Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Scribbler1 · Nov 17, 2003, 02:11 am

It seems that most right-wingers, as well as a lot of moderates and Liberals are of the impression that if you do not support a war we are engaged in you are not supporting our troops. Right wingers who use this twisted logic seem to be employing it to influence the thinking of people who are either against this (or any other) war our government decides to engage in or are on the fence regarding our involvement in any foreign conflict whether the justification for any war is real or fabricated for political reasons. In my memory, this bizarre interpretation of the word "support" stems from the Vietnam War, when a lot of our returning soldiers were treated like murderers by numerous Americans who were opposed to that war. (By the way, Vietnam Vets are STILL being treated badly, but by our own government this time).
I think this particular big lie was created by political opportunists, both in Washington as well as the "conservative" (read: far right) media, as a way to justify whatever the particular administration at the time does with our armed forces, and supported by "barstool patriots" all over the country. Our current war (and don't think it's over just because Bush said it was a couple of months ago) is a prime example of this, where big-time talk show hosts and right-wing politicians are using it to paint any dissenters as unpatriotic.

My opinion is this is pure bullshit in almost all cases. I say "almost all cases" to exclude people who oppose war for ANY reason. Here you see a war which was started with a lie and then, when the truth became evident, the explanation was spun off two other ways, both of them extremely weak at best, and outright lies at worst. To put it simply, wars are started for two reasons. #1 I want something you have and I'm going to pound on you until I get it, or #2 you did something to me and now I'm going to do something to YOU! That's about it. Now, in the Iraq situation, we were told by Bush and Blair that Saddam Hussein HAD WMDs and was planning to use them against us and could send them to our countries in a little over a half-hour. When that didn't fly, they said he HAD WMDs and defied UN resolutions to destroy them. So far, nothing has been found. So NOW the whole focus was on liberating a people from a brutal regime. A regime, BTW which was our ally when Iraq fought Iran, and whom we had no problem with until Kuwait began to steal their oil.

So my question to the forum is, in light of compelling evidence that going to war with Iraq was unprovoked and unneccessary, how the hell do you reach the point where you are not supporting our troops if you don't want them getting KILLED in a war we shouldn't have engaged in in the first place.
Sometimes war is necessary, and I'm satisfied our military can defend itself if we are attacked by another country, which is why it's there. But in this case it's a load of crap, and our fellow citizens, as well as those of a few other countries are being killed for reasons no one in Washington has truly justified.

My opinion is that they should NEVER have been placed in harms way this time, and that is why I believe NOT sending them to Iraq would have supported them.

What say you?

indierockboy · Nov 17, 2003, 04:41 am

i agree with you that supporting one's troops does not mean supporting the war they are fighting.

however, the treatment of some returning soldiers is nothing less than disgusting.

**Sean** · Nov 17, 2003, 05:31 pm

What do you mean Indie? I am appalled by how little income they make.

I agree with you scribler on the issue. The right wing assumes all too much that not supporting the war=anti-American, anti-Army.

laserkid · Nov 17, 2003, 06:04 pm

yes all right wingers are like that, I'm sure.

Seriously speaking - talking against the war is not not supporting the troops (evil double negatives).

When at least I talk about people not supporting the troops Im talking about those people who wear shirts and bare banners seeking American Soldiers to be killed because they disagree with the war. THAT is going over the limit on not supporting the troops.

I think the diffrence here is simple you can agree or disagree with a military action and still support the troops - the point where you are no longer supporting them is when you're well calling for them to be killed in action.

G. Adams · Nov 17, 2003, 06:16 pm

What I see as difficult with supporting the troops is basically that you are declaring "I hope they can kill quicker than there enemy". Now I was against Hussein, but I am not against the guerrillas (although I don't think they should have started a war till the end of year, at least give the coalition a chance to fulfill its promises). I obviously don't want to see the soldiers killed, but neither do I want them killing civillians, nor guerillas who are taking up arms on behlaf of their people. It comes down to supporting one group simply because of their nationality, which I refuse to do. So I think it is best to say I hope they come home safe.

laserkid · Nov 17, 2003, 06:55 pm

thats fair

Scribbler1 · Nov 18, 2003, 01:18 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
What I see as difficult with supporting the troops is basically that you are declaring "I hope they can kill quicker than there enemy". Now I was against Hussein, but I am not against the guerrillas (although I don't think they should have started a war till the end of year, at least give the coalition a chance to fulfill its promises). I obviously don't want to see the soldiers killed, but neither do I want them killing civillians, nor guerillas who are taking up arms on behlaf of their people. It comes down to supporting one group simply because of their nationality, which I refuse to do. So I think it is best to say I hope they come home safe.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That's what I've been saying for years. It's a lesson we have never learned. From Vietnam to Korea and now in the Mid East, we have always had the superior firepower and the best weapons going, but we are not equipped to handle situations where individuals (the enemy, freedom fighters, insurgents or whatever you want to call them) mingle among the average civilians as they do their killing. You can't single out a man with an AK-47 under his robe from 30,000 feet in a group of innocents, and you can't do it on the ground either. Our military is historically rooted in the ability to kill a RECOGNIZABLE enemy. A German uniform, a Zero, the Union or Confederate uniform or even a Soviet Missile.
As for supporting one nationality, in the Mid East it's more ethnicity than the country you live in. In Iraq, the Sunnis and Shiites despise each other, but Bush's boys seem to think we can create an Iraqi government from these and other groups distrustful of each other. Of course, giving the power to one group is senseless.

So there you have it. We shouldn't have gone in. We weren't trained for this kind of war, and now we can't get out or it will get even worse for us.

Impenitent · Nov 18, 2003, 11:47 am

S1

-Now, in the Iraq situation, we were told by Bush and Blair that Saddam Hussein HAD WMDs and was planning to use them against us and could send them to our countries in a little over a half-hour.

so did clinton and the rest of the democrat senators and representatives before bush was elected and used that as justification to bomb iraq and kill people...

-When that didn't fly, they said he HAD WMDs and defied UN resolutions to destroy them.

bush used the same intelligence and resolution excuse that clinton did... and the resolutions were defied...

-So far, nothing has been found.

yes it has, but you don't want to admit it... and more will be found shortly...

-in light of compelling evidence that going to war with Iraq was unprovoked and unneccessary,

wrong, it was provoked and neccessary... it is a continuation and amplification of actions begun by clinton...

-how the hell do you reach the point where you are not supporting our troops if you don't want them getting KILLED in a war we shouldn't have engaged in in the first place.

no one wants our troops killed but if you think we will win by pulling out you will have proven osama's mogadishu theory of american military resolve correct... that isn't going to happen... iraq is simply the first step...

-But in this case it's a load of crap, and our fellow citizens, as well as those of a few other countries are being killed for reasons no one in Washington has truly justified.

it was justified and it is justified...

-My opinion is that they should NEVER have been placed in harms way this time, and that is why I believe NOT sending them to Iraq would have supported them.

this is only the second battlefield in the war against terrorism... we will finish the job and expand the war...

the military's job is to kill people and to break things... that's what they do... they are doing their job wonderfully... does the military face risk while doing their job? sure, and some more than others... how would you support them? by giving them the best means to do their job, not by removing work from them...

G

-I obviously don't want to see the soldiers killed, but neither do I want them killing civillians, nor guerillas who are taking up arms on behlaf of their people.

you mean the new iraqi guerillas who are being trained as police and security to take our place when we leave? or do you mean the remaining terrorist thugs who are still following the baath party and saddam's wishes?

G. Adams · Nov 18, 2003, 01:30 pm

There is no evidence to suggest that these guerillas are under the command of the baath party, yet there is presidence for nationalists to oppose occupation.

Scribbler1 · Nov 19, 2003, 02:22 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
S1

-Now, in the Iraq situation, we were told by Bush and Blair that Saddam Hussein HAD WMDs and was planning to use them against us and could send them to our countries in a little over a half-hour.

so did clinton and the rest of the democrat senators and representatives before bush was elected and used that as justification to bomb iraq and kill people...

-When that didn't fly, they said he HAD WMDs and defied UN resolutions to destroy them.

bush used the same intelligence and resolution excuse that clinton did... and the resolutions were defied...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So you're blaming Clinton now? For the sake of argument only, I'll assume Clinton had the same intelligence Bush supposedly had. If that's the case, then Clinton obviously knew there was no reason to invade, and he didn't have Cheney pulling his strings.

-So far, nothing has been found

<<yes it has, but you don't want to admit it... and more will be found shortly...>>

Well, I guess you know more than our own military, international observers, and even members of Bush's own administration. In that case, I'd love to hear where they are since only you seem to know they exist. Poor Bush! If he only had you to point them out for him, he could sell this war a lot more easily.
As far as not wanting to admit it, I'd be a fool not to admit it if they had been found, just as I'd be a fool to say they are there when no one else has found them.

-in light of compelling evidence that going to war with Iraq was unprovoked and unneccessary,

<<<wrong, it was provoked and neccessary... it is a continuation and amplification of actions begun by clinton...>>>

Clinton again, eh? You must be extatic now that Rush is back! Clinton didn't start a war that is unwinable at this point, and denounced by a good portion of the world.

-how the hell do you reach the point where you are not supporting our troops if you don't want them getting KILLED in a war we shouldn't have engaged in in the first place.

<<<no one wants our troops killed but if you think we will win by pulling out you will have proven osama's mogadishu theory of american military resolve correct... that isn't going to happen... iraq is simply the first step...>>>

Too bad you didn't bother to read my whole post. Yes, I did say we shouldn't have gone there but I also said we are stuck in it now. I'm well aware that Bin Laden said we were a "paper tiger" when we pulled out of somalia, which is why we are mired in this, because leaving would make us look weak to the Arabs. I never said we should pull out. I have more than enough words in my mouth, please don't bother making up any for me.

-But in this case it's a load of crap, and our fellow citizens, as well as those of a few other countries are being killed for reasons no one in Washington has truly justified.

<<<it was justified and it is justified...>>>

By you and a lot of others, and about as many disagree. I love that kind of retort you gave. Short and to the point. Also devoid of any substance whatsoever.

-My opinion is that they should NEVER have been placed in harms way this time, and that is why I believe NOT sending them to Iraq would have supported them.

<<<this is only the second battlefield in the war against terrorism... we will finish the job and expand the war...>>>

EXPAND the war?? Could you possible expand on that a little. C'mon, toss me a fact or two. Like how we can expand what we haven't finished, or just where these metaphorical battlefields are?

<<<the military's job is to kill people and to break things... that's what they do... they are doing their job wonderfully... does the military face risk while doing their job? sure, and some more than others... how would you support them? by giving them the best means to do their job, not by removing work from them...>>

Did you use a highlighter on your screen when you read my post? I said we had the best weapons and firepower. As for the troops, I assumed the fact that they are the best trained at what they do was understood by most and unnecessary to elaborate on. And to end the sentence with "not by removing work from them" is disgusting. The military is there for OUR protection and not the misguided or misinformed whims of an administration who thought Iraq would be a quick and much praised war.

G

-I obviously don't want to see the soldiers killed, but neither do I want them killing civillians, nor guerillas who are taking up arms on behlaf of their people.

<<<you mean the new iraqi guerillas who are being trained as police and security to take our place when we leave? or do you mean the remaining terrorist thugs who are still following the baath party and saddam's wishes?>>>

I'm not going to argue your point there. I don't know how the hell we can just dive in and say "well, here's your country back, now govern yourselves" to a population who grew up knowing nothing about self-governance. But for police and security, I don't know if they are Baathist thugs or terrorists any more than you do, but I don't believe that is the aim of the Bush Administration to put terrorists in positions of policing the country. BTW, if we're doing such a great job over there, why do you think there ARE enough of Saddam's boys left to pose any threat? And why do you think they are being trained to be police by US?

(Note to Sean: we should have some structure rules regarding multi-warhead rebuttals by people, so the original poster can address all the points without muddying up the reply, like this one will surely look.)

hardright · Nov 19, 2003, 02:50 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,)
It seems that most right-wingers ... are of the impression that if you do not support a war we are engaged in you are not supporting our troops. Right wingers who use this twisted logic seem to be employing it to influence the thinking of people who are either against this (or any other) war our government decides to engage in or are on the fence regarding our involvement in any foreign conflict whether the justification for any war is real or fabricated for political reasons.

I think this particular big lie was created by political opportunists, both in Washington as well as the "conservative" (read: far right) media, as a way to justify whatever the particular administration at the time does with our armed forces, and supported by "barstool patriots" all over the country. Our current war (and don't think it's over just because Bush said it was a couple of months ago) is a prime example of this, where big-time talk show hosts and right-wing politicians are using it to paint any dissenters as unpatriotic.

What say you?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

As a rightwinger who opposed this war and was labeled unpatriotic for doing so, I would say the so-called "far right" neo-conservatives are actually leftists. I would even call the war in Iraq a leftist revolution. All the major supporters of the war were ex-Marxists, or influenced by the neo-con godfathers who are ex-Marxists. Yesterday it was world communist revolution. Today it's what neocon guru Michael Ledeen calls "the democratic revolution." It all comes down to lefty ideas.

For old school conservatives like myself, who hate the big government, imperial trip the Bush administration is on - the Hawk News Channel is not a "far right" media outlet! Call it the mouthpiece of the Republicans. But just don't slander (to use that GOP whore Coulter's phrase) the anti-war old school conservatives like myself.

Ciao!

indierockboy · Nov 19, 2003, 05:10 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sean,)
What do you mean Indie? I am appalled by how little income they make.

I agree with you scribler on the issue. The right wing assumes all too much that not supporting the war=anti-American, anti-Army.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

soldiers returning home from "questionable" wars have recieved such warm welcomes as barrages of rocks and teeming crowds of people referring to them as baby-killers and the like. i find that disgusting.

indierockboy · Nov 19, 2003, 05:15 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fugitivepoet,)

As a rightwinger who opposed this war and was labeled unpatriotic for doing so, I would say the so-called "far right" neo-conservatives are actually leftists. I would even call the war in Iraq a leftist revolution. All the major supporters of the war were ex-Marxists, or influenced by the neo-con godfathers who are ex-Marxists. Yesterday it was world communist revolution. Today it's what neocon guru Michael Ledeen calls "the democratic revolution." It all comes down to lefty ideas.

For old school conservatives like myself, who hate the big government, imperial trip the Bush administration is on - the Hawk News Channel is not a "far right" media outlet! Call it the mouthpiece of the Republicans. But just don't slander (to use that GOP whore Coulter's phrase) the anti-war old school conservatives like myself.

Ciao!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

i don't think i follow. what do you attribute to the left?

castille · Nov 19, 2003, 06:53 am

I find the gurellias quite disgusting. Posing as a civilian is one of the most dishonourable things any coward can do.

Firstly, as a "civilian", you endanger the lives of other civilians. Imagine a crazy civilian suddenly firing at you with an AK47....years of military experience will no doubt force you to fire back at the source, harming nearby civilians.

Secondly, it is illegal to pretend to be a civilian then start shooting. You war protestors who protest against Bush's "illegal" invasion; why aren't you protesting the illegal conduct of Iraqi "gurellias" (which is far more illegal than what Bush did)? Why aren't you protesting the illegal actions of suicide bombers?

To those who continue to support the "gurellias", terrorists (many of whom are not even Iraqi), and suicide bombers....they would no doubt prefer to see Bin Laden as King of Iraq and every US soldier dead.

indierockboy · Nov 19, 2003, 07:45 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
I find the gurellias quite disgusting. Posing as a civilian is one of the most dishonourable things any coward can do.

Firstly, as a "civilian", you endanger the lives of other civilians. Imagine a crazy civilian suddenly firing at you with an AK47....years of military experience will no doubt force you to fire back at the source, harming nearby civilians.

Secondly, it is illegal to pretend to be a civilian then start shooting. You war protestors who protest against Bush's "illegal" invasion; why aren't you protesting the illegal conduct of Iraqi "gurellias" (which is far more illegal than what Bush did)? Why aren't you protesting the illegal actions of suicide bombers?

To those who continue to support the "gurellias", terrorists (many of whom are not even Iraqi), and suicide bombers....they would no doubt prefer to see Bin Laden as King of Iraq and every US soldier dead.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

don't you ever get tired of attempting to make ad hominem attacks by taking everything out of context?

Scribbler1 · Nov 19, 2003, 12:44 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
What I see as difficult with supporting the troops is basically that you are declaring "I hope they can kill quicker than there enemy". Now I was against Hussein, but I am not against the guerrillas (although I don't think they should have started a war till the end of year, at least give the coalition a chance to fulfill its promises). I obviously don't want to see the soldiers killed, but neither do I want them killing civillians, nor guerillas who are taking up arms on behlaf of their people. It comes down to supporting one group simply because of their nationality, which I refuse to do. So I think it is best to say I hope they come home safe.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

G. I think you slightly misunderstoog my position. Let me try and clarify it. I do believe your assumption of killing quicker than the enemy. However, that is true *ONLY* in an "us versus them" situation, where WE are physically attacked where the intent is killing US! But that's the only time I support that kind of action. We have to face the reality that wars WILL happen in our lifetimes. We can only hope to figure ways to keep them from happening. I believe that day will come, but it doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon.
As I stated before, the invasion of Iraq was unjustified and unnecessary. That is where I think the misunderstanding is. My feeling is, if you've got a dictator on your hands, deal with it yourselves. Usually that dictator was put in power by overthrowing a different dictator, and the cycle goes on. It's not our business to interfere militarily, and clearly Iraq was no physical threat to us. The same went for Viet Nam, Kosovo and the rest. Manuel Noriega was a good example. There is evidence he was on the CIA payroll until he no longer served our needs so, being the good and just liberators that we are, we took him out. Our embassy in Iran was taken over, mainly as a side effect of our support for the Shah, who was a WORSE dictator than Hussein (ever hear of the SAVAK?), and we were the main reason the Shah wasn't overthrown by his own people in the first place.
There are a lot of people pissed at us and that's fine, as long as they don't attack us. But someday some country just might do that so I support the troops and the existence of our military IF THERY ARE NECESSARY to protect US!
As for Iraqis taking up arms in the defense of their contry, I do not disagree. But since some idiot politicians and oil barons and the like decided to put our friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens there, then if they get shot at, they will shoot back. If they weren't there in the first place no one would be shooting at them.
And if I read my recent history correctly, Iraq was the most westernized country in the whole region, so I find it a bit hard to think the entire country was in peril and impoverished, whether run by a dictator or not. In most dictatorships, all you have to do is not bitch about the leader and do what you're told and many Iraqis made out just fine doing just that. Hmmm. That sounds just like what our own right wingers are saying, doesn't it? Don't bitch about Bush and do what he says.

Hope that helps clarify my position.

G. Adams · Nov 19, 2003, 12:55 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
What I see as difficult with supporting the troops is basically that you are declaring "I hope they can kill quicker than there enemy". Now I was against Hussein, but I am not against the guerrillas (although I don't think they should have started a war till the end of year, at least give the coalition a chance to fulfill its promises). I obviously don't want to see the soldiers killed, but neither do I want them killing civillians, nor guerillas who are taking up arms on behlaf of their people. It comes down to supporting one group simply because of their nationality, which I refuse to do. So I think it is best to say I hope they come home safe.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

G. I think you slightly misunderstoog my position. Let me try and clarify it. I do believe your assumption of killing quicker than the enemy. However, that is true *ONLY* in an "us versus them" situation, where WE are physically attacked where the intent is killing US! But that's the only time I support that kind of action. We have to face the reality that wars WILL happen in our lifetimes. We can only hope to figure ways to keep them from happening. I believe that day will come, but it doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon.
As I stated before, the invasion of Iraq was unjustified and unnecessary. That is where I think the misunderstanding is. My feeling is, if you've got a dictator on your hands, deal with it yourselves. Usually that dictator was put in power by overthrowing a different dictator, and the cycle goes on. It's not our business to interfere militarily, and clearly Iraq was no physical threat to us. The same went for Viet Nam, Kosovo and the rest. Manuel Noriega was a good example. There is evidence he was on the CIA payroll until he no longer served our needs so, being the good and just liberators that we are, we took him out. Our embassy in Iran was taken over, mainly as a side effect of our support for the Shah, who was a WORSE dictator than Hussein (ever hear of the SAVAK?), and we were the main reason the Shah wasn't overthrown by his own people in the first place.
There are a lot of people pissed at us and that's fine, as long as they don't attack us. But someday some country just might do that so I support the troops and the existence of our military IF THERY ARE NECESSARY to protect US!
As for Iraqis taking up arms in the defense of their contry, I do not disagree. But since some idiot politicians and oil barons and the like decided to put our friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens there, then if they get shot at, they will shoot back. If they weren't there in the first place no one would be shooting at them.
And if I read my recent history correctly, Iraq was the most westernized country in the whole region, so I find it a bit hard to think the entire country was in peril and impoverished, whether run by a dictator or not. In most dictatorships, all you have to do is not bitch about the leader and do what you're told and many Iraqis made out just fine doing just that. Hmmm. That sounds just like what our own right wingers are saying, doesn't it? Don't bitch about Bush and do what he says.

Hope that helps clarify my position.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I knew what you meant, and I wasn't disagreeing, just expanding my ideas on top of yours.

Scribbler1 · Nov 19, 2003, 01:00 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fugitivepoet,)

As a rightwinger who opposed this war and was labeled unpatriotic for doing so, I would say the so-called "far right" neo-conservatives are actually leftists. I would even call the war in Iraq a leftist revolution. All the major supporters of the war were ex-Marxists, or influenced by the neo-con godfathers who are ex-Marxists. Yesterday it was world communist revolution. Today it's what neocon guru Michael Ledeen calls "the democratic revolution." It all comes down to lefty ideas.

For old school conservatives like myself, who hate the big government, imperial trip the Bush administration is on - the Hawk News Channel is not a "far right" media outlet! Call it the mouthpiece of the Republicans. But just don't slander (to use that GOP whore Coulter's phrase) the anti-war old school conservatives like myself.

Ciao!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You have a point there. That's the reason I don't often use the word "Conservative" in my posts, as I lean that way myself sometimes, depending on the situation. When I say "right-wing" I mean bogus patriots who have little knowledge of the issues other than what a politician or talk show host has told them, and parrot what they say endlessly regardless of facts, and then trot out that idiotic "you're anti-american" or "you must be in love with Saddam, then" when they begin to lose control of the conversation.
I am not quite stupid enough to think that NO Liberal anywhere has ever been right on something (Like that one trick pony, Anne Coulter), nor do I believe Conservatives are always wrong. For the formation of my personal beliefs I prefer to take the good ideas from ANY side and go with them , discarding the bullshit. Like some old Italians used to say, Mussolini may have been a dictator, but he made the trains run on time.
BTW, I don't consider you a right-winger.

G. Adams · Nov 19, 2003, 01:11 pm

Okay, you both need clarification...

(moving from right to left)

Right Wing - Fascism
Conservatism
Centre - Liberals (classical, think of the Whigs)
Left Wing - Socialists - Social Democrats (think of the left side of the democrats)
Democratic Socialists (this is what most socialists mean when they say socialist)
Communists (with government)
Communists/Anarchists (without government)

For the sake of trying to stay somewhat academic, can we all please stick to the real meanings of the words, then confusion should be minimised.

Or we can use the Eyesenk (bad spelling) graph, which is up/down for authoritarian/libertarian and left/right for economic freedoms.

Remember though there is some sliding around. Greens are typically left but you also get pro bussines greens (cottage industry, not big business) types, and you also get fascists who use greens as a cover (BNP declaring Britain should rebuild its green and pleasent land for example).

Impenitent · Nov 19, 2003, 01:22 pm

s1

"So you're blaming Clinton now? For the sake of argument only, I'll assume Clinton had the same intelligence Bush supposedly had. If that's the case, then Clinton obviously knew there was no reason to invade, and he didn't have Cheney pulling his strings."

no, I am not blaming clinton, I am using the same justification as clinton did to bomb... clinton knew there was no reason to invade just reason to bomb saddam?

"Well, I guess you know more than our own military, international observers, and even members of Bush's own administration. In that case, I'd love to hear where they are since only you seem to know they exist. Poor Bush! If he only had you to point them out for him, he could sell this war a lot more easily.
As far as not wanting to admit it, I'd be a fool not to admit it if they had been found, just as I'd be a fool to say they are there when no one else has found them."

read and learn... and read it carefully...

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/spee...y_10022003.html

"Clinton again, eh? You must be extatic now that Rush is back! Clinton didn't start a war that is unwinable at this point, and denounced by a good portion of the world."

clinton did bomb saddam when saddam kicked the inspectors out... that was the first action against saddam when the resolution was breached... and bush is finishing the war... you only hope it is unwinnable so the democrats might win

"Too bad you didn't bother to read my whole post. Yes, I did say we shouldn't have gone there but I also said we are stuck in it now. I'm well aware that Bin Laden said we were a "paper tiger" when we pulled out of somalia, which is why we are mired in this, because leaving would make us look weak to the Arabs. I never said we should pull out. I have more than enough words in my mouth, please don't bother making up any for me."

and thank you for not reading mine... I said IF we pull out... I never said that you said it... we will finish the job...

"By you and a lot of others, and about as many disagree. I love that kind of retort you gave. Short and to the point. Also devoid of any substance whatsoever."

anything can be justified... anything

"EXPAND the war?? Could you possible expand on that a little. C'mon, toss me a fact or two. Like how we can expand what we haven't finished, or just where these metaphorical battlefields are?"

how soon we forget... iraq, iran and north korea... (and I'll bet that's just the begining)

"As for the troops, I assumed the fact that they are the best trained at what they do was understood by most and unnecessary to elaborate on."

wrong, the best trained are the Israelis

"The military is there for OUR protection and not the misguided or misinformed whims of an administration who thought Iraq would be a quick and much praised war."

and that is exactly what they are doing... protecting us

"I'm not going to argue your point there. "

fine, it was addressed to G who seems to hold the guerilla in a good light...

Nov 17, 2003, 02:11 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	It seems that most right-wingers, as well as a lot of moderates and Liberals are of the impression that if you do not support a war we are engaged in you are not supporting our troops. Right wingers who use this twisted logic seem to be employing it to influence the thinking of people who are either against this (or any other) war our government decides to engage in or are on the fence regarding our involvement in any foreign conflict whether the justification for any war is real or fabricated for political reasons. In my memory, this bizarre interpretation of the word "support" stems from the Vietnam War, when a lot of our returning soldiers were treated like murderers by numerous Americans who were opposed to that war. (By the way, Vietnam Vets are STILL being treated badly, but by our own government this time). I think this particular big lie was created by political opportunists, both in Washington as well as the "conservative" (read: far right) media, as a way to justify whatever the particular administration at the time does with our armed forces, and supported by "barstool patriots" all over the country. Our current war (and don't think it's over just because Bush said it was a couple of months ago) is a prime example of this, where big-time talk show hosts and right-wing politicians are using it to paint any dissenters as unpatriotic. My opinion is this is pure bullshit in almost all cases. I say "almost all cases" to exclude people who oppose war for ANY reason. Here you see a war which was started with a lie and then, when the truth became evident, the explanation was spun off two other ways, both of them extremely weak at best, and outright lies at worst. To put it simply, wars are started for two reasons. #1 I want something you have and I'm going to pound on you until I get it, or #2 you did something to me and now I'm going to do something to YOU! That's about it. Now, in the Iraq situation, we were told by Bush and Blair that Saddam Hussein HAD WMDs and was planning to use them against us and could send them to our countries in a little over a half-hour. When that didn't fly, they said he HAD WMDs and defied UN resolutions to destroy them. So far, nothing has been found. So NOW the whole focus was on liberating a people from a brutal regime. A regime, BTW which was our ally when Iraq fought Iran, and whom we had no problem with until Kuwait began to steal their oil. So my question to the forum is, in light of compelling evidence that going to war with Iraq was unprovoked and unneccessary, how the hell do you reach the point where you are not supporting our troops if you don't want them getting KILLED in a war we shouldn't have engaged in in the first place. Sometimes war is necessary, and I'm satisfied our military can defend itself if we are attacked by another country, which is why it's there. But in this case it's a load of crap, and our fellow citizens, as well as those of a few other countries are being killed for reasons no one in Washington has truly justified. My opinion is that they should NEVER have been placed in harms way this time, and that is why I believe NOT sending them to Iraq would have supported them. What say you? Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Nov 17, 2003, 04:41 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
indierockboy Molten Ash Location: ontario canada Posts: 104	i agree with you that supporting one's troops does not mean supporting the war they are fighting. however, the treatment of some returning soldiers is nothing less than disgusting. http://www.autophobic.net/tmesis/sig.gif

Nov 17, 2003, 05:31 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Sean former overlord Location: New York Posts: 2,383	What do you mean Indie? I am appalled by how little income they make. I agree with you scribler on the issue. The right wing assumes all too much that not supporting the war=anti-American, anti-Army. So it goes

Nov 17, 2003, 06:04 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
laserkid Molten Ash Location: Sore Wa Himitsu Desu Posts: 80	yes all right wingers are like that, I'm sure. Seriously speaking - talking against the war is not not supporting the troops (evil double negatives). When at least I talk about people not supporting the troops Im talking about those people who wear shirts and bare banners seeking American Soldiers to be killed because they disagree with the war. THAT is going over the limit on not supporting the troops. I think the diffrence here is simple you can agree or disagree with a military action and still support the troops - the point where you are no longer supporting them is when you're well calling for them to be killed in action. "That is a Secret." -Xellos

Nov 17, 2003, 06:16 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	What I see as difficult with supporting the troops is basically that you are declaring "I hope they can kill quicker than there enemy". Now I was against Hussein, but I am not against the guerrillas (although I don't think they should have started a war till the end of year, at least give the coalition a chance to fulfill its promises). I obviously don't want to see the soldiers killed, but neither do I want them killing civillians, nor guerillas who are taking up arms on behlaf of their people. It comes down to supporting one group simply because of their nationality, which I refuse to do. So I think it is best to say I hope they come home safe. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 17, 2003, 06:55 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
laserkid Molten Ash Location: Sore Wa Himitsu Desu Posts: 80	thats fair "That is a Secret." -Xellos

Nov 18, 2003, 01:18 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) What I see as difficult with supporting the troops is basically that you are declaring "I hope they can kill quicker than there enemy". Now I was against Hussein, but I am not against the guerrillas (although I don't think they should have started a war till the end of year, at least give the coalition a chance to fulfill its promises). I obviously don't want to see the soldiers killed, but neither do I want them killing civillians, nor guerillas who are taking up arms on behlaf of their people. It comes down to supporting one group simply because of their nationality, which I refuse to do. So I think it is best to say I hope they come home safe.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's what I've been saying for years. It's a lesson we have never learned. From Vietnam to Korea and now in the Mid East, we have always had the superior firepower and the best weapons going, but we are not equipped to handle situations where individuals (the enemy, freedom fighters, insurgents or whatever you want to call them) mingle among the average civilians as they do their killing. You can't single out a man with an AK-47 under his robe from 30,000 feet in a group of innocents, and you can't do it on the ground either. Our military is historically rooted in the ability to kill a RECOGNIZABLE enemy. A German uniform, a Zero, the Union or Confederate uniform or even a Soviet Missile. As for supporting one nationality, in the Mid East it's more ethnicity than the country you live in. In Iraq, the Sunnis and Shiites despise each other, but Bush's boys seem to think we can create an Iraqi government from these and other groups distrustful of each other. Of course, giving the power to one group is senseless. So there you have it. We shouldn't have gone in. We weren't trained for this kind of war, and now we can't get out or it will get even worse for us. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Nov 18, 2003, 11:47 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	S1 -Now, in the Iraq situation, we were told by Bush and Blair that Saddam Hussein HAD WMDs and was planning to use them against us and could send them to our countries in a little over a half-hour. so did clinton and the rest of the democrat senators and representatives before bush was elected and used that as justification to bomb iraq and kill people... -When that didn't fly, they said he HAD WMDs and defied UN resolutions to destroy them. bush used the same intelligence and resolution excuse that clinton did... and the resolutions were defied... -So far, nothing has been found. yes it has, but you don't want to admit it... and more will be found shortly... -in light of compelling evidence that going to war with Iraq was unprovoked and unneccessary, wrong, it was provoked and neccessary... it is a continuation and amplification of actions begun by clinton... -how the hell do you reach the point where you are not supporting our troops if you don't want them getting KILLED in a war we shouldn't have engaged in in the first place. no one wants our troops killed but if you think we will win by pulling out you will have proven osama's mogadishu theory of american military resolve correct... that isn't going to happen... iraq is simply the first step... -But in this case it's a load of crap, and our fellow citizens, as well as those of a few other countries are being killed for reasons no one in Washington has truly justified. it was justified and it is justified... -My opinion is that they should NEVER have been placed in harms way this time, and that is why I believe NOT sending them to Iraq would have supported them. this is only the second battlefield in the war against terrorism... we will finish the job and expand the war... the military's job is to kill people and to break things... that's what they do... they are doing their job wonderfully... does the military face risk while doing their job? sure, and some more than others... how would you support them? by giving them the best means to do their job, not by removing work from them... G -I obviously don't want to see the soldiers killed, but neither do I want them killing civillians, nor guerillas who are taking up arms on behlaf of their people. you mean the new iraqi guerillas who are being trained as police and security to take our place when we leave? or do you mean the remaining terrorist thugs who are still following the baath party and saddam's wishes? "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 18, 2003, 01:30 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	There is no evidence to suggest that these guerillas are under the command of the baath party, yet there is presidence for nationalists to oppose occupation. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 19, 2003, 02:22 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) S1 -Now, in the Iraq situation, we were told by Bush and Blair that Saddam Hussein HAD WMDs and was planning to use them against us and could send them to our countries in a little over a half-hour. so did clinton and the rest of the democrat senators and representatives before bush was elected and used that as justification to bomb iraq and kill people... -When that didn't fly, they said he HAD WMDs and defied UN resolutions to destroy them. bush used the same intelligence and resolution excuse that clinton did... and the resolutions were defied...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So you're blaming Clinton now? For the sake of argument only, I'll assume Clinton had the same intelligence Bush supposedly had. If that's the case, then Clinton obviously knew there was no reason to invade, and he didn't have Cheney pulling his strings. -So far, nothing has been found <<yes it has, but you don't want to admit it... and more will be found shortly...>> Well, I guess you know more than our own military, international observers, and even members of Bush's own administration. In that case, I'd love to hear where they are since only you seem to know they exist. Poor Bush! If he only had you to point them out for him, he could sell this war a lot more easily. As far as not wanting to admit it, I'd be a fool not to admit it if they had been found, just as I'd be a fool to say they are there when no one else has found them. -in light of compelling evidence that going to war with Iraq was unprovoked and unneccessary, <<<wrong, it was provoked and neccessary... it is a continuation and amplification of actions begun by clinton...>>> Clinton again, eh? You must be extatic now that Rush is back! Clinton didn't start a war that is unwinable at this point, and denounced by a good portion of the world. -how the hell do you reach the point where you are not supporting our troops if you don't want them getting KILLED in a war we shouldn't have engaged in in the first place. <<<no one wants our troops killed but if you think we will win by pulling out you will have proven osama's mogadishu theory of american military resolve correct... that isn't going to happen... iraq is simply the first step...>>> Too bad you didn't bother to read my whole post. Yes, I did say we shouldn't have gone there but I also said we are stuck in it now. I'm well aware that Bin Laden said we were a "paper tiger" when we pulled out of somalia, which is why we are mired in this, because leaving would make us look weak to the Arabs. I never said we should pull out. I have more than enough words in my mouth, please don't bother making up any for me. -But in this case it's a load of crap, and our fellow citizens, as well as those of a few other countries are being killed for reasons no one in Washington has truly justified. <<<it was justified and it is justified...>>> By you and a lot of others, and about as many disagree. I love that kind of retort you gave. Short and to the point. Also devoid of any substance whatsoever. -My opinion is that they should NEVER have been placed in harms way this time, and that is why I believe NOT sending them to Iraq would have supported them. <<<this is only the second battlefield in the war against terrorism... we will finish the job and expand the war...>>> EXPAND the war?? Could you possible expand on that a little. C'mon, toss me a fact or two. Like how we can expand what we haven't finished, or just where these metaphorical battlefields are? <<<the military's job is to kill people and to break things... that's what they do... they are doing their job wonderfully... does the military face risk while doing their job? sure, and some more than others... how would you support them? by giving them the best means to do their job, not by removing work from them...>> Did you use a highlighter on your screen when you read my post? I said we had the best weapons and firepower. As for the troops, I assumed the fact that they are the best trained at what they do was understood by most and unnecessary to elaborate on. And to end the sentence with "not by removing work from them" is disgusting. The military is there for OUR protection and not the misguided or misinformed whims of an administration who thought Iraq would be a quick and much praised war. G -I obviously don't want to see the soldiers killed, but neither do I want them killing civillians, nor guerillas who are taking up arms on behlaf of their people. <<<you mean the new iraqi guerillas who are being trained as police and security to take our place when we leave? or do you mean the remaining terrorist thugs who are still following the baath party and saddam's wishes?>>> I'm not going to argue your point there. I don't know how the hell we can just dive in and say "well, here's your country back, now govern yourselves" to a population who grew up knowing nothing about self-governance. But for police and security, I don't know if they are Baathist thugs or terrorists any more than you do, but I don't believe that is the aim of the Bush Administration to put terrorists in positions of policing the country. BTW, if we're doing such a great job over there, why do you think there ARE enough of Saddam's boys left to pose any threat? And why do you think they are being trained to be police by US? (Note to Sean: we should have some structure rules regarding multi-warhead rebuttals by people, so the original poster can address all the points without muddying up the reply, like this one will surely look.) Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Nov 19, 2003, 02:50 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
hardright Sedimentary Rock Posts: 6	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,) It seems that most right-wingers ... are of the impression that if you do not support a war we are engaged in you are not supporting our troops. Right wingers who use this twisted logic seem to be employing it to influence the thinking of people who are either against this (or any other) war our government decides to engage in or are on the fence regarding our involvement in any foreign conflict whether the justification for any war is real or fabricated for political reasons. I think this particular big lie was created by political opportunists, both in Washington as well as the "conservative" (read: far right) media, as a way to justify whatever the particular administration at the time does with our armed forces, and supported by "barstool patriots" all over the country. Our current war (and don't think it's over just because Bush said it was a couple of months ago) is a prime example of this, where big-time talk show hosts and right-wing politicians are using it to paint any dissenters as unpatriotic. What say you?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> As a rightwinger who opposed this war and was labeled unpatriotic for doing so, I would say the so-called "far right" neo-conservatives are actually leftists. I would even call the war in Iraq a leftist revolution. All the major supporters of the war were ex-Marxists, or influenced by the neo-con godfathers who are ex-Marxists. Yesterday it was world communist revolution. Today it's what neocon guru Michael Ledeen calls "the democratic revolution." It all comes down to lefty ideas. For old school conservatives like myself, who hate the big government, imperial trip the Bush administration is on - the Hawk News Channel is not a "far right" media outlet! Call it the mouthpiece of the Republicans. But just don't slander (to use that GOP whore Coulter's phrase) the anti-war old school conservatives like myself. Ciao!

Nov 19, 2003, 05:10 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
indierockboy Molten Ash Location: ontario canada Posts: 104	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sean,) What do you mean Indie? I am appalled by how little income they make. I agree with you scribler on the issue. The right wing assumes all too much that not supporting the war=anti-American, anti-Army.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> soldiers returning home from "questionable" wars have recieved such warm welcomes as barrages of rocks and teeming crowds of people referring to them as baby-killers and the like. i find that disgusting. http://www.autophobic.net/tmesis/sig.gif

Nov 19, 2003, 05:15 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
indierockboy Molten Ash Location: ontario canada Posts: 104	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fugitivepoet,) As a rightwinger who opposed this war and was labeled unpatriotic for doing so, I would say the so-called "far right" neo-conservatives are actually leftists. I would even call the war in Iraq a leftist revolution. All the major supporters of the war were ex-Marxists, or influenced by the neo-con godfathers who are ex-Marxists. Yesterday it was world communist revolution. Today it's what neocon guru Michael Ledeen calls "the democratic revolution." It all comes down to lefty ideas. For old school conservatives like myself, who hate the big government, imperial trip the Bush administration is on - the Hawk News Channel is not a "far right" media outlet! Call it the mouthpiece of the Republicans. But just don't slander (to use that GOP whore Coulter's phrase) the anti-war old school conservatives like myself. Ciao!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> i don't think i follow. what do you attribute to the left? http://www.autophobic.net/tmesis/sig.gif

Nov 19, 2003, 06:53 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	I find the gurellias quite disgusting. Posing as a civilian is one of the most dishonourable things any coward can do. Firstly, as a "civilian", you endanger the lives of other civilians. Imagine a crazy civilian suddenly firing at you with an AK47....years of military experience will no doubt force you to fire back at the source, harming nearby civilians. Secondly, it is illegal to pretend to be a civilian then start shooting. You war protestors who protest against Bush's "illegal" invasion; why aren't you protesting the illegal conduct of Iraqi "gurellias" (which is far more illegal than what Bush did)? Why aren't you protesting the illegal actions of suicide bombers? To those who continue to support the "gurellias", terrorists (many of whom are not even Iraqi), and suicide bombers....they would no doubt prefer to see Bin Laden as King of Iraq and every US soldier dead. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 19, 2003, 07:45 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
indierockboy Molten Ash Location: ontario canada Posts: 104	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) I find the gurellias quite disgusting. Posing as a civilian is one of the most dishonourable things any coward can do. Firstly, as a "civilian", you endanger the lives of other civilians. Imagine a crazy civilian suddenly firing at you with an AK47....years of military experience will no doubt force you to fire back at the source, harming nearby civilians. Secondly, it is illegal to pretend to be a civilian then start shooting. You war protestors who protest against Bush's "illegal" invasion; why aren't you protesting the illegal conduct of Iraqi "gurellias" (which is far more illegal than what Bush did)? Why aren't you protesting the illegal actions of suicide bombers? To those who continue to support the "gurellias", terrorists (many of whom are not even Iraqi), and suicide bombers....they would no doubt prefer to see Bin Laden as King of Iraq and every US soldier dead.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> don't you ever get tired of attempting to make ad hominem attacks by taking everything out of context? http://www.autophobic.net/tmesis/sig.gif

Nov 19, 2003, 12:44 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) What I see as difficult with supporting the troops is basically that you are declaring "I hope they can kill quicker than there enemy". Now I was against Hussein, but I am not against the guerrillas (although I don't think they should have started a war till the end of year, at least give the coalition a chance to fulfill its promises). I obviously don't want to see the soldiers killed, but neither do I want them killing civillians, nor guerillas who are taking up arms on behlaf of their people. It comes down to supporting one group simply because of their nationality, which I refuse to do. So I think it is best to say I hope they come home safe.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> G. I think you slightly misunderstoog my position. Let me try and clarify it. I do believe your assumption of killing quicker than the enemy. However, that is true ONLY in an "us versus them" situation, where WE are physically attacked where the intent is killing US! But that's the only time I support that kind of action. We have to face the reality that wars WILL happen in our lifetimes. We can only hope to figure ways to keep them from happening. I believe that day will come, but it doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon. As I stated before, the invasion of Iraq was unjustified and unnecessary. That is where I think the misunderstanding is. My feeling is, if you've got a dictator on your hands, deal with it yourselves. Usually that dictator was put in power by overthrowing a different dictator, and the cycle goes on. It's not our business to interfere militarily, and clearly Iraq was no physical threat to us. The same went for Viet Nam, Kosovo and the rest. Manuel Noriega was a good example. There is evidence he was on the CIA payroll until he no longer served our needs so, being the good and just liberators that we are, we took him out. Our embassy in Iran was taken over, mainly as a side effect of our support for the Shah, who was a WORSE dictator than Hussein (ever hear of the SAVAK?), and we were the main reason the Shah wasn't overthrown by his own people in the first place. There are a lot of people pissed at us and that's fine, as long as they don't attack us. But someday some country just might do that so I support the troops and the existence of our military IF THERY ARE NECESSARY to protect US! As for Iraqis taking up arms in the defense of their contry, I do not disagree. But since some idiot politicians and oil barons and the like decided to put our friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens there, then if they get shot at, they will shoot back. If they weren't there in the first place no one would be shooting at them. And if I read my recent history correctly, Iraq was the most westernized country in the whole region, so I find it a bit hard to think the entire country was in peril and impoverished, whether run by a dictator or not. In most dictatorships, all you have to do is not bitch about the leader and do what you're told and many Iraqis made out just fine doing just that. Hmmm. That sounds just like what our own right wingers are saying, doesn't it? Don't bitch about Bush and do what he says. Hope that helps clarify my position. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Nov 19, 2003, 12:55 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) What I see as difficult with supporting the troops is basically that you are declaring "I hope they can kill quicker than there enemy". Now I was against Hussein, but I am not against the guerrillas (although I don't think they should have started a war till the end of year, at least give the coalition a chance to fulfill its promises). I obviously don't want to see the soldiers killed, but neither do I want them killing civillians, nor guerillas who are taking up arms on behlaf of their people. It comes down to supporting one group simply because of their nationality, which I refuse to do. So I think it is best to say I hope they come home safe.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> G. I think you slightly misunderstoog my position. Let me try and clarify it. I do believe your assumption of killing quicker than the enemy. However, that is true ONLY in an "us versus them" situation, where WE are physically attacked where the intent is killing US! But that's the only time I support that kind of action. We have to face the reality that wars WILL happen in our lifetimes. We can only hope to figure ways to keep them from happening. I believe that day will come, but it doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon. As I stated before, the invasion of Iraq was unjustified and unnecessary. That is where I think the misunderstanding is. My feeling is, if you've got a dictator on your hands, deal with it yourselves. Usually that dictator was put in power by overthrowing a different dictator, and the cycle goes on. It's not our business to interfere militarily, and clearly Iraq was no physical threat to us. The same went for Viet Nam, Kosovo and the rest. Manuel Noriega was a good example. There is evidence he was on the CIA payroll until he no longer served our needs so, being the good and just liberators that we are, we took him out. Our embassy in Iran was taken over, mainly as a side effect of our support for the Shah, who was a WORSE dictator than Hussein (ever hear of the SAVAK?), and we were the main reason the Shah wasn't overthrown by his own people in the first place. There are a lot of people pissed at us and that's fine, as long as they don't attack us. But someday some country just might do that so I support the troops and the existence of our military IF THERY ARE NECESSARY to protect US! As for Iraqis taking up arms in the defense of their contry, I do not disagree. But since some idiot politicians and oil barons and the like decided to put our friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens there, then if they get shot at, they will shoot back. If they weren't there in the first place no one would be shooting at them. And if I read my recent history correctly, Iraq was the most westernized country in the whole region, so I find it a bit hard to think the entire country was in peril and impoverished, whether run by a dictator or not. In most dictatorships, all you have to do is not bitch about the leader and do what you're told and many Iraqis made out just fine doing just that. Hmmm. That sounds just like what our own right wingers are saying, doesn't it? Don't bitch about Bush and do what he says. Hope that helps clarify my position.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I knew what you meant, and I wasn't disagreeing, just expanding my ideas on top of yours. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 19, 2003, 01:00 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fugitivepoet,) As a rightwinger who opposed this war and was labeled unpatriotic for doing so, I would say the so-called "far right" neo-conservatives are actually leftists. I would even call the war in Iraq a leftist revolution. All the major supporters of the war were ex-Marxists, or influenced by the neo-con godfathers who are ex-Marxists. Yesterday it was world communist revolution. Today it's what neocon guru Michael Ledeen calls "the democratic revolution." It all comes down to lefty ideas. For old school conservatives like myself, who hate the big government, imperial trip the Bush administration is on - the Hawk News Channel is not a "far right" media outlet! Call it the mouthpiece of the Republicans. But just don't slander (to use that GOP whore Coulter's phrase) the anti-war old school conservatives like myself. Ciao!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You have a point there. That's the reason I don't often use the word "Conservative" in my posts, as I lean that way myself sometimes, depending on the situation. When I say "right-wing" I mean bogus patriots who have little knowledge of the issues other than what a politician or talk show host has told them, and parrot what they say endlessly regardless of facts, and then trot out that idiotic "you're anti-american" or "you must be in love with Saddam, then" when they begin to lose control of the conversation. I am not quite stupid enough to think that NO Liberal anywhere has ever been right on something (Like that one trick pony, Anne Coulter), nor do I believe Conservatives are always wrong. For the formation of my personal beliefs I prefer to take the good ideas from ANY side and go with them , discarding the bullshit. Like some old Italians used to say, Mussolini may have been a dictator, but he made the trains run on time. BTW, I don't consider you a right-winger. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Nov 19, 2003, 01:11 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Okay, you both need clarification... (moving from right to left) Right Wing - Fascism Conservatism Centre - Liberals (classical, think of the Whigs) Left Wing - Socialists - Social Democrats (think of the left side of the democrats) Democratic Socialists (this is what most socialists mean when they say socialist) Communists (with government) Communists/Anarchists (without government) For the sake of trying to stay somewhat academic, can we all please stick to the real meanings of the words, then confusion should be minimised. Or we can use the Eyesenk (bad spelling) graph, which is up/down for authoritarian/libertarian and left/right for economic freedoms. Remember though there is some sliding around. Greens are typically left but you also get pro bussines greens (cottage industry, not big business) types, and you also get fascists who use greens as a cover (BNP declaring Britain should rebuild its green and pleasent land for example). Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 19, 2003, 01:22 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	s1 "So you're blaming Clinton now? For the sake of argument only, I'll assume Clinton had the same intelligence Bush supposedly had. If that's the case, then Clinton obviously knew there was no reason to invade, and he didn't have Cheney pulling his strings." no, I am not blaming clinton, I am using the same justification as clinton did to bomb... clinton knew there was no reason to invade just reason to bomb saddam? "Well, I guess you know more than our own military, international observers, and even members of Bush's own administration. In that case, I'd love to hear where they are since only you seem to know they exist. Poor Bush! If he only had you to point them out for him, he could sell this war a lot more easily. As far as not wanting to admit it, I'd be a fool not to admit it if they had been found, just as I'd be a fool to say they are there when no one else has found them." read and learn... and read it carefully... http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/spee...y_10022003.html "Clinton again, eh? You must be extatic now that Rush is back! Clinton didn't start a war that is unwinable at this point, and denounced by a good portion of the world." clinton did bomb saddam when saddam kicked the inspectors out... that was the first action against saddam when the resolution was breached... and bush is finishing the war... you only hope it is unwinnable so the democrats might win "Too bad you didn't bother to read my whole post. Yes, I did say we shouldn't have gone there but I also said we are stuck in it now. I'm well aware that Bin Laden said we were a "paper tiger" when we pulled out of somalia, which is why we are mired in this, because leaving would make us look weak to the Arabs. I never said we should pull out. I have more than enough words in my mouth, please don't bother making up any for me." and thank you for not reading mine... I said IF we pull out... I never said that you said it... we will finish the job... "By you and a lot of others, and about as many disagree. I love that kind of retort you gave. Short and to the point. Also devoid of any substance whatsoever." anything can be justified... anything "EXPAND the war?? Could you possible expand on that a little. C'mon, toss me a fact or two. Like how we can expand what we haven't finished, or just where these metaphorical battlefields are?" how soon we forget... iraq, iran and north korea... (and I'll bet that's just the begining) "As for the troops, I assumed the fact that they are the best trained at what they do was understood by most and unnecessary to elaborate on." wrong, the best trained are the Israelis "The military is there for OUR protection and not the misguided or misinformed whims of an administration who thought Iraq would be a quick and much praised war." and that is exactly what they are doing... protecting us "I'm not going to argue your point there. " fine, it was addressed to G who seems to hold the guerilla in a good light... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...