NationStates Jolt Archive

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.
One small problem though, treason demands that the US be at war, the US wasn't.

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...

By all means, ask the mods to intervene. I mean, since you seem so much into tossing unfounded accusations on people, QED Jane Fonda, you could try and ask for mod action because you found me rude after I tried to close this little debacle you're currently losing.

You call me a jerk and I'm the one being rude, for that matter. Dissociation much?

You know, after you equated her actions with fighting against the troops and with treason, all the while ignoring the fact that if there were any evidence she'd be tried not now, but BACK THEN.

There is no legality of "her treason". There is no morality of "her treason" either. There is not anything "of her treason", because she did not commit it. A point which the much-more-conservative-than-today DOJ at the time drove home by not bringing any charges towards her.

That she became a convenient strawman for conservatives is a given. But you should know better than to use it around people such as myself, that WILL call you on it.

And you didn't utter her name in this conversation due to "the radicals". You know it, I know it, everyone here knows it. You used her name as a poor, shoddy attempt at an appeal to emotion, in the hopes of shutting up the people that were and are anti-war. It's not going to happen, though, simply because my skill is so much beyond these games you try to play.

It's not a good idea to underestimate me.

One small problem though, treason demands that the US be at war, the US wasn't.

No, it demands an enemy of the United States, which the Viet Cong were.

By all means, ask the mods to intervene. I mean, since you seem so much into tossing unfounded accusations on people, QED Jane Fonda, you could try and ask for mod action because you found me rude after I tried to close this little debacle you're currently losing.

You call me a jerk and I'm the one being rude, for that matter. Dissociation much?

You know, after you equated her actions with fighting against the troops and with treason, all the while ignoring the fact that if there were any evidence she'd be tried not now, but BACK THEN.

There is no legality of "her treason". There is no morality of "her treason" either. There is not anything "of her treason", because she did not commit it. A point which the much-more-conservative-than-today DOJ at the time drove home by not bringing any charges towards her.

That she became a convenient strawman for conservatives is a given. But you should know better than to use it around people such as myself, that WILL call you on it.

And you didn't utter her name in this conversation due to "the radicals". You know it, I know it, everyone here knows it. You used her name as a poor, shoddy attempt at an appeal to emotion, in the hopes of shutting up the people that were anti-war. It's not going to happen, though, simply because my skill is so much beyond these games you try to play.

It's not a good idea to underestimate me.

How do you know what I meant? And I didn't. I seriously just posted the US Code because I thought it was pertinent to the discussion.

Sigh, and this is why I tell myself not to get involved in political debates...

How do you know what I meant? And I didn't. I seriously just posted the US Code because I thought it was pertinent to the discussion.

Sigh, and this is why I tell myself not to get involved in political debates...

You also made the claim that Fonda was somehow a traitor. I set you straight. You kept making the claim. I set you straight again. Will I have to teach you yet again?

No, it demands an enemy of the United States, which the Viet Cong were.

It also demands ACTUAL aid and comfort to this "enemy". An "enemy" created, mind you, in an unjust, useless and, most important, illegitimate, war. Regardless, she didn't provide "aid and comfort" to them. A fact I will point out until you learn.

It also demands ACTUAL aid and comfort to this "enemy". An "enemy" created, mind you, in an unjust, useless and, most important, illegitimate, war. Regardless, she didn't provide "aid and comfort" to them. A fact I will point out until you learn.

Aid and comfort does not mean simply monetary or logistical support. She went to Viet Cong camps and told the troops she supported their cause, went on record as saying the US POWs were lying about mistreatment/torture etc.

The fact that the war was illigitimate is not in question. Regardless, the Viet Cong were an opposing armed force, a fact I will point out to you until you learn.

But not now...later.

Good evening...

Unless I wander back here again, which isn't too far-fetched.

No, it demands an enemy of the United States, which the Viet Cong were.

Treason demands adherence to the enemy and aid and comfort. Fonda can perhaps be attributed with the former, though even that is debatable, but aid and comfort actually does mean monetary or logistical support. There really is no legal grounds for charging Fonda with treason.

Aid and comfort does not mean simply monetary or logistical support. She went to Viet Cong camps and told the troops she supported their cause, went on record as saying the US POWs were lying about mistreatment/torture etc.

The fact that the war was illigitimate is not in question. Regardless, the Viet Cong were an opposing armed force, a fact I will point out to you until you learn.

But not now...later.

Good evening...

Unless I wander back here again, which isn't too far-fetched.

You see, if even the DOJ didn't prosecute her, what does THAT tell you?

I have no doubts that you WOULD LIKE to see her prosecuted. But that's because you not only show disregard for the Constitution, you also show regard for an interpretation of the law which is not made even by conservative standards, a point you have yet to address, and which I am pretty sure you will fail to.

The fact that I have a clearer understanding of the law you quote, based even on the fact that the DOJ didn't prosecute her, shows that I am the one that needs to be teaching you.

And claiming certain kinds of speech to mean treason would result in a slippery slope that would end up in dissent being equated to treason.

But I suspect you know that. I also suspect that it's precisely what you'd like to see happening.

Fortunately, your forefathers had more common sense than you.

You see, if even the DOJ didn't prosecute her, what does THAT tell you?

I have no doubts that you WOULD LIKE to see her prosecuted. But that's because you not only show disregard for the Constitution, you also show regard for an interpretation of the law which is not made even by conservative standards, a point you have yet to address, and which I am pretty sure you will fail to.

The fact that I have a clearer understanding of the law you quote, based even on the fact that the DOJ didn't prosecute her, shows that I am the one that needs to be teaching you.

And claiming certain kinds of speech to mean treason would result in a slippery slope that would end up in dissent being equated to treason.

But I suspect you know that. I also suspect that it's precisely what you'd like to see happening.

Fortunately, your forefathers had more common sense than you.

Our forefathers have more sense than both of us. And I also believe in a stricter interpretation of the Constitution. The Patriot Act is also one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed (and should be reppealed). The America it represents is not the America I have sworn to protect.

Also, please state your definition of aid and comfort then. I believe that would assist my interpretation of the law. Plus, what is this I have failed to address?

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.

The House and the DoJ did investigate said charges, however, which came to the conclusion she hadn't. As I understand it, the charges were bordereline and were quashed by the White House in order to make the returning POWs look good.

I do think that her actions were despicable* and bordered on the criminal, but, in the end, not proferring charges was probably for the best.

The Pentagon monitored Fonda’s Hanoi radio broadcasts and gave reporters details of her trip. Although many other activists had gone to Hanoi, made radio broadcasts, and met with American prisoners, Jane Fonda’s trip was the first that raised charges of treason. At the request of the House Internal Security Committee (who wanted to prosecute), the Justice Department investigated her conduct in North Vietnam. Their conclusion was she had violated no U.S. laws, including the law intended to punish anyone who “in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the naval or military forces of the United States.”[21]

According to Hershberger, the notion that Fonda committed treason and caused pilots to be tortured began after Operation Homecoming, the return of U.S. prisoners after the 1972 signing of the Paris Peace Accords. The White House and Pentagon worked hard to make heroes of the prisoners and their return was a major public relations event. The event had to be managed because many of the pilots had made statements while in captivity that were critical of the war. Pilots who hoped to continue with their military careers felt the need to convince Pentagon officials that their conduct in North Vietnam had not been inappropriate under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Some of the pilots who had criticized the war insisted they only met with antiwar activists and made antiwar statements because of torture or threat of torture by their captors. Even though it turned out to be untrue that antiwar activists had a causal role in the torture of prisoners, the connection between American prisoner suffering and peace activists stuck, especially when the claims of the pilots were publicly challenged by Fonda.[22]
http://www.library.vanderbilt.edu/central/brush/Jane-Fonda-Vietnam.htm#_ednref7

*What I find to be Jane Fonda's primary dispicable act is calling the US POWs at the Hanoi Hilton liars for claims that they were being tortured and that they were war criminals.

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.

She's a red herring thrown out to make an inappropriate generalisation fallacy.

I know that x http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/setmemb.gif X has the property P.
Therefore, all other elements of X have the property P.

Jane Fonda, a war protester, did some dispicable things.
Therefore all war protesters do dispicable things.

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...

She's only apologised for the NVA AA gun photo.

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.

I'll point out that you brought up Jane Fonda as an example of a dissenter with which to smear all dissent, as I pointed out to Muravyets above.

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

Yes, I did say that, and I do see her as a traitor. But, w/ those conclusions from the investigations, I guess I can live with it.

And I guess I should have worded it better, for I certainly don't think war protestors are traitors. I meant that her own actions seemed treasonous to me.

And I believe someone else pointed her out first, I just added the US Code after the fact.

One small problem though, treason demands that the US be at war, the US wasn't.

Sorry, that's not true.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Note that the earliest convictions for treason in the US stemed from the Whiskey Rebellion.

You know, after you equated her actions with fighting against the troops and with treason, all the while ignoring the fact that if there were any evidence she'd be tried not now, but BACK THEN.

There is no legality of "her treason". There is no morality of "her treason" either. There is not anything "of her treason", because she did not commit it. A point which the much-more-conservative-than-today DOJ at the time drove home by not bringing any charges towards her.

That she became a convenient strawman for conservatives is a given. But you should know better than to use it around people such as myself, that WILL call you on it.

And you didn't utter her name in this conversation due to "the radicals". You know it, I know it, everyone here knows it. You used her name as a poor, shoddy attempt at an appeal to emotion, in the hopes of shutting up the people that were and are anti-war. It's not going to happen, though, simply because my skill is so much beyond these games you try to play.

It's not a good idea to underestimate me.

No, it demands an enemy of the United States, which the Viet Cong were.

BTW, please note the distinction between the Viet Cong, who JF did not visit, and the NVA, who she did.

Treason demands adherence to the enemy and aid and comfort. Fonda can perhaps be attributed with the former, though even that is debatable, but aid and comfort actually does mean monetary or logistical support. There really is no legal grounds for charging Fonda with treason.

Here's the germaine US Code, for where this is headed. ;)

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2381
Prev | Next
§ 2381. Treason
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.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2381.html

Yes, I did say that, and I do see her as a traitor. But, w/ those conclusions from the investigations, I guess I can live with it.

And I guess I should have worded it better, for I certainly don't think war protestors are traitors. I meant that her own actions seemed treasonous to me.

And I believe someone else pointed her out first, I just added the US Code after the fact.

Did she give the enemy money? Shelter? Anything more than the very abstract, impossible to measure, quite possibly fictitious "morale boost" the Right prattles on about?

You see, when you make claims about abstract things, you lack the ability to prosecute because they are, well, abstract things. Indeed, it can't even be said that said abstract thing even EXISTED. And on making such a move over an abstract thing that may or not exist, one makes it quite possible for other abstract things to become issues.

And before you know it, you're living in a country anathema to the ideals America claims to espouse, because these abstract things became, to quote from 1984, crimethink.

And THAT is a kind of treason way bigger than Jane Fonda, or anyone, would ever be able to commit.

And I guess I should have worded it better, for I certainly don't think war protestors are traitors. I meant that her own actions seemed treasonous to me.

OK. That we can work with.

And I believe someone else pointed her out first, I just added the US Code after the fact.

Lookinbg back through several pages, your's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13671122&postcount=233) was the first mention of her I could find.

OK. That we can work with.



Lookinbg back through several pages, your's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13671122&postcount=233) was the first mention of her I could find.

Hrm, maybe it was the other war thread then. I coulda sworn I saw someone say Jane Fonda and thought, "Well, let's look @ the US Code, 'cause that's always fun."

You see, when you make claims about abstract things, you lack the ability to prosecute because they are, well, abstract things. Indeed, it can't even be said that said abstract thing even EXISTED. And on making such a move over an abstract thing that may or not exist, one makes it quite possible for other abstract things to become issues.

To be clear, this isn't necessarily true: "Mildred Gillars, a U.S. citizen who became known as Axis Sally, was convicted of treason for broadcasting demoralizing propaganda to Allied forces in Europe from a Nazi radio station in Germany during World War II." (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason) However, the difference is that A) it's logistical support by being done actively and intentionally over a long period of time, contrary to Fonda's actions (at least, I think the case could be argued such) and B) this took place during an actual declared war.

Hrm, maybe it was the other war thread then. I coulda sworn I saw someone say Jane Fonda and thought, "Well, let's look @ the US Code, 'cause that's always fun."

And yet, even a conservative interpretation of the code, even one by the standards of THAT time, wouldn't define "morale boost", a concept that's utterly abstract and works under dangerous assumptions, as "aid and comfort".

Did she give the enemy money? Shelter? Anything more than the very abstract, impossible to measure, quite possibly fictitious "morale boost" the Right prattles on about?

Tell that to Iva "Tokyo Rose" Toguri d’Aquino (http://www.historynet.com/tokyo-rose-they-called-her-a-traitor.htm), who was charged and convicted of treason for making propaganda broadcasts, much like JF did.

Government lawyers intended to show that Iva had maliciously betrayed the United States, had urged GIs to lay down their arms, and had voluntarily remained in Japan after the outbreak of war to make radio broadcasts.

On September 29, it returned a verdict of ‘guilty’ on one out of eight charges, that of’speak into a microphone concerning the loss of ships’–a reference to allegations that, shortly after the 1944 Battle of Leyte Gulf in the Philippines, she had broadcast the ‘news’ of American ship sinkings. (In fact, a Japanese fleet had been destroyed during that confrontation.) On October 6, Judge Michael Roche sentenced d’Aquino to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
http://www.historynet.com/tokyo-rose-they-called-her-a-traitor.htm/2

And before you know it, you're living in a country anathema to the ideals America claims to espouse, because these abstract things became, to quote from [I]1984, crimethink.

And THAT is a kind of treason way bigger than Jane Fonda, or anyone, would ever be able to commit.

Agreed. However note the distinction between stating that the current war is ill concieved, ill planned, ill executed, and harmful to the national interests; and visiting a military facility in a country which your own country is at war with (be that de facto or de jure) and making propaganda broadcasts in support of that enemy.

Tell that to Iva "Tokyo Rose" Toguri d’Aquino (http://www.historynet.com/tokyo-rose-they-called-her-a-traitor.htm), who was charged and convicted of treason for making propaganda broadcasts, much like JF did.




http://www.historynet.com/tokyo-rose-they-called-her-a-traitor.htm/2



Agreed. However note the distinction between stating that the current war is ill concieved, ill planned, ill executed, and harmful to the national interests; and visiting a military facility in a country which your own country is at war with (be that de facto or de jure) and making propaganda broadcasts in support of that enemy.

It could be said that such activities were of logistical support to the enemy, though. And it strikes me that when deciding whether there is a de jure issue with an act during a "war", that war must also be a de jure war.

Tell that to Iva "Tokyo Rose" Toguri d’Aquino (http://www.historynet.com/tokyo-rose-they-called-her-a-traitor.htm), who was charged and convicted of treason for making propaganda broadcasts, much like JF did.




http://www.historynet.com/tokyo-rose-they-called-her-a-traitor.htm/2



Agreed. However note the distinction between stating that the current war is ill concieved, ill planned, ill executed, and harmful to the national interests; and visiting a military facility in a country which your own country is at war with (be that de facto or de jure) and making propaganda broadcasts in support of that enemy.

1- In WWII. In a much more conservative world, a much more dangerous and even a much more meaningful war, as opposed to the wanton rape of Vietnam.

2- Regularly making PROPAGANDA broadcasts. ACTUAL propaganda, INTENTIONALLY.

3- It seems even her case is debated.

4- The distinction is one Celtlund and others flat out REFUSE to make. So, this one, you should take up with them. Them and all of the conservatives that equate being against a war with being treasonous, against troops, or other such rubbish.

1- In WWII. In a much more conservative world, a much more dangerous and even a much more meaningful war, as opposed to the wanton rape of Vietnam.

This seems a bit dishonest. Political leanings, in theory, have no relevance in legal interpretation (granted, this isn't true in practice). A precedent is a precedent, whether or not it was set by a conservative or liberal court. Now, the precedent in question may be up for debate as to its legitimacy, but that's entirely different than saying "it was a more conservative world" as a defense for that precedent.

This seems a bit dishonest. Political leanings, in theory, have no relevance in legal interpretation (granted, this isn't true in practice). A precedent is a precedent, whether or not it was set by a conservative or liberal court. Now, the precedent in question may be up for debate as to its legitimacy, but that's entirely different than saying "it was a more conservative world" as a defense for that precedent.

The point being that the definition of "treason" has narrowed ever since. Jim Crow laws were considered constitutional fifty years ago. They aren't now.

It could be said that such activities were of logistical support to the enemy, though.

In which case JF's propaganda broadcast could qualify.

And it strikes me that when deciding whether there is a de jure issue with an act during a "war", that war must also be a de jure war.

Allow me to clarify. A de jure war would be one in which a formal declaration was made while a de facto war is not. However, the law does recognise de facto states of war.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2190682

Tell that to Iva "Tokyo Rose" Toguri d’Aquino (http://www.historynet.com/tokyo-rose-they-called-her-a-traitor.htm), who was charged and convicted of treason for making propaganda broadcasts, much like JF did.
.

More evidence that the American government is not really interested in just or fair trials no? Or that they haven't left their pitchfork "burn the witch!" roots behind yet.

In which case JF's propaganda broadcast could qualify.



Allow me to clarify. A de jure war would be one in which a formal declaration was made while a de facto war is not. However, the law does recognise de facto states of war.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2190682

As far as I know, Fonda's broadcasts did not intentionally misinform, though perhaps I am incorrect.

I understand the difference between de facto and de jure; my point is in regards to American law, though. I would expect treason to be only applicable when the country is at war or the act is such that it puts the country in a position vulnerable to acts of aggression and there seems to be some support of this from the documents. The link you provided is in regards to International Law, which is a whole different beast entirely (I should note that I'm off-campus, atm, so I can't access the full Jstor article). Even in International Law, though, the rules work different when war is declared and when it isn't, but that's neither here nor there nor does it apply to treason, which is a purely domestic issue(generally...we don't seem to be talking about temporary citizen status or neutral entities or whatnot).

OK. That we can work with.



Lookinbg back through several pages, your's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13671122&postcount=233) was the first mention of her I could find.

Y'know, on this one my memory seems to match up with his, matter of fact I could have sworn it was the OP who brought her up at one point . . .

Not worth my time to troll all the way back through the thread though.

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 never called anyone a babykiller. My friend is in Iraq right now, you asshole. His humvee got blown up last year, he barely got out. Of course I don't fucking want him there. I'm not mad at him for being there, I'm mad at dumbass politicians who sent him and the rest of our guys and girls there in an epically bad decision for questionable motives.

Despite parallels, this isn't the fucking 1960's anymore. Maybe you should just shut up and call the waaaaaambulance.

Saying being anti-war means you must hate the troops is kind of like saying being against arson means you hate firefighters.

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.

The soldiers join up to fight for their countrymen (well, some of them do), it's like the ultimate sacrifice you can make dude. Most of them conduct themselves with honour and professionalism, and follow their orders well. They're good at what they do and it sucks that they've been put into such situations by politicians, and I certainly hope they come back home with all their parts intact.

That doesn't mean that I can't hate our politicians for putting them into a situation they shouldn't be in. The soldiers just do what they're told, and you can't blame them for the decisions made by our elected officials. If anything, we should blame ourselves for voting such people into office in the first place.

I'm sure the soldiers in the field have various different opinions regarding the morality of the war too.

I am confused.
no need to tell us that, Celt. your increasingly irrational posts have already led all of us to conclude that a loooonnnnngg time ago.
long time.

Why should female soldiers be given more protection than male soldiers?
A woman who chooses to serve in the US military has a one in three chance of being raped by a comrade or commanding officer during her service. Her odds of seeing her attacker punished are even smaller than the odds of a civilian woman seeing justice following a rape.

When I said "complete and utter failure to protect," you need to understand that's exactly what I meant. It's not that female soldiers need more protection than male soldiers. It's that female soldiers are currently being treated like worthless sacks of shit, and I'm kinda thinking that's bad, and maybe the people who are asking them to put their lives on the line in combat should lift one little finger to deal with the fact that these women are being raped.

*OP*

You really know how to start a thread.

Be utterly predictable.
Be utterly adamant on an unpopular position.
Mention the elephant in the room*

Respects. Starting a ripper thread is a valuable role. Not everyone can do it.

BTW, are you still planning to vote for Obama, the most anti-war candidate?

*Involvement in Iraq. It's been off the front page a long long time.

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

Well, considering what the harem is for... yeah. Sorry about that, but hey, there are other lists. :)So you're just going to play "hard to get" until all the rest of the people on the list to guess correctly? :p
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.You know what else is funny? That's similar to what a friend of mine who's a Captain in the Army said only he said it was limited to the people that he interacted with, all of whom who were profiting from US presence, and that the rest of the Iraqis considered us the lesser evil at the very best.

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.Here's a fun fact: If I had a family member that had an addiction to a dangerous substance, I would still support them. This, however, would not equate to me supporting the substance abuse.

I agree.

I disagree, of course you can support the troops and be anti war.

I am anti war, any war, I wish that there was no need for 'the troops' and whilst I make no secret of my dislike for the rank and file squaddie (I know a lot of them, and to a man, they are arses), I see the need to maintain armed services, so thusly and rightly too, support the armed services in the job that, lets face it, somebody needs to do.

I wish it was another way, but it is not, and rather than blame the 'the troops' I'll lay all blame at the feet of the govemerment.

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

This would mean that a blanket silence existed on the part of troops both serving and returned, which is not the case.


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.


As they have served, how can they be compared to people who refused to?
And who is to say that going to Canada was the wrong thing to do for that matter...Certainly if your attitude is anything to go by they could have gone, got their limbs blown off, and still be looked down on......


You can not protest the war which equals killing and destruction

..which, due to its nature, was avoidable, thus meaning that it equals unnessecary killing and destruction. You as ever operate under the delusion that opposition to America in Iraq is somehow always linked to pacifism.


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?

The war in Iraq is nothing to do with American 'freedom'. It is also very very little to do with Iraqi freedom, though the Kurds might 'luck out' on that one.


Most of us were "abused" by protesters and yes a lot of us still carry a grudge against anti-war protesters

Yet three decades on you're still whining about a few incidents of name calling. Yet should a Latin American or Arab take you to task for some American action that killed untold thousands, 'THEY JUST HAYTE OUR WAY OF LIFE' becaue their religon/politics has turned them into rabid fanatics, apparently.

Even if there were actually a just cause for war, no way to avoid it, a discernible and accomplishable goal and trustworthy political leadership capable of making such judgements, how could one call oneself 'pro-war'? Even in such a circumstance, the necessity of war in the present is due to avoidable mistakes in the past. War is only necessary to repair the incompetence of leadership.

Or:

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -Salvor Hardin, 'Foundation' by Isaac Asimov.

The war in Iraq is nothing to do with American 'freedom'. It is also very very little to do with Iraqi freedom, though the Kurds might 'luck out' on that one.

In fact, if anything, the presence of a country in a war immediately restricts its citizens' freedoms.

Saying being anti-war means you must hate the troops is kind of like saying being against arson means you hate firefighters.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d175/erotictophat/borat_nice.jpg

<snip>

Anyway, IDK about Jane Fonda one way or another,

<snip>
That has been pretty clearly established, I think. Too bad your awareness of your ignorance on that subject didn't stop you from carrying on about it for several pages, but I hope we can move on now.

I just wred this entire thread. It seems to improve towards the end (longer posts, less gang-bashing).

I have such a huge buffer of posts to commend or condemn, that it is disrespectful to trim it down to two or three. And I need my bed.

I'll just say, I found a couple of new allies, and also a couple of posters I've agreed with before, who ought to watch their backs in future.

I can't help but notice that Celt made himself scarce after being thoroughly proven wrong in this thread. He didn't even answer my Last Word post.

Oh, no... Did we kill him? :p

It's possible to "support the troops" and be anti-war - but not all people who are anti-war support the troops.

If you're protesting against the war, on the idea that you're trying to save the lives of the troops, that can be both.

If you're calling random soldiers "baby killers" and sending money to Islamic charities that are front organizations for terrorist organizations, then no.

I dont support any troops and I dont support any war...

Anyone that goes to a war is in part responsible for the effects of that war.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

If you're calling random soldiers "baby killers" and sending money to Islamic charities that are front organizations for terrorist organizations, then no.

Ah, you know it's not NSG without Kimchi ranting about Teh Ebil Moslemz. Hillary-ous considering they couldn't even convict the Holy Land Foundation of being a terrorist front.

Ah, you know it's not NSG without Kimchi ranting about Teh Ebil Moslemz. Hillary-ous considering they couldn't even convict the Holy Land Foundation of being a terrorist front.

I guess that explains why there's going to be a retrial.

Unfortunately for you, the financial evidence is flawless.

I guess that explains why there's going to be a retrial.

Unfortunately for you, the financial evidence is flawless.

A retrial after they couldn't get it right the first time? Ha. And testimony from anonymous Israeli agents as the primary "evidence"? A Kafka story has a more transparent judicial process than that.

A retrial after they couldn't get it right the first time? Ha. And testimony from anonymous Israeli agents as the primary "evidence"? A Kafka story has a more transparent judicial process than that.

The video tapes of the men talking about what code words to use for Hamas is also telling.

I guess this juror was you: At least three jurors have complained publically about one juror, William Neal, citing bullying tactics. There have been complaints that he cursed at and belittle fellow jurors for taking any positions that were in favor of conviction.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_340/l_34020051223en00800084.pdf

Even the Europeans believe the Holy Land Foundation is a front for terrorism.

I can't help but notice that Celt made himself scarce after being thoroughly proven wrong in this thread. He didn't even answer my Last Word post.

Oh, no... Did we kill him? :p
I don't like it when people use the "hasn't appeared online" as an argument. People have lives outside of the internet, and it shouldn't count against them in a debate when they dedicate time to them.

I don't like it when people use the "hasn't appeared online" as an argument. People have lives outside of the internet, and it shouldn't count against them in a debate when they dedicate time to them.

Still, the guy vanished RIGHT AFTER I made my points. Plus it's been more than a day.

Still, the guy vanished RIGHT AFTER I made my points. Plus it's been more than a day.

Shit it's been 3 days since I was last here!

Shit it's been 3 days since I was last here!

I can rarely bear more than 30 minutes...

I can rarely bare more than 30 minutes...

Mphhhhhgagagaggag hehhehheh Bwahahahhaha!

You just said Bare! :D

General Harold G. Moore (author of the book "We Were Soldiers Once...And Young") has said in many interviews "Love the soldier, hate the war." It seems like a perfectly viable sentiment to me.

Still, the guy vanished RIGHT AFTER I made my points. Plus it's been more than a day.

Which is typical for Celt. Celt has spurts of activity. It's not reflective of the strength of your argument. In fact, one wonders why you need it to be.

What I notice about your style is that you'll claim victory from anything, regardless if said victory has anything to do with debate. How about you wait for a reply or are you worried your actual debate points aren't enough to carry your argument?

Frankly, you generally rely on the same flawed tactics as Celt. Namecalling of those that disagree with you. Hyperbole. That you happen to be right in this case is irrelevant to whether or not you debate on substance. Now, let me guess. Is this where you give me one warning that I'm in for it and give me a chance to flee? Or perhaps instead of silly threats and nonsense, you stick to the actual debate at hand. (Though, admittedly, you get huge style points in my book. I very much enjoyed the altered speech of Brutus.)

Still, the guy vanished RIGHT AFTER I made my points. Plus it's been more than a day.

I'll be sure from now on to claim, "I WIN" when you log off for the day, lol.

Still, the guy vanished RIGHT AFTER I made my points. Plus it's been more than a day.

Shit it's been 3 days since I was last here!
Made the point better than I could. Neither I, nor Celtlund, nor you, nor anyone on this forum is under any obligation to post at a certain point in time. I don't have regular internet access because I rely on my library for it. I have family and friends that I occasionally visit, and I don't always go online. And that's not including the possibility that a tragic event keeps you offline. You seriously shouldn't judge people for not being on NSG 24/7.

Mphhhhhgagagaggag hehhehheh Bwahahahhaha!

You just said Bare! :D

I did. :headbang:

Which is typical for Celt. Celt has spurts of activity. It's not reflective of the strength of your argument. In fact, one wonders why you need it to be.

What I notice about your style is that you'll claim victory from anything, regardless if said victory has anything to do with debate. How about you wait for a reply or are you worried your actual debate points aren't enough to carry your argument?

Frankly, you generally rely on the same flawed tactics as Celt. Namecalling of those that disagree with you. Hyperbole. That you happen to be right in this case is irrelevant to whether or not you debate on substance. Now, let me guess. Is this where you give me one warning that I'm in for it and give me a chance to flee? Or perhaps instead of silly threats and nonsense, you stick to the actual debate at hand. (Though, admittedly, you get huge style points in my book. I very much enjoyed the altered speech of Brutus.)

Meh.

And no, I won't say such things to you because - though we may disagree here - you're actually coherent. I will claim victory whenever I actually believe I won, or believe it's at hand, due to the sheer weakness of my opponent. But that's besides the point: I respect you because I find your posts to have a decent, though it may or not be flawless, internal logic. I treat my opponents with the respect I believe they deserve. You aren't going "perhaps if I paint people with a broad brush, others will 'understand' that I'm right". You aren't making a false statement right in the op. Indeed, should we have to argue about something, I would probably break a decent sweat. We don't usually, because we tend to be on the same page about most stuff.

Understand this: I view arguments as a game. I really do. It pleases me to bluster a bit when an opponent is weak. However, should I have to argue with you, Kat, Bottle, and others, I'd play it dead-serious. Although maybe with the stylish moves, of course. ;)

Made the point better than I could. Neither I, nor Celtlund, nor you, nor anyone on this forum is under any obligation to post at a certain point in time. I don't have regular internet access because I rely on my library for it. I have family and friends that I occasionally visit, and I don't always go online. And that's not including the possibility that a tragic event keeps you offline. You seriously shouldn't judge people for not being on NSG 24/7.

Okay, I'll go back to judging them for posting incoherent tripe such as "if you're anti-war you hate the troops that die in it" instead. :p

Okay, I'll go back to judging them for posting incoherent tripe such as "if you're anti-war you hate the troops that die in it" instead. :pThe Imperial German smiley approves! http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/ImperialSmiley.png

Meh.

And no, I won't say such things to you because - though we may disagree here - you're actually coherent. I will claim victory whenever I actually believe I won, or believe it's at hand, due to the sheer weakness of my opponent. But that's besides the point: I respect you because I find your posts to have a decent, though it may or not be flawless, internal logic. I treat my opponents with the respect I believe they deserve. You aren't going "perhaps if I paint people with a broad brush, others will 'understand' that I'm right". You aren't making a false statement right in the op. Indeed, should we have to argue about something, I would probably break a decent sweat. We don't usually, because we tend to be on the same page about most stuff.

And I'm not claiming these things aren't true of you. I'm also not claiming I don't hyperbolize (I happen to think hyperbole is funny, even hilarious, at times.) or belittle the efforts of a poster. I do both. However, I recognize that I do it and I take my victories based on them being just that.

It's actually funny when you and Neo Art are going after Corny and he comes up with a paper or a sudden appointment, but let's address the difference between a poster who is online daily or nearly so and another who is a fairly intermittent poster. That you jump on these things even they aren't supported, it belittles YOUR argument. That was my point.

And I was quite serious about the points for style. I literally rolled my eyes when I saw your "threat". However, I very much enjoyed your reply when you made it.

Okay, I'll go back to judging them for posting incoherent tripe such as "if you're anti-war you hate the troops that die in it" instead.

As you say, you're shooting fish in a barrel (which actually is a bit harder than the saying suggestes, especially if they're tiny fish or see-through as some are). There's no need to distract from obvious fallacies of his posts by attacking him for, you know, not living and breathing NSG.

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.


So, you can't tell a family member you love them, but you wish they wouldn't ride their motorbike on that dangerous stretch of road?

I think it's curious that neocons have adopted the 'you can't support the troops, if you don't support THIS war (or this president, or whichever)' mantra as inerrant truth, but accepted the exact opposite when Republicans said it to Clinton.

and that American occupation of Iraq was evil and a war crime,

The American occupation of Iraq is evil and a war crime.

Was that a treasonous statement?

Even in such a circumstance, the necessity of war in the present is due to avoidable mistakes in the past. War is only necessary to repair the incompetence of leadership.

:fluffle:

And I was quite serious about the points for style. I literally rolled my eyes when I saw your "threat". However, I very much enjoyed your reply when you made it.

That actually was a taunt. I'm dead serious when I tell the folks here to picture a video-game or anime. Because I enjoy the feel of blustering a bit. That you rolled your eyes is understandable: The move was for show only. I didn't think Celt would back away, it was just a last glove-slap before I delivered the Last Word.

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.

Thank you for clarifying. I didn't know before, but now I know that I hate the troops (or the portion of it that think as you do) and wish you hateful murderers to die. Again, thanks.

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.

Of course, you're right. *sigh* I'm far too inured to civility and forum rules, aren't I?

I just wred this entire thread. It seems to improve towards the end (longer posts, less gang-bashing).

I have such a huge buffer of posts to commend or condemn, that it is disrespectful to trim it down to two or three. And I need my bed.

I'll just say, I found a couple of new allies, and also a couple of posters I've agreed with before, who ought to watch their backs in future.

Did I mention that I'm a bit paranoid by nature? I sincerely hope I haven't the need to post surveillance on my sacro-iliac.

The video tapes (....)a front for terrorism.

Its unlikely they'll be convicted at this stage.


Still, the guy vanished RIGHT AFTER I made my points. Plus it's been more than a day..

No offence intended, but the fact he made as many comments as he did after his OP was unusual. He comes out with shite and heads for the hills soon after as a rule, as he has no argument 99% of the time. I find his hippy phobia hilarious though.


I'll be sure from now on to claim, "I WIN" when you log off for the day, lol.
..

...if you have time, amidst your busy schedule of c&ping right wing rants and "forgetting" to attribute them.....

So, you can't tell a family member you love them, but you wish they wouldn't ride their motorbike on that dangerous stretch of road?

I think it's curious that neocons have adopted the 'you can't support the troops, if you don't support THIS war (or this president, or whichever)' mantra as inerrant truth, but accepted the exact opposite when Republicans said it to Clinton.

not to worry, im sure they will change their minds when the new democratic president is sworn in in january and the war becomes his problem.

Of course, you're right. *sigh* I'm far too inured to civility and forum rules, aren't I?

You've pulled me back from that edge a few times. I thought I'd point out how impossible it is for you to become a hypocrite. ;p

You've pulled me back from that edge a few times. I thought I'd point out how impossible it is for you to become a hypocrite. ;p

Kumar Patel: So, you like, smoke weed, then throw people in jail for smoking weed? Thats so hypocritical, dude.
George W. Bush: Do you like to give hand jobs?
Kumar Patel: Uh, no.
George W. Bush: Do you like to get hand jobs?
Kumar Patel: Well, yeah!
George W. Bush: That makes you a fuckin' hypocriticizer too!

Thank you for clarifying. I didn't know before, but now I know that I hate the troops (or the portion of it that think as you do) and wish you hateful murderers to die. Again, thanks.

Well, at least your honest, that's better than nothing I guess.

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.

Is this your way of saying that you can't support the troops, without being a war-mongering son of a bitch?

Let's see...

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.

This part of the rant, as far as argument goes, is completely irrelevant other than establishing the fact that people in the military, especially in war, die.

A fact no one disputes.

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.

This would be a relevant argument if everyone who was anti-war called troops "baby killers."

Another strawman, so no dice.

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

Oh? So you are saying the troops may be anti-war.

...do the anti-war troops, support the troops?

Those who get out and protest the war have no idea what they are doing to the moral of the troops

I guess we just figured that saying "war is bad, mmkay" wouldn't make you and your compatriots cry like little babies.

Our mistake. Next time we have a political message, we'll try to make it non-offensive so you won't get offended.

Honestly, it's clear you're still building on Vietnam "baby killer" comments, and generalizing them to include anyone who opposes war. Your rant is based on a strawman.

, and worse yet the moral of the enemy.

Yeah, if being against war makes the enemy feel happy, whatever. I'm not responsible for their "feelings" or morale, any more than your own. Take responsibility for your own psyche and stop blaming everyone else.

I’d still like to see Jane Fonda tried and hung for treason.

Lovely sentiment. But the United States, its government, its laws, freedom, democracy and everything else you claim to support disagrees.

I'm going to disagree too.

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.


Lovely sentiment. Boy you're just showing what a swell guy you are, and why we should all give a shit about your "morale."

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.

That's your point?

Well, it's completely unsupported by your rant and any bit of reasoning you've cobbled together.

People can and do love the person without the behavior. Happens all the time. That you seem to assume it's impossible, so that it's a "lie," tells more about your psyche than anything with the anti-war movements.

So, you're wrong, as I'm sure others have pointed out several dozen times so far.

The video tapes of the men talking about what code words to use for Hamas is also telling.

I guess this juror was you: At least three jurors have complained publically about one juror, William Neal, citing bullying tactics. There have been complaints that he cursed at and belittle fellow jurors for taking any positions that were in favor of conviction.

You got me. I'm William Neal. :rolleyes:

Yet apparently despite the supposed tapes and "expert testimony" from Israeli agents under pseudonyms, the jury only came out with acquittals or deadlocks. The evidence must have been really slam-dunk solid.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/102307dnmetholyland.367cb2b.html

Jurors acquitted Mohammad El-Mezain, Holy Land's former endowments chairman, on 31 counts but deadlocked on the most serious charge: conspiracy to support Hamas.

The judge later declared a mistrial on the unresolved count against Mr. El-Mezain and those against the Holy Land entity itself, former board chairman Ghassan Elashi, and former CEO Shukri Abu Baker.

The jury first said the panel had unanimously voted to acquit Mufid Abdulqader on all counts and Abdulrahman Odeh on most counts. But one juror maintained in open court that she had changed her mind about the acquittals, and the judge declared a mistrial on those counts, too.

Jurors listened to two months of testimony, deliberated for 19 days and were asked to render decisions on 197 individual counts against the defendants.

In the end, not enough jurors believed the government's assertion that more than $12 million in humanitarian aid raised by Holy Land, once the largest Muslim charity in the U.S., and sent to Palestinian charities, also known as zakat committees, was really going to the violent terrorist group Hamas.

Johnnie Cochran was dead in 2005 so there goes that excuse.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_340/l_34020051223en00800084.pdf

Even the Europeans believe the Holy Land Foundation is a front for terrorism.

So far the only thing that anyone has been able to prove is that the Holy Land Foundation provided charity funds to zakat committees that provided social services such as hospital contructions- and which were alleged to have been controlled by Hamas. That's a far cry from your wild implication that the HLF was directly financing Hamas operations. Even the Department of Justice didn't even try the defendants on providing material support.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/102307dnmetholyland.367cb2b.html

The defense countered with the former No. 2 intelligence official at the State Department, Edward Abington. He told jurors that although he got daily CIA briefings for years while he was stationed in Jerusalem as consul general, he never was told that the Palestinian charity committees Holy Land gave money to were part of Hamas.

The funny thing here see, is that the HLF has been funding these alleged Hamas-controlled zakat committees well before Hamas was officially declared a terrorist organization, and much of the "evidence" dates back to those times.

Much of the evidence predated that designation, but prosecutors had presented it in an attempt to prove a long-term conspiracy.

The EU article is merely a list of organizations and people that are associated or suspected to be associated with terrorism and the original article which it cites merely lists a freezing of assets to those listed. Nowhere does it mention what specific suspicions or confirmed acts of terrorism got them put on that list. Which is like the Sex Offender Registries in the U.S.: It'll give you names but it won't give you the exact fine details of how they got there in the first place. For all anyone knows the HLF could be on that list simply because the zakat committees they gave money to might be associated with Hamas.

But at least you're not denying you're Kimchi. That's a refreshing change.

The funny thing here see, is that the HLF has been funding these alleged Hamas-controlled zakat committees well before Hamas was officially declared a terrorist organization, and much of the "evidence" dates back to those times.



Interestingly enough, this is identical to the "evidence" usually cited by the loonies who believe the CIA "trained BinLaden" or "financed the Taliban" and similar such nonsense.

Apropos of nothing, but it's interesting to see how the door swings both ways when it comes to this kind of political subject.

Apropos of nothing

Then why should we listen to you?

Then why should we listen to you?

"Apropos of nothing" simply means it's not specifically significant to anything. He was pointing out that, while it's not really an argument, it is interesting...

Interestingly enough, this is identical to the "evidence" usually cited by the loonies who believe the CIA "trained BinLaden" or "financed the Taliban" and similar such nonsense.

Apropos of nothing, but it's interesting to see how the door swings both ways when it comes to this kind of political subject.

Did you sew on those eyes yourself?

snip
http://galava.goonbase.com/Smileys/somethingawful/emot-hurr.gif

Did you sew on those eyes yourself?
:D
The eyes are sort of alright.

But why do they draw the mouth on with a marker pen?

Hint for new puppeteers: use straw for the mouth. It glistens. Almost kissable.

============

http://galava.goonbase.com/Smileys/somethingawful/emot-hurr.gif

NOOOOOOOO!

Andaras, reduced to smilie spam!

I can't bear to watch.
Really! No.

You've pulled me back from that edge a few times. I thought I'd point out how impossible it is for you to become a hypocrite. ;p

Most kind. I appreciate that.

NOOOOOOOO!

Andaras, reduced to smilie spam!

I can't bear to watch.
Really! No.
Such a waste of well crafted and soundly supported argumentation...

Such a waste of well crafted and soundly supported argumentation...

Oh, shut up.

Oh, shut up.No, by Andaras. Imagine how many times we could have read the b-word if it hadn't been for that smiley. :(

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.

I'm sorry Europe didn't want our intervention in WW I or WW II. :rolleyes:

You can support the guys that are out there defending your ass, without having to support what the Politicians force them to do...
The politicians do not "force them to do anything." We have an all volunteer force. Every one of them chose to join the military.

It is precisely because we do support our troops that many of us are morally opposed to needlessly placing them in harm's way.

It is precisely because we do support our troops that many of us are morally opposed to needlessly placing them in harm's way.

Celt refuses to see that though. Hes still using the same old point over and over even though it has been poo-pooed god knows how many times, like i did in the Smoking thread a few weeks back.

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

You are against the war and you have every right to be against it. You have every right to demonstrate against the war, but here is the problem with what you are exposing.

You are against war because you do not agree with the killing, mayhem, and destruction that is the result of war. You do not agree with war because of the inevitable death of innocent people that will happen in a war.

The military are the ones who cause the killing, mayhem, destruction, and death of the innocent civilians during a war. They are the ones who conduct the very thing you are against.

Each and every one of those military people are volunteers. They have decided of their own free will that they will engage in the actions you are against.

So, how the hell can you say your are against what they are doing but you support the fact they are doing it?

not to worry, im sure they will change their minds when the new democratic president is sworn in in january and the war becomes his problem.

The Demorats are currently in the mode of eating their young. They are giving more support to McCain than any other group.

My prediction is McCain will win and the Demorats will maintain a majority in Congress. The next four years may turn out to be quite nice.

You are against the war and you have every right to be against it. You have every right to demonstrate against the war, but here is the problem with what you are exposing.

You are against war because you do not agree with the killing, mayhem, and destruction that is the result of war. You do not agree with war because of the inevitable death of innocent people that will happen in a war.

The military are the ones who cause the killing, mayhem, destruction, and death of the innocent civilians during a war. They are the ones who conduct the very thing you are against.

Each and every one of those military people are volunteers. They have decided of their own free will that they will engage in the actions you are against.

So, how the hell can you say your are against what they are doing but you support the fact they are doing it?

Because your understanding is flawed.

Even if one would prefer peaceful soultions over military ones... even if one thinks that military interventions are almost never necessary - not supporting THIS war, is NOT the same as 'not supporting war'.

I happen to think THIS war has done a lot more harm than good. I happen to think the political machinery that sent troops over there did an evil thing. That doesn't mean I don't support the troops, it means I don't support THIS war, and don't buy the bullshit motivations allegedly attached to it.

I have friends who saw action in the Gulf, and now aren't fighting there. They oppose THIS war, but they WERE 'the troops'. How does your little worldview accomodate them?

My prediction is McCain will win and the Demorats will maintain a majority in Congress. The next four years may turn out to be quite nice.

Curious. You predict two entirely different futures.


Demorats. That's cute. You think of that yourself? Or was it on the Repubicans website.

You are against the war and you have every right to be against it. You have every right to demonstrate against the war, but here is the problem with what you are exposing.

You are against war because you do not agree with the killing, mayhem, and destruction that is the result of war. You do not agree with war because of the inevitable death of innocent people that will happen in a war.

The military are the ones who cause the killing, mayhem, destruction, and death of the innocent civilians during a war. They are the ones who conduct the very thing you are against.

Each and every one of those military people are volunteers. They have decided of their own free will that they will engage in the actions you are against.

So, how the hell can you say your are against what they are doing but you support the fact they are doing it?
I don't.

But there is one problem in your argument, and that is that your argument is valid only for those who enlisted after the war started.

Curious. You predict two entirely different futures.


Demorats. That's cute. You think of that yourself? Or was it on the Repubicans website.

There is no Republican party, it is the Republicrats. Both parties have sold out to the "greater good of the elected official." :mad:

I don't.

But there is one problem in your argument, and that is that your argument is valid only for those who enlisted after the war started.

No, it is valid for everyone who has enlisted since the end of the draft. All have volunteered, all have volunteered knowing they could go to war, all have taken the oath, and many have reenlisted. You are quite wrong on this.

The politicians do not "force them to do anything." We have an all volunteer force. Every one of them chose to join the military.

After which, the politicians can force them to do whatever the hell what they want them to, with the threat of many years in jail. Those who choose not to do so, even to face jail for the choice, I believe you have gone on record many months ago stating that they were traitors when the topic came up.

A choice of conscience reinforced by negative consequences is no choice at all.

But that's the sort of choice you like isn't it? Given how you like to use the tricks of Goering.

There is no Republican party, it is the Republicrats. Both parties have sold out to the "greater good of the elected official." :mad:

Missed it, huh?

You are right, though. You don't have a two party system. You have the fascists, and the slightly-less-fascist. The even sadder thing? 'The American voter' wouldn't support any real alternative.

No, it is valid for everyone who has enlisted since the end of the draft. All have volunteered, all have volunteered knowing they could go to war, all have taken the oath, and many have reenlisted. You are quite wrong on this.

'Could go to war' isn't the same as signing up for THIS war. Still.

And therein lies the rub - any serviceman who agrees to serve in THIS war should be tried as a war criminal. Better to face the consequences of refusal, than to serve in a dishonorable conflict, no?

Celt. After reading your OP and your following comments, Ill take the warning.

You certainly will. And the two-day vacation.

This and the other post wishing death on someone certainly warrant it. I hope you can return with a bit more calm.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

A choice of conscience reinforced by negative consequences is no choice at all.

The choice is made when you enlist. You know what your obligations are and what the consequences of not following your obligations. No different than a civilian who does not agree with a law. They have a choice to follow that law or suffer the consequences of not following that law. By your definition all law is "no choice at all" as there are "negative consequences" of not following that law.

The choice is made when you enlist. You know what your obligations are and what the consequences of not following your obligations. No different than a civilian who does not agree with a law. They have a choice to follow that law or suffer the consequences of not following that law. By your definition all law is "no choice at all" as there are "negative consequences" of not following that law.

So, you agree? Given the fact that THIS war is false, the only honest choice is to refuse to serve?

The even sadder thing? 'The American voter' wouldn't support any real alternative.

And that is truly sad. :( We need a good third party in this country.

The choice is made when you enlist. You know what your obligations are and what the consequences of not following your obligations. No different than a civilian who does not agree with a law. They have a choice to follow that law or suffer the consequences of not following that law. By your definition all law is "no choice at all" as there are "negative consequences" of not following that law.

Oh really? So then clearly you would exonerate the SS guards of Nuremberg then? They were after all, following the law set by their superiors.


The military are the ones who cause the killing, mayhem, destruction, and death of the innocent civilians during a war. They are the ones who conduct the very thing you are against.


Is the military an entity that decides to go to war on its own? Does it wage war wherever it chooses? No. The US military is subordinated to the civilian government, and the civilian government directs where and when the US military goes, including the actual act of war.

Are you saying otherwise?

Because if so, then clearly the US military is an illegal armed entity that is no more legitimate "illegal combatants" and therefore, should be incarcerated in its entirety without any legal rights. Just like every other "illegal combatant".

'Could go to war' isn't the same as signing up for THIS war. Still.

And therein lies the rub - any serviceman who agrees to serve in THIS war should be tried as a war criminal. Better to face the consequences of refusal, than to serve in a dishonorable conflict, no?

When you sign up there is no "I get to choose which if any war I agree to fight."
There is an oath you take that talks about defending the Constitution, and following orders.

When you sign up there is no "I get to choose which if any war I agree to fight."
There is an oath you take that talks about defending the Constitution, and following orders.

And you can, at any time, choose to refuse to follow orders. But you have to take the consequences.

So - if your commanding officer tells you to bayonet babies, you're telling me what... you'd do it?

No. You refuse to follow the orders, and you pay whatever price it costs. That's the honourable thing to do. By the same token, there shouldn't BE any American servicemen in Iraq at the moment....

So, you agree? Given the fact that THIS war is false, the only honest choice is to refuse to serve?

I do not agree with "this war is false." However, if you feel that way, don't sign up. If you feel "this war is false" and want to protest it go ahead and do so but don't tell me you support the troops who have chosen to serve. If you disagree with what they are doing there is no way you can support them.

When you sign up there is no "I get to choose which if any war I agree to fight."
There is an oath you take that talks about defending the Constitution, and following orders.

Um, yeah, but unfortunately, some naive young men and women, myself included, have the silly notion that the US isn't an aggressive nation that enters into wars under lies.

Meanwhile, I don't think you even know what you're arguing? Many, many, many US Servicemen and women disagree with this war. They fight to protect themselves and each other. They do so, because we're there now and it's not the fault of their compatriots that we are. While you run around the subject, you miss the point that you can disagree with A war without saying that war is NEVER necessary or just. And since you can such a thing, you can, nay, you are obligated to, ensure that we ONLY enter war as a last resort when our cause is just. This one isn't. At all.

And you can, at any time, choose to refuse to follow orders. But you have to take the consequences.

Yes, that is your choice.

So - if your commanding officer tells you to bayonet babies, you're telling me what... you'd do it?

You know that is wrong. Military members have an obligation to refuse to follow illegal order and can go to jail for following them.

By the same token, there shouldn't BE any American servicemen in Iraq at the moment....

That is your opinion and an opinion not shared by everyone.

I do not agree with "this war is false." However, if you feel that way, don't sign up. If you feel "this war is false" and want to protest it go ahead and do so but don't tell me you support the troops who have chosen to serve. If you disagree with what they are doing there is no way you can support them.

What about the troops that agree with me? Am I supporting them? You realize there are very complex reasons people join the military. Some people have little choice. Some go to protect their fellow Americans who are serving. And some, very, very few, sign up because they just want to fight whenever and wherever. Claiming that arguing that sometimes a war is the wrong war is attacking them is, well, a bit touched.

Yes, that is your choice.

You know that is wrong. Military members have an obligation to refuse to follow illegal order and can go to jail for following them.

You mean like orders to torture people? When I was in that was illegal. But, apparently, recently we've abandoned even the most fundamental ideals.

When I was in, the people who disrespected and mistreated the indiginous people were rogues and a blight on us all. Now, they're called "Mr. President".

That is your opinion and an opinion not shared by everyone.

According to you it's only shared by people who don't support the troops. Oh, yeah, and crappy troops, if they did serve, right? Nothing like complaining about people belittling the troops and then doing it just because they disagree with you.

When you support the troops, honestly support the troops, you support them AND their right to disagree with you. I do. I also want them to live productive lives and, if they have to be in harm's way, for it to be the absolute last resort. Here, we all know it wasn't, and you've not provided any evidence to contrary. As such, unless I don't value their lives or their contributions in serving, I am OBLIGATED to defend them with my vote and with activism.

If you feel "this war is false" and want to protest it go ahead and do so but don't tell me you support the troops who have chosen to serve. If you disagree with what they are doing there is no way you can support them.
I disagree with what they're being told to do; I don't disagree with the fact that they're doing it given that they've been told to do it. I think the same is true for many people here.

Why does disagreeing with what they're being ordered to do mean that I can't respect and support them in doing it? You can't fight another human being, even on behalf of your country, your way of life or your family, without having to yield your ethical judgement to your institution and trust that what you're being told to do is the right thing. I deeply respect people who are willing to sacrifice their well-being in such a way in order to protect that which is important to all of us, and this is the case even when I disagree with the orders they've been given.

But I also pity them, because that is a horrible thing to have to sacrifice, and I hope that one day we will be in a position where nobody need ever give up that sense of right and wrong.

I disagree with what they're being told to do; I don't disagree with the fact that they're doing it given that they've been told to do it. I think the same is true for many people here.

Why does disagreeing with what they're being ordered to do mean that I can't respect and support them in doing it? You can't fight another human being, even on behalf of your country, your way of life or your family, without having to yield your ethical judgement to your institution and trust that what you're being told to do is the right thing. I deeply respect people who are willing to sacrifice their well-being in such a way in order to protect that which is important to all of us, and this is the case even when I disagree with the orders they've been given.

But I also pity them, because that is a horrible thing to have to sacrifice, and I hope that one day we will be in a position where nobody need ever give up that sense of right and wrong.


This sentiment is precisely what drove me to serve and why I feel utterly obligated to defend the Servicemen and women today with my vote against anyone who would put them in harm's way unnecessarily.

(You'll notice that C II skips the bulk of the reasonable posts but never misses one that insults him.)

The military are the ones who cause the killing, mayhem, destruction, and death of the innocent civilians during a war. They are the ones who conduct the very thing you are against.

Each and every one of those military people are volunteers. They have decided of their own free will that they will engage in the actions you are against.

So, how the hell can you say your are against what they are doing but you support the fact they are doing it?

Oh. My. God. I am desperately trying to balance my respect for your service with my complete and utter revulsion at your denial of a simple notion: the separation of the warrior from the war. Better yet, the separation of the warrior and the war from the oligarchs who needed the war to enrich themselves. My patience with you is hanging on by a thread, but in deference to you retaining a civil tone, I shall endeavor to retain mine.

I can't believe you are really continuing to say this after the countless posts of people like me who have family and friends serving in Iraq. You are telling me, to my face (effectively), that by opposing the reasoning and rationale for the war, I do not support my own flesh and blood. Do you have any idea how incredibly asinine that sounds?

When you sign up there is no "I get to choose which if any war I agree to fight."
There is an oath you take that talks about defending the Constitution, and following orders.

This begs the question: is this war constitutional? If it was when We The People were lied to in order to start it, is it now unconstitutional because the pretext for the war has long since been proven incredibly false?

I understand your point about not choosing where you're sent. My brother didn't believe in the missions he was sent to Panama for, and sure as hell didn't like inventorying caskets from Gulf War One.

At some point, and I believe it might be when you can't explain the reasoning for putting people's families and friends in mortal peril in less than one paragraph, there has to be a serious re-examination of the reasons for using military force. In the case of Afghanistan, it was to root out the Taliban and Bin Laden, and that was reasonable, considering 9/11.

In Iraq, and you'd have to be blind not to see it, it's about securing access to oil. If this behavior doesn't make you wonder what's happened to the country and its armed forces and those in control of them, I don't know what will. Imperialistic warmongering over a resource we knew was finite as recently as 1971 (when our own production of it peaked) is not a noble cause. It is not justifiable as a nation dedicated to freedom and peace. It is not reasonable. It is not honorable. It is greedy.

I do not agree with "this war is false." However, if you feel that way, don't sign up. If you feel "this war is false" and want to protest it go ahead and do so but don't tell me you support the troops who have chosen to serve. If you disagree with what they are doing there is no way you can support them.

You are just plain wrong, sir. Just wrong. The fact that you cannot separate "dubious rationale" from "person under oath to obey his superiors" is disconcerting to me. You are too regular and level-headed a poster to be deliberately trolling on this issue. Other have pointed out your obsession with how you were treated upon returning from the Vietnam tragedy, and I think that is what clouds your judgement. Confirmation comes in how you pick and choose the posts to which you'll respond. Anyone with anything pointed to say about your thread has been ignored. You've cherry-picked the ones you feel you can answer with your smug assertions of military experience. That's a shameful tactic, and it's beneath you, if you are the honorable soldier you claim to be.

This sentiment is precisely what drove me to serve and why I feel utterly obligated to defend the Servicemen and women today with my vote against anyone who would put them in harm's way unnecessarily.

(You'll notice that C II skips the bulk of the reasonable posts but never misses one that insults him.)

Indeed. Its such a shame that he's failing to realise that one can support the troops and not the war.

This war in iraq was never justfied legally and infact was stated as such by the UN (but you can't go throwing sanctions against two major economic players really, can you..)

*snip*

Oh, man, do I hate cheerleading. rah!

You don't have to honor the war but honor the warrior. You can support troops and be against a war. You do this by treating the soldiers with respect and as human beings rather than spitting on them for fighting in a war that they may not even support themselves. When you join the military you don't pick and choose what wars you fight in, it's not a game of cards.

The Demorats are currently in the mode of eating their young. They are giving more support to McCain than any other group.

My prediction is McCain will win

A Bushevik Nam Vet praying for another Bushevik Nam Vet to continue the Bushevik Nam in Iraq for at least a hundred years. There's a shocker.

What is it about Nam Vets on NSG that associate every single war protestor in the world with the unwashed patchouli-scented assholes who spat on them and called them baby killers?

Why do they wholeheartedly support an incompetent executive (who bankrupted three companies Daddy put him in charge of no less) who was given a Get Out of Jail Free Card from that same conflict they were in and so bitter about?

Do these NSG Bushevik Nam Vets have a twisted schadenfreude that wants them to see young men and women get slaughtered or crippled in Iraq, just to spite every single individual who thought and still thinks the invasion of Iraq was the worst idea since using Aluminum Power/Iron Oxide coating on the Hindenburg? Just so they can vicariously enjoy the revenge on the protestors?

You support the troops by keeping them alive. You don't do it by sending them out to die in trench warfare.

Do these NSG Bushevik Nam Vets have a twisted schadenfreude that wants them to see young men and women get slaughtered or crippled in Iraq, just to spite every single individual who thought and still thinks the invasion of Iraq was the worst idea since using Aluminum Power/Iron Oxide coating on the Hindenburg? Just so they can vicariously enjoy the revenge on the protestors?

You support the troops by keeping them alive. You don't do it by sending them out to die in trench warfare.

QFT. I was going to say something, but I'm a little bit hopped up on decongestants and allergy meds and I don't think anything I say right now would be, you know, comprehensible.

You mean like orders to torture people? When I was in that was illegal. But, apparently, recently we've abandoned even the most fundamental ideals.

When I was in, the people who disrespected and mistreated the indiginous people were rogues and a blight on us all. Now, they're called "Mr. President".

Nutritional Facts

Ingredient Daily Value %
Fat 0%
Trans Fat 0%
Saturated Fat 0%

Carbohydrates 0%
Win 500%

Indeed. Its such a shame that he's failing to realise that one can support the troops and not the war.

This war in iraq was never justfied legally and infact was stated as such by the UN (but you can't go throwing sanctions against two major economic players really, can you..)

Ok, I will concede that one can be opposed to the situation in Iraq and still support the military which is engaged there. In fact, I would even say that most professed protesters, in this regard, do support it.

If nothing...hey, at least they do so financially (either through taxes, and/or consumerism, excluding those that are not into globalism of course.)

In Iraq, and you'd have to be blind not to see it, it's about securing access to oil.

As far as I can tell, it isn't even about that. It's about finishing what daddy started.

Do these NSG Bushevik Nam Vets have a twisted schadenfreude that wants them to see young men and women get slaughtered or crippled in Iraq, just to spite every single individual who thought and still thinks the invasion of Iraq was the worst idea since using Aluminum Power/Iron Oxide coating on the Hindenburg? Just so they can vicariously enjoy the revenge on the protestors?


I think you've hit the nail on the head. Except I suspect Celt gets his jollies from an eternal war which America is part of.

I'm sorry Europe didn't want our intervention in WW I or WW II

He said "frequently". He did not say or imply that it was always the case.


Um, yeah, but unfortunately, some naive young men and women, myself included, have the silly notion that the US isn't an aggressive nation that enters into wars under lies.

"shouldn't be" or perhaps "isn't meant to be" would suit better.


You know that is wrong. Military members have an obligation to refuse to follow illegal order and can go to jail for following them.

As the whole torture debate has shown, thats easily bypassed by muddying the already muddy waters.

He said "frequently". He did not say or imply that it was always the case.



"shouldn't be" or perhaps "isn't meant to be" would suit better.



As the whole torture debate has shown, thats easily bypassed by muddying the already muddy waters.

He also ignores that in wartime if you refuse a direct order it's legal to shoot you. In other words, you're not going to get a chance to argue the order wasn't lawful.

"Why did you shoot him?"
"He refused to follow my orders and I deemed it put us in danger."
*shrug*

Not quite that easy, but when the punishment for not obeying is death, you tend to obey.

Well he would simplify the argument. And drag in dubious analogies. And evade answering points made. And whine about hippies.

They can only shoot you if your disobeying of orders puts your team directly in danger. Meaning that if they give you an order in the middle of hot zone(during an engagement) and you disobey then you are endangering the lives of your comrades.

They cannot, however, shoot you just because you say you won't do something or refuse to accept a task. Insubordination is not a task punishable by death. Though recently there was a soldier who refused to go to Iraq because he did not believe in the war. Made a big deal in the news and all.

I will say this. I do not support the war in Iraq. I do support the troops. But not their actions in Iraq. Obeying orders or not, most of them realized they were doing something wrong along the way and have had plenty of opportunity to make it known. However, they continue to follow orders and that in and of itself, I find stupid.

I appreciate those who are willing to give their life in the name of freedom and to protect the US. But I would like to believe that most, if not all, of them do it because they believe in what the United States stands for and the ideals that it was founded on. However, the war in Iraq goes against those ideals and I believe that the soldiers should stand up and make their voices heard.

I will never join the military. Not because I am not willing to stand and defend the US, but because I am not willing to subjugate my principles in order to fall a stupid order. I have a great deal of respect for anyone willing to put up with the burden of being held accountable for the consequences of carrying out those stupid orders though.

This sentiment is precisely what drove me to serve and why I feel utterly obligated to defend the Servicemen and women today with my vote against anyone who would put them in harm's way unnecessarily.
Nice to know I'm in good company then!

(You'll notice that C II skips the bulk of the reasonable posts but never misses one that insults him.)
Should I be insulting him just to make him pay attention? 0_o

Overcoming one's prejudices isn't an easy task, and as nice as it would be to be acknowledged, I don't think namecalling will make it any easier on him. He'll work it all out sooner or later, with my advice or otherwise.

You are against the war and you have every right to be against it. You have every right to demonstrate against the war, but here is the problem with what you are exposing.

You are against war because you do not agree with the killing, mayhem, and destruction that is the result of war. You do not agree with war because of the inevitable death of innocent people that will happen in a war.

The military are the ones who cause the killing, mayhem, destruction, and death of the innocent civilians during a war. They are the ones who conduct the very thing you are against.

Each and every one of those military people are volunteers. They have decided of their own free will that they will engage in the actions you are against.

So, how the hell can you say your are against what they are doing but you support the fact they are doing it?Love the sinner, hate the sin.

The choice is made when you enlist. You know what your obligations are and what the consequences of not following your obligations. No different than a civilian who does not agree with a law. They have a choice to follow that law or suffer the consequences of not following that law. By your definition all law is "no choice at all" as there are "negative consequences" of not following that law.I know a bunch of people that admit they didn't make an informed choice when they enlisted. One of them served in the same war you did.
And that is truly sad. :( We need a good third party in this country.
There's Nader.
That is your opinion and an opinion not shared by everyone.When you say that, it sounds like a majority actually oppose pulling troops out of Iraq.

I know a bunch of people that admit they didn't make an informed choice when they enlisted. One of them served in the same war you did.


I'm withyou on this one. I went to join the army in my youth, as it happens I failed the medical on acount of only having one kidney, but looking back to my knowledge then and now, it was the luckyest escape I have ever had.

Interestingly enough, this is identical to the "evidence" usually cited by the loonies who believe the CIA "trained BinLaden" or "financed the Taliban" and similar such nonsense.

Apropos of nothing, but it's interesting to see how the door swings both ways when it comes to this kind of political subject.

Oh right...so those Stingers just appeared out of the mujahidin's own arses along with instructions...

please...

Stingers that allowed the mujahidin to defeat the Russians...they needed the Stingers to take out the helicopters...once that happened it was the end of the Russian occupation pretty much....Stingers which are American made and supplied to the Pakistani SiS (BIG FUCKING MISTAKE HELLO!) to train the mujahidin.

When you sign up there is no "I get to choose which if any war I agree to fight."
There is an oath you take that talks about defending the Constitution, and following orders.


You know that is wrong. Military members have an obligation to refuse to follow illegal order and can go to jail for following them.

You can't have it both ways, Celtlund. You don't get to argue that soldiers have no choice but to do as they are told AND that they have ablility to refuse illegal orders at the same time.

If soldiers swear an oath to defend the Constitution, they cannot do that by violating the Constitution and US law. If orders given by Iraq commanders, and the Iraq war itself, violate US law, then US troops are within their rights to refuse and condemn them. That means you have no business denouncing those troops as traitors or bad soldiers for defending the law and belief system they were sworn to uphold.

I understand that you don't think the Iraq war is illegal, but you are wrong on the facts on that one. This war is a clear and proven violation of US and international law, and the worst part of it right now is the US Congress's paralysis in the face of it, their refusal or inability to take action to end it. This entire disgraceful episode has revealed some basic faults in our governmental system which must be addressed pronto, imo, to prevent this kind of abuse of power from happening again. In the meantime, the troops, who are unable to legally break their service contracts and are stranded in a foreign land anyway, are trapped in a war they should be under orders to stop, not prolong (or, rather, just survive). If once they get home and are free of military censorship, they speak out against what is being done over there, then they are being true American patriots -- because American patriotism is to the People, not the government -- and we should listen to them, not bitch that they aren't being team players.

If you don't like the fact that I value the lives of soldiers more than the policies of the government, and that I blame the president for wantonly wasting the most precious military resource we have -- those soldiers' lives -- then that's just tough on you. Your self-contradictory bullshit about what I can or can't think or do means nothing.

I condemn this war BECAUSE I support the troops. That is why I say that, in my opinion, every soldier killed in this war was murdered by George W. Bush.

You can't have it both ways, Celtlund. You don't get to argue that soldiers have no choice but to do as they are told AND that they have ablility to refuse illegal orders at the same time.

If soldiers swear an oath to defend the Constitution, they cannot do that by violating the Constitution and US law. If orders given by Iraq commanders, and the Iraq war itself, violate US law, then US troops are within their rights to refuse and condemn them. That means you have no business denouncing those troops as traitors or bad soldiers for defending the law and belief system they were sworn to uphold.

I understand that you don't think the Iraq war is illegal, but you are wrong on the facts on that one. This war is a clear and proven violation of US and international law, and the worst part of it right now is the US Congress's paralysis in the face of it, their refusal or inability to take action to end it. This entire disgraceful episode has revealed some basic faults in our governmental system which must be addressed pronto, imo, to prevent this kind of abuse of power from happening again. In the meantime, the troops, who are unable to legally break their service contracts and are stranded in a foreign land anyway, are trapped in a war they should be under orders to stop, not prolong (or, rather, just survive). If once they get home and are free of military censorship, they speak out against what is being done over there, then they are being true American patriots -- because American patriotism is to the People, not the government -- and we should listen to them, not bitch that they aren't being team players.

If you don't like the fact that I value the lives of soldiers more than the policies of the government, and that I blame the president for wantonly wasting the most precious military resource we have -- those soldiers' lives -- then that's just tough on you. Your self-contradictory bullshit about what I can or can't think or do means nothing.

I condemn this war BECAUSE I support the troops. That is why I say that, in my opinion, every soldier killed in this war was murdered by George W. Bush.

Skewered.

I do not agree with "this war is false." However, if you feel that way, don't sign up. If you feel "this war is false" and want to protest it go ahead and do so but don't tell me you support the troops who have chosen to serve. If you disagree with what they are doing there is no way you can support them.

You missed the point.

First - it isn't a matter of debate, the war IS false. It was a war we got into based entirely on false information.

The net effect of this war has been increased terrorism, greater instability in the region, and the increase of oil prices to something like three times their pre-war values. No good results - unless you happen to be a government or rich saudi prince.

THe POINT is - our troops that are over there should be refusing to fight in this false war. If they get punished for it, they should suck up the punishment - better to suffer punishment than to kill people for a false cause.

And again - it is entirely possible to think THIS war is wrong, to want OUR troops not to fight it... and STILL support THEM. Just - not THIS war.

You know that is wrong. Military members have an obligation to refuse to follow illegal order and can go to jail for following them.


This war is wrong. You accept that an officer in the chain of command giving 'wrong' orders should be disobeyed... welll, if the whole chain of command allows a soldier to continue fighting in a war that is wrong, an honourable soldier should disobey the whole chain of command.


That is your opinion and an opinion not shared by everyone.

It is shared by people that actually care about the troops. It is shared by people that don't think nations should be at war based on false intelligence. It is shared by anyone who cares to examine the facts and see that innocent civilians AND our troops are dying for presidential hubris.

Anyone that chooses to support THIS war, despite it's net effects, doesn't have an opinion worth considering.

They can only shoot you if your disobeying of orders puts your team directly in danger. Meaning that if they give you an order in the middle of hot zone(during an engagement) and you disobey then you are endangering the lives of your comrades.

Yes, but that's the point. Given that parts of our job was to help locals. I'm sure no one would object to that. However, when it comes to fighting them, fighting people who at least believe they are fighting an invading force, some people might consider that to be unlawful. Others might shoot you for disobeying a direct order.