[fluff]

What did you expect was gonna be in this forum. This is the PD forum. It's sole reason for existing is so we can puff our chests out, peacock around, exhibit our massive (in our minds) intellects and insult and abuse each other. Occasionally we have a few good debates as well.

Have you been drinking? 'It's' with an apostrophe? Tut-tut. 'and insult and abuse', ever heard of commas?

And then to top it all:

exhibit our massive (in our minds) intellects

Where else would intellects be?

4/10 VB, you can do better.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Maybe she is trying to say that even though orders are given from the top, the individual soldier feels a certain responsibility to those orders or to the reasons with which the orders are derived. A personal affiliation if you will? Soldiers may take offense to someone knocking their affiliation. Maybe,,,,,

So, all soldiers are Republicans? I did not know that.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Let me put it this way; unfortunately I lived in Oceanside California for some reason. I have lost friends also. However, they didn’t die in vain. All of them wanted to be in Iraq. They wanted to be there for the Iraqi men, women and children who wanted a better life. They wanted to try and prevent Kurds from getting killed for their ethnicity, Shiites being killed because of their religion, or Sunnis because of their political views. OR maybe they just hoped that by being there, one less Iraqi woman would be a victim of an honor killing. I think the mass graves that Saddam’s men dug and filled with human beings (Over 400,000) are a bitter sign that mankind still has a long way to go before every person has the basic human rights promised by all religions and culture…the rights of life and liberty.

I'm really sad that your friends bought Bush's lies hook, line, and sinker. Either way, it does not diminish the fact that your argument that all service members support the current actions is incorrect, and supporting or not supporting the current actions does not necessarily have any bearing on whether one supports the troops or not.

It is easy for us as Americans to take liberty for granted because we have never had it taken away.

And it is also easy for us to assume that everyone else wants our style of life and governance.

Anyway, I got on RM to talk about bikes not politics! (But for some reason I thought I would check out the political section) If I talk politics I prefer to look the person directly in the eyes... so I probably won’t be back. I’m sure everyone will be glad, because about the only two people I have anything in common with on the forum is alwaysbroncin and the amish. AND you all think they are idiots.

I think they say idiotic things, not that they are necessarily idiots in general.

 

[valve bouncer]

Have you been drinking? 'It's' with an apostrophe? Tut-tut. 'and insult and abuse', ever heard of commas?

And then to top it all:

exhibit our massive (in our minds) intellects

Where else would intellects be?

4/10 VB, you can do better.

Yeah..well....you know.....why don't you go and ride your bike...bet ya don't even ride......this is my last post in the PD forum....I'm off to the freeride section where I can find some adult level conversation.

 

[MudGrrl]

I was the airman who got to hang out in Germany.


I was very lucky, I think.


While the military may not be a vacation for everyone, these people sign up with the faith that their higher ups will make an educated decision about sending volunteers to a dangerous place fighting for a questionable cause.

Yes, we all have our own morals, and that shouldn't prevent the troops from thinking about questionable orders. Some troops should have exercised some intelligence before they decided to tie up prisoners on leashes.

No, not everyone who is over there whole heartedly supports the war. They're over there because they have orders to be over there... if they don't go (get out of it in some way...mental ward, pregnancy, AWOL) , their buddies have to stay longer.


Yeah, I support the troops.... I was one, and I can understand what it is like to be waiting to be sent somewhere at a moment's notice. You need a support system, whether it is your neighbors taking care of your plants, or somebody sending snickers and magazines.

 

[JRogers]

I support the troops in some sense because of the lessons of Vietnam- taking out anger over the war on those who faught it will not solve anything. All that does is create a sad legacy while hurting the cause on all sides.


The fact remains (and seems to escape many): wars can no longer be fought if people refuse to fight them.

 

[pterodactyl]

I just read this whole thread and just realized that it was a waste of time.

The person that wrote that article is a douche bag. People that sign up for the military are, basically by definition, interested in conflict. How many people that are against war would sign up for the Marines?

WE did not vote on going to war. CONGRESS did and that includes Democrats and Republicans.
I love how people say Bush us a dumbass, if that was the case, do you think he could have been smart enough to dupe the whole country? Or is it more likely he evaluated the same information Congress did and they ALL decided, for the most part, that the war was the way to go.

 

[MudGrrl]

People that sign up for the military are, basically by definition, interested in conflict.

Some do it so they can get the GI bill. Some do it so they can leave a place that didn't present any opportunities. Some do it so they can send money home.

Don't act like the entire military population is a bunch of adrenaline junkies hell bent on bringin' home war stories.

How many people that are against war would sign up for the Marines?

I can guarantee you that there are Marines that are against the war. Just like there are soldiers and airmen against the war.

Bush is a dumbass, who thought he had his hands on some evidence that would convince all the God fearin' people in middle America that all the "A-Rabs" were out to destroy our way of life, thereby convincing the gun totin' populace that have never been outside their own country that WMDs were going to rain down on their crops and upset their Jerry Springer time.

 

[Reactor]

I just read this whole thread and just realized that it was a waste of time.

The person that wrote that article is a douche bag. People that sign up for the military are, basically by definition, interested in conflict. How many people that are against war would sign up for the Marines?

WE did not vote on going to war. CONGRESS did and that includes Democrats and Republicans.
I love how people say Bush us a dumbass, if that was the case, do you think he could have been smart enough to dupe the whole country? Or is it more likely he evaluated the same information Congress did and they ALL decided, for the most part, that the war was the way to go.

You have some good points, but most people who signed up for the military in peace time, and probaly most today are simply looking for a way out of a bad environment. Some had abusive parents, or were from the inner city, or the sticks, they just wanted out. A lot of them are fairly bright, but couldn't swing college and want to get some technical training, to have a better future, or save money for college. Very few really 'wanted' to go to into conflict.

 

[Reactor]

I was the airman who got to hang out in Germany.

{}

Yeah, I support the troops.... I was one, and I can understand what it is like to be waiting to be sent somewhere at a moment's notice. You need a support system, whether it is your neighbors taking care of your plants, or somebody sending snickers and magazines.

I almost forgot you were military too.

Like you I support the troops, that said, It's the political leaders who are to blame for the situation.

 

[ohio]

People that sign up for the military are, basically by definition, interested in conflict.

Even my enlisted friends that are for the war would disagree with that. Most of them joined because they felt a duty to serve their country and felt enlisting was the best way to do that. They understood that conflict may be part of that service, but they certainly were NOT "interested" in it in that they were hoping for it.

WE did not vote on going to war. CONGRESS did and that includes Democrats and Republicans.

Actually congress still hasn't voted to go to war. Technically we're not at war. Congress voted to give the President the authority to start a conflict. Essentially all Republican and Democrat congressman did was agree that they trusted the President. I think many would say he abused that trust.

 

[fluff]

Actually congress still hasn't voted to go to war. Technically we're not at war. Congress voted to give the President the authority to start a conflict. Essentially all Republican and Democrat congressman did was agree that they trusted the President. I think many would say he abused that trust.

They must surely have known what was about to happen though?

 

[pterodactyl]

I agree with a lot of the Military people joining to get out of a current situation of some kind also. But there is something to joining the Marines vs the Coast Guard.
I guess I consider being either for war or against it, not for or against THIS war. How do we get to decide what war is good or bad? How can the author decide, that he doesn't support the troops because he doesn't like THIS war, as if to say, "I was cool with Korea and Vietnam and OK about seeing lots of people die then, but this one is TOTALLY different". I just don't see how you can be OK with war, but only if you think there was a good enough reason.

If there was any thought given by a person who might question what was "right" or "wrong" as far as orders go, they should have looked at our history. We've had the last 40+ years of conflicts that have been political and debateable with regard to the reasons for the actions, and have gone so-so. (vietnam, etc)

It's more likely than not that a war in these days will be more controversial and have more politics behind it than some crazy bastard trying to kill all the Jews.

Right or wrong, they all agreed to give him the authority...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I guess I consider being either for war or against it, not for or against THIS war. How do we get to decide what war is good or bad? How can the author decide, that he doesn't support the troops because he doesn't like THIS war, as if to say, "I was cool with Korea and Vietnam and OK about seeing lots of people die then, but this one is TOTALLY different". I just don't see how you can be OK with war, but only if you think there was a good enough reason.

What? You can't be against THIS war unless you are also against all wars ever?

It's actually quite easy to be against just this war and not others. In WWII for example, we were attacked and were really at risk. That was definitely not the case with the situation in Iraq. The current situation was a result of the president lying to the public. If you can't see the difference...

Right or wrong, they all agreed to give him the authority...

Authority to do what? To lie to the American people?

 

[ohio]

They must surely have known what was about to happen though?

They enlisted in 1996 or so. So no, they had no idea what was going to happen. Again, they weren't doing it to "get out of a situation." They were fundamentally PRO-military and desired to serve their country. Being willing to go into conflict in the event your nation needs you is not the same thing as desiring to go into conflict, and does not by definition make you in favor of the current conflict.

I've mentioned this before, but most of them (my friends) are opposed to the current conflict while recognizing they're opinion is a minority one within the forces. They however are all still fulfilling their obligations.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Um, Ohio, I think the "they" in fluff's message was Congress, not your friends.

 

[ohio]

I just don't see how you can be OK with war, but only if you think there was a good enough reason.

Really?

I'm okay with killing someone charging my (theoretical) wife and children with a large knife. I'm not okay with killing someone that shouts insults at my (theoretical) wife and children. So I'm not opposed to the use of deadly force, but there needs to be a good reason. I don't see how anyone can NOT feel that way.

 

[ohio]

Um, Ohio, I think the "they" in fluff's message was Congress, not your friends.

D'oh!

I guess i'll still leave up the post... I feel like both sides of the argument in this thread are projecting themselves falsely onto the military right now.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Really?

I'm okay with killing someone charging my (theoretical) wife and children with a large knife. I'm not okay with killing someone that shouts insults at my (theoretical) wife and children. So I'm not opposed to the use of deadly force, but there needs to be a good reason. I don't see how anyone can NOT feel that way.

Actually, there is a theory called the "Just War Theory" about this sort of thing.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm

 

[fluff]

D'oh!

I guess i'll still leave up the post... I feel like both sides of the argument in this thread are projecting themselves falsely onto the military right now.

Yup, I have every sympathy with the troops, my cousin is in Basra right now...

 

[jon cross]

Yes you can support the soldiers and Marines without supporting the president, what kind of nonsense was that? There are Marines in my unit who think the president is wrong, and some think he is right, but it doesn't matter so much to us because in a fight, there is no higher debate or moral argument. There is a man with a weapon and he is going to kill you. That pretty much negates the importance of politics in the infantry. Until you've put yourself in that position, I'd ask that you not pass judgment on those who have been there. And for the record, I did not enlist because I enjoy conflict and want to go to war. I enlisted because we are at war, and someone is going to have to go- I'll be damned if someone else is going to go fight while I party at college. The VAST majority of Army, Navy, USAF, and Marines I know are honorable and amazing young men and women. They chose a hard job with few rewards, and it wasn't because they couldn't do better.

 

[pterodactyl]

I was going to respond, to other comments, mainly because I don't subscribe to journalistic/ media stuff like the libs do. Journalists by nature are just looking for stories and are spinning to get papers sold or news show ratings. Bad news sells more than good news does.
It's funny how when you actually talk to a person on the ground in Iraq that their stories are 180 degrees from what is on the news.

Bottom line is, there are only a few hundred people that made the decision about going to war.
You nor I have any real clue what went down in Washington, so what is the point of bitching about a war we all have no personal facts about. I just don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion either way unless you are for or against war as a whole.

Right on to the post from Jon Cross. I'm glad people like you are out there so all us know-it-alls can spew bulls**t on the internet and not have to worry about some bastard blowing up the building we work in because he doesn't like our lifestyle, religion, or something done by someone I don't even know did to him 15 years ago.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Bottom line is, there are only a few hundred people that made the decision about going to war.
You nor I have any real clue what went down in Washington, so what is the point of bitching about a war we all have no personal facts about. I just don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion either way unless you are for or against war as a whole.

Actually, we DO have a clue. The Congressional inquiries into this were very clear. Saddam had no ties to 9/11, there were no WMD, Iraq was NOT a direct threat to us. You can stick your head in the sand all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that we do know what happened, and what happened was the administration lied and hyped up s*** in order to get us into a war. I don't have to be against all war in order to know that what happened is f-ed up and decide not to support it.

 

[ohio]

Saddam had no ties to 9/11, there were no WMD, Iraq was NOT a direct threat to us.

But we're bringing them freedom in the form of an extremist theocracy and civil war.

 

[fluff]

But we're bringing them freedom in the form of an extremist theocracy and civil war.

Well, it does seem to be what they want.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Actually, we DO have a clue. The Congressional inquiries into this were very clear. Saddam had no ties to 9/11, there were no WMD, Iraq was NOT a direct threat to us. You can stick your head in the sand all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that we do know what happened, and what happened was the administration lied and hyped up s*** in order to get us into a war. I don't have to be against all war in order to know that what happened is f-ed up and decide not to support it.

Not tying Iraq to WMD or 9/11, but hasnt saddam offered suicide bombers much money to explode themselves in Israel? What would stop a nutcase like that from paying some nutjobs in the US from doing similar or worse things here? Consider that he had tons of money and a real disdain for the US, and I say its only a matter of time.
Now I know that this wasnt the reason we went to Iraq, but having saddam gone is a nice by product. I think just about any rational person would agree with that. Last night I saw all the right and the left stand up and clap about "finishing the job" which means in all likelyhood a better life for the Iraqi people. Would that be bad?
There are reasons to support the war, but you can still hate the president.

 

[fluff]

Not tying Iraq to WMD or 9/11, but hasnt saddam offered suicide bombers much money to explode themselves in Israel? What would stop a nutcase like that from paying some nutjobs in the US from doing similar or worse things here? Consider that he had tons of money and a real disdain for the US, and I say its only a matter of time.
Now I know that this wasnt the reason we went to Iraq, but having saddam gone is a nice by product. I think just about any rational person would agree with that. Last night I saw all the right and the left stand up and clap about "finishing the job" which means in all likelyhood a better life for the Iraqi people. Would that be bad?
There are reasons to support the war, but you can still hate the president.

Well now that we've destabilised the place it would be foolish to pull out without restoring order, but invading a country on the basis that someone might become a threat is just plain dumb. When they are a threat that's a different matter.

If there were no such good by-products such as the removal of Saddam (although bear in mind we still don't know what the end result will be and who will replace him) it would simply mean the mistake was bigger.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Well now that we've destabilised the place it would be foolish to pull out without restoring order, but invading a country on the basis that someone might become a threat is just plain dumb. When they are a threat that's a different matter.

If there were no such good by-products such as the removal of Saddam (although bear in mind we still don't know what the end result will be and who will replace him) it would simply mean the mistake was bigger.

Again, Im not trying to justify the start of the war, that battle has been either won or lost depending on how you look at it, Im just saying there are reasons to support both the war and the troops now. You'd have to be kind of stupid not to, IMO.

 

[Echo]

Not tying Iraq to WMD or 9/11, but hasnt saddam offered suicide bombers much money to explode themselves in Israel? What would stop a nutcase like that from paying some nutjobs in the US from doing similar or worse things here? Consider that he had tons of money and a real disdain for the US, and I say its only a matter of time.
Now I know that this wasnt the reason we went to Iraq, but having saddam gone is a nice by product. I think just about any rational person would agree with that. Last night I saw all the right and the left stand up and clap about "finishing the job" which means in all likelyhood a better life for the Iraqi people. Would that be bad?
There are reasons to support the war, but you can still hate the president.

Dude, picture the scene in the beginning of Team America where they just ruined Paris, and they're standing there all proud.

Except now it's Bush standing in the ruins of Iraq, saying "don't worry everyone, we stopped the terrorists! everything is BON!"

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Not tying Iraq to WMD or 9/11, but hasnt saddam offered suicide bombers much money to explode themselves in Israel? What would stop a nutcase like that from paying some nutjobs in the US from doing similar or worse things here? Consider that he had tons of money and a real disdain for the US, and I say its only a matter of time.
Now I know that this wasnt the reason we went to Iraq, but having saddam gone is a nice by product. I think just about any rational person would agree with that. Last night I saw all the right and the left stand up and clap about "finishing the job" which means in all likelyhood a better life for the Iraqi people. Would that be bad?
There are reasons to support the war, but you can still hate the president.

Yes, Saddam was offering money to the families of Palestinians that killed themselves with suicide bombs.

Having Saddam gone is not necessarily a "nice by product." We don't know what will happen at the moment. Having him there did at least create a stable situation. It sucked for the people he killed and tortured, but we have no assurance that the next people in charge won't do the same, and the current reports are that they are doing the same, only to the Sunnis this time.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Again, Im not trying to justify the start of the war, that battle has been either won or lost depending on how you look at it, Im just saying there are reasons to support both the war and the troops now. You'd have to be kind of stupid not to, IMO.

I support not leaving the country in ruins, but that doesn't mean I support the war. Saying that I'd be stupid not to have changed my mind about supporting the war is simply ridiculous in my opinion. Just because an ill-advised war has got us in a predicament doesn't mean that all of a sudden I should jump on the band-wagon and start going to pro-Iraq war rallies. It's simply now a distasteful job that W got us into and needs to be finished in such a way as to cause the least amount of damage.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Yes, Saddam was offering money to the families of Palestinians that killed themselves with suicide bombs.

Having Saddam gone is not necessarily a "nice by product." We don't know what will happen at the moment. Having him there did at least create a stable situation. It sucked for the people he killed and tortured, but we have no assurance that the next people in charge won't do the same, and the current reports are that they are doing the same, only to the Sunnis this time.

Yeah, it was real stable for the kurds. They love "stability" saddam style.
Also, we do have assurance that the next governing party wont be the same. They know we'll come own them too if they get to annihilating whole races of people. BUT even if we didnt have that assurance that they wouldnt, at least we dont have the assurance that the ARE!
For someone who claims to love peace and hate killing, it sure is sickening that you think things were better under saddam. With that line of thinking, the US would still be better off under the rule of great britain, as no people would have died in the revolutionary war.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I support not leaving the country in ruins, It's simply now a distasteful job that W got us into and needs to be finished in such a way as to cause the least amount of damage.

So you're supporting the war. Thanks.

 

[ohio]

I often get the feeling that our reasons for not pulling out right now have nothing to do with "finishing the job" or "ensuring stability" and everything to do with making sure we "win" and "don't give in to the terrorists."

 

[BurlyShirley]

I often get the feeling that our reasons for not pulling out right now have nothing to do with "finishing the job" or "ensuring stability" and everything to do with making sure we "win" and "don't give in to the terrorists."

I cant say Im against that line of thinking either. Giving an inch to the extremists doesnt help our cause one bit. Also, winning is always better than losing, no?

 

[valve bouncer]

I cant say Im against that line of thinking either. Giving an inch to the extremists doesnt help our cause one bit. Also, winning is always better than losing, no?

I think the problem in Iraq is that I can't see any way that the US realistically can win. I think the only way to win in this situation may be to stop playing the game i.e pullout. But that of course has it's own set of problems. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I think the problem in Iraq is that I can't see any way that the US realistically can win. I think the only way to win in this situation may be to stop playing the game i.e pullout. But that of course has it's own set of problems. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Yeah, I agree in reality. I think that at best we can hope for an israel type situation. Mostly peace with a democratic govt., but still the odd coffee shop bombing every few weeks. Still better than Kurd gassings, no?

 

[Reactor]

Yeah, I agree in reality. I think that at best we can hope for an israel type situation. Mostly peace with a democratic govt., but still the odd coffee shop bombing every few weeks. Still better than Kurd gassings, no?

Un less you're the guy having a morning latte at the coffe shop......

 

[syadasti]

Not tying Iraq to WMD or 9/11, but hasnt saddam offered suicide bombers much money to explode themselves in Israel? What would stop a nutcase like that from paying some nutjobs in the US from doing similar or worse things here? Consider that he had tons of money and a real disdain for the US, and I say its only a matter of time.
Now I know that this wasnt the reason we went to Iraq, but having saddam gone is a nice by product. I think just about any rational person would agree with that. Last night I saw all the right and the left stand up and clap about "finishing the job" which means in all likelyhood a better life for the Iraqi people. Would that be bad?
There are reasons to support the war, but you can still hate the president.

Most rational people disagree with you, we are worse off for the wear. The smarter Bush didn't occupy Iraq cause he knew it would cause instability in the region (as did our intelligence agencies that told Bush jr. not to go to war). Even the Israelis said Bush added more fuel to the fire:

October 11, 2004 TEL AVIV, Israel - The war in Iraq (news - web sites) did not damage international terror groups, but instead distracted the United States from confronting other hotbeds of Islamic militancy and actually "created momentum" for many terrorists, a top Israeli security think tank said in a report released Monday.

President Bush (news - web sites) has called the war in Iraq an integral part of the war on terrorism, saying that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) hoped to develop unconventional weapons and could have given them to Islamic militants across the world.

But the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University said that instead of striking a blow against Islamic extremists, the Iraq war "has created momentum for many terrorist elements, but chiefly al-Qaida and its affiliates."

 

[BurlyShirley]

I dont think I said anything about Iraq and terror groups.