, single, adult, and reasonably attractive in reality" level of Muravyetsian approval. The list is currently at an all-time high of four names.

Guess who's not on it? ;)

Ooo! Ooo! I know! ME! Yeah! I knew it! I-- wait.

Aw.

Probably a good idea. :p

Btw, it's not a big harem. Very few people reach the "based solely how much I like his posting style, I'd date that person, provided he is male, hetero, single, adult, and reasonably attractive in reality" level of Muravyetsian approval. The list is currently at an all-time high of four names.

Guess who's not on it? ;)Celtlund! I think he never put pictures out, so the reasonably attractive is unverifiable!

If you've done six impossible things this morning, why not top it off with lunch at Milliways, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe!



Rats! I only did 5. Must do one more. Let's see, should I try to convince Celt that withdrawing and saving their lives might actually support the troops? Nah, that's beyond impossible!

Shame on you, Celtlund. You know better. Shame on you.

You've just demonstrated that you have no fucking clue as to what "supporting the troops" really mean. People like you are a direct danger to them and their health and humanity.

Shame on you!

What an amazingly crass and insulting OP.

Both my grandfathers served in WWII. Both were ardently, out-outspokenly, and passionately anti-war, one until the day he died (rest in peace) and the other remains so to this day.

My uncle suffers from PTSD due to his time serving in the Korean War. He is now, as he has always been, opposed to the Iraq war.

One of my closest friends, a childhood chum whom I love like a brother, served two tours in Iraq. He is firmly opposed to the war. He believes, now more than ever, that it was 100% WRONG for America to attack Iraq.

How dare you insult these individuals? How dare you question their patriotism, or that of the people who love them? How dare you question my beliefs and my support for the members of my family who have served?

I don't care what service you were a part of, your behavior in this thread is disgraceful and unworthy of an American soldier. Shame on you.

Shame on you, Celtlund. You know better. Shame on you.

You've just demonstrated that you have no fucking clue as to what "supporting the troops" really mean. People like you are a direct danger to them and their health and humanity.

Shame on you!Yeah, but that's part of his undying support for pro-business policies, even at the detriment of himself and his fellow Americans.

What an amazingly crass and insulting OP.

Both my grandfathers served in WWII. Both were ardently, out-outspokenly, and passionately anti-war, one until the day he died (rest in peace) and the other remains so to this day.

My uncle suffers from PTSD due to his time serving in the Korean War. He is now, as he has always been, opposed to the Iraq war.

One of my closest friends, a childhood chum whom I love like a brother, served two tours in Iraq. He is firmly opposed to the war. He believes, now more than ever, that it was 100% WRONG for America to attack Iraq.

How dare you insult these individuals? How dare you question their patriotism, or that of the people who love them? How dare you question my beliefs and my support for the members of my family who have served?

I don't care what service you were a part of, your behavior in this thread is disgraceful and unworthy of an American soldier. Shame on you.Some of the most viscious and shameful behavior towards veterans that I've seen was perpetrated by pro-war activists addressing "phony veterans".

Some of the most viscious and shameful behavior towards veterans that I've seen was perpetrated by pro-war activists addressing "phony veterans".
Agreed. Just like how the most viciously anti-war political activity in this country is being practiced by the war-pushing administration. Cutting veterans benefits, violating the Geneva conventions, pushing unprepared and unsupported troops into totally inappropriate conditions, complete and utter failure to protect female soldiers who are more likely to be raped by their comrades than wounded in battle, shoveling money into the pockets of defense contractors who turn around and provide faulty supplies (when they bother to fulfill their contracts at all)...the list goes on.

What's funny is that I'm actually LESS strongly anti-war than most of the military personnel I know. I live and work very close to the Pentagon, so I have a lot of contact with folks in the service, and the majority of them are so passionately anti-Bush that it would set your hair on end.

Agreed. Just like how the most viciously anti-war political activity in this country is being practiced by the war-pushing administration. Cutting veterans benefits, violating the Geneva conventions, pushing unprepared and unsupported troops into totally inappropriate conditions, complete and utter failure to protect female soldiers who are more likely to be raped by their comrades than wounded in battle, shoveling money into the pockets of defense contractors who turn around and provide faulty supplies (when they bother to fulfill their contracts at all)...the list goes on.

What's funny is that I'm actually LESS strongly anti-war than most of the military personnel I know. I live and work very close to the Pentagon, so I have a lot of contact with folks in the service, and the majority of them are so passionately anti-Bush that it would set your hair on end.
That actually makes me feel better. Sometimes I just need to be reassured that the people who have direct access to the weapons and are trained to use them are sane, life-loving, Constitution-upholding human beings. I mean, I've always known that and had confidence in it, but sometimes, the situation gets so grim... I appreciate the occasional reminder that I'm not alone out here.

complete and utter failure to protect female soldiers

Why should female soldiers be given more protection than male soldiers?

Why should female soldiers be given more protection than male soldiers?

they shouldn't. The military should provide adequate safeguards to ensure nobody is raped. The have failed to do that for both men and women. Women are the ones who get raped more often however.

Some of the most viscious and shameful behavior towards veterans that I've seen was perpetrated by pro-war activists addressing "phony veterans".

Indeed. All the more so for the current administration's being full of chicken hawks led by a deserter who gladly smeared the military records of at least two opponents.

Indeed. All the more so for the current administration's being full of chicken hawks led by a deserter who gladly smeared the military records of at least two opponents.

I guess that puts McCain in the clear then.

I guess that puts McCain in the clear then.

Ah yes, good old “may be unstable as a result of being tortured while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam” McCain. No smear in claiming your opponents crazy because he spent quite a few of his Vietnam War days in the Hanoi Hilton. To borrow an old question, where was George?

Ah yes, good old “may be unstable as a result of being tortured while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam” McCain. No smear in claiming your opponents crazy because he spent quite a few of his Vietnam War days in the Hanoi Hilton. To borrow an old question, where was George?There's a Tom Tomorrow cartoon showing how he bravely saved America from a space communist lizard invasion that day, but I do not have the time to look for it.

I have never expected support on this forum on this subject.
Maybe because you know your own style of posting.

Most people on this thread have no concept of how war protests impact the troops. Perhaps by posting my experience and telling why I feel so strongly about this subject some of them will come to realize just how their actions and words impact those who are willing to give their life to protect the freedom of others. Just listen to the song again, really listen to it and maybe you will start to understand.
If that's your true goal, know that you've failed miserably and that your post will create a backlash. An insulting OP like you have presented makes me more likely dismiss your experiences and go out and protest the war, and the arrogant and condescending tone you use cast soldiers both former and current in a bad light, and I'm betting that the likelyhood of someone protesting the soldiers themselves increased after your self-righteous drivel was posted.

Yeah, but that's part of his undying support for pro-business policies, even at the detriment of himself and his fellow Americans.
I know. He's pissing on the soldiers following in his footsteps and undermining the values he claims to have fought for, and he doesn't even realize it. Blinders to the world, he has.

Agreed. Just like how the most viciously anti-war political activity in this country is being practiced by the war-pushing administration. Cutting veterans benefits, violating the Geneva conventions, pushing unprepared and unsupported troops into totally inappropriate conditions, complete and utter failure to protect female soldiers who are more likely to be raped by their comrades than wounded in battle, shoveling money into the pockets of defense contractors who turn around and provide faulty supplies (when they bother to fulfill their contracts at all)...the list goes on.
Quoted for eloquence.

Some of the most viscious and shameful behavior towards veterans that I've seen was perpetrated by pro-war activists addressing "phony veterans".
Quite.

And Celt lives up to that heritage here in this thread.
*Golf claps*

My point is you can't tell the troops I hate what you are doing and you have no reason for doing it but I love you and support you.

You can if they're being ordered to do it.

I'm anti Iraq war and support bringing all of the troops home. I don't support the troops who want to be there though.

Celt, your post is bullshit and you know it.

I can hate the war for it's bogus beginnings, it's bungling leadership and it's continued clusterfuckness and yet still not have a single bad thing to say about those forced to follow orders because that's what they signed up for. I'm sick to fucking death of ANYONE telling me what I can't think. Especially when I'm sending everything from coffee and cell phones to care packages to Iraq.

The OP example puts it right there on the goddamned line when it says they were called "baby killers" by those protesting Vietnam. Well guess what? Those anti-war protesters were fucking idiots. They couldn't figure out that the fat-cats ordering the war and profiting on it are different from those sent to do their bidding. If you can't see that difference, then God help you.

I don't tell you what you can or cannot support, so you can take your presumption and find somewhere else to stick it.

He's saying it's messed up b/c the troops signed up for the war, so clearly they support it, so if you support them then you're supporting the war. And no one's telling you you can't think anything. We're just telling you you're wrong.

I think that the phrase 'support the troops' is meaningless.

He's saying it's messed up b/c the troops signed up for the war, so clearly they support it, so if you support them then you're supporting the war. And no one's telling you you can't think anything. We're just telling you you're wrong.

What a craptastic statement. thats already been disproved countless times in this thread!

Perhaps part of the problem is what people mean by "support." I believe someone has already mentioned in this thread the distinction between "support", and "respect." If your definition of support means "agree with", that might be a fair point. in that sense, I don't support the troops. But like I already said, I respect them. I also want what's best for them, and want the government to take care of them, not because they are soldiers, but because they are fellow human beings.

Yes, some anti-war protestors are no doubt assholes. So are some soldiers. I would ask the individual who posted the OP whether he supports those soldiers who did murder children(I'm not sure I want to know the answer). My point of course, is that we should not judge all members of a group the same, regardless of individual differences. We should also remember that individual humans can be as complex as a larger group if not more so. Individuals make mistakes, and take actions we don't agree with. If we were against everyone we ever thought made a mistake, the world would be a lonely place indeed. Of course, the fact that so many people share this "with us or against us" mindset is a big part of why there are so many wars to begin with.

He's saying it's messed up b/c the troops signed up for the war, so clearly they support it, so if you support them then you're supporting the war. And no one's telling you you can't think anything. We're just telling you you're wrong.

Are you saying that veterans who are against the war do not support the troops?

Probably a good idea. :p

Btw, it's not a big harem. Very few people reach the "based solely how much I like his posting style, I'd date that person, provided he is male, hetero, single, adult, and reasonably attractive in reality" level of Muravyetsian approval. The list is currently at an all-time high of four names.

Guess who's not on it? ;)

Am I in it? o_O

He's saying it's messed up b/c the troops signed up for the war, so clearly they support it, so if you support them then you're supporting the war. And no one's telling you you can't think anything. We're just telling you you're wrong.

My brother-in-law joined the military over 20 years ago. Do you think he knew that we'd be fighting the Iraq war when he signed up?

Do you think he knew of any of the other conflicts that he's fought in over the years that much in advance?

You have to be hetero to be in Muravyets harem? crap. Can half of me be in it? I've been told that I have some attractive parts.

He's saying it's messed up b/c the troops signed up for the war, so clearly they support it, so if you support them then you're supporting the war. And no one's telling you you can't think anything. We're just telling you you're wrong.
Bull. The majority of troops were already in the military before the war started, so they did NOT sign up for this war. And the troops of the National Guard, which is supposed to be a national defensive force, sure as hell did not sign up to fight and die in Iraq.

Am I in it? o_O
Of course! (That's two named. ;))

You have to be hetero to be in Muravyets harem? crap. Can half of me be in it? I've been told that I have some attractive parts.
Well, considering what the harem is for... yeah. Sorry about that, but hey, there are other lists. :)

Bull. The majority of troops were already in the military before the war started, so they did NOT sign up for this war. And the troops of the National Guard, which is supposed to be a national defensive force, sure as hell did not sign up to fight and die in Iraq.

Also, since the term of enlistment for the national guard is 8 years, many of them enlisted before Dubya got elected the first time (as of the start of the war).

Of course! (That's two named. ;))


Well, considering what the harem is for... yeah. Sorry about that, but hey, there are other lists. :)

Yay! :D

Are you a New Yorker? I may be going there next year and I always wanted to date a foreigner (by my standards). :D

Also, since the term of enlistment for the national guard is 8 years, many of them enlisted before Dubya got elected the first time (as of the start of the war).
Exactly. Good point.

Yay! :D

Are you a New Yorker? I may be going there next year and I always wanted to date a foreigner (by my standards). :D
I'm in Boston at the moment, baby, but next year? Who knows... Ever been to Vermont? ;)

I'm in Boston at the moment, baby, but next year? Who knows... Ever been to Vermont? ;)

It's only gonna be four days though. Unless someone takes me in. ;)

And no, I haven't ever been to the US. The only foreign countries I've been to are Colombia and Germany.

And you sir have most likely never served in the military during a war and have no idea how they feel. Am I wrong?

You have never been a refugee or an internally displaced person, or had your family killed by a foreign invading force, or had your home and life destroyed by forces far outside your control.

Am I wrong?

It's only gonna be four days though. Unless someone takes me in. ;)

And no, I haven't ever been to the US. The only foreign countries I've been to are Colombia and Germany.
Then you must come to Vermont some day. I might be living there again in a year or two, seeing as how expensive Boston is. Vermont is extremely pretty and almost as entertaining as NYC, if you enjoy staring at trees and cows. :D

Fankly, I find it impossible to both support the troops and the war. "I like you man, but so our superiours- you know the unimaginably rich ones- can get a bit more rich, you need to die painfully, without legs." How can you support the troops, and their deaths? What does 'support the troops' even mean?

Clearly you have never been a civilian being bombed by pilots like yourself. Given that you have not, I seriously doubt your right to define exactly how bad war is or is not. Frankly, all who involved themselves in such an immoral campign as the bombing of civilians (lucky you didn't help bomb Laos, or I'd be realy pissed) have no right to inform other people that anything was unpatriotic or immoral.

Frankly, the most qualified people on the planet to decide whether American troops should be in Iraq or not, are the Iraqis. For a start, the democracy we bring implies that the decision most Iraqis make will be respected by their government, and the forces supporting their government. Unfortunately, the US has not created democracy in Iraq.

They have unequivically (except the Kurds) stated that American forces are causing more harm than they prevent, and that Iraq has a fairly good chance of patching together a society looking something like what they had in 1980, so long as the Americans leave now.

Doing that would loosen our control of Iraqi oil, and destroy our excuse for bombing Iran.

You know what's funny? My dad is Special Forces. SF has daily contact with local indigs, live with them, fight with them, etc. And guess what? You are wrong on all accounts.
There are a few who don't want us there, but the majority do.

Then you must come to Vermont some day. I might be living there again in a year or two, seeing as how expensive Boston is. Vermont is extremely pretty and almost as entertaining as NYC, if you enjoy staring at trees and cows. :D

Um, I don't. Sorry. :p

Plus I'm going there January next year.

I'm one of those "support the troops, not the war" type of people. You know why?


Because war should be about self defense, the war on terrorism was not self defense...


This war is bassicaly as if someone was wronged by a fat Mexican. Some fat Mexican did something really bad, liked raped his daughter.


Now he's going to take it out on the fat Mexican, his family, his dog, anybody who resembles the fat Mexican, the pizza delivery guy who came to the fat Mexican's house.


Everyone's suppose to suffer and die because one little girl got raped. That doesn't make sense. You punish the criminal, that's how the law works. When the law lacks justice, it is no longer lawful.


Arguably I have justified the war in Iraq in my head that Geroge W. is trying to take responsibility for his father's mistakes. Saddam, and the middle-east in general is the result of American intervention. They created a monster and now are trying to destroy that monster.


Ofcourse, at the expense of American soldiers. How patriotic is it to support the death of men and women putting life, limb, and sanity on the line?


These soldiers don't get adequite healthcare or education...
These soldiers don't get decent weaponry...
These soldiers barely get any respect when they come home...


How the hell is this patriotic? When I was going to school to become an officer, a former Iraqui soldier was there, I'd never shot a gun in my life and had equal skill as this sarge. We talked, and he was like "you should join the marines".

And we looked over at the other students who alienated him. "Oh, he's just a stupid redneck, he's likely to go Collumbine on us..."

And I told him flatout, I wouldn't shed a tear for any of those guys. This country does not respect it's heroes. And I see no reason to risk anything for them. I became an officer to protect innocent people.


But the amount of innocent people is greatly decreasing. I'm proud of what that sarge has done for his country. I think he's a patriot, and I'd gladly take a bullet for him just as I know he would for me.

But not for the country as a whole. No way... the people here suck... and this is why despite how I think the war is unjust, I can't bring myself to be against it. Because frankly.. I like knowing it pisses alot of people off.

Of course! (That's two named. ;))


Well, considering what the harem is for... yeah. Sorry about that, but hey, there are other lists. :)

Well I'm not gay either!:D

I have never expected support on this forum on this subject. Most people on this thread have no concept of how war protests impact the troops. Perhaps by posting my experience and telling why I feel so strongly about this subject some of them will come to realize just how their actions and words impact those who are willing to give their life to protect the freedom of others. Just listen to the song again, really listen to it and maybe you will start to understand.

I was and am willing to give my life to protect the freedom of others. More than that, I willingly joined the military in order to protect and support a group of men and women that I considered to be largely noble human beings. While in, I was considered one of the top in my field and promoted about as quickly as possible. I voluntarily put myself in harm's way several times for various reasons.

I think there was a way that we could have gone in Iraq and expanded the freedoms of the people there and generally stabilized the region. We chose instead to claim WMD's as the reason and charge in there without the support of the international community, resulting in a backlash that has killed thousands of our troops and hundreds of thousands of people. I do not support the war.

I think many of the men and women who are serving there would agree and I base this on the fact that they've actually done so. My friends who served in Iraq specifically, some of whom served there both times, often have large issues with the fact that instead of focusing on those that attacked us, we mired ourselves entirely somewhere else.

I fully support them in their willingness to protect us and each other. I fully support their right to agree or disagree with this war. And I fully support their commitment to this country and its ideals.

Go ahead. Paint me with your giant brush. Then we'll compare records. It'll be fun watching you try to find a black mark on my spotless jacket to justify your deluded world view.

I think that the phrase 'support the troops' is meaningless.

In the mouths of chickenhawks, it most certainly is. Apparently, you cannot disagree with going to ANY war without being unsupportive of the troops. It's clearly far more important that we allow the young men and women of our country to die than to give them a hint that we'd prefer they didn't.

Great way of upholding democracy: bombing and hanging those who dissent.

In the case of Hanoi Jane:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2381

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

§ 2388

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

I would find it perfectly acceptable for Jane Fonda and others to be tried for treason, seeing as how the Viet Cong was an opposing armed force of the United States.

In the case of Hanoi Jane:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2381

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

§ 2388

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

I would find it perfectly acceptable for Jane Fonda and others to be tried for treason, seeing as how the Viet Cong was an opposing armed force of the United States.

Which means certain Democrats too...
Harry Reid anyone?

BS snip.

You do realize that, with the propaganda weapon for the terrorists that the war in Iraq became, Bush could easily, by your own logic, be tried for treason?

He's saying it's messed up b/c the troops signed up for the war, so clearly they support it, so if you support them then you're supporting the war. And no one's telling you you can't think anything. We're just telling you you're wrong.

Except that you are, and I'm not.

You're telling me that I can't think the war is fucked and still love and respect and support my cousins, brother and friends who have or are fighting there.

I have maintained my temper for this thread but posts like yours are making a forumban look VERY appealing.

Which means certain Democrats too...
Harry Reid anyone?

Don't forget anti-war Republicans.

Ron Paul, anyone?

Which means certain Democrats too...
Harry Reid anyone?

Which would mean LOTS of Republicans that favor the biggest terrorist propaganda weapon known, the Iraq War.

Except that you are, and I'm not.

You're telling me that I can't think the war is fucked and still love and respect and support my cousins, brother and friends who have or are fighting there.

I have maintained my temper for this thread but posts like yours are making a forumban look VERY appealing.

No, they aren't making it appealing. You're not going anywhere because you don't care enough about posters like that to allow that kind of power.

You do realize that, with the propaganda weapon for the terrorists that the war in Iraq became, Bush could easily, by your own logic, be tried for treason?

No, because Bush hasn't said that the insurgent/terrorist groups are doing a good job etc. and that American occupation of Iraq was evil and a war crime, the way Jane Fonda said of US forces in Vietnam. In fact, he continually condemns the terrorists/insurgency. And as defined by law, aid and comfort does not come close to anything Bush has done.

Lemme just get this straight that I don't like Bush and never will, but your use of semantics to make a point is unfounded.

I know how we felt when we were called “baby killers” and that’s why I say it is impossible to be anti-war and support the troops.I've never called anyone anything of the sort, but if you don't like it, maybe you shouldn't be killing babies. bombing cities and destroying infrastructure does that.

I don't support the troops. basic training is brainwashing, war is inane, and the incredibly high rates of substance abuse and mental disorders among current and former members of the military show that they have themselves been abused. I don't want my loved ones coming home with PTSD, or without a limb...ergo I don't support them being soldiers. the idea of someone as a "soldier" is an imposition on their integrity as a person - it's a suspension of their ethical responsibility and encourages them to cultivate the lowest aspects of human nature (brute strength, aggression, submission, hierarchy, misogyny, etc) at the expense of the highest (conscientiousness, unconditional compassion, critical thinking, egalitarian social structures and relationships).

I wouldn't support a person employed in the army in killing people any more than I would a person addicted to drugs in doing cocaine. that's because I care about them.

if I loved someone, I'd try my hardest to convince them never to go near the military - it will fuck them up. maybe it's just that I spent last semester consoling a friend whose loved one had shot himself in the face rather than face another day living in Iraq, or maybe it's that my brother's best friend went straight from rehab to basic training (and thinks it's really cool that the substance abuse rates are so high)...either way, no, I don't "support the troops" any more than I "support the cult members" - I support people, and part of that involves not supporting roles that do them harm.

No, because Bush hasn't said that the insurgent/terrorist groups are doing a good job etc. and that American occupation of Iraq was evil and a war crime, the way Jane Fonda said of US forces in Vietnam. In fact, he continually condemns the terrorists/insurgency. And as defined by law, aid and comfort does not come close to anything Bush has done.

Lemme just get this straight that I don't like Bush and never will, but your use of semantics to make a point is unfounded.

Look at you, a very weak arguer, trying to use semantics equate dissent and being against an occupation with treason, and YOU dare to call MY use of semantics unfounded?

Please. If your assertions had ANY basis on fact, Jane Fonda would have been prosecuted long ago! And you know it. And yet, instead of owing up to this fact, you use her whenever you wish to pull a stupid appeal to emotion! Guess what! Vietnam WAS a pointless, useless and evil war! So is Iraq! And no amount of wishful wanking about Fonda being executed on your part will change either fact! Get over it.

And a grisly, grim "goodnight"!

Look at you, a very weak arguer, trying to use semantics equate dissent and being against an occupation with treason, and YOU dare to call MY use of semantics unfounded?

Please. If your assertions had ANY basis on fact, Jane Fonda would have been prosecuted long ago! And you know it. And yet, instead of owing up to this fact, you use her whenever you wish to pull a stupid appeal to emotion! Guess what! Vietnam WAS a pointless, useless and evil war! So is Iraq! And no amount of wishful wanking about Fonda being executed on your part will change either fact! Get over it.

And a grisly, grim "goodnight"!

Jane Fonda didn't just raise dissent, which isn't actionable at all. What she did was provide aid and comfort for the Viet Cong, as I stated previously. I was also merely presenting the law and how it equated to the discussion at hand.

And yes, I do dare.

And what the crap is up w/ the 'goodnight?'

Jane Fonda didn't just raise dissent, which isn't actionable at all. What she did was provide aid and comfort for the Viet Cong, as I stated previously. I was also merely presenting the law and how it equated to the discussion at hand.

And yes, I do dare.

And what the crap is up w/ the 'goodnight?'

And yet no motion was made to prosecute her, not even by the most conservative organizations. Which means your flawed definition of "providing aid and comfort" clashes with even the most right-wing interpretation of the law. Instead you just like to keep using her as a liberal straw-man.

That you dare call my semantics weak while trying to pull this kind of fast one speaks a lot about the quality of your argument.

As for the 'goodnight', let's just say I'm secure enough of my arguing superiority in relation to your skills that I know I can add style to the post.

Jane Fonda didn't just raise dissent, which isn't actionable at all. What she did was provide aid and comfort for the Viet Cong, as I stated previously. I was also merely presenting the law and how it equated to the discussion at hand.

And yes, I do dare.

And what the crap is up w/ the 'goodnight?'
I believe the "goodnight" meant he was logging off for the night, or just done with you.

And he's right, of course. If Fonda's actions had been actual treason against the US, she would have been prosecuted for it along time ago. The Justice Department has had plenty of time to build a case against her, if they thought there were any charges to bring. They didn't.

And what I'd like to hear from you or Celtlund or anyone else who has the Jane Fonda bug up their asses is just exactly what she has to do with the question of whether a person can oppose a war without being against the troops who are ordered to fight it. I would really love to know just what the hell Jane Fonda has to do with anyone other than Jane Fonda.

I believe the "goodnight" meant he was logging off for the night, or just done with you.

Usually, the latter. It's from "Ruddigore". :D

Usually, the latter. It's from "Ruddigore". :D
Gilbert & Sullivan! :fluffle: You just keep getting better. ;)

Gilbert & Sullivan! :fluffle: You just keep getting better. ;)

Specifically, "When the night wind howls". ;)

And what I'd like to hear from you or Celtlund or anyone else who has the Jane Fonda bug up their asses is just exactly what she has to do with the question of whether a person can oppose a war without being against the troops who are ordered to fight it. I would really love to know just what the hell Jane Fonda has to do with anyone other than Jane Fonda.

Well, whatever, the guy is rude.

Anyway, IDK about Jane Fonda one way or another, although I think she should do more than when she just went, 'my bad.' Donate time/money for Toys For Tots or another military-related charity...

That said, I was merely pointing out the legal issues. There is evidence of her treason, but do you really think the Justice Dept. will slap charges on her now? I don't either, but in an ideal world she would be tried, if not so that the stigma of 'traitor' could be with her forever. And it only pertains to the current situation as it reflects the ultra-radical persons who oppose the war...ie. those that would resort to force against American troops or aid to insurgents. That's the only correlation I could think of...I really was only pointing out the legality of her treason.

Have a pleasant evening.


See how I was able to say the same thing w/o being a jerk about it? Although, by this last statement I guess I still am...

Just as one Bushevik Vietnam Vet leaves NSG, another one rises to take his place. I'd have thought a Vietnam Vet would be the last person to go Bushevik... oh wait, there's McCain.

Damn. I hope it's not a trend.