General discussion


I will donate $500

By maxwell edison ·

That might even buy her a one-way ticket without anyone else's help.

It's obvious she's lying, however, because if she'd rather live there, she could and would live there. What's stopping her?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

49 total posts (Page 3 of 5)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

We do it all the time

by WingedMonkey In reply to Also, in my opinion

I can not write as well as you do Mawell and an not even close to being as intelligent.

That said,

I can and have opposed this current war as an active duty member and as the spouse of my wife who did a tour in Iraq.

But I still support the President of the United States, my wife and the casualties that come back banged up and missing body parts. Even the greenest E-1 has the right to say, "I do not want to do that. I do not believe that I should do that." But then he turns around and fullfills the mission he has been given.

As a matter of fact, its Boot Camp doctrine that you do not have to agree with what you are doing. You still do it. But you are not required to agree with it. You can even protest peacefully as long as you do not wear your uniform or try to represent you personal opinions as being those of the service, command, millitary.

Having an opinion and being able to express it, as an individual is one of the many things my 20 years of service stood for.

For you to say that you cannot oppose the war and support the millitary and their families at the same time is:
1) Your opinion.
2) A made up rule that you are attempting to force on others.

Collapse -

The problem with

by TonytheTiger In reply to Also, in my opinion

sitting on fences is that sometimes you get something snagged on the barbed wire :)

Collapse -

In my humble opinion

by JamesRL In reply to Also, in my opinion

My father in law served in the British, then Canadian Army, worked at NATO etc.

He opposes the war in Iraq vehemently. As do many of his fellow officers both active and retired (up to and including Generals) in the Armies of Canada, the US and Britain.

He does and always will support the troops. He doesn't blame the enlisted man for the policies determined by politicians. The enlisted do not get to chose where they go and what they do, and it doesn't matter whether they are drafted or volunteers.

I suggest if you went up to him and told him you thought he was full of crap, he'd slug ya.

You might hate the law, but support the police officer who enforces it - he/she didn't write the law.

What about conservatives like Pat Buchanan - he opposed the war - does he dishonour the troops by doing so? Not in my opinion.

What about Murtha - do you think that decorated Vet dishonours troops by opposing the war?

I support the war in Afghanistan, not the one in Iraq. But as you know, as I have said many times, my opposition was to invading and the timing and casuality in the first place. Once you are in, you are in for as long as it takes, and pulling out too soon is just as wrong, as it will lead to a civil war with more widespread civilian death and destruction.

You seem to want to make these things into US and them. With me or against me. Cindy Sheehan or George Bush. It isn't that simple.


Collapse -

James: Word

by tronman In reply to In my humble opinion

It isn't that simple. Nothing ever is. Look at the jumble of history that made Iraq what it is today, from WWI to OPEC (Of which Saddam was one of the original architects) to our invasion. Not to mention the thousands of years of history preceding that..

I really don't think Bush had the foresight to realize what he was getting into-his father did and said as much in his book when asked why he didn't 'finish the job' in Iraq the first time. He said he didn't want to open that can of worms, and he was right.

I had the good fortune to bicycle with a guy who is a doctor, and was a medic in the very first unit that invaded Iraq. He did two tours. He said what I kinda thought, that we over here will never really know how messed up it is over there (he used a more colorful word, which I'll leave off this public forum..) and overall, he wasn't hyped on us being there, or why we went, or the guy who sent us there. Our shop upgraded his wheelset for free on the bike he bought from us.

Yeah, things look pretty good in the green zone, but it is pretty much a civil war in the rest of the country, one that wasn't happening before we went in, and one which will now continue after we leave. We probably will be leaving in a few years, as the war gets increasingly unpopular and expensive (oh yeah, there is the matter of that nine billion a month we're spending on this deal, isn't there..) and I don't know what makes us think we can bring peace over there by invading and taking over a country to plant new leadership which is friendly to our oil interests. That is what this is about in the end.

All wars come down to a battle for resources, sooner or later.

Collapse -

When opposition to the war is detrimental to the troops. . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to In my humble opinion

....that's where I draw the line. And when the opposition to the war is actually costing lives of those fighting it, or making it harder for them to achieve their objective, that's where I draw the line. The New York Times, for example, is actually helping the enemy. (My enemy, not theirs -- their enemy is GWB.) And today, I see the rabid war opposition as being harmful to the troops achieving their stated objective.

Murtha is a senile idiot, decorated veteran or not, simply playing politics. Besides, I could call your "decorated veteran" and raise you dozens more. (A little poker lingo, there.) Pat Buchanan, on the other hand, I don't believe he's senile.

Do I see this as black and white, as you might suggest? Well yea, I probably do. But it's not a GWB versus Cindy Sheehan. It's Islamo-Fascism against us. I think people like you fail to see the bigger picture, at least the picture I see. I admit, I'm probably in the minority. And I think people like you, and much of the world, are making a HUGE mistake, not unlike the mistake they made in 1936.

And if your father-in-law wanted to slug me for saying as much, well, I'd either take it like a man or maybe slug him back. It would depend on the circumstances.

Collapse -

Tell me then

by JamesRL In reply to When opposition to the wa ...

How is opposition to the war aiding the enemy - give me specifics?

I don't understand how Cindy is giving aide and comfort to the enemy. Jane Fonda perhaps did in Vietnam as she was used as propoganda. Do I think the average new "jihadi" joined the fight in Iraq because of Cindy Sheehan?

I'm am in no way, by the way, condoning my father in laws attitude - in many ways he is as black and white about it as you. He served honourably for 30 years. He is protective of people who were under his command.

I don't agree with every Buchanan says. But I understand his point on the war. But he too is pretty practical about the fact that its a moot point - the US is already involved.

By the way in 1936 (and right up till december 1941) some American heroes like Lindburgh were against the US entering the war. I think he made a huge mistake. I respect him as an aviator, as a an expert on foreign policy he was very very naive - he almost moved to Germany at one point.

I feel the same way about Cindy. I respect the fact that she lost a son and is greiving. But she is NOT coming to the table with reasoned rational debate, like a Pat Buchanan.


Collapse -

And another thing, James

by maxwell edison In reply to In my humble opinion

Even though in the context of these discussions, I've misspoke it myself, but I don't see the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq as two separate wars, but rather one war with two different (or more) fronts. And in my opinion, we need to expand it to even MORE fronts, using MORE methods, not fewer. Much of the opposition to this war -- the OVERALL war -- is not as opposed to the war as they are to GWB. And I think that's a damn shame. Why do you think our very own Congress continually votes to support it, but those very same people speak out against it? If they were so opposed to it, they wouldn't vote to support it.

Collapse -

Things change

by JamesRL In reply to And another thing, James

My perspective on Al Qaeda and Iraq;
I know we disgaree here, but from my reading, Al Qaeda's only activity in Iraq prior to invasion was a small cell in the northern krudish areas that Saddam could not send forces into. Saddam was a check against Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Now that Saddam is gone, Al Qaeda has inserted itself into the situation. Now that thats happened, it would be a shame for the US to leave if Al Qaeda was still capable of gaining power or even sharing power in Iraq.

Those congress critters are voting on military appropriations to pay for the cost of running the war today. They have to, or they are endangering the lives of the troops. Thats not totally inconsistent with suggesting the US make plans to leave. Nixon won the election in 68 promising to leave Vietnam, but he still advocated and committed to some agressive campaigns to try and force the Viet Cong to the table under favourable circumstances.

This is not to suggest in any way that some congrescritters aren't trying to have their cake and eat it too. I wouldn't suggest that ANY politician in any party in any country isn't capable of that.


Collapse -

It makes no sense

by mjwx In reply to Also, in my opinion

only when you see no distinction between military actions and political actions.

Whist it is well known and widely accepted that war is the extension of politics, military and politics are not interchangeable but instead completely separate concepts.

Both are methods of extending/using/gaining power, and I think this is where you get confused on the issue. They may be used to get similar goals but their methods of implementation are worlds apart. Think of oil and water as an analogy, whist both are liquids they are not interchangeable, you can?t drink oil and you can?t run your car on water. By the same token the military cannot run a civilian population outside the conditions of an occupation, this is why (as I understand it) your constitution bans the active deployment of military forces on US soil.

And vice versa max, a politician cannot be expected to run a military outfit. Look at Hitler for example, he personally took to interfering with the German military (good thing for us allies, mate) He forced the Luftwaffe to produce the ME 262 as a bomber not a fighter which cut its speed by 200 MPH and it maneuverability by 1 third (bomber crews are eternally grateful for this f*ck up). He ordered the vermacht to hold at all costs which lead to the slaughtering of many of Germanys finest units on the eastern front (most of the elite units never made it to D-Day). When a man who knows little about war becomes a war leader, grievous errors are made.

Another point I would like to make is that I can easily bring myself to hate Hitler, Himler and the rest of those goose stepping morons but I can?t bring myself to hate the average German soldier any more than I can bring myself to hate an ANZAC soldier. The same is true of most Iraqi?s. What you often forget max is that most if not all of the Iraqi's that coalition forces fought were not terrorists or tyrants but average soldiers, who have mothers and wives/girlfriends just like American soldiers. Politicians fight for such noble causes as "glory" and "freedom". A soldier only fights for his life. I have the same courtesy that you expect for a US Iraqi war veteran for his Iraqi counterpart.

I see a gap between politicians and soldiers, so I do not under any circumstances hold an American serviceman in any way accountable of the incompetence of the American president. A soldier has earned my respect, Bush has earned my ire.

So you as long as there is a division between military and politics I can support troops and question motivations for the war in Iraq. If military and civilian governments are not separate then you are essentially living under the occupation of your own military.

My opinion of the lady in question (of this discussion) is down under JD's post titled "who does the biggest disservice". I haven?t written it yet so I can?t provide a link.

Now max, I am certain you have all manner of names to call me so please, go ahead. My recent discussion with neverbusted kinda put a light on, I have ever so recently vowed not to take part in flame wars (or at least to reduce my part in them). I have said my piece, good day.

Collapse -

I challange you

by maxwell edison In reply to Freedom of Speech is not ...

The next time you see a soldier in uniform, you go up to him (or her, which is a given) and say, thank you for your service to our country, I support you, but I don't support what you're doing. I support you, but I think what you are doing is wrong. Go ahead and say it -- to his face. Most likely, he'll be gracious and acknowledge your right to your opinion. But then ask him to sit down with you so you can buy him a beer.

No thanks, he'll say. He'll have better things to do. And that will tell you what he really thinks about the silly, "support the troops, but opposes the war" sentiment. It's crap.

Back to Community Forum
49 total posts (Page 3 of 5)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums