Anti-War, Anti-Soldier.

[tinybear]

First and foremost, if you claim to support our troops, stop calling them murderers and stop calling the Iraqi insurgents freedom fighters!!

[Jack]

Almost anybody, including Boy George no doubt, could subscribe to such a vague, truistic and tepid definition of "anti-war".

Sorry I don't rise to your standards of passion. Maybe it's because I've been in a war, and around for several others. When I was a teenager, I was out marching and actively protesting our activities in Southeast Asia. That was when I was still idealistic, and thought if we could stop that war, perhaps mankind would never go to war again. The sad fact is that the majority of Americans sincerely believe that if someone pisses you off as a nation, you should go in and kick their asses. The majority of Americans are also supposedly peace-loving christians. Go figure. All I know is that being "anti-war" these days is a noble position to espouse, but to do so with any hope of ending war all together is pissing into the wind. So please excuse me if my passion has been somewhat muted by reality.

[monty of ll]

northtexan- Good analysis! Just a couple of points that I would like to add. Before the last round of inspections began, do you recall Bush being opposed to sending inspectors into Iraq? I do and I'm wondering if any others remember that.

Then you said: " If Saddam deserves to be charged with war crimes, and he does, it is largely for his invasion of Iraq and for his use of WMDs in the resulting war--"

Is this a typo or are you referring to Saddam's alleged gas attacks on the Kurds? We need to be very careful before jumping to any conclusion on that issue, due to evidence that the supposed worst of the attacks, the Halabja affair, was probably an Iranian action. Perhaps you have not read Stephen Pelletiere, a top CIA desk jockey, and what he has to say about the whole issue. It seems there was absolutely no doubt in the intelligence community about the question at the time and Pelletiere is one who has chosen to stay with the story instead of reversing it for propaganda reasons.

[northtexan]

Quote by: tinybear First and foremost, if you claim to support our troops, stop calling them murderers and stop calling the Iraqi insurgents freedom fighters!!

Nobody on here called the soldiers murderers, and no one referred to the insurgents as freedom fighters, as far as I have seen. I have been clear that I refer to the leadership in the Dubya Administration as what they are: murderers, including murderers of nearly 2000 U.S. troops.

As to 'the insurgents,' there's no way to sort out who might see themselves as fighting for freedom from those who seek to enslave others -- not that the categories are mutually-exclusive. I certainly understand how many Iraqis could be mad enough, based on the loss of loved ones or of homes or of a survivable lifestyle, to want to go kill Americans; but I also suspect that those so motivated are not actually motivated to take up arms or build bombs, and that they also tend to lack access to said arms and bomb-making equipment. It is far more likely that insurgents are former Baath-party members and/or members of the disbanded military. Then, of course, there are the militias, including the 'Iraqi defense forces' that the U.S. claims to be training, who answer to leaders like Bani Sadr, so are on-again/off-again insurgents. Interesting, isn't it, that the Administration's former golden boy, Chalabi, is now allied with the guy, Sadr, who led 'insurgents' against U.S. forces at Najjaf?

[northtexan]

Quote by: monty of ll northtexan- Good analysis! Just a couple of points that I would like to add. Before the last round of inspections began, do you recall Bush being opposed to sending inspectors into Iraq? I do and I'm wondering if any others remember that. Then you said: " If Saddam deserves to be charged with war crimes, and he does, it is largely for his invasion of Iraq and for his use of WMDs in the resulting war--" Is this a typo or are you referring to Saddam's alleged gas attacks on the Kurds? We need to be very careful before jumping to any conclusion on that issue, due to evidence that the supposed worst of the attacks, the Halabja affair, was probably an Iranian action. Perhaps you have not read Stephen Pelletiere, a top CIA desk jockey, and what he has to say about the whole issue. It seems there was absolutely no doubt in the intelligence community about the question at the time and Pelletiere is one who has chosen to stay with the story instead of reversing it for propaganda reasons.

I heard Scott Ritter speak last week, so a lot of this was in my mind. And yes, Dubya did oppose the return of inspectors to Iraq. Actually, he opposed going to the UN in the first place, but had to if Blair were to go along with him, hoping Saddam would refuse inspectors. Then, Saddam messed up that plan by allowing inspectors in; and they WERE onsite, and stating that no WMDs were there, right up to the invasion. Then, with the invasion, Dubya lyingly claimed that Saddam had refused to let inspectors in.

My understanding is that there was no doubt that Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranian forces during that War. After all, that IS why we supplied them to him. And in any case, that is one of the major charges being made against him now -- that he used weapons we gave him in a war that we urged him to start and then supported.

[Nono]

Quote by: Isherwood Sorry I don't rise to your standards of passion. (...) All I know is that being "anti-war" these days is a noble position to espouse, but to do so with any hope of ending war all together is pissing into the wind. So please excuse me if my passion has been somewhat muted by reality.

Relax, it's not about passion or nobility but about application. You say how perfectly awful war is and how strongly you're opposed to it -- all in the abstract. But then you say "Would I go and fight again if called? Yes."
So all they have to do is call you and you'll go. How convenient for the war-mongers, eh?

By the way, I agree that there's no hope of ending war, even a little bit. But you shouldn't make it so easy for the bastards.

[monty of ll]

northtexan- No doubt that both Iraq and Iran used chemical weapons on each other during their war but it's quite questionable whether or not Iraq gassed Kurds at Halabja. This is the charge against Saddam and others are even lesser well documented innuendo.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle2098.htm

If a lie is told enough times eventually it will be believed. I have no reason to believe that this is not exactly the case with Iraq's alleged gassing of the Kurds.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Prometheus Your comments still imply that opposing a given war is unpatriotic. Disagreeing with the current administration does not mean you hate the soldiors.

What is does mean is that you are supporting the enemy. While you can't admit it, you ARE giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. YOU are encouraging them to fight on, and my doing so they are killing, wounding Americans.

I suggest that you try to THINK CLEARLY. You must understand that the enemy is encouraged by your anti-war activities and they are routing for you to win!

You see, if you win, SO DO THE TERRORISTS. Don't you see that?

The so called anti-war folks in the VN War gave victory to the Communists and lt least to another holocaust. Don't you realize that?

We all want this war to end. The difference between you and me is that you want to end the war by surrender, and I want to win this war through victory.

Why don't we join hands? Don't you prefer victory over defeat?

The soldiers fighting in Iraq are fighting to win. They want to vanguish the enemy; destroy him. Your activities are trying to convince our soldiers to surrender. To cut and run. That's not the American way.

Victory is the only solution that we can accept. Those who support surrender are not only unAmerian, they are also treasonous, because throught their actions they want to give victory to the enemy.

[Logjam]

Quote by: northtexan I heard Scott Ritter speak last week, so a lot of this was in my mind. And yes, Dubya did oppose the return of inspectors to Iraq. Actually, he opposed going to the UN in the first place, but had to if Blair were to go along with him, hoping Saddam would refuse inspectors. Then, Saddam messed up that plan by allowing inspectors in; and they WERE onsite, and stating that no WMDs were there, right up to the invasion. Then, with the invasion, Dubya lyingly claimed that Saddam had refused to let inspectors in. My understanding is that there was no doubt that Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranian forces during that War. After all, that IS why we supplied them to him. And in any case, that is one of the major charges being made against him now -- that he used weapons we gave him in a war that we urged him to start and then supported.

You do understand that Scott Peterson was on Saddam's payroll don't you? Saddam paid him around $400,000 as I recall. You must consider that he was being paid by the enemy when you consider what he says.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Logjam you are supporting the enemy

My enemy resides in Washington and oversees an enslaving global Empire. I only support him with my taxes, which are extorted with threats of imprisonment and siezure of my property.

Quote by: Logjam Scott Peterson was on Saddam's payroll don't you? Saddam paid him around $400,000 as I recall.

I thought he murdered his pregnant wife. Are you saying Saddam had something to do with that, too? And people label ME a conpiracy theorist!

[Boetie]

Machiavelli has pointed out that going to war makes a prince popular. Machiavelli never stated there had to be a reason for going to war, only that going to war will do the trick for the prince.

History has shown that tyrants used the above advice, in this current administration it made it possible to garner huge political capital.

Now consider this, if the prince and or tyrant has a book on how to get power, where is the book for the people on how to get power?

Can we take back power from the current tyrants in the United States? Only if we have a book similar to Machiavelli's but written for the people.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Boetie Can we take back power from the current tyrants in the United States?

They have an effective system for maintaining the status quo, huh? Machiavellian wars, media propaganda, public school indoctrination, the drug war and property siezure, a huge and growing police force, distraction from real issues via electronic entertainment, excessive taxes to keep the slaves' noses to the grindstone. Did I leave anything out?

[Jack]

But then you say "Would I go and fight again if called? Yes."

Perhaps I should explain what I meant by that. I believe that those of us trained in combat and skilled at what I did in the service could save many lives on both sides. My training was to ensure that forward commanders had the field intelligence they needed to plan operations, and when properly applied, that intelligence can save lives. Many of these young soldiers today are being wounded and killed because of their training; training which doesn't prepare them for the type of combat they're encountering. I don't pretend that our jungle training would be of any use, but our experience under fire would be. I think any soldier who has survived combat feels a desire to jump in and keep younger soldiers as safe as possible, regardless of his or her opinion of the conflict at hand.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: northtexan I heard Scott Ritter speak last week, so a lot of this was in my mind. And yes, Dubya did oppose the return of inspectors to Iraq. Actually, he opposed going to the UN in the first place, but had to if Blair were to go along with him, hoping Saddam would refuse inspectors. Then, Saddam messed up that plan by allowing inspectors in; and they WERE onsite, and stating that no WMDs were there, right up to the invasion. Then, with the invasion, Dubya lyingly claimed that Saddam had refused to let inspectors in. My understanding is that there was no doubt that Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranian forces during that War. After all, that IS why we supplied them to him. And in any case, that is one of the major charges being made against him now -- that he used weapons we gave him in a war that we urged him to start and then supported.

The pedophile and Al Jazeera reporter Scott Ritter also lost $400,000 by us going in and having a war. He had just completed a project for the Arabs regarding Iraq and he lost it all.
He's got his problems to be sure, glad you didn't pay to see him.

[northtexan]

Quote by: monty of ll northtexan- No doubt that both Iraq and Iran used chemical weapons on each other during their war but it's quite questionable whether or not Iraq gassed Kurds at Halabja. This is the charge against Saddam and others are even lesser well documented innuendo. http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle2098.htm If a lie is told enough times eventually it will be believed. I have no reason to believe that this is not exactly the case with Iraq's alleged gassing of the Kurds.

While I wouldn't put it past Saddam to have ordered it, I also wouldn't put it past Iran; nor would I put it past the U.S. to lie about it. The result is the typical one in the region: the Kurds were screwed. At least out of the mess the Kurds may emerge with limited independence -- assuming Turkey doesn't invade to quash that.

[Boetie]

Quote by PatrickHenry They have an effective system for maintaining the status quo, huh? Machiavellian wars, media propaganda, public school indoctrination, the drug war and property siezure, a huge and growing police force, distraction from real issues via electronic entertainment, excessive taxes to keep the slaves' noses to the grindstone. Did I leave anything out?

Yes you did leave something out. Look at the statement you were responding to which is, "Can we take back power from the current tyrants in the United States?"

What you posted is something we already know. History is filled with people putting tyrants into power and then putting up with it.

The answer I was looking for is more of a reverse Machiavelli. You pointed out how they have an effective system, so let's reverse that and ask, "can the people have an effective system?

[northtexan]

Quote by: Logjam What is does mean is that you are supporting the enemy. While you can't admit it, you ARE giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. YOU are encouraging them to fight on, and my doing so they are killing, wounding Americans.

The B.S. is deep and stinky. While you cannot admit it, the Administration has given aid and comfort to Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations in Iraq by its actions in invading and then bungling the occupation. It has done so in an even greater way by making the term ‘terrorist’ literally meaningless, in the same sense as your use of the term is meaningless. “Terrorist” is used to designate anything the Bushistas want to oppose. Thus, Saddam was labeled a ‘terrorist’ when it was convenient to do so, whereas he had previously been labeled an ‘ally’ (by many of the same Busheviks, including Rumsfeld) when it was thought convenient – although he and his actions did not change. In fact, actions in which he was previously supported, and supplied, are now labeled terrorism – e.g., use of chemical weapons against Iran.

You are helping in the killing of U.S. troops. By encouraging Dubya to keep them in Iraq, you are helping make them targets of opportunity.

Quote by: Logjam I suggest that you try to THINK CLEARLY. You must understand that the enemy is encouraged by your anti-war activities and they are routing for you to win!

I suggest that you are incapable of thinking clearly. You must understand that Al Qaida is encouraged by Dubya’s illegal invasion and the Administration’s bungling of its aftermath. The U.S. has provided aid and comfort for Al Qaida well beyond anything that organization could have anticipated.

Now consider this: I was active in the anti-Vietnam War movement, in opposing U.S. support for the Contras in Nicaragua, in opposing U.S. support for the murderous government of El Salvador, in opposing many other U.S. interventions. And I will do all I can to support the movement to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq. In this, I have been a patriotic American doing my duty, and I am not about to let mindless yahoos divert me from doing that duty. When I was opposing the Vietnam War, I was asked more than once ‘what gives you the right to oppose U.S. foreign policy?’ My answer was that I had the right as a U.S. citizen but that I owned the right by exercising it. I will continue to exercise that right to the fullest.

Quote by: Logjam You see, if you win, SO DO THE TERRORISTS. Don't you see that?

The most terrorists most dangerous the U.S. are running its government. Don’t you see that? But don’t worry, you won’t win – the anti-war movement WILL prevail.

Quote by: Logjam The so called anti-war folks in the VN War gave victory to the Communists and lt least to another holocaust. Don't you realize that?

We weren’t so-called, we were anti-war, and we ultimately prevailed. What followed was victory by the majority of the Vietnamese people. And their Communist government is now buddy, buddy with the capitalist world. And the only holocaust in the area, the horrors of Pol Pot’s so-called Communist rulers of Cambodia, was the result of destabilization of that country by Nixon’s bombing and incursions into that country in aid of his doomed conducting of the Vietnam War. And who decisively ended Pol Pot’s holocaust by invading Cambodia to end it: the Vietnamese Communists.

Do you ever THINK about what you write?

Quote by: Logjam We all want this war to end. The difference between you and me is that you want to end the war by surrender, and I want to win this war through victory.

I want to end the war by pulling out the U.S. troops. There is no prospect in Iraq worthy of being called ‘victory’ – the Bushistas have assured that. Whatever outcome, with the presence of U.S. troops or without, will be a defeat for the U.S., as well as for Iraq and for the region. That is a shame, but that is what Dubya has wrought. Evading recognition of the shame Dubya has brought upon our country through his criminality is not worth the loss of any more U.S. troops. Some of that shame might be erased were the U.S. to deliver Dubya and other top Bushistas to the World Court for trial for their war crimes.

Quote by: Logjam Why don't we join hands?

I prefer to keep my hands clean and bloodless.

Quote by: Logjam Don't you prefer victory over defeat?

I don’t prefer anything you call ‘victory.’ And there is no victory of any kind in sight in Iraq. The only alternative is defeat or retreat – I definitely prefer the latter.

Quote by: Logjam The soldiers fighting in Iraq are fighting to win. They want to vanguish the enemy; destroy him. Your activities are trying to convince our soldiers to surrender. To cut and run. That's not the American way.

The soldiers in Iraq are fighting because they were ordered to, because they were lied to by their leaders, and most of all (as is always true of soldiers) to support and protect their buddies and any others they are delegated to protect. I am not trying to convince the soldiers to surrender – especially in light of the U.S. violations of the Geneva Conventions, they could not expect humanitarian treatment were they to surrender. I am encouraging the U.S. to pull the soldiers out. And should the soldiers refuse to accept orders to ‘stay the course,’ I would support them completely: as I have those who have refused to return to Iraq, as I have the transport company that refused orders to deliver fuel.

There is much idiocy justified under the term ‘the American way’ – your statement is an example of that. However, I only support the type of cutting and running that preserves the lives of the troops attempting to do so – just safely extracting U.S. forces from Iraq will be a major undertaking in itself. I doubt that the Bushistas are up to it, because they are sure to bungle it; but I hope that the U.S. military can undertake a safe withdrawal successfully, despite how the Bushistas will interfere.

Quote by: Logjam Victory is the only solution that we can accept. Those who support surrender are not only unAmerian, they are also treasonous, because throught their actions they want to give victory to the enemy.

Then there is no acceptable outcome possible. Given that, the best course is to get the troops out and then suffer the consequences. That’s unfortunate, but that is an outcome created by the Bushistas.

And you pull out the treason b.s. In the words of an American patriot, ‘if this be treason, make the most of it.’ But have no illusions that we will be put off by the shouting of ‘treason’ by the new American brownshirts. We’ve faced much tougher opponents than today’s chickenhawk Bushista brown-nosers.

[northtexan]

Quote by: Logjam You do understand that Scott Peterson was on Saddam's payroll don't you? Saddam paid him around $400,000 as I recall. You must consider that he was being paid by the enemy when you consider what he says.

If you're going to repeat Freeper lies, at least get the names right. I was speaking of Scott RITTER. Be clear on who you are defaming.

[Chris]

hahaha Scott Peterson! :)

Saddam wanted Lacey rubbed out! :)

[northtexan]

Quote by: PatrickHenry My enemy resides in Washington and oversees an enslaving global Empire. I only support him with my taxes, which are extorted with threats of imprisonment and siezure of my property. I thought he murdered his pregnant wife. Are you saying Saddam had something to do with that, too? And people label ME a conpiracy theorist!

Oh, these Bushista nutcases don't care who they defame, nor who they confuse with someone else. In particular, they gleefully defame those who went nose to nose with Saddam (as did Scott Ritter, as did Joe Wilson), claiming that they were on Saddam's payroll. The joke is that in both of these cases, they defame patriots who had been lifelong Republicans -- until the Bushistas made continuing that impossible for people with integrity who knew what was going on. Scott Ritter, in particular, supported and voted for Bush in 2000. But, then, maybe Scott Peterson did, too, and perhaps still does -- that would be an appropriate approach for a murderer. ;-)