Why I Support Our Troops

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 2, 2005 15:49
VIEWED: 13777
PAGE 6 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

G1223

Thursday, July 28, 2005 1:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

G1223 : TANSTAAFL as in gamedev.net?

Nope it means

There
Ain't
No
Such
Thing
As
A
Free
Lunch

It means that if you pay what you want for something even if the cost is just added on to another item. It comes from the novel Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

TANSTAAFL

RUE

Thursday, July 28, 2005 3:17 AM

Hero,

Quote:
an enemy is a nation (or group) that "takes the field in armed conflict" against us

and presented as examples that meet the above definition

Quote:
daily attacks on coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone, an attempt to assanate (sic) a former US President, the Oil for Food fraud, terrorist safe-havens and training camps, medical aid and haven for high ranking terrorists, money for suicide bombers, failure to surrender or leave the country in the face of American invasion (hence taking the field against us in armed conflict). Torture, Murder, and Rape as state institutions

I spent some time looking up what is a legal reason to go to war, and compared them to facts (not claims):

no-fly zone attacks: the US (and Britain) routinely made strikes far outside of the no-fly zone, which escalated before the official US attack on Iraq began. The stated intent was to reduce Iraq infrastructure so they could not defend themselves when the US attacked. I don't think Iraq defending itself against US airstrikes made on sovereign Iraqi soil counts as a legal reason to go to war.

assassination attempt on former president: I tried to find anything that might construe this as a legal justification for war, but couldn't find anything close. (seems perfect for prosecution by the ICC)

oil for food fraud: A reason to attack a country? Not even close! (Perhaps Russia can attack the US b/c of Enron ....)

terrorist camps etc: The only terrorist camps I am aware of operated in Kurdish Iraq under protection of US bombers enforcing the no-fly policy.

failure to surrender or leave the country: That demand in and of itself was an act of war.

torture etc as state institutions: some considered this to be a reason for a 'just war', others did not. Either way, it was not the case made before the UN.

There are different ideas of what is a legitimate justification to go to war, but here are the big two: 1) 'just war' is based on just cause, proper authority, right intention, reasonable chance of success, proportionality of ends, and last resort; and 2) a just war is either a response to attack or a preemptive strike against a sufficient threat to territorial integrity or political sovereignty.

The US attack on Iraq is not covered by either case. Neither is it covered by any supposed attempt to enforce UN sanctions, as the UN Charter requires a specific vote to approve military action under the guise of the UN.

The US said Iraq was an 'imminent threat' in order to meet at least one version of a just war definition. But UN inspectors were well on the way to determining the 'imminence' of the threat when the US attacked. And since then, of course, Iraq was proved to be no threat to US territorial integrity or political sovereignty at all.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 28, 2005 4:10 AM

Quote:
Ignoring his invasion of Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Isreal (since they mostly occured during or prior to 1991), how about this: daily attacks on coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone, an attempt to assanate a former US President, the Oil for Food fraud (the largest fraud in human history, with the possible exception of Barbara Steisand), terrorist safe-havens and training camps, medical aid and haven for high ranking terrorists, money for suicide bombers, failure to surrender or leave the country in the face of American invasion (hence taking the field against us in armed conflict). Torture, Murder, and Rape as state institutions (similar to our local Parks and Rec Department next door to our City law deptartment). Goes on and on.

As do you...heh heh heh... (Sorry! Couldn't resist, it was a perfect oppt'y!!)

Your original defintion of "enemy" was someone who "took to field in armed conflict". That seemed pretty straightforward, so I wondered how Saddam became our "enemy" because he didn't take to ANY field in armed combat, either against us, our interests in the Mideast, or even his neighbors. Apparently, your original definition of "enemy" was misconstructed because none of the "reasons" that you listed seems to fit under that definition. You'll have to either show how that list of reasons falls under your original definition, or you'll have to come up with a new one. Until then...

HERO

Thursday, July 28, 2005 3:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I was not aware that "tar baby" had any racial connotations to anyone on the planet, but I could be much mistaken. If I am, I seriously apologize to everyone here! That is never what I intended.

I'm white, so I'm sure I'm not as qualified as some to comment on racial slurs. But the term is a racial slur going back generations, although it is still in limited us today:

May 20, 2002 News Release:
“TAR-BABY” EPITHET FUELS RACIAL TENSIONS AT REDSTONE
Verbal outrage part of pattern of racism and corruption, minorities charge
"This is the rocket capital of the world, the home of Americas’ weapons of the future,” said RAM Executive Director Matthew Fogg. “But minority employees still have to struggle with obscene prejudices and insults that should have been left in the past after we defeated Jim Crow.” African Americans at Redstone “are afraid of reprisals if they speak out against discrimination”, said Fogg, also a Chief deputy U.S. Marshal. “The racial atmosphere is hostile.”

But if you didn't know, you didn't know. Now you know, although I suspect like many of the other facts I share with you, you might choose to ignore it or else enter some sort of situational compromise. Perhaps only those you disagree with warrant use of racial slurs. Such a double standard is typical of the liberal mindset.

H

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 28, 2005 4:31 PM

CAUTION: Flame-bait.

HERO

Thursday, July 28, 2005 4:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
no-fly zone attacks: the US (and Britain) routinely made strikes far outside of the no-fly zone, which escalated before the official US attack on Iraq began. The stated intent was to reduce Iraq infrastructure so they could not defend themselves when the US attacked. I don't think Iraq defending itself against US airstrikes made on sovereign Iraqi soil counts as a legal reason to go to war.

The attacks began in 1993. Iraq initiated them. US and British planes responded (at the direction of President Clinton) by neutralizing missile batteries in the no-fly zone and selected radar and air-defense infrastructure outside the zone. It was very selected. Only radar units that tracked coalition planes or SAM sites that opened fire would be attacked. This continued right up until the start of American military operations in Iraq.

Quote:

assassination attempt on former president: I tried to find anything that might construe this as a legal justification for war, but couldn't find anything close. (seems perfect for prosecution by the ICC)

The attempt in itself is not enough, but together with everything else it constitutes a pattern of behaivor that rises to the threshold of being justification for war. Thats why the President included it in his recitation of our casus belli before Congress, the UN, and the nation.

If they had succeeded in killing George Bush (the first one) during a 1993 visit to Kuwait, would that have been enough? Yes, I believe so.

Quote:

oil for food fraud: A reason to attack a country? Not even close! (Perhaps Russia can attack the US b/c of Enron ....)

Russia was not a victim of Enron. Nor did Russia have a cease-fire agreement in place that regulated Enron's or American activities, nor did the US use Enron to undermine Russia's strategic global partnerships. And Enron's little scandal is what, one percent that engaged in by Iraq and its corrupt UN, French, German, Syrian (that one's just coming out) and Russian allies.

Quote:

terrorist camps etc: The only terrorist camps I am aware of operated in Kurdish Iraq under protection of US bombers enforcing the no-fly policy.

Well your not quite half right. There was a very large Al-Queda affiliated terrorist camp in the Kurdish region. It was supported by Saddam's government (as a counterweight to Kurdish rebels) and a major consideration in the planning and execution of the Iraq War. Just finished Tommy Franks' book 'American Soldier' which talks about it in great detail. There is also a central Al-Queda figure arrested in Baghdad after the fall or Saddam, he was there for medical treatment. There is also Saddam's support for Palestinian terror groups and the payment of suicide bomber families.

Quote:

failure to surrender or leave the country: That demand in and of itself was an act of war.

It was an ultimatum and an act of war. It was also done in accordance with international law and tradition. We addressed Iraq, in full view of the world community, laid out our casus belli, and issued our ultimatum. Saddam chose to fight and in doing so he and his army became our enemy.

Quote:

torture etc as state institutions: some considered this to be a reason for a 'just war', others did not. Either way, it was not the case made before the UN.

No it was not. Neither was the Holocaust brought before Congress on December 8th, 1941. Regardless of what our cause for war was prior to the invasion, the evidence of mass murder uncovered after the invasion justifies our liberation of that country.

Its like stopping someone for speeding and finding they have murdered someone in the backseat. Your argument would have us punish the speeding, but not the murder because it was not why we stopped them in the first place. Of course you would also argue the validty of the stop. After all its better to set the murderer free to kill again then have a questionable traffic stop. Liberal t

SERGEANTX

Thursday, July 28, 2005 5:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I was not aware that "tar baby" had any racial connotations to anyone on the planet, but I could be much mistaken. If I am, I seriously apologize to everyone here! That is never what I intended.

The specific metaphor of a 'tar-baby' isn't, itself, racial. The racism angle comes into play because of the source. The "Uncle Remus" character, who was portrayed by Joe Harris (and later by Disney) telling these stories, was in many ways sympathetic to the post-civil war caricature of blacks in the south. I'm pretty sure Disney has pulled all reprints of the old movies and has no intention of re-releasing them. Kind of sad in a way, as the stories were re-tellings of black folk-tales that can be traced back to Africa. Another bit of worthwhile culture bites the dust in the name of PC politics.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, July 28, 2005 5:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I was not aware that "tar baby" had any racial connotations to anyone on the planet, but I could be much mistaken. If I am, I seriously apologize to everyone here! That is never what I intended.
The specific metaphor of a 'tar-baby' isn't, itself, racial. The racism angle comes into play because of the source. The "Uncle Remus" character, who was portrayed by Joe Harris (and later by Disney) telling these stories, was in many ways sympathetic to the post-civil war caricature of blacks in the south. I'm pretty sure Disney has pulled all reprints of the old movies and has no intention of re-releasing them. Kind of sad in a way, as the stories were re-tellings of black folk-tales that can be traced back to Africa. Another bit of worthwhile culture bites the dust in the name of PC politics.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

Yeah, that someone would twist authentic black culture into a slur against them is pretty effed up...and pretty typical. Having grown up primarily in black and hispanic neighborhoods I never heard the term used as a racial slur. Interestingly, I spent three years of my high school career at an almost exclusively white school in a very white, very upperclass city. I've never heard more racist hate than I did those three years amoung people who had the least contact with other races. Where there's hate, ignorance can't be far behind.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SEVENPERCENT

Thursday, July 28, 2005 7:17 PM

I hadnt checked the thread in a few days, so allow me to respond, although some of these things may have been addressed in later posts by others-

Quote:
Sevenpercent: You stated that you actually blame Bush for 9/11 because it happened "on his watch". Facts indicate that the attacks were being planned for 3 1/2 years, Bush wasn't in office during that time. Now, I don't mean to imply that I blame the one on watch during that time, but you may what to check out a book called "Derelection of Duty" to find out what was happening during that time.

Sevenpercent (me) did not say this - I did not 'blame Bush' for 9/11, I'm saying that the event happened during his presidency and there is adaquate proof that he misjudged the terror threat from Al-Qaida before the event - My point was that when Bush took office, just as when Clinton took office before him and Bush elder before that, he takes on the mantle of where the buck stops- Whose responsibility is it? It isnt Clinton's, or Reagan's, it's GWB's - 9/11 was Al-Qaida's fault, not Bush's - But using the Clinton defense (blame Bill) as to why it wasnt his responsibility is where I called foul -

Quote:
It falls upon deaf ears and I will not enter argument over irrational,
egoistic chest thumping.

....like you were doing in your little pro-war diatribe to begin with- I could dispute line by line almost every point your friend made, and produce my own email from a friend serving over in Iraq who comes at this from a totally opposite p.o.v., but I'll just pick at this one -

Quote:
Opposing Bush doesn’t support the troops. Opposing the war doesn’t support
the troops.

What an overly simplistic, jingoistic standpoint you have here - "It's not supporting the troops if it isnt done the way we say it should be" - Bah- There are many ways to show your support and care for the men in uniform, but apparently you believe the only true troop support is an uninformed Fox news viewer with a magnetic ribbon on his SUV who says "turn it into a glass parking lot" - Your friend is obviously intelligent, Jadehand, so tell him to use some of that brainpower for more critical thinking, and less repetition of talking points-

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

SIGNYM

Friday, July 29, 2005 1:32 AM

I can think of a LOT of ways to support the troops without supporting Bush or his policies. My FIRST priority of course is that young men and women not be sent to fight, kill, and die for Halliburton. The enlisted take a helluva beating mentally, emotionally, financially and sometimes physically. Latest studies show that 30% of enlisted develop emotional difficulties three months after returning stateside.

But let's grant that some of us will never agree on whether the war was "worth it", I then think about the job the troops are doing and the hardships they face during and after their tour of duty. In some cases, everything from replacement parts to armoring to water to wet-wipes were in short supply. Only the government could solve some of those supply problems- Did anyone write to their Congressmen to make sure that the enlisted had the appropriate armor and supplies? Did anyone send a care package from home? (I did). What about the Bankruptcy Bill (the darling of corporatist Rebublicans) which was originally going to drag down reservists' families who were bankrupt because of extended tours of duty? Did anyone agitate to write in an exemption? And then there is the VA funding, which is far below need. You could always write to your Congressmen (/women) to get that funding increased. (I did)

EDITED TO ADD: And am I the only one gets steamed about the Bush Aministration showering private contractors with six-digit salaries and enless supplies of GOVERNMENT MONEY while the enslisted- who are basically doing the same job- are treated like dirty stepchildren?

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE