GStwin.com GS500 Message Forum

The post in the general section about "Stupid MoFo Cagers" and some of the responses got me to thinking...

How is it that the people who do not support the war are unpatriotic? And why do people shove it in our faces when a soldier dies, saying "they died for you!" f%$k that, I didn't want them there in the first place. It's like if my girlfriend went on the Real World and hooked up with a cast member like all the other hoochies do and she runs back to me and says "well I only did it because you got me on that show." shaZam!, I told you not to go, so don't blame me.

If anyone should be getting the "they died for you" speech, it should be our Commander-in-Chimp. He's the brilliant mind who decided to send my cousins and some friends to a country to fight a poorly-thought-out war with no exit strategy and no real goals.

I think I am a patriot because I love my country and the people who live here. However, I am also an occupant of the planet Earth, and thus I love people from other countries. Let's not be bullies and walk around with our big balls and tell other countries how they should live; obviously we aren't doing such a great job here, with all the poverty, crime, and blatant lack of education.

And the argument my f%$king pin-headed Republican roommate gives me wants to make my head explode. When I ask why we are fighting, he says to liberate the people of Iraq from the tyranny they lived in. When I asked why people who are not fighting end up getting killed or captured in Iraq, he says because you never know who is the enemy there, so they all are the enemy. What the f%$k? Are you doing this to hurt or harm them, because you just defended each side.

The point is this: the opponents of the war are not the ones to preach to; give the speech to the moron who put the soldiers over there.

Sorry, but it just kills me.

Bottom line: One can love America, not support the war but yet wish the best for the troops. An American need not buy the party line to still love his/her country, and not supporting the war doesn't mean you don't support the kids we send over there to do our government's bidding.

Problem is, our government has done such a great job of linking support for the war with support for the troops that it's nearly impossible to voice an opinion like this without being branded anti-America.

Watch. I bet I get slammed.

Quote from: hulap0prBottom line: One can love America, not support the war but yet wish the best for the troops. An American need not buy the party line to still love his/her country, and not supporting the war doesn't mean you don't support the kids we send over there to do our government's bidding.

Problem is, our government has done such a great job of linking support for the war with support for the troops that it's nearly impossible to voice an opinion like this without being branded anti-America.

Watch. I bet I get slammed.

No slamming from here- I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.  :thumb:

+1  :thumb:

Quote from: CasiCUANo slamming from here- I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.  :thumb:

Quote from: hulap0prBottom line: One can love America, not support the war but yet wish the best for the troops. An American need not buy the party line to still love his/her country, and not supporting the war doesn't mean you don't support the kids we send over there to do our government's bidding.

Problem is, our government has done such a great job of linking support for the war with support for the troops that it's nearly impossible to voice an opinion like this without being branded anti-America.

Watch. I bet I get slammed.

Exactly, and that's what I'm saying. Of course I want the kids to make it home safe; I'd just rather they never left in the first place.

"Kids." I'm 25, watch out for this creaky old dude!

Dave  :cheers:

No slams here, you pretty much summed it up!

There is nothing unpatriotic about disagreeing with your Government/President/Tribal Chief/King/Prime Minister/Village Elders/Commisars or whatever on a deeply held matter of principle.

I love this country, I support our troops, and I think we're fighting the wrong war.

I have friends and family in the military...  I wish they weren't in the military, but I'm glad that they're willing to make the sacrifice for the rest of us.

War is hell.

A proper military/police force? By whose standards? Oh, ours...right, we are kicking ass there, we should impose our rules onto them.

And these are, a lot of the times, kids with no options. The recruiters don't say "you're going to learn to kill, and you may die." It's all promises of an education, lines about one weekend a month and one week a year, etc. I'd be willing to guess that a lot of bullshit was fed to them before the truth was discovered.

As for my cousin, he went to West Point, so he's just shaZam!-balls crazy.

Dave  :cheers:

Quote from: hulap0prBottom line: One can love America, not support the war but yet wish the best for the troops. An American need not buy the party line to still love his/her country, and not supporting the war doesn't mean you don't support the kids we send over there to do our government's bidding.

Problem is, our government has done such a great job of linking support for the war with support for the troops that it's nearly impossible to voice an opinion like this without being branded anti-America.

Watch. I bet I get slammed.

wow. that college education is paying off...

:thumb:  +1

Quote from: kwong2001
So you're telling me none of these kids learned their history of past wars?  They didn't know about World War 1 + 2, Korean War, or the Vietnam War?  Seriously, it's not like they never knew what the military was about.  

Granted we've gotten very liberal and relaxed on what the military does...but the military's sole purpose is still war, that's why every person who joins the military is taught how to follow orders and kill people.

Also, as far as Iraq, we're only there to keep order and make Iraq self sufficient.  But fact is, we've got everything against us.  Our enemy is an unconventional force in an urban environment which doesn't even remotely follow the geneva convention.  Meanwhile, we're a conventional force bound by the geneva convention.  

We wouldn't loose so many soldiers if we just dropped the geneva convention and let the special forces do what they do best.

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

Quote
My cat's breath smells like cat food.

Ralph, why do you hate America?!

Quote from: kwong2001
It's stupid to want to leave because our troops are dying.  Like I said, our troops signed up knowing full well the risk they could be in, that was their decision.

Kids sign up for the military knowing full well they might have to go off to war someday. No argument there.

The problem is, when they sign up, they also trust that their government isn't going to send them overseas to fight in a war that has little bearing on their country's security. And that trust, as far as I'm concerned, has been violated.

Quote from: hulap0pr
Kids sign up for the military knowing full well they might have to go off to war someday. No argument there.

Right...that's like saying that kids join the football team knowing that they'll have to put on pads and get hit. They join with dreams of whipped-cream-laiden maidens strutting around their houses and giving them sexy times whenever they want. Then the truth hits, and the truth in this case is 280 pounds of man, man!

Dave  :cheers:

QuoteThe problem is, when they sign up, they also trust that their government isn't going to send them overseas to fight in a war that has little bearing on their country's security. And that trust, as far as I'm concerned, has been violated.

that trust was lost in '68,  as one of today's kids we do know that we are going to be fighting oil wars for atleast the next 20 years.  so anyone who signs up claiming that he didn't know is a liar.

i think hulap0pr hit the nail on the head there.


now, i can see the "we broke it, it's our problem now" argument.  i've pretty much always agreed with that.

however, at this point i'm not entirely sure that our presence isn't doing more harm than good.  a lot of the attacks are Iraqi insurgents who see us as an invading force.  if we left, those guys would no longer have any reason to fight.

it's also possible that our presence there is the only thing preventing the entire country being overrun by sectarian fighting.

Quote from: davipuso anyone who signs up claiming that he didn't know is a liar.

not a liar, just a fool.  and all 18 year olds are fools (to varying degrees).

f%$k that, we can't let some stupid Iraqi gain control of Iraq, that's stupid.

All of these points about we cant leave until we fix, insurgents, oil are obviously things our leadership didn't think about before going to war.  It is hard to be diplomatic with people who we share very little in common with in an idealogical sense.  The lack of planning with this war and the complete arrogance is quite disturbing.

Quote from: 2005-GS500-PDXf%$k that, we can't let some stupid Iraqi gain control of Iraq, that's stupid.

Oh, that was sarcasm, by the way.  :kiss:


Dave  :cheers:

Quote from: ajgs500The lack of planning with this war and the complete arrogance is quite disturbing.

:thumb:  That's exactly right.

sheer hubris

Firstly, let me say that I normally try to avoid US domestic political issues but this being a foreign policy issue affects the world and also a lot of my compatriots are involved. Pro-rata to population a similar amount to U.S. at the start.

The lack of pre-planning and what we now call an exit strategy is alarming. OK so we stay untill the locals can take over this and that but to what standard, who decides? will another AH take over? does it matter at least he's their AH?

Unless someone has been really clever and has pre-planned this and so far there is not much evidence of cleverness we are faced with two bad alternatives.

1) Set a future date publicly and get out whatever. The problem is this, a lesson of history. In the 1960s Britain was winding up the semblance of Empire all over the world. One particularly troublesome place was Aden, now South Yemen. A well-meaning government set a date for British withdrawal and independance two years into the future. Instead of having a calming effect the opposite happened, more attacks etc,. The local rival factions fought one another and also made more attacks on the Brits. The factions who could not chuck out the Brits realised that they might be able to get the credit for them going and form the new government so the situation worsened only to be stifled by the draconian action of one Brit commander who earned the name "Mad Mitch" by cracking down extremely hard. Both sides went to extremes; the fighting got worse.

2) Set a date in secret. The problem here is the helicopters-over-Saigon syndrome with order descending into chaos in a scramble to leave which leaves the existing civil authority helpless in the face of warlords and circling vultures.

Hopefully there is some "third way" solution with a gradual and phased pull-out leaving the country's borders intact and some kind of government in place. In the case of Iraq there will be internal power struggles and the possibility of an unwelcome neighbor moving in, unwelcome not only to a lot of the local population but to the West as well.

I just hope our politicians are cleverer than they have appeared so far for the sake of all our compatriots who have the duty of keeping things from degenerating into chaos.  The soldiers are doing what they do, they do it well, they cannot be expected to double for a civil authority, if they do they will be seen more and more as an occupation and present more and more of a target.

My two pennyworth.

I vote for Busch, but I normally vote for Busch Light. Less calories and more common sense than the human Bush.  :kiss:

D  :cheers:

Quote from: hulap0pr

Quote from: kwong2001
It's stupid to want to leave because our troops are dying.  Like I said, our troops signed up knowing full well the risk they could be in, that was their decision.

Kids sign up for the military knowing full well they might have to go off to war someday. No argument there.

The problem is, when they sign up, they also trust that their government isn't going to send them overseas to fight in a war that has little bearing on their country's security. And that trust, as far as I'm concerned, has been violated.

There has not been a war since the Spanish-American War that had a direct effect on this country's security.  WWII / Japan was as close as it's come but guess what?  Hawaii was not a state at the time it was attacked.  The U.S.  has never fought a war to protect itself - always to protect the future of all the countries.  We have taken over Germany twice, Italy twice, France twice, and never kept these countries for ourselves.  The U.S. as a rule "KICKS ASS" then gives the country back to the people that live there, and pays to rebuild everything that was destroyed.   Every war has had the exact same arguments that are posed today.  Read your history books; this has all happened before, time and time again.  If the U.S was like the Middle East there would be no Europe it would be the European States of America.  But no, the big bad U.S.A.  just saves everyone's ass then goes home and waits for it to happen again.

Keep in mind that it is explained to all soldiers very clearly that their first job is soldier (to kill) their second job is the additional schooling the military provides.  It is an all volunteer army, no one is forced to join.

What would happen if your house was being robbed, you called the police and they said, "Well, it's not my house.  I can't come, I might get killed.  Or once I'm there, when do I get to leave?"  The people of Iraq needed Help.  The U.S. stepped up to help them.  That should be commended.  Not looked down upon.  It's along the same lines of stopping to help another rider on the side of the road.  You don't have to do it; you do it because it's the right thing to do.

Japan did have a foothold in Alaska that was held for some time in 42 and 43.
http://www.alaskool.org/projects/ak_military/warmaps.html

they also bombed the lower 48 using balloons in the jetstream.
http://www.seanet.com/~johnco/fugo.htm

Also the attack on Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with Hawaii.  It was the naval center of the Pacific.
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/prelim/phbr-1.htm

So my point is that how is it not a threat to our security when they cripple the Pacific fleet, attack and hold our land, and bomb the rest of us?  Granted it's not London getting nightly firebombing.  But how many times are you going to get slapped in the face before you fight back?

Of course, Alaska wasn't a State then either.  But it was definitely a U.S. possession, so....

Quote from: ktrimThe people of Iraq needed Help.  The U.S. stepped up to help them.  That should be commended.  Not looked down upon.  It's along the same lines of stopping to help another rider on the side of the road.  You don't have to do it; you do it because it's the right thing to do.

You say a lot of things that are absolutely non-sensical so I don't know where to start! :x  You are really naive or delusional I guess.

If the US wanted to help the Iraqi people we would not have supported Saddam for so damn long.  We certainly would not have urged them to rise up against him after Sandbox I and then left their asses out to dry.  Marsh Arabs in the south and Kurds and Turkmens in the north worked alongside CIA and SF folks and we screwed them just like we screwed the Hmong in Vietnam. If we are going to start helping people then there a lot of Tibetans that could use a hand. What about Cubans? Those folks at Tianenmen Square could have used a hand too. We went to Bosnia under Clinton and Repubs bitched and moaned about "nation-building" and said he had to set an exit date. Total combat deaths=1

You try to lecture people on history but your grasp of it suggests your only source was some old SGT Rock comics and a conversation with some drunk at the VFW.  We created these so called terrorists to do our bidding (Hussein vs. Iran & UBL vs. Soviets) and now they are biting the hand that fed them.

Just the other day a Pentagon spokesman reported that there are now 1500 Iraqi militia that are fully combat capable. That means we need to sacrifice about 1 American dead and 10 wounded to train one Iraqi.  If the American people were presented that formula at the begining, how popular would the war be?

Quote from: callmelenny
Just the other day a Pentagon spokesman reported that there are now 1500 Iraqi militia that are fully combat capable. That means we need to sacrifice about 1 American dead and 10 wounded to train one Iraqi.  If the American people were presented that formula at the begining, how popular would the war be?

[/quote

as Ive said before,  read your history  (not the high school version, go to a library and read newspaper articles, magazines,  and what ever else you can find that was printed during other wars)  it would be just as popular as WWII was, same argument.  Hitler was named man of the year by time magazine the year before he invaded poland.  couple years later the U.S. wastes him and his entire country.   there were people that made the same arguments being made today against the revolutionary war.  if they had won there argument then there would be no U.S.  do I agree with everything being done in Iraq ? no.  But I am not in charge of the military,  I have no experiance with warfare.  I have to have faith that the people in charge of the troops know what they are doing.  I do not believe that they wake up in the morning and decide that today they are going to have 20 americans killed and 14 iraq's killed.  I believe the wake up each day and pray that no one on either side gets hurt,  that they pray that the decisions they make are the correct ones.  I believe that the military is doing an excelent job,  if the only info you see is on the 10oclock news your not getting the whole story.  don't believe everything you see on the news or read in USA today.  take the time to do some research and find out for your self.  youll be amazed at how much information your local news/newspaper forgets to include when reporting a story.

Quote from: davipuJapan did have a foothold in Alaska that was held for some time in 42 and 43.
http://www.alaskool.org/projects/ak_military/warmaps.html




it was the alutian islands,  they were there for several months (the western most islan in the string, I dont rember the name.  basically the invaded a couple hundred square feet island in the bering see with nothing on it then got there butts kicked off.




they also bombed the lower 48 using balloons in the jetstream.
http://www.seanet.com/~johnco/fugo.htm



the bombs killed 1 lady and 2 children that found one while hiking.  so 3 people were killed,  we nuked them.



Also the attack on Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with Hawaii.  It was the naval center of the Pacific.
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/prelim/phbr-1.htm



the attack on pearl harbour was designed to scare the U.S away from war.  Japan was planning on a large outcry against war by the public.  (thats what they got,  read the paper)  they still got there butts kicked


So my point is that how is it not a threat to our security when they cripple the Pacific fleet, attack and hold our land, and bomb the rest of us?  Granted it's not London getting nightly firebombing.  But how many times are you going to get slapped in the face before you fight back?

I think you and I are making the same argument from different directions.  It seems that the only threat some people will accept as a reason to go to war Is a Soldier from {insert country of choice here}  attacking them in their living room while there watching the simpsons. after there attacked they'll want to know why the goverment didn't do something sooner.  (kinda like 9/11)

Quote from: ktrimthere were people that made the same arguments being made today against the revolutionary war.

people argued that the British were in no way connected to the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and that they didn't actually have any nuclear or biological weapons?

they argued that the British were on the other side of the planet and presented no military threat to us?

they argued that we had no business messing with the internal affairs of the new world?

they argued that sure, King George is a tyrant, but then why weren't we going after Louis XVI?

Once again you proclaim your ignorance of history!

Quote from: ktrim
as Ive said before,  read your history  (not the high school version, go to a library and read newspaper articles, magazines,  and what ever else you can find that was printed during other wars)  it would be just as popular as WWII was, same argument.

Do you even know what year the US entered the war!!! Why did we sit by and not help all our European kin for 2 years?? Well my history books say American opinon was against the war! [/color]The US had a long period of isolationalism and prominent conservatives like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh and groups like America First worked to keep America out of the war. Only Pearl Harbor changed public opinion.

QuoteHitler was named man of the year by time magazine the year before he invaded poland.  couple years later the U.S. wastes him and his entire country.

Hitler was chosen because the criterium for man of the year is the person who for better or worse" (as Time founder Henry Luce expressed it) had most influenced events of the preceding year. The cover illustration was by a priest that escaped Germany and depicted the evils of Hitler. Remember when bin Laden was almost chosen?


 

QuoteI have no experiance with warfare.  I have to have faith that the people in charge of the troops know what they are doing.

The people in charge: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and the Neocons also have no experience with warfare and demoted, transferred, or "retired" all the military that suggested their little war plan was not a good one.

QuoteI do not believe that they wake up in the morning and decide that today they are going to have 20 americans killed and 14 iraq's killed.  I believe the wake up each day and pray that no one on either side gets hurt,  that they pray that the decisions they make are the correct ones.

I believe they wake each morning and tell each other what a great job their doing. They care about those that die because it hurts their cause; that is why they try to hide the photos of flag draped coffins and require most flights the morgue in Deleware to occur at night. Like you they refuse to look at facts in front of their faces. When their errors and failures are pointed out they simply start talking about something else and pretend the failure was part of the plan (look at the Constituion delays this week)

QuoteI believe that the military is doing an excelent job,  if the only info you see is on the 10oclock news your not getting the whole story.  don't believe everything you see on the news or read in USA today.  take the time to do some research and find out for your self.  youll be amazed at how much information your local news/newspaper forgets to include when reporting a story.

Believe me, I don't trust any one news source. Most of them are too lazy to report original stories or are simply propaganda mills.

I'm not critcizing the military, I'm criticizing the Foreign Policy of the administration. The source of my anger about the war is precisely because of my friends and  family's experience with warfare. Anyone in the military deserves our respect and consideration. That is precisely why they should not be dying in Iraq. If I were called up I would go without hesitation. When I got back I would keep bitching and moaning. We are stressing our military to the breaking point, recuriting is a mess. And if it weren't for contractors we could sustain our current effort. A large uniformed military does not defeat an insurgency in a occupied country. Daddy Bush knew this and he was able to declare victory. Jr. will have no such luck.

Since you can't come up with a logically sound argument for supporting the police action in Iraq, I will provide you one. The US economy will collapse without a steady supply of oil. We are losing bases in Saudi Arabia and need to establish a new presence in the region. We are building new bases in Iraq and other Gulf states to maintain stability in the region. We don't care if the countries are run by despots, religious zealots, or a tribunal of camels.

i believe ktrim's point is that even wars we now recognize as worthwhile were unpopular at the time.

comparisons to WWII are ridiculous for one reason.  Hitler was a threat.  Saddam Hussein wasn't.

"we think he might want to attack someone someday" is not justification for war.

from my corner of the cave;  it's in plain sight that he was planning to retake kuait and iran, to "unify" whatever little arab clan crap that was left after the fighting. to which he then whould have had a rather large portion of the oil supply at his disposial and we couldn't say shaZam! about it. so the govt knowing that he wasn't just going to sit there and tell the un no forever if he didn't have anything to hide. the us used the propaganda machine to inform the us population about the wmd's that were "lurking out in the desert" weather or not the popular opionion says go for it we all know that the wmd's were there seeing as we had maps of all his bunkers and facilitys. basicly the millitary was told whare to look and whare not to.  it's plain and simple though that the media games about wmd's and insurgents carbombing are really just to cover up and smooth over the oil war, which every american who owns a suv soupports through thier excessive use of fuel. but that just goes into the fat lazy american bastard mentality, and that's another thread.    

one other thing.  how does paying china 4 bucks for a f%$king sticker soupport the troops?

Quote from: davipu
one other thing.  how does paying china 4 bucks for a f%$king sticker soupport the troops?

Agreed.

Quote from: davipufrom my corner of the cave;  it's in plain sight that he was planning to retake kuait and iran, to "unify" whatever little arab clan crap that was left after the fighting.

him and what army?

if he'd attacked Kuwait or Iran, we would have had some sort of justification for going in there.

Quote from: davipuweather or not the popular opionion says go for it we all know that the wmd's were there seeing as we had maps of all his bunkers and facilitys.

i may be misunderstanding you, but are you saying that the fact that we had maps of all his facilities but were still unable to find any evidence of WMDs proves they were there?

Turning away the UN inspectors numerious times was enough grounds to send in a UN led invasion, imo, what is the use in enforcement if there are no consquences?  Saddam wasn't stupid.

but he eventually let the inspectors in.  we pulled the inspectors out so we could attack.

i'm not clear on your explanation for why we haven't found these WMDs.

because as long as the general pop is defering thier attention from the real reason (oil control)  gas prices are going to rise, and the big biz will contiue to make money. and it's all about the money.

so, the failure to find WMDs is an intentional distraction to keep people from worrying about gas prices?

yep.  once oil is realized as the reason behind this it will shock the american economy out of it's delusional state of credit for all, and cause china to become the only lender nation left.  but then again americans as a whole are pretty dumb greedy bastards. so this could take 10 years or so.

I think he was just buying himself time.  But I don't defend the decision to go to war at all.  I was against the envasion without full support of the UN (cough french).  But I appreciate Tony Blair's stance too.  

Since we did, and we find ourselves in this position now, I think saddam is truely evil, and that Bush jr has done something that his father wouldn't but should have done a long time ago.  No one should have to live in fear of their countries leadership, but I also think that there is only so much you can do.  At some point (hopefully sooner than later) the iraqi people can stand on their feet.  Then I say we wash our hands of them.

how would finding WMDs show people that it's all about the oil?

i may be completely misunderstanding you here, but i think you were saying there are WMDs but we're intentionally not finding them.

I don't think your missunderstanding just not looking at the full picture.  we knew whare they were the whole time, we still know whare they are, and have them under lock and key.  
but the problem now is that if we go over there and take them back and make a big media show of it then everyone is going to go, why do they say made in usa on them?
seeing as there are several of the conspritors of the iran contra affair in top offices right now under the bush admin. I really don't see that happining.  i do see them fixing the problems that they started over 20 years ago in the arming of the area.  
once you remove the threat of NBC/ WMD then it comes down to why should we give a f%$k about a bunch of camel jockeys (for lack of a better word) that just want to kill each other?

oil.

Quote from: davipubut the problem now is that if we go over there and take them back and make a big media show of it then everyone is going to go, why do they say made in usa on them?

ok.  that's the part i was missing.