Why I Support Our Troops

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

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

OPUS

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 3:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Um...hrm...I don't see any Iraqis on your list. At what point does a third party become the enemy? At what point is it okay to realize we're fighting the wrong people?

Try looking up the name of the leader of the group that shoved a wheelchair bound 69 year old man off the side of a ship.
Then look up where he had taken refuge and when and where he was captured.

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 4:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Opus:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Um...hrm...I don't see any Iraqis on your list. At what point does a third party become the enemy? At what point is it okay to realize we're fighting the wrong people?

Try looking up the name of the leader of the group that shoved a wheelchair bound 69 year old man off the side of a ship.
Then look up where he had taken refuge and when and where he was captured.

Uh..well...okay, have we faught back against that guy enough now? Can we go home now?

And since I've got your ear, how does the whole refusing immoral orders thing go? Can you just go up to your C.O. and tell him you think the war in Iraq is an immoral war of agression and you don't have to go?

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

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 5:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Opus:
Try looking up the name of the leader of the group that shoved a wheelchair bound 69 year old man off the side of a ship.
Then look up where he had taken refuge and when and where he was captured.

Wow. Having one terrorist that committed an act of terror 20 years before this war started is a justification for bombing? Need I remind you that as they check the ID's of most of the foreign-born terrorists and Taliban-ers that the really bad folk are coming straight out of the white-picket-fenced neighborhoods of Saudi Arabia? Yet we hold hands with that country, a country that is noticeably corrupt and noticeably civil-rights deficient but who our Pres calls his good buddies?

When is it a good idea to fight back, you asked? It's a good idea when you know who you are fighting and can achieve some reasonable success by going after them. But, and I'll italicize this so it's emphatic, splinter terrorist groups can't be beaten by conventional warfare. They dont have a home country, they dont fight with conventional tactics, and the more innocents you kill chasing them the more their brand of hate spreads. The CIA has already published reports saying by mucking around in Iraq we've doubled the number of terrorists worldwide and are actually training them better than the Soviets did when this same conflict was going on in Afghanistan (ie, imposing your own form of gov't on people that don't want it).

It really bugs me when I see posts like yours. A wide spectrum of groups causing a wide spectrum of damage for a wide spectrum of reasons (over decades no less) becomes an excuse for the armchair general to toss out the latest glass parking lot theory of diplomacy and human relations. It's ok if a 6-year old gets killed, because her country harbored a terrorist, and ya'know, accidents happen in wartime. Listen to me when I say that while accidents happen, they are never acceptible, especially when it's your child. You think all those insurgents are people who always hated us? Better think again, 'cause the world don't work that way.

That's why it's ok to fight back, as long as you have clear targets and clear goals. This administration has neither. It's not the soldiers' fault. I know several people in service in Iraq right now, friends I grew up with and have known for 30 years. People who say if you dont support the war, you dont support the troops are telling me I'm out to get my own friends? The fuck I am. I tell them myself- You kill whoever you have to kill to do your job and get back home. They have jobs to do, and are trying to make the world work as best they can over there. My job is to ensure that the guys in power don't send them to the wrong places, or if they do, that the guys in power get them back alive.

/end rant

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

OPUS

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 5:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Uh..well...okay, have we faught back against that guy enough now? Can we go home now?

And since I've got your ear, how does the whole refusing immoral orders thing go? Can you just go up to your C.O. and tell him you think the war in Iraq is an immoral war of agression and you don't have to go?

Sure, go ahead, it's immoral to order me to fight there and I won't do it. Then just be able to back it up. If you can't back it up then take your punishment. If you can back it up then you don't have to go and can't be punished.
Or are you supporting the "I was just following orders" idea? So a soldier could shoot a village full of innocents and get off because "he was just following orders"?

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 5:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Opus:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Uh..well...okay, have we faught back against that guy enough now? Can we go home now?

And since I've got your ear, how does the whole refusing immoral orders thing go? Can you just go up to your C.O. and tell him you think the war in Iraq is an immoral war of agression and you don't have to go?

Sure, go ahead, it's immoral to order me to fight there and I won't do it. Then just be able to back it up. If you can't back it up then take your punishment. If you can back it up then you don't have to go and can't be punished.
Or are you supporting the "I was just following orders" idea? So a soldier could shoot a village full of innocents and get off because "he was just following orders"?

Uh, what? "Back it up?" What are you talking about? The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq committed no act of war against this country, ergo we aggressed. What back up do I need to object to something on moral grounds anyway?

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.

OPUS

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 5:47 AM

To save space I'll just put my comments..

Couldn't agree more about going after the Saudi's, but your saddling Bush about his relationship with them is a joke. This country has, under dems and repubs been kissing Saudi butt for decades.

You fight terrorists by going after supporters, which also means countries. Regarding the number of terrorists and how well trained they are? Terrorism didn't start with Iraq or Bush or 9/11, and they didn't SUDDENLY get their expertise since 9/11.
The muslim fanatics have been around for centuries with a rebirth in the early part of the last one. To think you can play nice and win the hearts of people whose religion teaches them that anyone who doesn't agree with their religion should die is ridiculous and dangerous.
The wide spectrum of groups for a wide spectrum of reasons over a long period of time? What's the expiration date for terrorists acts? Most of the acts I showed had one of two motivations, either our support of Isreal or islamic fantaticism, usually a combination of both. Which is what we're still dealing with today. Decades of doing NOTHING is why we have terrorism today.
They aren't insurgence, they are the enemy, terrorists. If you're going give any type justification to the parent of a dead 6 year old who fights the US, then extend the same courtesy to Americans. If they quit killing us then they won't make an enemy of us. Or does that only work for them?
I live in a military town, I know people who are over there I even know one who died. But no one, can use the "I was just following orders" excuse if they do something that is wrong.

OPUS

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 6:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Uh, what? "Back it up?" What are you talking about? The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq committed no act of war against this country, ergo we aggressed. What back up do I need to object to something on moral grounds anyway?

Where did I say they were responsible for 9/11?
So you would never object to something on moral grounds? Or if you did, wouldn't be able to tell why? The soldiers who have refused have used the moral and legal argument. They think it's an illegal and immoral war.
Or are you saying soldiers have no rights to refuse orders they think are wrong? How about Conscientious objectors? Is that about morals or legality?

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 6:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Opus:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Uh, what? "Back it up?" What are you talking about? The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq committed no act of war against this country, ergo we aggressed. What back up do I need to object to something on moral grounds anyway?

Where did I say they were responsible for 9/11?
So you would never object to something on moral grounds? Or if you did, wouldn't be able to tell why? The soldiers who have refused have used the moral and legal argument. They think it's an illegal and immoral war.
Or are you saying soldiers have no rights to refuse orders they think are wrong? How about Conscientious objectors? Is that about morals or legality?

Yikes, Opus, serious miscommunication going on. My mention of 9/11 was my off the cuff "backing it up." My question as to how it worked was sincere. So if I understand you, soldiers have been given alternate duty because they objected to the war in Iraq? If that's true, I'm very glad to hear it.

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

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 6:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Opus:
To save space I'll just put my comments..

Couldn't agree more about going after the Saudi's, but your saddling Bush about his relationship with them is a joke. This country has, under dems and repubs been kissing Saudi butt for decades.

I'm saddling Bush because he's Pres right now, and 9/11 happened under his watch. The 'blame Clinton' argument holds no water with me. The person in power has the ability to change things when he chooses. Past practice should be just that- past.

Quote:
You fight terrorists by going after supporters, which also means countries.

It means countries when applicable. No confirmed links to organized terror means no bombing. The Achille Lauro hijacker, while a terrorist, was not Osama's number one guy.

Quote:
Regarding the number of terrorists and how well trained they are? Terrorism didn't start with Iraq or Bush or 9/11, and they didn't SUDDENLY get their expertise since 9/11.

No, they didnt, and I didnt say that they did. What I said was the indisputable fact that by going after Iraq, we've made them better at it than they ever were. Our own gov't has said so.

Quote:
The muslim fanatics have been around for centuries with a rebirth in the early part of the last one. To think you can play nice and win the hearts of people whose religion teaches them that anyone who doesn't agree with their religion should die is ridiculous and dangerous.
The wide spectrum of groups for a wide spectrum of reasons over a long period of time? What's the expiration date for terrorists acts? Most of the acts I showed had one of two motivations, either our support of Isreal or islamic fantaticism, usually a combination of both. Which is what we're still dealing with today. Decades of doing NOTHING is why we have terrorism today.

No, decades of not learning from our mistakes is why we have terrorism today. You are good at quoting how well they go after our way of life, but dont remember things we do to them (support for their enemies, deposing rulers, working with oppressive govts when it suits us, etc). The US and the western world keeps kicking over anthills and wondering why the ants bite back. I don't support or justify terrorism, but people don't act for no reason- everyone is a product of his/her environment, life events, and the decisions of people in power. They have reasons they hate us, some justified, most not. But the tactic of doing what we want, pissing someone off, then blowing them up hasnt made us any new friends over there for the last 50 years - I think it's time for a new plan.

Quote:
They aren't insurgence, they are the enemy, terrorists. If you're going give any type justification to the parent of a dead 6 year old who fights the US, then extend the same courtesy to Americans. If they quit killing us then they won't make an enemy of us. Or does that only work for them?

See, there you go with that 'they.' Who are 'they?' everyone in the Mid East? Every Muslim? Brown people? Who are 'they?' I want to know who 'they' are before I agree to let my country bomb people. I knew who 'they' were after 9/11; we had a list of names and a regime that supported them. Iraq has no connection to 9/11, even the Pres has said so. And I morally reject warfare on the grounds of regime change, that's the people of that country's job, not ours.

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

SEVENPERCENT

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 6:47 AM

Sorry for the bold - stupid html -

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

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