I'm against the troops!!!!!!!

[Tmy]

Who ever says that? No one is against the troops!!! That's why it drives me crazy when people bash anti-war types with the "we have to support our troops" "you're lowering troop moral" lines. If anything they're for the troops not being placed in harms way.

It's regoddamndiculious!

Whats pro-ar or anti-war rhetoric annoys you the most?

(that "No war for oil" line drives me nuts too)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tmy
Who ever says that? No one is against the troops!!! That's why it drives me crazy when people bash anti-war types with the "we have to support our troops" "you're lowering troop moral" lines. If anything they're for the troops not being placed in harms way.

It's regoddamndiculious!

Whats pro-ar or anti-war rhetoric annoys you the most?

(that "No war for oil" line drives me nuts too)

Well, if people are against the war they have already taken sides because the war hasn't even happened yet. That suggests a level of psychic ability (not that I am saying you are psychic lol, but many are claiming to be from the radical left).

See, everyone is saying that Saddam is "harmless" and that there is no reason to go in there and free the Iraqi people. Why does the left want to see the Iraqi people remain slaves? Is the left into slavery, or is the left only against slavery if it involves US history alone?

I am telling you right now that the US has the goods on Saddam and when and if the war kicks off the left better apologize to President Bush and Tony Blair as truckloads of WMD are captured. We wouldn't invade if there wasn't a serious danger. People have to have faith in their government and if troops are deployed you don't want to assist the enemy of our soldiers by appeasing the enemy.

The left appeases the enemy daily. They might as well go to Iraq and take up arms and defend Saddam.

JK

[OBgac]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I am telling you right now that the US has the goods on Saddam and when and if the war kicks off the left better apologize to President Bush and Tony Blair as truckloads of WMD are captured. We wouldn't invade if there wasn't a serious danger.
JK

JK I agree with you that the US knows where the WMD are. I just think they should have tipped off Blix about it instead of having the charade that's going on at the moment.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight




See, everyone is saying that Saddam is "harmless" and that there is no reason to go in there and free the Iraqi people. Why does the left want to see the Iraqi people remain slaves? Is the left into slavery, or is the left only against slavery if it involves US history alone?

JK

Thats a bunch of crap. GW doesnt care about the Iraqi people. He said it himself that he doesnt want to go to war. Saddam can avoid a war by turning over all his weapons etc.

So lets say tomorrow Saddam is like "Ok heres all my stuff you can have it, I give up. Send in all the inspectors and you'll see I have nothing left". If he did that then Bush would leave him alone right? Woldnt he still be free to rule the Iraqi's as usual. Hes not violating the UN restrictions by merely beinga dictator.

Unless Bush is lying about wanting Saddam to comply with the UN and is going to invade no matter what Saddam does.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by OBgac
JK I agree with you that the US knows where the WMD are. I just think they should have tipped off Blix about it instead of having the charade that's going on at the moment.

Blix is an Iraqi apologist, via his own alignment with socialist European agendas that weigh against freedom and America.

This weekend it was found out that Blix buried smoking gun evidence of Iraqi development of chemical weapons drones to be used against US troops. Blix buried that information so deep in his report that his credibility is finished. Handing Blix information is like handing it to Saddam himself. Or it would eventually happen.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tmy


Thats a bunch of crap. GW doesnt care about the Iraqi people. He said it himself that he doesnt want to go to war. Saddam can avoid a war by turning over all his weapons etc.

So lets say tomorrow Saddam is like "Ok heres all my stuff you can have it, I give up. Send in all the inspectors and you'll see I have nothing left". If he did that then Bush would leave him alone right? Woldnt he still be free to rule the Iraqi's as usual. Hes not violating the UN restrictions by merely beinga dictator.

Unless Bush is lying about wanting Saddam to comply with the UN and is going to invade no matter what Saddam does.

Bush cares about the Iraqi people. Why do you think America is over there getting ready to free them?

Leftist matriarchal totalitarian death factories (abortion clinics) have killed 50 million people since 1973. Only a handful of Iraqis will die in the coming war of liberation. Maybe Bush should have said he was sending troops in to save Iraqi abortion clinics and then he would have the full support of the left.

JK

----
Whats pro-war or anti-war rhetoric annoys you the most?
----


All the propaganda, either in advertisements or in words.

Then some of the brainwashed pro-pro-pro-war types (who came to the conclusion that it is ok to be obliterated for Uncle Sam) who claim there is no propaganda around!

Yeah right, just look back in WWII times or during ANY war and see tons of it. Then think 'what makes this time any different'?

[gnome]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
See, everyone is saying that Saddam is "harmless" and that there is no reason to go in there and free the Iraqi people. Why does the left want to see the Iraqi people remain slaves? Is the left into slavery, or is the left only against slavery if it involves US history alone?

Exactly who is saying that Saddam is "harmless"? "Everyone" (I assume you mean "everyone against the war") is a rather broad statement. And since when does "Not enough reason" equal "No reason"?

Your arguments would have a lot more force without the straw men you insist on including.

People have to have faith in their government and if troops are deployed you don't want to assist the enemy of our soldiers by appeasing the enemy.

If/when this war gets off the ground, my primary focus will change from opposing it to hoping that our troops win swiftly. It seems perfectly consistent to me to be against the war but supporting the troops. It is this realization that I hope will prevent the kind of divisiveness of the Vietnam-era.

Personally, I think we will show the strength of our culture, that the freedom to oppose the war does not cripple our nation.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy
Who ever says that?

Google for Jane Fonda.

[Bentspoon]

Quote by JK Well, if people are against the war they have already taken sides because the war hasn't even happened yet. That suggests a level of psychic ability (not that I am saying you are psychic lol, but many are claiming to be from the radical left).

Huh??? what does this mean? Do you mean that if people are against the war they are already on the side that is against the war??? What does being against an impending war have to do with psychic abilities. You lost me on this. What is your point?

Do you back the war decision because of your ability to see into the future?

See, everyone is saying that Saddam is "harmless" and that there is no reason to go in there and free the Iraqi people. Why does the left want to see the Iraqi people remain slaves? Is the left into slavery, or is the left only against slavery if it involves US history alone?

This is the one I can't stand. This is disingenuous at best.

WMDs? I can buy that.
Oil? an obvious reason and not one I would dispute
Terrorism? another resonable reason
non-participation in UN accords? the best reason

But the liberation of the Iraqi people? I am getting sick of this one. This is the most disengeuous reason trotted out by those who support the war. I think there is good reason enough with out trying to push this piece of obvious propoganda.

We are liberating the Iraqi people? I laugh everytime I hear it.

The other indication about this reason is it didn't surface until war was almost imminent.

What oppressed peoples are we going to liberate next or is there something special about the Iraqi people?

Tell it like it is

Bentspoon

[Tmy]

If we're out to liberate the world then we'll be in a perpetual state of war.

Next stop: CUBA! Fidel Catsro, hes like Saddam. Just without the WMD and fashion sense.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Tmy



So lets say tomorrow Saddam is like "Ok heres all my stuff you can have it, I give up. Send in all the inspectors and you'll see I have nothing left". If he did that then Bush would leave him alone right? Woldnt he still be free to rule the Iraqi's as usual. Hes not violating the UN restrictions by merely beinga dictator.


Timmy you ignorant slut.

Think back to last November.

Remember what Hussein said?

"Ok heres all my stuff you can have it, I give up. Send in all the inspectors and you'll see I have nothing left".

How many times do you have to fall for the same BS con before you get wise?

[Tmy]

Name calling! How dare you. You know how sensative I can be. You...you......POOPHEAD!


So what your saying is that Bush is gonna invade no matter what. Then whats with that last speech about avoiding war?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy
So what your saying is that Bush is gonna invade no matter what. Then whats with that last speech about avoiding war?

Diplomacy. We have been engaged in an international game of good cop/bad cop for a long time now. We come out and say, "we're going to just invade!". The UN comes and says "he's crazy, he'll do it, just give us your weapons!"

However, it hasn't worked. We didn't even expect it to. We just did it so that countries like France and Germany could make graceful about-faces on the subject of invasion when it came back because the resolution had not been agreed to. Unfortunately, we greatly misunderestimated (TM) the axis of weasels (TM). Now it appears we have gone through this extra year of inspections for nothing. Way to go Powell. We should have just gathered up .uk and .au and done what needed to be done a year ago. The UN gambit has not paid off.

[American]

They may not be against the troops, but the troops are largely against them. If they're not, then they never should have signed up to begin with.

[gnome]

Originally posted by American
They may not be against the troops, but the troops are largely against them. If they're not, then they never should have signed up to begin with.

Here we come to a big semantic hurdle in American culture... the indistinction between "against" and "in disagreement with".

It seems a great folly that intellectual agreement with someone is taken as a sign of friendship and loyalty.... and the lack of it, hostility.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bentspoon
Quote by JK

Huh??? what does this mean? Do you mean that if people are against the war they are already on the side that is against the war??? What does being against an impending war have to do with psychic abilities. You lost me on this. What is your point?

You know what it means so don't act all naive. After 9/11 and Saddam's daily firing at coalition aircraft for the last 12 years in the no-fly zone, the radical left was drooling for the chance to attack Bush when he decided to do something to protect our country.

What good are "peace marches" if there is no war? Seriously? All the "peace marches" have done is give communists some time on TV and also gave communists the opportunity to gather up some naive college students to support their loony causes.

Has the US fired a shot in anger at Iraq yet since the crisis started with troops on the ground? Nope. What the so-called "peace marches" were are just subversive activities designed to stifle US national security planning. Why does the left protect evil? Is it just to "get at Bush"? Don't you realise how selfish that is? Leftists are so mean-spirited that they would like to see millions of Iraqi children living in terror if it can give leftists two weeks of press time to attack President Bush.

Do you back the war decision because of your ability to see into the future?

I back the war because I am a firm believer that the only way to fix the world and free people is to spread the idea of America. To spread the idea of America into hostile states, you have to send politicians in there wearing uniforms. It is a matter of will. Since our country is the most superior country in terms of bestowing upon people freedoms not seen since political systems formed thousands of years ago, we are a step ahead of the game simply by existing.

Countries will be less willing to attack us when moral men from our country go to their country and fill the enemy's bodies with bullets. It is a black and white issue. When countries are hostile to the United States, it is because they hate us for what we stand for. What did America do to Iraq to cause Iraq to invade Kuwait and commit the crimes it did in Kuwait? What did America do to Al Qaida to deserve having aircraft flown into the World Trade center towers?

Tell me. The radical left seems to have all the answers. America didn't do anything to those people, and yet when we get attacked and respond to those attacks, millions of communists line the streets around the world claiming they are there for "peace".

That said, what has Iraq ever done for the peace marchers? What has the United States done for its own people? It takes an honest man, the moral man, to answer that question.

That is why the United States is about to go to war. It isn't about oil. It is about the will to stay alive as a country and face the evil, not run from it. That is why moral men are now stepping up and the immoral are running.

This is the one I can't stand. This is disingenuous at best.

The United Nations charter was founded on that principle. It is not disingenuous.

WMDs? I can buy that.
Oil? an obvious reason and not one I would dispute
Terrorism? another resonable reason
non-participation in UN accords? the best reason

But the liberation of the Iraqi people? I am getting sick of this one. This is the most disengeuous reason trotted out by those who support the war. I think there is good reason enough with out trying to push this piece of obvious propoganda.

The war will only last for about a month, tops, IMO. What the left hates is the fact that the Iraqi people, like the people of Afghanistan, will be freed. Iraq is a socialist satrap form of goverment. Sure many European states want them to stay around because they want a global socialist nightmare government for the world. They fear the dismantling of Iraq and democracy in Iraq. They know that Israel will survive. Very few European leaders like Israel and all the support going to the PA had the Europeans drooling that Israel's days were numbered. This global response against America is really a response against the benefit the war in Iraq will have for Israel.

The truth is that the Iraqi people will be the ones that benefit, and the left knows this. The left knows it and tries to label it as "propaganda". Truth is not propaganda. Freeing people enslaved by a terrorist dictator is not "propaganda". It is truth.

We are liberating the Iraqi people? I laugh everytime I hear it.

Well you must be laughing non-stop because that is what is about to happen. It is also a truth.

The other indication about this reason is it didn't surface until war was almost imminent.

It was a truth the instant war became an option. When you have a dictator running a country of unfree people, when people go free them they become a free people. It "surfaces" by itself with just the truth as a foundation.

What oppressed peoples are we going to liberate next or is there something special about the Iraqi people?

Good question. I would like to go back to Africa and take care of some unfinished business there.

Tell it like it is

I always do. Count on it.

JK

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/billcarey/images/Fonda.gif

[Tmy]

Communists??? Did you fall out of some 50's time warp JK? The communists party is no threat. Must you always make that silly protestors=commies connection.

By the way Im a big fan of yours. I love how you title your threads. I imagine if you titled this thread it would be somthing like "Hippe-commie- nazi's look to irragate the deserts of Iraq with the blood of our soilders."

http://vikingphoenix.com/public/CelebrityFiles/TurnerandFonda/JaneFonda/Jane-in-Hanoi-2.jpg

In 1972 Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden and others traveled to North Vietnam to give their support to the North Vietnamese's Government. When she returned to the United States, she advised the news media that all of the American Prisoners of War were being well treated and were not being tortured.

As the American POWs returned home in 1973, they spoke out about the inhumane treatment and torture they had suffered as prisoners of war. Their stories directly contradicted Jane Fonda's earlier statements of 1972. Some of the American POWs such as Senator John McCain, a former Presidential candidate, stated that he was tortured by his guards for refusing to meet with Jane Fonda and her group. Jane Fonda, in her response to these new allegations, referred to the returning POWs as being "hypocrites and liars."



Lest we forget. (http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm)

Originally posted by Tmy
Who ever says that? No one is against the troops!!! That's why it drives me crazy when people bash anti-war types with the "we have to support our troops" "you're lowering troop moral" lines. If anything they're for the troops not being placed in harms way.

It's regoddamndiculious!



I guess you are too young to remember Vietnam vets being called "baby killers."

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LukeT


I guess you are too young to remember Vietnam vets being called "baby killers."

some of them were, and rapists. and what can you say about b52 bombers? they are an excellent WMD.

many soldiers who went there were also appalled by the war, some were just confused, some cam back totally embittered by what it had done to them as people, and what they were ordered to do. there are also soldiers who love war. it takes all kinds.

A family that were friends with my family, and i knew them personally, were very devout catholic anti communists. one of their sons went off to fight the good war. he was totally broken by the war, after he was ordered to drive an APC through a hut containing women and children. he came back home, was into drugs, said goodbye, and was never seen again.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LukeT


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1972 Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden and others traveled to North Vietnam to give their support to the North Vietnamese's Government. When she returned to the United States, she advised the news media that all of the American Prisoners of War were being well treated and were not being tortured.

As the American POWs returned home in 1973, they spoke out about the inhumane treatment and torture they had suffered as prisoners of war. Their stories directly contradicted Jane Fonda's earlier statements of 1972. Some of the American POWs such as Senator John McCain, a former Presidential candidate, stated that he was tortured by his guards for refusing to meet with Jane Fonda and her group. Jane Fonda, in her response to these new allegations, referred to the returning POWs as being "hypocrites and liars."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lest we forget. (http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm)

she was duped by them, but no more than the average american was duped by their own government about what was really going on.

all i know, is if i had been invaded by a military force that resulted in over a million of my country men dying, i wouldn't be treating them too nicely myself. look at guantanamo bay.

[American]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
she was duped by them, but no more than the average american was duped by their own government about what was really going on.


Desperate 16-year-old girls get "duped".

Anything you do in your adulthood belongs to you (excluding mental illness, of course).

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by American



Desperate 16-year-old girls get "duped".

Anything you do in your adulthood belongs to you (excluding mental illness, of course).

duped to the same extent americans were duped by their own government. it is a common mistake to think if one side is lying to me, then the other side is telling the truth. the fact is, both sides were employing the common tactic of war of telling lies. The US treatment of the civilians of vietnam was no better than vietnamese treatment of pows. they left behind a large drug and prostitution problem, over 1 million dead, numerous injuried, and live ammunition that is still wounding people today.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


some of them were, and rapists. and what can you say about b52 bombers? they are an excellent WMD.



It is my fervent hope that you repeat this idiocy in front of someone who will bestow upon you the asskicking that you so richly deserve. :mad:

[gnome]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The war will only last for about a month, tops, IMO. What the left hates is the fact that the Iraqi people, like the people of Afghanistan, will be freed.

This statement genuinely angers me. Nothing could be a more blatant misrepresentation of the truth, and in fact I'll call it what it is: a lie.

I fervently hope that our actions in Iraq will bring freedom to the Iraqi people. I have a hard time imagining any American, left or right, who doesn't.

Tell the truth, JK: You made that up.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by gnome


This statement genuinely angers me. Nothing could be a more blatant misrepresentation of the truth, and in fact I'll call it what it is: a lie.

I fervently hope that our actions in Iraq will bring freedom to the Iraqi people. I have a hard time imagining any American, left or right, who doesn't.

Tell the truth, JK: You made that up.

Well, the left did their level best to derail military action in Afghanistan. If leftists had succeeded in their attempt, the Taliban would still be oppressing their people...executing their women....outlawing music and tv....and ferchristsakes outlawing little kids with kites!!

Instead those people are now more free than they have been in the last 20 years.

Indeed, the Iraqi people have been oppressed by Saddam for even longer than that. If the left succeeds in derailing military action against Saddam the true net effect will be that the war by Saddam on his people will continue unabated. The sanctions to contain Saddam will continue unabated as well.

IMHO the anti-war movement stands up for the naked aggression of dictators and terrorists....yet, the anti war movement also stands for the oppression and starvation of common Iraqi people.

Gee,...what a great bunch of humanitarians. :rolleyes:

-zilla

Originally posted by rikzilla


Well, the left did their level best to derail military action in Afghanistan.
-zilla

Why don't I remember this? In fact, I remember only a few tiny token demonstrations. Does anyone else remember the evil Left doing its level best to derail the Afghan campaign? I was 100% behind it myself.

This is another invalid generalization. You have shown that you really like to be able to divide issues into black and white. Real life and real viewpoints are rarely that simple.

[gnome]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Well, the left did their level best to derail military action in Afghanistan. If leftists had succeeded in their attempt, the Taliban would still be oppressing their people...executing their women....outlawing music and tv....and ferchristsakes outlawing little kids with kites!!

Instead those people are now more free than they have been in the last 20 years.

Indeed, the Iraqi people have been oppressed by Saddam for even longer than that. If the left succeeds in derailing military action against Saddam the true net effect will be that the war by Saddam on his people will continue unabated. The sanctions to contain Saddam will continue unabated as well.

IMHO the anti-war movement stands up for the naked aggression of dictators and terrorists....yet, the anti war movement also stands for the oppression and starvation of common Iraqi people.

Gee,...what a great bunch of humanitarians. :rolleyes:

-zilla

I don't have to agree with a war to be happy about the good consequences of it. For the record, I supported the action in Afghanistan. And just because I do not feel that a war is justified, does NOT mean that I endorse or enjoy the suffering that goes on in Iraq. And to say I do is simply lying. You're off subject. Instead of trying to paint me as against freedom, stick with your arguments about how my way will not lead to that. You're mistaken if you think I deliberately wish people to be oppressed, and I think you know that.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by sundog


Why don't I remember this? In fact, I remember only a few tiny token demonstrations. Does anyone else remember the evil Left doing its level best to derail the Afghan campaign? I was 100% behind it myself.

This is another invalid generalization. You have shown that you really like to be able to divide issues into black and white. Real life and real viewpoints are rarely that simple.

From the leftist deity Noam Chomsky:
America's war against Afghanistan is 'a bigger terrorist act than what happened on September 11', renowned US intellectual dissenter Noam Chomsky has said.

The cynical pre-communist/socialist speaks out:
Insisting that the U.S. was not a democracy, he said the political system in that country was meant to protect the opulent classes against the majority of the people. The ``permanent interests'' of the country was defined as the interests of the property holders. Pointing to the alienation from the political process in the case of a vast majority of people, he said they sections were indoctrinated with a consumerist culture of sports, music and purchasing. The propaganda tools reached their highest forms in the more democratic societies, he said.

The U.S. has already demanded that Pakistan terminate the food and other supplies that are keeping at least some of the starving and suffering people of Afghanistan alive. If that demand is implemented, unknown numbers of people who have not the remotest connection to terrorism will die, possibly millions. Let me repeat: the U.S. has demanded that Pakistan kill possibly millions of people who are themselves victims of the Taliban. This has nothing to do even with revenge. It is at a far lower moral level even than that. The significance is heightened by the fact that this is mentioned in passing, with no comment, and probably will hardly be noticed. We can learn a great deal about the moral level of the reigning intellectual culture of the West by observing the reaction to this demand. I think we can be reasonably confident that if the American population had the slightest idea of what is being done in their name, they would be utterly appalled. It would be instructive to seek historical precedents.

If Pakistan does not agree to this and other U.S. demands, it may come under direct attack as well -- with unknown consequences. If Pakistan does submit to U.S. demands, it is not impossible that the government will be overthrown by forces much like the Taliban -- who in this case will have nuclear weapons. That could have an effect throughout the region, including the oil producing states. At this point we are considering the possibility of a war that may destroy much of human society.

...ooooh scary huh!!?? Gotta love the "Fundimentalist Islamic terrorists will take over nuclear Pakistan" angle eh?? Scare mongering reached a new height with that one!! I had to look long and hard for this one,...seems the Chomskyites have removed this particular interview from most of their own webpages. But I found an honest leftist site





here (http://struggle.ws/issues/war/chomsky_b26_sept19.html)

This is but one example of a leftist leader using the "You'll kill millions of innocent people" excuse. They were dead wrong on Afghanistan....they are dead wrong about Iraq. And after Iraq I predict they will drag this same old discredited argument out again. Whomever is next on the WOT's menu...Iran or North Korea....we'll surely hear that "millions will be killed" (yawn).

-z

Originally posted by rikzilla


From the leftist deity Noam Chomsky:
-z

Noam Chomsky doesn't speak for me. Why do you insist on believing that left-of-center viewpoints are so monolithic? They aren't, not by any means.

Originally posted by sundog


Noam Chomsky doesn't speak for me. Why do you insist on believing that left-of-center viewpoints are so monolithic? They aren't, not by any means.

I believe the comments are not directed at anyone on here, sundog. I believe they are addressing tmy's questions at the top of the topic.


Who ever says that? No one is against the troops!!!

...

Whats pro-ar or anti-war rhetoric annoys you the most?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


It is my fervent hope that you repeat this idiocy in front of someone who will bestow upon you the asskicking that you so richly deserve. :mad:

What are you saying?

There are no rapists in the US military? Ask the Okinawans.
There have been no massacres of civilians by the US military? Ask the villagers in Mai Lai.
The B52 bombers were not used to bomb cities in Vietnam?

Aren't you just shooting the messenger? if you read my post i am not saying all troops do.

[Bentspoon]

Sorry I wan't able to get to this sooner but I did want to reply to a couple of JK's points on my last post:

"What the left hates is the fact that the Iraqi people, like the people of Afghanistan, will be freed. Iraq is a socialist satrap form of goverment"

What organization - left or right or up or down - would genuinely hate the fact that any people would be freed from any oppressive regime.

You are souding like a right wing extremist talk show host. The GREAT LEFT WING CONSPIRACY. I think that belongs in the paranormal section along with government UFO cover ups. It is extreme.

"The other indication about this reason is it didn't surface until war was almost imminent.

It was a truth the instant war became an option. When you have a dictator running a country of unfree people, when people go free them they become a free people. It "surfaces" by itself with just the truth as a foundation."

I can see what you are saying. However, you missed a subtlety of my point.

Are the Iraqi people repressed? I answer yes for many years and by the current regime.

Is the war going to liberate them? I answer yes - at least in the near future

In this I agree with you.

The point was in the genuineness of claiming this as a reason at the last minute. It is contrived and disingenuous. It is spin doctoring.

As I said, there is good reason enough without resorting to contrivances.

Freeing the Iraqi people would be one of the positive outcomes (barring some disaster) but it is not the reason we are going in there.

If there were no WMDs and Saddam had honored the accords and there were no connections to terrorism, the Iraqi people could rot and America would not have flinched.

Bentspoon

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by gnome


This statement genuinely angers me. Nothing could be a more blatant misrepresentation of the truth, and in fact I'll call it what it is: a lie.

I fervently hope that our actions in Iraq will bring freedom to the Iraqi people. I have a hard time imagining any American, left or right, who doesn't.

Tell the truth, JK: You made that up.

You can't make up truth. It comes to you automatically. The problem with the left in this country is that they are willing to allow millions of people in a foreign country to fall at the waist-side in the gallows of terror and misery just to try and gain leverage over Republicans and any ideological power that isn't socialist.

Iraq, by definition, is a socialist state. Attacking Iraq to a leftist is like someone running four inch fingernails down a chalkboard. The left doesn't see the Iraqi people. The left sees a mirror image of their failed ideology as it nears liquidation. The unfree must be the enslaved. Slaves.

The other problem is that almost all leftists in power have never seen people of slavery up close and personal, or people that are led away by governments to be killed and disposed of to the convenience of the "state". That is a problem. It is a matter of will.

There is but one lesson that needs to be taken from the 2nd Persian Gulf War. There is a new ideological humanism construct forming from the sophistication of US institutions. That new construct is marginalizing dictators and putting them on notice that the US is no longer going to stand by with indecision peering into the unfree.

JK

[gnome]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
You can't make up truth. It comes to you automatically. The problem with the left in this country is that they are willing to allow millions of people in a foreign country to fall at the waist-side in the gallows of terror and misery just to try and gain leverage over Republicans and any ideological power that isn't socialist.

Iraq, by definition, is a socialist state. Attacking Iraq to a leftist is like someone running four inch fingernails down a chalkboard. The left doesn't see the Iraqi people. The left sees a mirror image of their failed ideology as it nears liquidation. The unfree must be the enslaved. Slaves.

The other problem is that almost all leftists in power have never seen people of slavery up close and personal, or people that are led away by governments to be killed and disposed of to the convenience of the "state". That is a problem. It is a matter of will.

There is but one lesson that needs to be taken from the 2nd Persian Gulf War. There is a new ideological humanism construct forming from the sophistication of US institutions. That new construct is marginalizing dictators and putting them on notice that the US is no longer going to stand by with indecision peering into the unfree.

JK

Explain how this has anything to do with how you know I don't want Iraqis to be free?

You are using the most immature of political arguments... "You disagree with my solution, therefore you want the problem."

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by gnome
You are using the most immature of political arguments... "You disagree with my solution, therefore you want the problem."

You have got to be kidding me. Leftism wants to the keep the status quo in Iraq. That is a given. Leftism wants to see President Bush and his administration fail in the US attempt to free the people of Iraq from their existence in terror.

Just because Iraq is the target of pending freedom doesn't really make any difference either. It could be any other nation-state and the results would be the same from the left.

That is why I mentioned factually that the left just doesn't see the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people are non-tangible items in the leftist world-view.

The best way to fix that broken leftist world-view is to show the Iraqi people celebrating in the streets as US forces liberate them. That can be accomplished via the global leftist media. It will be interesting to see if the global leftist media has the guts to provide footage. It is difficult for leftists to view ideology that turns their collective stomaches in two (you know, the idea of America, freedom, capitalism, non-matriarchal terror, etc).

By the way and not to change the subject, but I have a question I was meaning to ask you. Did Osama bin Ladin get the UN's permission to attack the World Trade Center towers and the United States?

JK

[Tmy]

Arent we invading cause Saddams not following the UN rules?

What part of the UN mandates require the freedom ofthe Iraqi people. If Saddam follows every mandate he still remains in power right? The people are just as screwed.

Would GW still invade?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tmy
Arent we invading cause Saddams not following the UN rules?

What part of the UN mandates require the freedom ofthe Iraqi people. If Saddam follows every mandate he still remains in power right? The people are just as screwed.

Would GW still invade?
You're right. I support the war, but I admit, had it not been for the U.N. rules that Iraq is breaking, I doubt the U.S. would be invading. And the people would be screwed.

Having the U.N. rules against Iraq gives a certain legal legitimacy to the action.

There are dictatorships all over the world that oppress their people. It would be great if we could replace them all with democracies, but the U.S. and the western world can only do so much, so they have to pick their battles carefully. Attacking Iraq will be an easy victory (easier than say, China or North Korea), and will have a great strategic value (a democracy in the heart of the middle east).

[Tmy]

Im starting to lean more towards the war. What really turns me off is the disingenous pro-war propaganda. The White House really pisses me off cause they talk to the public as if we're a bunch of dopey a-holes.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tmy
Im starting to lean more towards the war. What really turns me off is the disingenous pro-war propaganda. The White House really pisses me off cause they talk to the public as if we're a bunch of dopey a-holes.
While George Bush doesn't really instill a lot of confidence, remember that the anti-war side has such brilliant people such as:
- The Human Sheilds, who go to Iraq and are upset that they are positioned near army bases; Then, when a group of them left Iraq, they got stranded in Lebannon because they didn't think about how to transport their vehicles back to Europe
- Celebreties such as Garafelo, who says she didn't protest war when clinton was in power because it "wasn't hip", and Sean Penn, who claimed Iraq had no weapons based on his visit (and who was upset about Iraq using his visit for propaghanda). Of course, the Screen Actors Guild is upset because regular people are complaining about the stupid comments these actors are making
- All the wonderful people in the video at brain-terminal.com, who were protesting against the war, but didn't really know what they were protesting about

So, there's enough stupidity to go around.

[Tmy]

HA HA! Any kook can be for or against the war. I really dont think many anti war people made up their mind after hearing a Sean Penn rant.

I for one have never started an anti war argument with "Well, according to Gene Garafelo........."

[demon]

I`m against the troops. Since when is moral responsibility jettisoned when you join the army? They should be ashamed of themselves.

"He's a bad man, he's done bad things. Why can't they just let us get on with the job and we'll crack it," he said, adding he was excited, if a bit scared, by the prospect of going to war. " (BBC is the source for that gem).

That sounds like the analysis of a six year old but unfortunately it`s the analysis of one of our "brave boys" going on a turkey shoot.
What a load of tripe.

WAR? Anyone checked their dictionaries lately? Yeah, call it that if it helps you sleep better at night.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tmy
HA HA! Any kook can be for or against the war. I really dont think many anti war people made up their mind after hearing a Sean Penn rant.

True. I wasn't suggesting these people were leaders.

But you made the point of Bush treating people like "Dopey *ssh*les". Well the anti-war people i mentioned are the "dopey" type of people he's trying to get through to. (And if their actions are any indication, the term "dopey" really applies.)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by demon
I`m against the troops. Since when is moral responsibility jettisoned when you join the army? They should be ashamed of themselves.

"He's a bad man, he's done bad things. Why can't they just let us get on with the job and we'll crack it," he said, adding he was excited, if a bit scared, by the prospect of going to war. " (BBC is the source for that gem).

That sounds like the analysis of a six year old but unfortunately it`s the analysis of one of our "brave boys" going on a turkey shoot.
What a load of tripe.

WAR? Anyone checked their dictionaries lately? Yeah, call it that if it helps you sleep better at night.

Good point, but once again, it's not that simple.

Many troops were drafted in the past. Although the current US military is 'voluntary', many of the members are there because it's the only job they can get. Also, US political culture appears to be very different to other countries, I am constantly amazed at how many ex-military there are on this board, it appears to be something you do without thinking over there.

Half the problem appears to be that there are any amount of dollars for the military, but not for other purposes. Any attempt to cut post cold war military spending is 'anti american'.

RickZilla totally blew up just because I said there were troops who murdered children and raped. Rick, those are the facts.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Many troops were drafted in the past. Although the current US military is 'voluntary', many of the members are there because it's the only job they can get. Also, US political culture appears to be very different to other countries, I am constantly amazed at how many ex-military there are on this board, it appears to be something you do without thinking over there.
...
RickZilla totally blew up just because I said there were troops who murdered children and raped.

I really think people need to make a distinction between :
- Soldiers who rape/murder children, who are criminals and who should be treated as such
- Soldiers following orders which are 'obviously' wrong (such as the German soldiers who were 'just following orders' at the concentration camps). I doubt even people who are anti-war believe America is totally evil in its intentions.
- Soldiers who are given orders which may result in civilian deaths, but could are crucial to the 'greater good'

Most soldiers (just as most civilians) are moral people, so #1 doesn't apply. We are not going in to enslave or eliminate the Iraqi population (in fact, coalition forces will probably take great care to avoid any civilian deaths, sometimes risking their own lives in the process), so #2 doesn't apply. In the case of #3, soldiers know that they may cause some deaths, but it may be necessary to eliminate Iraq's weapons programs and bring democracy. In this case, the soldiers (assuming they stay on mission) deserve our support.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
You have got to be kidding me. Leftism wants to the keep the status quo in Iraq. That is a given. Leftism wants to see President Bush and his administration fail in the US attempt to free the people of Iraq from their existence in terror.

Just because Iraq is the target of pending freedom doesn't really make any difference either. It could be any other nation-state and the results would be the same from the left.

That is why I mentioned factually that the left just doesn't see the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people are non-tangible items in the leftist world-view.

The best way to fix that broken leftist world-view is to show the Iraqi people celebrating in the streets as US forces liberate them. That can be accomplished via the global leftist media. It will be interesting to see if the global leftist media has the guts to provide footage. It is difficult for leftists to view ideology that turns their collective stomaches in two (you know, the idea of America, freedom, capitalism, non-matriarchal terror, etc).

By the way and not to change the subject, but I have a question I was meaning to ask you. Did Osama bin Ladin get the UN's permission to attack the World Trade Center towers and the United States?

JK

Once again you fail to say how these comments about leftism explain how you know what I feel. I'm still waiting for your explanation of why I am against the freedom of the Iraqis just because I disagree with our administration's solution.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


I really think people need to make a distinction between :
- Soldiers who rape/murder children, who are criminals and who should be treated as such



if we look at the mai lai massacre, and it was not an isolated incident, the treatment of criminals is pretty pathetic.


- Soldiers following orders which are 'obviously' wrong (such as the German soldiers who were 'just following orders' at the concentration camps). I doubt even people who are anti-war believe America is totally evil in its intentions.



bombing a city is pretty well guaranteed to cause deaths of innocents. The pilot of the b52 just won't have any direct experience of those deaths.



- Soldiers who are given orders which may result in civilian deaths, but could are crucial to the 'greater good'



in effect, these finer points are not open for analysis or negotiation beyond the commanders on the spot. 'We had to destroy the village to save it'.



Most soldiers (just as most civilians) are moral people, so #1 doesn't apply. We are not going in to enslave or eliminate the Iraqi population (in fact, coalition forces will probably take great care to avoid any civilian deaths, sometimes risking their own lives in the process), so #2 doesn't apply. In the case of #3, soldiers know that they may cause some deaths, but it may be necessary to eliminate Iraq's weapons programs and bring democracy. In this case, the soldiers (assuming they stay on mission) deserve our support.

most soldiers are, but modern weapons, such as the b52, more and more remove them from the consequences of their actions. Also, as we have learned, drugs are fed to combatants that make them more aggressive. Just look at the candians killed by friendly fire in afghanistan by pilots who broke every rule in the book. This involved pilots, that is, participants distanced from the results of their actions, on drugs, and protected by the US military legal system from full accountability.

[demon]

"RickZilla totally blew up just because I said there were troops who murdered children and raped. Rick, those are the facts."

If only Rik would blow up! The world would be a safer place.:D
Those ARE the facts and I`ve argued about them many times before but there is a level of denial in the military, from the top to the bottom and you won`t change that.

Same thing happens with the cops. If you got most of the population deceived into thinking they are some kind of benign force that goes around rescuing cats from trees then what are you going to do?