This is topic Jeez, Another Conservative Attack on a War Hero! in forum Rants, Raves, Rumors! at The Geek Culture Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.geekculture.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=19;t=000801

Posted by Colonel Panic (Member # 1200) on November 18, 2005, 17:51:
 
I'm so upset about this subject, and I've discussed it before.

Now, decorated Viet Nam war veteran and current Congressman Jack Murtha is under attack by the same group of deferrenment-grabbing, CIA-outing, stateside-fighten, never-been-in-combat-but-talk big chickenhawks who love war, but have proven they have NO (ABSOLUTELEY ZERO) idea of how to win the war, and absolutely NO (ZIPPO-ZILCH) desire to debate a solution!

Today, a congressWOMAN (SORRY ABOUT THE SEXISM, BUT DID YOU EVER GET A DRAFT CARD LADIES?), who never served, nor received a draft card, stood on the floor of the United States Congress, and accused a decorated war hero of being a COWARD! Then this CONSERVATIVE, asked to have her words struck from the Congressional Record, because (AIN'T THIS JUST LIKE A RIGHTY?) she DIDN'T HAVE THE COURAGE TO STAND BY HER ACCUSATIONS.

No wins. No solutions. All problems. All talk. ALL DRIVVEL! These are the same kind of jerks that tried to kill my tail end in 'Nam, now they want to do it again another generation of patriots.

Hey Conservatives, have you started printing up your "My Country, Right or Wrong!" stickers? Because you're WRONG again!

NEVER AGAIN! Doesn't seem to last more than a couple of decades with you righty KOOKs does it?

A liberal may be a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet. But A conservativew is a liberal who hasn't seen a firefight, yet.

I remember when people who spit on Viet Nam vets wer Jane-Fonda traitors. Now we call them "Conservatives."

Jerks.

Colonel Panic
 
Posted by ChildeRoland (Member # 3880) on November 18, 2005, 19:43:
 
Jesus Christ. Your assumptions and conclusions based one ONE PERSON'S COMMENTS are so baseless, derogatory, and wrong that it's not even funny. (the random capitalizations are annoying, too)
 
Posted by FireSnake (Member # 1181) on November 18, 2005, 21:03:
 
Colonel, I don't have a comparable experience to truly understand how furious it makes you.

For some reason the old platitudes "vote" and "write your congressmen" don't seem to be worth much any more, either. If they ever were. [Frown]
 
Posted by Black_Pearls_and_Lace (Member # 4586) on November 18, 2005, 23:05:
 
A generation of patriots?

I bet that those 18-year old boys who signed up because they had no other way out of the barrio and who are being sent to advance the interests of imperialism see themselves more like wormies on a hook. Cheap meat to be exploited in the name of inflated ideals.

A patriot, dear sir, isn't someone who fights for oil. The correct term for that would be a victim of the system.
 
Posted by FireSnake (Member # 1181) on November 19, 2005, 02:46:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Black_Pearls_and_Lace:
A generation of patriots?

I bet that those 18-year old boys who signed up because they had no other way out of the barrio and who are being sent to advance the interests of imperialism see themselves more like wormies on a hook. Cheap meat to be exploited in the name of inflated ideals.

A patriot, dear sir, isn't someone who fights for oil. The correct term for that would be a victim of the system.

Patriotism has different faces. I think you need to talk to some soldiers about what they are fighting for.
 
Posted by Jace Raven (Member # 2444) on November 19, 2005, 08:46:
 
I'm going to be nice about this because frankly, I dont feel the need to punch any throats as I've had enough action today.

For starters, these are the same conservative that have managed to get our ROE reduced so that last week, when I had 3 Insurgents charging my position and I couldn't fire my weapon even in their general direction without first proving they had abslute intent to inflict harm or challenge my position. This has become more of a reactive force than a proactive force out here. We can only return fire when fired upon. We can only challenge positions in the defense of our position and we can only do so in patrols. This is not a war being fought, this is a fight being dodged as we are pressured by our congressmen and women to use as little force neccessary. This could have all been over if we were given the lee-way to do our fucking job. Here is one example: before I can fire my weapon I must first make physical contact with a body unless said body has in possession a weapon and shows intent to fire in my direction or has visable evidense of an Improvised explosive device.

Next:
I joined the USMC under my own free will. I worked as a recruiter for about 3 months and we will not take anyone with a record nor anyone with any drug problems, active citations, nor financial problems. We dont take those with nowhere to go because those people wont make good Marines. I never enlisted a Marine who I didn't want to have fighting by my side and most of the recruiters that I know were the same way. We do have quota's but we are not having recruiting problems. We are however having retention problems because congressman are making it extrememly difficult for us to do our job and many of us wont put up with the bull shit any more.

There is not a single soul in this country that is fighting for oil. I dont have any use for oil. I fight so that someday, my kids wont have to figt this war nor ever see such distruction on American soil as that was seen on september eleventh. I fight for that Marine to my left and to my right and I fight to keep my life. Why am I here? I'm here because I'm told that I need to be here. Do I ask any questions? NO! Because those who have a better view of the overall situation have come to decide that my presence here will prevent future conflict and as for the advancment of Imperalism Ideals...I was in one of the most hostile cities jsut a week ago and I had a young boy (maybe around 8) run up to me while I was on a patrol and said "Thank you sir for saving my family" in hadgie talk (my translator translated for me).

...so much for Imperealistic ideals...

I was asked the other day by a civilian here, "Why do you volunteer to go out everyday? Dont you think you're gonna get killed? Why do you choose to go out there every day and put yourself in danger when you can stay here and just do a desk job?" (I have to option) I tried to explain why, but I realized that anyone who would understand why I would volunteer wouldn't ask the question. There is just a certain level of love you have and respect you have for any other man in uniform. Am I a patriot? I wouldn't think so but every other man and woman out here with me are most definitly.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on November 19, 2005, 09:01:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jace Raven:
There is just a certain level of love you have and respect you have for any other man in uniform.

That's the reason why I'm a pacifist, Jace—because of the love and respect I have for people, no matter what color or country of origin their uniform. I don't want to rehash the whole "war is bad/war is good" argument, but I do want to acknowledge that I have a really hard time seeing how killing someone's friend, family member, spouse, child, etc., is going to solve any problem. Sure, there are people now who we could argue would've been better off dead (Hitler, Stalin, etc.), but I'm confident that the catastrophes they instigated could've been avoided if people had stood up them and challenged their thought processes.

What kind of precedent does war set for our children? In the grand scheme of things, it's basically giving our children the message "if you don't agree with someone, it's okay to physically harm them—even to the point of death—without first exhausting all other options." That's what frustrates me the most about all this... the apparent disrespect of human life demonstrated by everyone involved in war. What makes it right to kill one life to save another? Why can't people just sit down together, put their emotions aside, and rationally discuss problems and come to agreeable resolutions? We do it every day here in the fora; why can't we do it in the rest of the world?
 
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on November 19, 2005, 12:20:
 
Colonel Panic_____________________________________ Jack Murtha was called a coward. By, Dick Cheny, Rush Limbough,Sean Hannity and that dumb woman that CP alluded to, not one of those persons ever even wore a uniform, and they have the gall to call Jack Murtha a Coward! Then CP and I are cowards and every other Vet that believes that we need to be out of Iraq, however I do wish that there was more effort placed on finding Osuma Bin Laden.
 
Posted by nerdwithnofriends (Member # 3773) on November 19, 2005, 12:46:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Jace Raven:
There is just a certain level of love you have and respect you have for any other man in uniform.

That's the reason why I'm a pacifist, Jace—because of the love and respect I have for people, no matter what color or country of origin their uniform. I don't want to rehash the whole "war is bad/war is good" argument, but I do want to acknowledge that I have a really hard time seeing how killing someone's friend, family member, spouse, child, etc., is going to solve any problem. Sure, there are people now who we could argue would've been better off dead (Hitler, Stalin, etc.), but I'm confident that the catastrophes they instigated could've been avoided if people had stood up them and challenged their thought processes.

What kind of precedent does war set for our children? In the grand scheme of things, it's basically giving our children the message "if you don't agree with someone, it's okay to physically harm them—even to the point of death—without first exhausting all other options." That's what frustrates me the most about all this... the apparent disrespect of human life demonstrated by everyone involved in war. What makes it right to kill one life to save another? Why can't people just sit down together, put their emotions aside, and rationally discuss problems and come to agreeable resolutions? We do it every day here in the fora; why can't we do it in the rest of the world?

Before I state my piece I would like to say two things:

1.) I don't totally agree with the iraqi war; however, I don't not support it, if that makes any sense.
2.) The following opinion is coming from someone who may very willingly go to the USNA and become a naval officer.


I'll address your last arguments first, because they resonated the most with me, where you asked why we can't all be rational and sit down and discuss things like we do here. The reason is simple: the quality, or even prolonged existance, of our lives does not depend on how well we argue. We discuss things here for fun, not to try to better our lives, or keep another country from invading us for a resource that they may believe they so desperately need to survive. Is the current war becoming a waste of human life? I'd say so, because, as jace said, they aren't given the freedom and resources to do their job the right way.

Was WWII a waste of american lives? I would say no. Was it tragic? hell yes, but that's the way things roll. There is no way we could have asked Hitler to stop doing what he was doing to the jews, catholics, and gypsies. Why? Because it was his way of reviving his people, of inspiring them. This logically leads to the assumption that the greater population of germany either accepted the 'final solution' or were in denial about it. You can't rationally argue about such brutal things when you accept them or deny that they are even happening.

Ultimately, you can't change somebody elses views, and compromise is never good enough. I agree with you that negotiations and diplomacy should be used first and war as a last resort; but if I were a country, why should I waste time trying to argue with you about something that you will never change your views about? I can try, but after a couple attempts, it will be easier and ultimately more effective if I just use my force. It's that simple. People are not rational beings; myself and mine are always more important than you and yours, and I am not willing to compromise that just to have futile discussions about a topic that we can never resolve rationally.


And about war giving kids a bad example? That statement is just an insult to parents; any moderately well-raised child will grow to see that other solutions should be approached before turning to physical conflict. The problem here arises when one person is better at fighting than another. Let's say you and I are struggling over, say, a piece of land, and there is no-one outside of us to help resolve the issue. We both have equal claims to the land, and we decide to try to settle who will get the deed (let's assume the land is non-divisible). First we try talking, but you are a better debater than am I, so even though we both have equal claim to the land, you make it sound as if you have more of a claim to it than I do. However, I weigh twice as much as you and have some experience fighting. What do I do? I can sit there and listen to you talk about how much you deserve this land, or I can punch you in the throat and take the deed from you while you are unconscious.

Is this a bad solution? yes. Why? Because, just as people decry war as being evil becaus some people are better at fighting than others, talking is a poor policy because one country will always have better propaganda, smarter politicians, or more citizen support for whatever position it takes on certain issues. Hence, the solution is not to ban war altogether, but to raise smarter kids. Smarter kids leads to smart adults, and smart adults means that it will be easier-- not entirely possible, but easier-- to have rational discussions.

People are greedy; this is the premise for all war. Sometimes greed is justified-- 'hey, we don't have any food or fuel to heat our homes, but country X does and they won't give us any. Let's invade.'

Sometimes, it's not. I can cite numerous examples of imperialism (and I'm of the school of thougth that says not *all* imperialism is bad).

Go through the UN? They are perfectly ineffective at actually resolving issues; their only function lies in helping people. Why are they ineffective? Various reasons, but mostly for the ones I've already stated: You can't convince people to change their mind about a subject they believe very strongly in.

Wow, that's one of the longest posts I've ever made. Sorry if it's incoherent, but I'm just getting over some Dr. Pepper poisoning and eighteen hours of pure, unadultered LAN-party action.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 19, 2005, 13:54:
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheMoMan:
Colonel Panic_____________________________________ Jack Murtha was called a coward. By, Dick Cheny, Rush Limbough,Sean Hannity and that dumb woman that CP alluded to, not one of those persons ever even wore a uniform, and they have the gall to call Jack Murtha a Coward! Then CP and I are cowards and every other Vet that believes that we need to be out of Iraq, however I do wish that there was more effort placed on finding Osuma Bin Laden.

But I thought Osama was in Iraq... [Razz]

There's reasons why people volunteer, and I think they're going to vary from person to person. Jace has cited his very eloquently. His comrades might give different but just as fervent answers. My brother was also considering the Marines at one point because he wanted some discipline. Then he realized the the utter lack of vision in his right eye was going to be a problem with recruiters so he dropped that plan. And then there's the reasons why people like Jace get sent to war...

Personally I think we're in the wrong place for the wrong reasons and we need to get the hell out of there.
 
Posted by ChildeRoland (Member # 3880) on November 19, 2005, 17:10:
 
Very well put, Jace and NWNF. [Applause]
 
Posted by Jace Raven (Member # 2444) on November 20, 2005, 04:53:
 
see..i can be nice.
 
Posted by YaYawoman (Member # 4505) on November 20, 2005, 05:59:
 
Well, my computer is having seizures again, it didn't post earlier, so I'll try again.

Jace- of course you can be nice. Marines are trained to take on anything----storm a beach, take and hold a hill with a kbar and nail clipper,be nice, search and destroy......
 
Posted by Jace Raven (Member # 2444) on November 20, 2005, 06:12:
 
I never leave home without my nail clippers.
 
Posted by FireSnake (Member # 1181) on November 20, 2005, 08:45:
 
Great posts, Jace and NWNF.

I don't agree with everything you guys said, but I think you did a great job of rationally presenting another side. [Smile]
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 20, 2005, 12:16:
 
Thank you NWNF for an unusually honest summary of the conservative American approach to war and international relations.

A couple of comments...

quote:
Originally posted by nerdwithnofriends:
Ultimately, you can't change somebody elses views, and compromise is never good enough. I agree with you that negotiations and diplomacy should be used first and war as a last resort; but if I were a country, why should I waste time trying to argue with you about something that you will never change your views about?

Um, in order to avoid the unnecessary death of a couple of thousand of your own people, and a far greater number of innocent civilians on the other side?

However, I weigh twice as much as you and have some experience fighting. What do I do? I can sit there and listen to you talk about how much you deserve this land, or I can punch you in the throat and take the deed from you while you are unconscious.

So, if you don't get exactly what you want (compromise is never good enough) then just use force to take what you want. If individuals behaved that way, we'd call them 'sociopaths' or 'criminals' and lock them away.

I also note that you explicitly give 'fuel to heat our homes' as a valid reason for invading another country, something most conservatives emphatically deny.
 
Posted by nerdwithnofriends (Member # 3773) on November 20, 2005, 13:17:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
Thank you NWNF for an unusually honest summary of the conservative American approach to war and international relations.

A couple of comments...

quote:
Originally posted by nerdwithnofriends:
Ultimately, you can't change somebody elses views, and compromise is never good enough. I agree with you that negotiations and diplomacy should be used first and war as a last resort; but if I were a country, why should I waste time trying to argue with you about something that you will never change your views about?

Um, in order to avoid the unnecessary death of a couple of thousand of your own people, and a far greater number of innocent civilians on the other side?

However, I weigh twice as much as you and have some experience fighting. What do I do? I can sit there and listen to you talk about how much you deserve this land, or I can punch you in the throat and take the deed from you while you are unconscious.

So, if you don't get exactly what you want (compromise is never good enough) then just use force to take what you want. If individuals behaved that way, we'd call them 'sociopaths' or 'criminals' and lock them away.

I also note that you explicitly give 'fuel to heat our homes' as a valid reason for invading another country, something most conservatives emphatically deny.

I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on November 20, 2005, 21:27:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jace Raven:
There is not a single soul in this country that is fighting for oil. I dont have any use for oil. I fight so that someday, my kids wont have to figt this war nor ever see such distruction on American soil as that was seen on september eleventh.

Maybe you can remind the class what Iraq has to do with September 11th.
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by FireSnake (Member # 1181) on November 20, 2005, 22:10:
 
Can we all stop before we get into another pro/anti war debate? I think we all know where everybody stands on whether the U.S. should be in Iraq (since we've had this discussion a bazillion* times already), and fighting about it on the Internet isn't going to change any viewpoints or the reality.

I'd much rather discuss what patriotism means to different people. (Without jumping all over the people to whom it means something different than it does to me.) Honestly, I wish we had some Iraqi or Afghani citizens amongst our regular posters. I'd really like to hear what their input on that is.

I'd rather talk about how the U.S. government is handling the war, particularly when it comes to pro-war politicians attacking people with military experience when what they say is not what the career politicians want to hear.


*Bazillion is the technical term for really, really lot.

Today's PSA:
My apologies to those that may find it insensitive.
 -
 
Posted by YaYawoman (Member # 4505) on November 20, 2005, 22:20:
 
Amen Firesnake!
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on November 21, 2005, 01:33:
 
You people really aren't cynical enough to "understand" world politics.

As for the "real reason(s)" about the Iraq War, no one will ever tell you. Why? Because many of the reasons are like the motion of the Earth around the Sun ... too damn obvious. (No, Cap'n Vic, it wasn't for "free oil.")

Who doesn't know about Saddam's regime leaving mass graves scattered across Iraq?
Who doesn't know Saddam pillaged Kuwait, and when driven out, set fire to its oil wells?
Who doesn't know Saddam violated UN resolutions? Repeatedly....
Who doesn't know Saddam was using the Oil for Food program to nullify all sanctions against him?

Think about Al Capone, did he go to prison only because he incorrectly filed his income tax forms, or was there a bigger issue? (Hint: Bigger <cough> organized crime <cough> issue.)

quote:
Originally posted by nerdwithnofriends:
Go through the UN? They are perfectly ineffective at actually resolving issues....

What was the UN thinking when they let Saddam control who could buy and sell the "Oil for Food"? Did they assume: "he's a mass murderer and violates legal sanctions, but that doesn't mean he's a liar and a thief"?

Why didn't the UN notice "a few billion" dollars worth of oil being smuggled out of Iraq?

Why did the discovery that as many as 2300 companies were involved in kickback schemes to Saddam not occur until September of 2005? If the UN oversaw the program, why did they have "so little knowledge" of what was going on?

Kojo Annan, son of Kofi Annan, received as much as $750,000 from oil trading companies related to the Oil for Food program. What extent did the father-son relation play in contracts and payments?

Saddam gave oil allocations to groups such as Asat Trust and al-Taqwa, which have been linked to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. How could the UN let such groups profit from the Oil for Food program?

Assuming that the US wanted to stop Saddam from illegally gaining billions of dollars from the Oil for Food program, a single kiloton range nuke on the UN Building would stop the flow of money rather quickly. However, there's at least one or two reasons that the US wouldn't do it.
 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on November 21, 2005, 01:40:
 
^
|
|
And here we go again. Like firesnake said, let's try to avoid the whole "should the war in iraq be being fought" issue, for some reason, it's the one topic we are incapable of rational debate on here. I'm not going to cast blame, but I'm certainly betting I'm not the only one who is well and truly sick of this crap over and over again every time this topic comes up. And barring any feature additions allowing me to ignore posts from certain consistently incendiary posters, the only way to deal with this problem is to guess/remember which threads are political flamewars, and not read them. Not a good solution.
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on November 21, 2005, 06:36:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jace Raven:

There is not a single soul in this country that is fighting for oil. I dont have any use for oil. I fight so that someday, my kids wont have to figt this war nor ever see such distruction on American soil as that was seen on september eleventh.

Those same words were said by WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and Korean vets, too.

The first casualty of war is always the truth.
 
Posted by Ugh, MightyClub (Member # 3112) on November 21, 2005, 10:54:
 
Trying to steer this conversation onto the (safer?) path FireSnake pointed out...

To me, being a patriot means two things:
1) On election day cast an informed vote. Do some research before you enter the booth. Know what/who you are voting for and why.

2) Always question the choices your elected representatives make. I don't mean to blindly whine the choice was wrong. I mean examine the choice. Get both sides. Decide if you agree with the chioce. If you don't, write a letter or pick up the phone and let your rep know you disagree and why.

By those criteria I try to be patriotic, but usually come up a bit short.
 
Posted by Black_Pearls_and_Lace (Member # 4586) on November 23, 2005, 03:25:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jace Raven:
There is not a single soul in this country that is fighting for oil. I dont have any use for oil. I fight so that someday, my kids wont have to figt this war nor ever see such distruction on American soil as that was seen on september eleventh. ...
...and as for the advancment of Imperalism Ideals...I was in one of the most hostile cities jsut a week ago and I had a young boy (maybe around 8) run up to me while I was on a patrol and said "Thank you sir for saving my family" in hadgie talk (my translator translated for me).

...so much for Imperealistic ideals...


I think there is a clear difference between what you consider you are there for and what your higher-ups consider you are there for. You may not be fighting for oil because, as you said, YOU have no need for oil. But they do. They also have a need for a wedge in the Middle-East which will break up a possible Islamic block - the good old "divide and impera." If you can turn people with similar views and a common enemy into enemies, it is a lot easier to break some and bribe some in order to rule all. This is the imperialist goal.

Also, I have no doubt that you are fighting for an ideal. However, I highly doubt it that your ideal and that of your superiors is the same, and while you wish to end destruction, which is human and noble, you are also allowing them to use you in order to perpetuate destruction. What makes me mad is that good people are led into thinking that they are doing something good, something they believe in, while in fact they serve interests they themselves strongly disagree with.

quote:
Why am I here? I'm here because I'm told that I need to be here. Do I ask any questions? NO! Because those who have a better view of the overall situation have come to decide that my presence here will prevent future conflict
Now I know that what I am going to say comes against your formation as a soldier. But you are not a robot: you are a highly intelligent being with free will and discernment. Being somewhere because you are told to be somewhere means giving up on your own ability to decide what is right and what is wrong. Not asking questions means abdicating your right to reason. So why should we allow those who have given up the right to reason to kill others?

Why is it that the higher-ups have a better understanding of the situation? Do politicians spend any time in the desert? Do they have to blow up people? Do they have to defend their lives at the risk of taking others? Do they have to deal with the moral dilemmas that you are faced with every day? I don't think they are. They know that invading a country with major oil resources will allow their own businesses to contract there and make billions. They know the benefits that come with ruling half of the world. They know that by finding cheap resources for their own country, they will keep their citizens happy - as long as these don't know the price for their comfort. This is imperialism again.

Do you think British soldiers ever fought for the Empire? They fought for a better life in England and for the "civilization" of the world. Unfortunately, this "civilization" left many countries depleted of resources and hope, and instilled inferiority in generations. The British Empire may be dead, but its colonial products are still living and struggling with their lost history and cultural identity.

Moving on from Jace to the graveyards in Iraq, no one denies they are there. But there are mass graveyards everywhere in eastern Europe. There were concentration camps as late as 1989. There were horrendous crimes against humanity going on. Who resqued them? Where were the "liberation armies" when tens of millions of Europeans lived in terror and utter poverty? They were elsewhere, serving other interests, because Europe doesn't have a whole lot of resources or advantages to offer. This is why I'll never be able to believe whole-heartedly that any military action we have witnessed in the past 20 years or so has been selfless. Generosity shouldn't choose.

As far as being a patriot, I think the most you can do for your country is be educated. A person with good critical thinking skills and knowledge about the world will be able to discern which politicians will advance the interests of a particular country in an ethical way.

It is patriotic to ask questions and not accept the rhetoric you are spoon-fed if you think it is not morally justifiable. It is patriotic to make up your own mind and not to obey someone by default, just because they are in a higher position. Employees everywhere are leaving companies whose positions they find questionable. They may not antagonize their boss directly, but they are allowed to think for themselves and they can leave a situation they are not comfortable with.

So why is it that soldiers are not allowed the same thing? Why is it that a soldier who does not believe in what he is asked to do is automatically considered a deserter and a traitor? Soldiers are human too and they are asked to do something that many of us would never consider doing. Other people's lives aren't a joke, so why is it that we try so hard to limit the choices of those who have such enormous responsibility?

Now every army does the same thing, which shows a certain paranoia from those in power. If exactly those we send to do the hard work start questiong it, the entire power of the rulers topples. You can't fight a war if the soldiers turn around and say it is wrong. But wouldn't it be more patriotic if that happened? Wouldn't that show that they stand for something bigger than any state, which would make them superior world citizens? Wouldn't that testify to the fact that the culture they were formed in upholds democracy more than any others?
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on November 23, 2005, 03:36:
 
Jace's post reminds me how in World War 1 the British Army were famously described as lions led by donkeys. It was ever thus. Listen to Marlene Dietrich version of Fran Landesman's song "Where have all the flowers gone?"

When will they ever learn?
 
Posted by ChildeRoland (Member # 3880) on November 23, 2005, 04:34:
 
Your arguement that the politicians are there for oil has no basis in reality. Do you have any proof that that's why we're there? I suspect your only evidence is "They have oil, we use oil, therefore we invaded to get oil" this is such a faulty argument it's not even funny. You know, the German's had lots of Pfeffernuesse and Saurkraut, but that doesn't mean that we fought WWII in order to take it away from them. We fought it to keep evil men from spreading their hate and death across 2 continents. How is it that we can't do the same thing for the Iraqi people?
How much Iraqi oil have you put in your car recently? None, that's because none of it has seen the shore of this country in probably 20 years. The fact is, all proceeds from Iraqi oil sales are going into a fund. This fund is being used to rebuild infrastructure that; 1. Sadam neglected while he was in power 2. Sadam destroyed when he knew he had lost and 3. that we had to destroy as collatoral damage in the war (and yes, those ARE IN ORDER).


quote:
Why is it that a soldier who does not believe in what he is asked to do is automatically considered a deserter and a traitor?
They aren't. They are not considered traitors or deserters for their beliefs, they are considered traitors and deserters for their ACTIONS . (Such as deserting the duties which they have _sworn_ to perform.) Next question, please.
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on November 23, 2005, 06:11:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChildeRoland:
Your arguement that the politicians are there for oil has no basis in reality. Do you have any proof that that's why we're there? I suspect your only evidence is "They have oil, we use oil, therefore we invaded to get oil" this is such a faulty argument it's not even funny. You know, the German's had lots of Pfeffernuesse and Saurkraut, but that doesn't mean that we fought WWII in order to take it away from them. We fought it to keep evil men from spreading their hate and death across 2 continents. How is it that we can't do the same thing for the Iraqi people?
How much Iraqi oil have you put in your car recently? None, that's because none of it has seen the shore of this country in probably 20 years. The fact is, all proceeds from Iraqi oil sales are going into a fund. This fund is being used to rebuild infrastructure that; 1. Sadam neglected while he was in power 2. Sadam destroyed when he knew he had lost and 3. that we had to destroy as collatoral damage in the war (and yes, those ARE IN ORDER).


quote:
Why is it that a soldier who does not believe in what he is asked to do is automatically considered a deserter and a traitor?
They aren't. They are not considered traitors or deserters for their beliefs, they are considered traitors and deserters for their ACTIONS . (Such as deserting the duties which they have _sworn_ to perform.) Next question, please.
[shake head]
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on November 23, 2005, 10:11:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChildeRoland:
...The fact is, all proceeds from Iraqi oil sales are going into a fund. This fund is being used to rebuild infrastructure that; 1. Sadam neglected while he was in power 2. Sadam destroyed when he knew he had lost and 3. that we had to destroy as collatoral damage in the war

.....and who is doing the rebuilding? Iraqi firms? Non....Haliburton et al. Any thoughts on who has direct ties to Haliburton and is getting richer?

You know, you are right. Iraq isn't just about oil. Every US administration needs a mid mandate war to galvanize the voters. Then there is the money making aspect of it as I mentioned above. Haliburton (and other corporations with Republican ties) are making payola hand over fist as contractor supplying everything from transport, supplies and $200 lunches to the troops. Then there is the whole 'revenge' factor, W gets to make his daddy proud doing what he could in Gulf War 1.

Bush easily baited and switched Bin Laden with Saddam and has the majority of the US public convinced Iraq and 911 are directly related. Even our very own REMF Jace believes this.
 
Posted by ChildeRoland (Member # 3880) on November 23, 2005, 15:10:
 
If you really wanna know why we went to Iraq, maybe you should write you congress-(wo)men and ask them. After all, they are the ones who ultimately decided if US troops would be put in harm's way.
 
Posted by alfrin (Member # 3836) on November 23, 2005, 15:33:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChildeRoland:
If you really wanna know why we went to Iraq, maybe you should write you congress-(wo)men and ask them. After all, they are the ones who ultimately decided if US troops would be put in harm's way.

Yea, that'd be like discussing with Jack Thompson that violent video games don't actually train children to cause the next columbine

But that's another issue
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on November 25, 2005, 00:54:
 
Maybe no one understands why countries don't talk about things, so I'll provide some analogies....

Part I: It Takes Two to Tango

Some things are "illegal" but aren't done alone. For example, prostitution ... imagine a "small town":
quote:
Prosecution: Your honor, this woman makes $50 thousand a year as a prostitute.
Judge: She must be very busy. Who were the clients?
(men in courtroom nervously looking away, some go to restroom.)
Prosecution: Uh ... $50 thousand, your honor ... $50 thousand!

Trafficking in stolen goods is the same. Someone has to buy, or it's impossible for the other party to sell. The whole point of the Oil for Food program was that Iraq's oil "belonged to the people" and should be used for their welfare. It was not intended as Saddam's personal golden goose, and economic sanctions were put in place for the specific purpose of preventing Saddam from staying rich and powerful on the profits of Iraqi oil.

Since the UN was responsible for the program, shouldn't buyers of smuggled Iraqi oil be charged with violating UN sanctions? By this time it should be obvious that the UN really doesn't want to "find out" what happened and prosecute anyone. The UN spin seems to be "$11 billion is not a lot of money." Besides, "everyone" has diplomatic immunity, and there's no sense "embarrassing" people.

Part II: Please Shoot Yourself in the Foot for US

It should be clear that the US "profited least" from Saddam's oil schemes. While Saddam was receiving billions of oil dollars, the US was busy trying to eliminate "every possible terrorist funding source." Even if Saddam agreed to report all of Iraq's money laundering and fund transfers in compliance with antiterrorism laws, the likelihood of him obeying was about the same as him not violating UN resolutions -- 0.0%.

Q: How do you get UN member nations to support military action when (1) it costs them money and military resources, (2) they lose a really cheap source of crude oil, (3) they were paid large sums of money not to talk about where the oil came from, and (4) they have to implicate themselves in violating international law?

A: You don't.

Now, the US Senate and Congress may support military action (and they did) based on "he's a real dirt-bag, he's violating international law, and countries that hate us get discount oil from him (oversimplified)." However, the same arguments don't work for international politics.

PS: When the politicians start weeping and praising Saddam for being such a "nice guy," then I might believe Bush "fooled" them (but that doesn't mean I'll respect them). Otherwise, they're just "Monday morning quarterbacks."

Part III: Don't Call Each Other Nasty Names

The number one reason I don't like name-calling in a "debate" is that it coincides with the absence of relevant facts and effort to negotiate a reasonable "peace."

quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
Even our very own REMF Jace believes this.

 - ... take it back Cap'n. I was a REMF. I handled high-bandwidth satellite comms for division level assets. You're not with him, so don't talk about him. BTW, it's American taxpayer money that's wasted by Haliburton. Iraq isn't the one "losing money." (Mind you, I don't appreciate waste of US tax dollars.)

quote:
Originally posted by Black_Pearls_and_Lace:
... ... This is the imperialist goal.
...
... Generosity shouldn't choose.

If the US was really "imperialist" (as you say), we'd be the United States of America with subsidiaries in Europe and Asia (etc etc.).

Are you going to criticize Russia, France, and China for their lack of "generosity" (UN failure to prevent mass killings)? They all have soldiers and money just like the US. "Throwing money" at a problem doesn't always solve it. If "someone" sent $100 trillion to Iraq under Saddam's rule, you can bet that the Kurds and Shiites would still have suffered.

Conversely, it was "in the interest" of the US to remove Saddam from power in Iraq. It would have been really nice if Saddam and sons left Iraq (like Bush asked) and went to live in France, but Saddam made it clear that he was an enemy to the US, would violate international law, and had large amounts of untraceable money to do whatever he pleased. The 9/11 attacks cost an estimated $500,000 ... Saddam could afford that. If he could smuggle a billion dollars of crude oil, why would he have trouble smuggling plastic explosives? For as blatant as his actions were, I'd swear he wanted the US to kill him.

However, it is also in the ultimate (long-term) interest of 80% of Iraq's population not to be ruled by Saddam and his sons. If you like, you could argue that Saddam has been good for world stability and human rights. [shake head]

quote:
Originally posted by ChildeRoland:
If you really wanna know why we went to Iraq, maybe you should write you congress-(wo)men and ask them.

As I said before, you're not going to get "real" answers. They'll say whatever is least likely to cause them to lose the next election.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on November 25, 2005, 03:37:
 
That bloody dog's farted again !
 
Posted by garlicguy (Member # 3166) on November 25, 2005, 12:27:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
They'll say whatever is least likely to cause them to lose the next election.

This is equally true if you change the 'l' in election to an 'r'.
 


© 2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0