Previous
For the politically active of you in the pacific north west, there will be an anti-war rally and march on October 27th, this saturday, at Judkins Park (near 23rd and jackson).For more information, please visit http://www.endthewarseattle.org/
SIERRAK
SENJI
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/25/2007 10:04 AM CDT
I may not agree with the war, but I refuse to take part in any anti war marches. My father fought in Vietnam and has all kinds of horror stories about the anti war types. Ill stay out of it thank you.
Shakahn grins at you.
Shakahn hums to himself.
You ask, "the stonebows, if I was to ever get one altered, think it would fly as an Over the shoulder boulder holder?"
Shakahn laughs!
Shakahn says, "Doubt that part."
Shakahn grins at you.
Shakahn hums to himself.
You ask, "the stonebows, if I was to ever get one altered, think it would fly as an Over the shoulder boulder holder?"
Shakahn laughs!
Shakahn says, "Doubt that part."
SIERRAK
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/25/2007 02:10 PM CDT
Im sure playing DR all day is more important than trying to get our troops home, right SENJI?
MANNOND
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/25/2007 02:17 PM CDT
>I may not agree with the war, but I refuse to take part in any anti war marches. My father fought in Vietnam and has all kinds of horror stories about the anti war types. Ill stay out of it thank you.
Yeah, nothing worse than a bunch a people who think that there ought to be a legitimate reason for our citizens to put their lives on the line...
Seriously, your father wmay well have suffered at the hands of the anti-Vietnam sentiment that engulfed this country in the seventies. But that was not the fault of anti-war protesters as much of a country who desperately wanted to forget a war that we had lost. And to our shame, part of that process was trying to forget the soldiers who had been the greatest American victims of that time.
But we, as a country, have learned our lesson from that: we know now how to separate the soldiers from the politicians who send them to die needlessly. If you think that soldiers are mistreated by anti-war protesters, I'd like to remind you that is those same people who are protesting the war who are also fighting to keep the current administration from stripping soldiers of health and retirement benefits, educational benefits, and even, in the extreme cases, of being welcomed back into this country as the honored dead.
Most of those in the anti-war movement are painfully aware that our soldiers are being misled, abused, and maimed (physically and mentally) for life. The fact that so many of them KNOW this is their fate and still fight, everyday, for a country that hates them (Iraq), a country which in many ignores their sacrifices (the USA), and their fellow soldiers makes them all heroes to those who are against the war (and yes, in SOME cases, all wars). It breaks our hearts. We want them home, we want them safe, and we want them cared for.
Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen
A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.
Yeah, nothing worse than a bunch a people who think that there ought to be a legitimate reason for our citizens to put their lives on the line...
Seriously, your father wmay well have suffered at the hands of the anti-Vietnam sentiment that engulfed this country in the seventies. But that was not the fault of anti-war protesters as much of a country who desperately wanted to forget a war that we had lost. And to our shame, part of that process was trying to forget the soldiers who had been the greatest American victims of that time.
But we, as a country, have learned our lesson from that: we know now how to separate the soldiers from the politicians who send them to die needlessly. If you think that soldiers are mistreated by anti-war protesters, I'd like to remind you that is those same people who are protesting the war who are also fighting to keep the current administration from stripping soldiers of health and retirement benefits, educational benefits, and even, in the extreme cases, of being welcomed back into this country as the honored dead.
Most of those in the anti-war movement are painfully aware that our soldiers are being misled, abused, and maimed (physically and mentally) for life. The fact that so many of them KNOW this is their fate and still fight, everyday, for a country that hates them (Iraq), a country which in many ignores their sacrifices (the USA), and their fellow soldiers makes them all heroes to those who are against the war (and yes, in SOME cases, all wars). It breaks our hearts. We want them home, we want them safe, and we want them cared for.
Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen
A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.
MAGHRIT
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/25/2007 03:29 PM CDT
>>Im sure playing DR all day is more important than trying to get our troops home, right SENJI?
First, lay off the personal attacks eh? Thats uncalled for.
>I may not agree with the war, but I refuse to take part in any anti war marches. My father fought in Vietnam and has all kinds of horror stories about the anti war types. Ill stay out of it thank you.
>>Yeah, nothing worse than a bunch a people who think that there ought to be a legitimate reason for our citizens to put their lives on the line...
Hmm...9/11. They brought us into this "War". Its not really a war much now. Unless you do compare it to Vietnam, in which, its a campaign. Not a "War". Its a War on terrorism, yes. But would you rather it be fought here, in our country, where more citizens can be killed than was on 9/11? I thought not.
>>Seriously, your father wmay well have suffered at the hands of the anti-Vietnam sentiment that engulfed this country in the seventies. But that was not the fault of anti-war protesters as much of a country who desperately wanted to forget a war that we had lost. And to our shame, part of that process was trying to forget the soldiers who had been the greatest American victims of that time
Who let everyone forget? Don't blame the politicians. Everyone turned their back on the Vietnam Vets, not just the politicians. Everyone.
>>But we, as a country, have learned our lesson from that: we know now how to separate the soldiers from the politicians who send them to die needlessly. If you think that soldiers are mistreated by anti-war protesters, I'd like to remind you that is those same people who are protesting the war who are also fighting to keep the current administration from stripping soldiers of health and retirement benefits, educational benefits, and even, in the extreme cases, of being welcomed back into this country as the honored dead.
Than teach that lesson to the younger kids growing up to one day help run our country. Help fight for benefits for our soldiers. You say you now know how to seperate the soldiers from the politicians, but can you? From the way it sounds, you can't my friend. The politicians don't send them to die needlessly, your dead wrong.
The draft is no longer used. Will hopefully (cross my fingers for my childrens sakes) never again happen. These young kids joined the armed services to serve our country, proudly I might add. And are doing a damned good job. They knew the day they took that oath of office they might be asked to give their lives to better protect our country and your life. To better protect your childrens lives. To say congress/politicians did, yes, they declared war on terriorism, but they didn't make them join the armed services, it was a volunteered choice for the better of our country.
>>I'd like to remind you that is those same people who are protesting the war who are also fighting to keep the current administration from stripping soldiers of health and retirement benefits, educational benefits
Than make the protests about that, not about the our young men out there dieing to protect your rights, to protect your freedom, to protect your family. Help fight for their benefits, help fight a fight you can help win for them while they are away fighting to keep terror out of our country, and off our front lawns.
>>Most of those in the anti-war movement are painfully aware that our soldiers are being misled, abused, and maimed (physically and mentally) for life. The fact that so many of them KNOW this is their fate and still fight, everyday, for a country that hates them (Iraq), a country which in many ignores their sacrifices (the USA), and their fellow soldiers makes them all heroes to those who are against the war (and yes, in SOME cases, all wars). It breaks our hearts. We want them home, we want them safe, and we want them cared for.
Most of those in the anti-war movement don't care if the war is brought here to our country again as it was on 9/11. Our soldiers have not been misled by the oath of office the day they raise their hand and promise to defend our country and the constitution of the united states, foreign and domestic. They knew that day, they might be called to help defend our rights, and our freedoms.
You say: The fact that so many of them KNOW this is their fate and still fight, everyday, for a country that hates them.
You are wrong, the country does not hate them. So wrong its not even funny. We would never hate our soldiers for the protection they provide us. Its those in Congress that choose to word things that way. But they are not my speaker, just as you are not my speaker. I give thanks to those soldiers, to those men and women. And I don't think there is a soul out there who would not welcome them back into our country open arms for the many millions of lives they save every day, keeping the fight off our front lawns.
>>a country which in many ignores their sacrifices (the USA)
Your again, dead wrong. Not everyone does. Thats your personal opinion.
>>and their fellow soldiers makes them all heroes to those who are against the war (and yes, in SOME cases, all wars). It breaks our hearts. We want them home, we want them safe, and we want them cared for.
We all do, and it breaks alot of our hearts. But they are there defending you so you can say the things you just said, and live another day in the land of the free.
Don't let Congress or anyone else have you thinking differently. Don't join a rally just because for a reason that doesn't even turn out to be the one your rallying for.
You say your rallying for the troops home, but than say your rallying for benefits for them, than accuse many of us for not caring. You need to sit back and rethink everything you've said. That has just left me offended to how you could ever even say such a thing about those young men and women giving their lives to protect us.
Its you who should be ashamed to not understand fully whats going on in the world my friend, you. Not anyone else.
Ramis and his brood.
First, lay off the personal attacks eh? Thats uncalled for.
>I may not agree with the war, but I refuse to take part in any anti war marches. My father fought in Vietnam and has all kinds of horror stories about the anti war types. Ill stay out of it thank you.
>>Yeah, nothing worse than a bunch a people who think that there ought to be a legitimate reason for our citizens to put their lives on the line...
Hmm...9/11. They brought us into this "War". Its not really a war much now. Unless you do compare it to Vietnam, in which, its a campaign. Not a "War". Its a War on terrorism, yes. But would you rather it be fought here, in our country, where more citizens can be killed than was on 9/11? I thought not.
>>Seriously, your father wmay well have suffered at the hands of the anti-Vietnam sentiment that engulfed this country in the seventies. But that was not the fault of anti-war protesters as much of a country who desperately wanted to forget a war that we had lost. And to our shame, part of that process was trying to forget the soldiers who had been the greatest American victims of that time
Who let everyone forget? Don't blame the politicians. Everyone turned their back on the Vietnam Vets, not just the politicians. Everyone.
>>But we, as a country, have learned our lesson from that: we know now how to separate the soldiers from the politicians who send them to die needlessly. If you think that soldiers are mistreated by anti-war protesters, I'd like to remind you that is those same people who are protesting the war who are also fighting to keep the current administration from stripping soldiers of health and retirement benefits, educational benefits, and even, in the extreme cases, of being welcomed back into this country as the honored dead.
Than teach that lesson to the younger kids growing up to one day help run our country. Help fight for benefits for our soldiers. You say you now know how to seperate the soldiers from the politicians, but can you? From the way it sounds, you can't my friend. The politicians don't send them to die needlessly, your dead wrong.
The draft is no longer used. Will hopefully (cross my fingers for my childrens sakes) never again happen. These young kids joined the armed services to serve our country, proudly I might add. And are doing a damned good job. They knew the day they took that oath of office they might be asked to give their lives to better protect our country and your life. To better protect your childrens lives. To say congress/politicians did, yes, they declared war on terriorism, but they didn't make them join the armed services, it was a volunteered choice for the better of our country.
>>I'd like to remind you that is those same people who are protesting the war who are also fighting to keep the current administration from stripping soldiers of health and retirement benefits, educational benefits
Than make the protests about that, not about the our young men out there dieing to protect your rights, to protect your freedom, to protect your family. Help fight for their benefits, help fight a fight you can help win for them while they are away fighting to keep terror out of our country, and off our front lawns.
>>Most of those in the anti-war movement are painfully aware that our soldiers are being misled, abused, and maimed (physically and mentally) for life. The fact that so many of them KNOW this is their fate and still fight, everyday, for a country that hates them (Iraq), a country which in many ignores their sacrifices (the USA), and their fellow soldiers makes them all heroes to those who are against the war (and yes, in SOME cases, all wars). It breaks our hearts. We want them home, we want them safe, and we want them cared for.
Most of those in the anti-war movement don't care if the war is brought here to our country again as it was on 9/11. Our soldiers have not been misled by the oath of office the day they raise their hand and promise to defend our country and the constitution of the united states, foreign and domestic. They knew that day, they might be called to help defend our rights, and our freedoms.
You say: The fact that so many of them KNOW this is their fate and still fight, everyday, for a country that hates them.
You are wrong, the country does not hate them. So wrong its not even funny. We would never hate our soldiers for the protection they provide us. Its those in Congress that choose to word things that way. But they are not my speaker, just as you are not my speaker. I give thanks to those soldiers, to those men and women. And I don't think there is a soul out there who would not welcome them back into our country open arms for the many millions of lives they save every day, keeping the fight off our front lawns.
>>a country which in many ignores their sacrifices (the USA)
Your again, dead wrong. Not everyone does. Thats your personal opinion.
>>and their fellow soldiers makes them all heroes to those who are against the war (and yes, in SOME cases, all wars). It breaks our hearts. We want them home, we want them safe, and we want them cared for.
We all do, and it breaks alot of our hearts. But they are there defending you so you can say the things you just said, and live another day in the land of the free.
Don't let Congress or anyone else have you thinking differently. Don't join a rally just because for a reason that doesn't even turn out to be the one your rallying for.
You say your rallying for the troops home, but than say your rallying for benefits for them, than accuse many of us for not caring. You need to sit back and rethink everything you've said. That has just left me offended to how you could ever even say such a thing about those young men and women giving their lives to protect us.
Its you who should be ashamed to not understand fully whats going on in the world my friend, you. Not anyone else.
Ramis and his brood.
TAGHZ
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/25/2007 09:35 PM CDT
Al-Qaeda attacks USA.
USA goes after Al-Qaeda.
USA finds Al-Qaeda.
USA fights Al-Qaeda.
Factions of USA want to run from Al-Qaeda.
There are many reason the USA went into Iraq. Some are good some are bad. But, one of them was to fight Al-qaeda. We find Al-qaeda and suddenly these people want to leave Iraq. What gives?
They went there to do a job that no one else would do. War is hell and shouldn't be expected to end in two days. These soldiers lay there lives on the line for us for our freedoms. Many people of our great country have lost there backbone to defend our great nation. I salute those who give there lives for this great country.
Cutting our losses because the war they started is not going the way we want is a dishonor to those who died in this fight. Specially when Al-Qaeda consistently vows to murder innocent people far and wide. If we leave this fight, all of what our forefathers faught for is tarnished!
Our troops have my prayers and full support.
"Democracy alone, of all forms of government, enlists the full force of men's enlightened will...It is the most humane, the most advanced, and, in the end, the most unconquerable of all forms of human society. The democratic aspiration is no mere recent phase of human history...We...would rather die on our feet than live on our knees."
United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his Third Inauguration Speech, January 20, 1941
Crusader Taghz
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother...", William Shakespeare.
USA goes after Al-Qaeda.
USA finds Al-Qaeda.
USA fights Al-Qaeda.
Factions of USA want to run from Al-Qaeda.
There are many reason the USA went into Iraq. Some are good some are bad. But, one of them was to fight Al-qaeda. We find Al-qaeda and suddenly these people want to leave Iraq. What gives?
They went there to do a job that no one else would do. War is hell and shouldn't be expected to end in two days. These soldiers lay there lives on the line for us for our freedoms. Many people of our great country have lost there backbone to defend our great nation. I salute those who give there lives for this great country.
Cutting our losses because the war they started is not going the way we want is a dishonor to those who died in this fight. Specially when Al-Qaeda consistently vows to murder innocent people far and wide. If we leave this fight, all of what our forefathers faught for is tarnished!
Our troops have my prayers and full support.
"Democracy alone, of all forms of government, enlists the full force of men's enlightened will...It is the most humane, the most advanced, and, in the end, the most unconquerable of all forms of human society. The democratic aspiration is no mere recent phase of human history...We...would rather die on our feet than live on our knees."
United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his Third Inauguration Speech, January 20, 1941
Crusader Taghz
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother...", William Shakespeare.
SIERRAK
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/25/2007 09:59 PM CDT
I dont think I need to argue reasons to end this war, two thirds of the nation are allready against it. I have several friends in Iraq as I write this post, I dont want them to die.
The longer we stay in Iraq, the more people will hate the US, and thus more terrorism against us will ensue.
The longer we stay in Iraq, the more people will hate the US, and thus more terrorism against us will ensue.
TAGHZ
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/25/2007 10:10 PM CDT
"I have several friends in Iraq as I write this post, I dont want them to die."
War is cruel and is not something that any sane person wants. We all have friends who have served and are currently serving. I wish the best for our troops and pray for there safety.
Crusader Taghz
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother...", William Shakespeare.
War is cruel and is not something that any sane person wants. We all have friends who have served and are currently serving. I wish the best for our troops and pray for there safety.
Crusader Taghz
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother...", William Shakespeare.
SENJI
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/26/2007 12:06 AM CDT
I support the soldiers yes, I dont support a war that was started for the wrong reasons. Going after Osama is one thing, invading another country for percieved weapons of mass destruction is not a valid reasons and mark my words bush will try to get the us involved with iran before he leaves office. I thank god Im to old for the draft now if its started up again.
Anyway I support the soldiers, just not the government that sends them out. I vote, I have the right to voice my opinion. if you dont vote, then you dont have the right to complain.
As for playing DR all day, I dont. If anyone knows about my ID here on DR, theyd know that was a bum call because Ive allready announced my retirement from DR. Nice call there ::snicker::
Anyway I support the soldiers, just not the government that sends them out. I vote, I have the right to voice my opinion. if you dont vote, then you dont have the right to complain.
As for playing DR all day, I dont. If anyone knows about my ID here on DR, theyd know that was a bum call because Ive allready announced my retirement from DR. Nice call there ::snicker::
SIERRAK
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/26/2007 03:11 AM CDT
Voting will not end this war. If you disagree, please consider last year, when a democratic congress was elected to end the Iraq war, and since then they have made no real efforts, and just recently approved a 70 billion dollar budget for continuing the war through 2008 alone, also consider the fact that no leading democrat party canidate for the presidency will say that they will end the war by the end of their first term in 2013.
SENJI
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/26/2007 09:09 AM CDT
true. voting wont end the war, but it does give me the right to complain about it.
Theres some other things I would like to say, but allready Im amazed that the board mods havent pulled these posts as conflicts, I normally dont discuss politics because where they allways end up at. Anyway, if I post what I really want, the posts would get pulled. so Im gonna leave this as my final post on the topic.
Anti war demontrators invariably in my experience are anti soldier. I support the soldiers by not attending the anti war demonstrations that will inevitably lead in time to anti soldier demonstrations of the 70's. As soon as the "enemy" of the USA figures out they can brainwash children into being human bombs just like in Vietnam, how quick do you think the common citizen will take to calling soldiers baby killers again? No thank you. Not me. Theres allways more to the story than what people see.
Theres some other things I would like to say, but allready Im amazed that the board mods havent pulled these posts as conflicts, I normally dont discuss politics because where they allways end up at. Anyway, if I post what I really want, the posts would get pulled. so Im gonna leave this as my final post on the topic.
Anti war demontrators invariably in my experience are anti soldier. I support the soldiers by not attending the anti war demonstrations that will inevitably lead in time to anti soldier demonstrations of the 70's. As soon as the "enemy" of the USA figures out they can brainwash children into being human bombs just like in Vietnam, how quick do you think the common citizen will take to calling soldiers baby killers again? No thank you. Not me. Theres allways more to the story than what people see.
TYCH
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/26/2007 10:03 AM CDT
<< I vote, I have the right to voice my opinion. if you dont vote, then you dont have the right to complain.
Actually you do have the right to complain even if you don't vote. Perhaps not in your mind, but people still have the right to. Its called the First Amendment. You don't have to like their complaint or even listen to it and chances are if you disagree with their complaint you probably wouldn't like or listen to it anyways.
I use the term you in the most general sense of the word.
Drevid
http://www.phiiskeep.homestead.com/Barbarian.html
Venic smiles as he sticks his copper bead in one nostril, covers the other one, and exhales forcefully, shooting the bead directly at Drevid!
Actually you do have the right to complain even if you don't vote. Perhaps not in your mind, but people still have the right to. Its called the First Amendment. You don't have to like their complaint or even listen to it and chances are if you disagree with their complaint you probably wouldn't like or listen to it anyways.
I use the term you in the most general sense of the word.
Drevid
http://www.phiiskeep.homestead.com/Barbarian.html
Venic smiles as he sticks his copper bead in one nostril, covers the other one, and exhales forcefully, shooting the bead directly at Drevid!
SIERRAK
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/26/2007 12:52 PM CDT
>>Anti war demontrators invariably in my experience are anti soldier.
How much experiance do you have with anti war demonstrators? Have you ever been to an anti war rally? I think that if you did, you would see that many protesters are vets themselves, or family and friends of those overseas. We want an end to this war for oil, if this were truely a war on terror, why have we not interviened in the genocide in Darfur, or the dictatorship that is being installed in Myanmar?
How much experiance do you have with anti war demonstrators? Have you ever been to an anti war rally? I think that if you did, you would see that many protesters are vets themselves, or family and friends of those overseas. We want an end to this war for oil, if this were truely a war on terror, why have we not interviened in the genocide in Darfur, or the dictatorship that is being installed in Myanmar?
JMF90
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/26/2007 01:02 PM CDT
Just wanted to drop in and say Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, please don't spread misinformation.
SENJI
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/26/2007 05:24 PM CDT
points up to what JMF90 posted.
Shakahn grins at you.
Shakahn hums to himself.
You ask, "the stonebows, if I was to ever get one altered, think it would fly as an Over the shoulder boulder holder?"
Shakahn laughs!
Shakahn says, "Doubt that part."
Shakahn grins at you.
Shakahn hums to himself.
You ask, "the stonebows, if I was to ever get one altered, think it would fly as an Over the shoulder boulder holder?"
Shakahn laughs!
Shakahn says, "Doubt that part."
MANNOND
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/26/2007 05:33 PM CDT
>Hmm...9/11. They brought us into this "War". Its not really a war much now. Unless you do compare it to Vietnam, in which, its a campaign. Not a "War". Its a War on terrorism, yes. But would you rather it be fought here, in our country, where more citizens can be killed than was on 9/11? I thought not.
Um, we were attacked by Al Qaeda. There were no Al Qaeda in Iraq until AFTER we invaded that country. I fully support us going in Afghanistan, which was sheltering Al Qaeda (and I wish we would finish the job there). But Saddam Hussein managed to unite Iraq only by crushing religious difference. He was a sectarian, and as such, he refused to have anything to do with Al Qaeda because they were religious zealots. Even the President said, and I quote: "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the (sic) September the 11th." There is still no evidence tat he was involved. What we do know is that the majority of the highjackers were from Saudi Arabia and that most of the money that funded the operation came from Saudi sources. If you want to argue that "they" brought us into the war, let's at least be talking the correct "they."
>>But that was not the fault of anti-war protesters as much of a country who desperately wanted to forget a war that we had lost. And to our shame, part of that process was trying to forget the soldiers who had been the greatest American victims of that time
>Who let everyone forget? Don't blame the politicians. Everyone turned their back on the Vietnam Vets, not just the politicians. Everyone.
You'll notice I never said the politicians forgot. I said "much of the country." That's not everyone, as there were people trying to plead for the plight of the vets. But it was almost everyone. So I guess we already agreed on this point. :)
>You say you now know how to seperate the soldiers from the politicians, but can you? From the way it sounds, you can't my friend. The politicians don't send them to die needlessly, your dead wrong.
Where is your proof for this? I make a clear distinction between the politicians and the soldiers. And if the politicians did not send them to die needlessly, then who did?
>The draft is no longer used. Will hopefully (cross my fingers for my childrens sakes) never again happen. These young kids joined the armed services to serve our country, proudly I might add. And are doing a damned good job. They knew the day they took that oath of office they might be asked to give their lives to better protect our country and your life. To better protect your childrens lives. To say congress/politicians did, yes, they declared war on terriorism, but they didn't make them join the armed services, it was a volunteered choice for the better of our country.
Again, I admire the soldiers: it's why I want them treated better and only put in harm's way when this country is actually in danger. They joined the armed services with that exact understanding: the president and Congress will have my service and they will not abuse that trust by deploying me to a war that is not in the best interest of this country. The war in Iraq is not and never was in our best interest. We were not in any danger from Saddam Hussein. Hell, the man offered to leave Iraq completely for a billion dollars. But now we have lost thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars and we are actually worse of than we were before. That money could have been spent to finish the war in Afghanistan, to close the Afghan/Pakistani border, to monitor shipping into this country, to train our police and other emergency workers to deal with terrorist attack. Heck, we can't even afford to put some of our poorer kinds on health insurance because of the boondoogle of Iraq.
>Than make the protests about that, not about the our young men out there dieing to protect your rights, to protect your freedom, to protect your family. Help fight for their benefits, help fight a fight you can help win for them while they are away fighting to keep terror out of our country, and off our front lawns.
Um, Iraq was not about to invade us. Not even close. We had him boxed in and contained.
Oh, and I can do more than one thing at a time. I want them safe AND well-cared for. DOn't you?
>Most of those in the anti-war movement don't care if the war is brought here to our country again as it was on 9/11.
If those soldiers were actually fighting the war on terrorism, I'd agree. But the ones in Iraq are mostly just trying to hold ground against the insurgents who never would have been any threat to us if we hadn't invaded their country...a country which never attacked us.
>You say: The fact that so many of them KNOW this is their fate and still fight, everyday, for a country that hates them.
>You are wrong, the country does not hate them. So wrong its not even funny. We would never hate our soldiers for the protection they provide us.
Actually, it would be better to quote me exactly so you don't get confused (because you either got confused at this point or you are blatantly lying about what I said. Here is the actual quote from my original post:
"The fact that so many of them KNOW this is their fate and still fight, everyday, for a country that hates them (Iraq), a country which in many ignores their sacrifices (the USA), and their fellow soldiers makes them all heroes to those who are against the war (and yes, in SOME cases, all wars)."
I never said that the USA hated them. I said Iraq did. Our soldiers are fighting to stabilize Iraq--and, yes, the majority of Iraq now hates them.
>>a country which in many ignores their sacrifices (the USA)
>Your again, dead wrong. Not everyone does. Thats your personal opinion.
FIne, name the sacrifices that the rest of us are making to support them. Paying higher taxes to finance the war? Rationing supplies? Converting our manufacturing plants en masse to produce the vehicles that they need to protect them from the IEDs? You know, like we did during WWII?
The only people I see making sacrifices, real ones, are the families and sometimes friends of these poor soldiers. Taking up collections to buy body armor and things like that.
>You say your rallying for the troops home, but than say your rallying for benefits for them, than accuse many of us for not caring. You need to sit back and rethink everything you've said. That has just left me offended to how you could ever even say such a thing about those young men and women giving their lives to protect us.
Well, since you did not stick to what I wrote, put words into my mouth and then attacked me for what you said I said, I could understand that. But everything I said here is what I have said to many Iraqi vets. And you know, not one of them has disagreed with me on any of these points. Many have told me how much WORSE it is over there than anyone here can know. On more than one occasion, I've had a vet break down crying in my arms when I said these things, only to have them look up at me and say: "My buddies are still there...how do we get them home?
You know, if you went to one of these rallies, I think you would be surprised. The number of vets who show up at them are surprising, even to those of us who have been against the war in Iraq from the start. And many of these Iraq vets are running for office just to bring an end to this war. Are they as unpatriotic as you believe the rest of us to be?
Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen
A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.
Um, we were attacked by Al Qaeda. There were no Al Qaeda in Iraq until AFTER we invaded that country. I fully support us going in Afghanistan, which was sheltering Al Qaeda (and I wish we would finish the job there). But Saddam Hussein managed to unite Iraq only by crushing religious difference. He was a sectarian, and as such, he refused to have anything to do with Al Qaeda because they were religious zealots. Even the President said, and I quote: "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the (sic) September the 11th." There is still no evidence tat he was involved. What we do know is that the majority of the highjackers were from Saudi Arabia and that most of the money that funded the operation came from Saudi sources. If you want to argue that "they" brought us into the war, let's at least be talking the correct "they."
>>But that was not the fault of anti-war protesters as much of a country who desperately wanted to forget a war that we had lost. And to our shame, part of that process was trying to forget the soldiers who had been the greatest American victims of that time
>Who let everyone forget? Don't blame the politicians. Everyone turned their back on the Vietnam Vets, not just the politicians. Everyone.
You'll notice I never said the politicians forgot. I said "much of the country." That's not everyone, as there were people trying to plead for the plight of the vets. But it was almost everyone. So I guess we already agreed on this point. :)
>You say you now know how to seperate the soldiers from the politicians, but can you? From the way it sounds, you can't my friend. The politicians don't send them to die needlessly, your dead wrong.
Where is your proof for this? I make a clear distinction between the politicians and the soldiers. And if the politicians did not send them to die needlessly, then who did?
>The draft is no longer used. Will hopefully (cross my fingers for my childrens sakes) never again happen. These young kids joined the armed services to serve our country, proudly I might add. And are doing a damned good job. They knew the day they took that oath of office they might be asked to give their lives to better protect our country and your life. To better protect your childrens lives. To say congress/politicians did, yes, they declared war on terriorism, but they didn't make them join the armed services, it was a volunteered choice for the better of our country.
Again, I admire the soldiers: it's why I want them treated better and only put in harm's way when this country is actually in danger. They joined the armed services with that exact understanding: the president and Congress will have my service and they will not abuse that trust by deploying me to a war that is not in the best interest of this country. The war in Iraq is not and never was in our best interest. We were not in any danger from Saddam Hussein. Hell, the man offered to leave Iraq completely for a billion dollars. But now we have lost thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars and we are actually worse of than we were before. That money could have been spent to finish the war in Afghanistan, to close the Afghan/Pakistani border, to monitor shipping into this country, to train our police and other emergency workers to deal with terrorist attack. Heck, we can't even afford to put some of our poorer kinds on health insurance because of the boondoogle of Iraq.
>Than make the protests about that, not about the our young men out there dieing to protect your rights, to protect your freedom, to protect your family. Help fight for their benefits, help fight a fight you can help win for them while they are away fighting to keep terror out of our country, and off our front lawns.
Um, Iraq was not about to invade us. Not even close. We had him boxed in and contained.
Oh, and I can do more than one thing at a time. I want them safe AND well-cared for. DOn't you?
>Most of those in the anti-war movement don't care if the war is brought here to our country again as it was on 9/11.
If those soldiers were actually fighting the war on terrorism, I'd agree. But the ones in Iraq are mostly just trying to hold ground against the insurgents who never would have been any threat to us if we hadn't invaded their country...a country which never attacked us.
>You say: The fact that so many of them KNOW this is their fate and still fight, everyday, for a country that hates them.
>You are wrong, the country does not hate them. So wrong its not even funny. We would never hate our soldiers for the protection they provide us.
Actually, it would be better to quote me exactly so you don't get confused (because you either got confused at this point or you are blatantly lying about what I said. Here is the actual quote from my original post:
"The fact that so many of them KNOW this is their fate and still fight, everyday, for a country that hates them (Iraq), a country which in many ignores their sacrifices (the USA), and their fellow soldiers makes them all heroes to those who are against the war (and yes, in SOME cases, all wars)."
I never said that the USA hated them. I said Iraq did. Our soldiers are fighting to stabilize Iraq--and, yes, the majority of Iraq now hates them.
>>a country which in many ignores their sacrifices (the USA)
>Your again, dead wrong. Not everyone does. Thats your personal opinion.
FIne, name the sacrifices that the rest of us are making to support them. Paying higher taxes to finance the war? Rationing supplies? Converting our manufacturing plants en masse to produce the vehicles that they need to protect them from the IEDs? You know, like we did during WWII?
The only people I see making sacrifices, real ones, are the families and sometimes friends of these poor soldiers. Taking up collections to buy body armor and things like that.
>You say your rallying for the troops home, but than say your rallying for benefits for them, than accuse many of us for not caring. You need to sit back and rethink everything you've said. That has just left me offended to how you could ever even say such a thing about those young men and women giving their lives to protect us.
Well, since you did not stick to what I wrote, put words into my mouth and then attacked me for what you said I said, I could understand that. But everything I said here is what I have said to many Iraqi vets. And you know, not one of them has disagreed with me on any of these points. Many have told me how much WORSE it is over there than anyone here can know. On more than one occasion, I've had a vet break down crying in my arms when I said these things, only to have them look up at me and say: "My buddies are still there...how do we get them home?
You know, if you went to one of these rallies, I think you would be surprised. The number of vets who show up at them are surprising, even to those of us who have been against the war in Iraq from the start. And many of these Iraq vets are running for office just to bring an end to this war. Are they as unpatriotic as you believe the rest of us to be?
Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen
A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.
DAE83
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/26/2007 07:39 PM CDT
<<But Saddam Hussein managed to unite Iraq only by crushing religious difference. He was a sectarian, and as such, he refused to have anything to do with Al Qaeda because they were religious zealots>>
I really do implore those who go to anti-war marches to become better educated about the situatoin in Iraq as well as Islam as a whole. This is not an attack but a general request and comment.
I'll correct you on this point and it really does bother me to have read something like this because it gets at a key issue with the majority of American condition. Which is tied to being lazy and allowing the news more control over our knowledge base rather than doing research for ourselves.
Sectarian is not a religious sect nor one that Saddam was, he was a Sunni Muslim and not even a very avid one at that.
Sectarian refers to the different sects that exist within Islam the main ones being the Sufi, Sunni, and Shi'ite. Spelling of those can vary and has varied over the years. Even within those groups there are other sects, which have opposing views. Pretty much think of Christianity and all the different values and variations among different Christian churches and then you will start to have a better, not complete, but better understanding of the root of the conflict.
Regardless I won't go deeper into the conflicts and complexities, just that part of the post really rubbed a nerve. Have a good day.
"So like I said, don't take it personally. All cultures have their share of fools. It's just that we always felt yours had a lot more than ours."
~~Warrior Mage Guild Leader Senfrislor, The Prydaen in Their Own Words~~
MANNOND
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/26/2007 08:50 PM CDT
>I really do implore those who go to anti-war marches to become better educated about the situatoin in Iraq as well as Islam as a whole. This is not an attack but a general request and comment.
Sorry, I meant "secularist," which I'm sure you agree he was. Probably looked pretty strange in the middle of the argument I was making.
However, I find the fact that you are telling those of us who are against the war that we need to be better educated ironic considering the inaccuracies that underpinned the post I was responding to.
Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen
A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.
Sorry, I meant "secularist," which I'm sure you agree he was. Probably looked pretty strange in the middle of the argument I was making.
However, I find the fact that you are telling those of us who are against the war that we need to be better educated ironic considering the inaccuracies that underpinned the post I was responding to.
Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen
A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.
KOUGEN
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/26/2007 09:31 PM CDT
So much I want to say in response to all of this, and equally much I can't say for a variety of reasons. I'll have to settle for this -
>We want them home, we want them safe, and we want them cared for.
I appreciate the sentiment, but then what would we be doing, and who would be doing our job?
~ Sage Kougen Aensworth, Star Shaper of the Compact
Ruea says, "I swear, I'm forsaking Damaris and building an altar to you."
>We want them home, we want them safe, and we want them cared for.
I appreciate the sentiment, but then what would we be doing, and who would be doing our job?
~ Sage Kougen Aensworth, Star Shaper of the Compact
Ruea says, "I swear, I'm forsaking Damaris and building an altar to you."
MANNOND
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/26/2007 09:45 PM CDT
>>We want them home, we want them safe, and we want them cared for.
>I appreciate the sentiment, but then what would we be doing, and who would be doing our job?
It was never our "job" to invade Iraq. So I guess we would be finishing the war in Afghanistan, holding the Afghani/Pakistani border, and actually fighting Al Qaeda in a effective way, rather than invading (and threatening to invade, in the case of Iran), countries which did not attack us and whose governments were not actively in cahoots with Al Qaeda.
As to who would finish what we screwed up in Iraq, I think that would best be left in the hands of a UN-organized pan-Arab force. People who would not be seen as invaders and occupiers. Our leaders have done something terrible in our name and most of us went along willingly (although we were lied to about it). And certainly I don't think that leaving a power-vacuum is the answer--that's what created much of the problem in Afghanistan. We cannot abandon our responsibility to fix the chaos we created. But we are simply incapable of fixing the problem militarily. Iraq requires a politic solution. Most of the countries in the Middle East have begged us to let them help to fix the problem. Perhaps they will have a lot more success at it. It is hard to imagine more Iraqis and Americans dying under a true coalitional effort than are dying now.
Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen
A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.
>I appreciate the sentiment, but then what would we be doing, and who would be doing our job?
It was never our "job" to invade Iraq. So I guess we would be finishing the war in Afghanistan, holding the Afghani/Pakistani border, and actually fighting Al Qaeda in a effective way, rather than invading (and threatening to invade, in the case of Iran), countries which did not attack us and whose governments were not actively in cahoots with Al Qaeda.
As to who would finish what we screwed up in Iraq, I think that would best be left in the hands of a UN-organized pan-Arab force. People who would not be seen as invaders and occupiers. Our leaders have done something terrible in our name and most of us went along willingly (although we were lied to about it). And certainly I don't think that leaving a power-vacuum is the answer--that's what created much of the problem in Afghanistan. We cannot abandon our responsibility to fix the chaos we created. But we are simply incapable of fixing the problem militarily. Iraq requires a politic solution. Most of the countries in the Middle East have begged us to let them help to fix the problem. Perhaps they will have a lot more success at it. It is hard to imagine more Iraqis and Americans dying under a true coalitional effort than are dying now.
Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen
A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.
TYCH
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/26/2007 10:05 PM CDT
Really... really.. with ALL the other boards out there for this stuff you have to bring this crap into our little refuge from the real world?
You made your little protest announcement, now let it go. You are not going to say anything that will change the minds of the other side and they won't say anything that will change your mind.
Drevid
http://www.phiiskeep.homestead.com/Barbarian.html
Venic smiles as he sticks his copper bead in one nostril, covers the other one, and exhales forcefully, shooting the bead directly at Drevid!
You made your little protest announcement, now let it go. You are not going to say anything that will change the minds of the other side and they won't say anything that will change your mind.
Drevid
http://www.phiiskeep.homestead.com/Barbarian.html
Venic smiles as he sticks his copper bead in one nostril, covers the other one, and exhales forcefully, shooting the bead directly at Drevid!
RAGE4U13
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/27/2007 05:28 AM CDT
First of all, everybody in our military VOLUNTEERS to join. Nobody forces us, this isnt a draft. when we sign a paper, we understand that this is the military, and the priority of the miltiary is war. Its not to squeeze money for school out of the govt, or to get a nice down payment on a house, or to receive health and welfare benefits. Its to fight wars.
My personal opinion is, the main reason why things are so bad their is the inability to secure the borders of Iraq, allowing insurgents and munitions to flow freely into iraq. Then again, how can we secure their borders, when we cant even secure our own. But thats another story.
There are problems with every war though, and the fact we live in the microwave age, and expect things to be done in 2 minutes or less, makes a long and costly war such as this even worse. We all know how impatient we Americans are.
And did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11? of course not, who ever said it did? Iraq was, and now Iran and Syria are, researching and producing NUCLEAR weapons. If terrorists can turn a plane into a bomb, imagine what they can do with nuclear material. Iraq may have been a patsy, but the fact is, they have in the past tried to aquire nuclear componets, and still tried to do it again before the war. Does anybody find it odd that right before the war begins, cargo shipments went to Syria and Iran, and now both those countries have nuclear programs? Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, but 9/11 had EVERYTHING to do with Iraq.
If we protest the war in iraq, to cry for our men and women to come home, whats going to happen if and when we have to send soldiers to Iran? Or worse, what will happen when we protest the fact that we didnt send soldiers their, and in turn, somebody sets off a nuclear explosion in a US city, killing millions? will those who protest war, instead, protest the lack of a war?
And just a note ,its 3:30 in the morning, so excuse the grammer errors and such.
My personal opinion is, the main reason why things are so bad their is the inability to secure the borders of Iraq, allowing insurgents and munitions to flow freely into iraq. Then again, how can we secure their borders, when we cant even secure our own. But thats another story.
There are problems with every war though, and the fact we live in the microwave age, and expect things to be done in 2 minutes or less, makes a long and costly war such as this even worse. We all know how impatient we Americans are.
And did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11? of course not, who ever said it did? Iraq was, and now Iran and Syria are, researching and producing NUCLEAR weapons. If terrorists can turn a plane into a bomb, imagine what they can do with nuclear material. Iraq may have been a patsy, but the fact is, they have in the past tried to aquire nuclear componets, and still tried to do it again before the war. Does anybody find it odd that right before the war begins, cargo shipments went to Syria and Iran, and now both those countries have nuclear programs? Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, but 9/11 had EVERYTHING to do with Iraq.
If we protest the war in iraq, to cry for our men and women to come home, whats going to happen if and when we have to send soldiers to Iran? Or worse, what will happen when we protest the fact that we didnt send soldiers their, and in turn, somebody sets off a nuclear explosion in a US city, killing millions? will those who protest war, instead, protest the lack of a war?
And just a note ,its 3:30 in the morning, so excuse the grammer errors and such.
MANNOND
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/27/2007 11:37 PM CDT
>And did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11? of course not, who ever said it did? Iraq was, and now Iran and Syria are, researching and producing NUCLEAR weapons.
Iraq was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program when we invaded, according to all of the groups specifically tasked with monitoring Iraq after the first Gulf war (see http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html, but to sum up, the CIA report concluded: "The Iraq Survey Group, however, has uncovered no indication that Iraq had
resumed fissile material or nuclear weapon research and development activities since 1991."). The "mushroom cloud" that Bush and Rice said threatened us was a lie that we were told to justify the invasion (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html).
>Does anybody find it odd that right before the war begins, cargo shipments went to Syria and Iran, and now both those countries have nuclear programs?
Okay, please stop watching Faux News and letting Hannity fill your head with this stuff. Iran and Syria have had nuclear programs for a lot longer than since 2001-3. So have we, North Korea, Israel, the Soviet Union, and Pakistan. If you're worried about unstable nations with nuclear weapons capabilities, Pakistan and North Korea are the real concerns as both already HAVE nuclear weapons and have incredibly unstable governments who have no issue with starting a nuclear war.
Please, you need to read a newpaper or start watching the BBC. You are being woefully misinformed and you are spouting the talking points of hacks who, no matter how many time experts correct them, continue to broadcast this tripe to an unsuspecting and unquestioning audience.
>If we protest the war in iraq, to cry for our men and women to come home, whats going to happen if and when we have to send soldiers to Iran?
This time, most of us are smart enough not to believe the lies that are being fed to us again. Iran was and is far less of a threat than about a dozen other places in the world.
>Or worse, what will happen when we protest the fact that we didnt send soldiers their, and in turn, somebody sets off a nuclear explosion in a US city, killing millions?
Do you really believe that the terrorists are really so stupid that they can't buy a map and figure out to get here? Since we are helping them to recruit more young men and women into radical Islam by occupying their lands, we are actually incerasing the number of people willing to die in making such an attempt.
Fighting them "other there" does zero to keep them from smuggling a bomb here. In fact, if we weren't wasting our time there, we could be using many of those soldiers to guard our ports and our water supply. In other words, we are endangering our nation by continuing the fight over there. Our soldiers could be deployed much more wisely.
Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen
A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.
Iraq was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program when we invaded, according to all of the groups specifically tasked with monitoring Iraq after the first Gulf war (see http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html, but to sum up, the CIA report concluded: "The Iraq Survey Group, however, has uncovered no indication that Iraq had
resumed fissile material or nuclear weapon research and development activities since 1991."). The "mushroom cloud" that Bush and Rice said threatened us was a lie that we were told to justify the invasion (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html).
>Does anybody find it odd that right before the war begins, cargo shipments went to Syria and Iran, and now both those countries have nuclear programs?
Okay, please stop watching Faux News and letting Hannity fill your head with this stuff. Iran and Syria have had nuclear programs for a lot longer than since 2001-3. So have we, North Korea, Israel, the Soviet Union, and Pakistan. If you're worried about unstable nations with nuclear weapons capabilities, Pakistan and North Korea are the real concerns as both already HAVE nuclear weapons and have incredibly unstable governments who have no issue with starting a nuclear war.
Please, you need to read a newpaper or start watching the BBC. You are being woefully misinformed and you are spouting the talking points of hacks who, no matter how many time experts correct them, continue to broadcast this tripe to an unsuspecting and unquestioning audience.
>If we protest the war in iraq, to cry for our men and women to come home, whats going to happen if and when we have to send soldiers to Iran?
This time, most of us are smart enough not to believe the lies that are being fed to us again. Iran was and is far less of a threat than about a dozen other places in the world.
>Or worse, what will happen when we protest the fact that we didnt send soldiers their, and in turn, somebody sets off a nuclear explosion in a US city, killing millions?
Do you really believe that the terrorists are really so stupid that they can't buy a map and figure out to get here? Since we are helping them to recruit more young men and women into radical Islam by occupying their lands, we are actually incerasing the number of people willing to die in making such an attempt.
Fighting them "other there" does zero to keep them from smuggling a bomb here. In fact, if we weren't wasting our time there, we could be using many of those soldiers to guard our ports and our water supply. In other words, we are endangering our nation by continuing the fight over there. Our soldiers could be deployed much more wisely.
Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen
A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.
JMF90
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/28/2007 12:46 AM CDT
Silvanne, stop using logic before the thread gets shut down.
RAGE4U13
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/28/2007 12:47 AM CDT
<<Iran and Syria have had nuclear programs for a lot longer than since 2001-3. So have we, North Korea, Israel, the Soviet Union, and Pakistan
North Korea has finally agreed to dismantle their nuclear program. As for Israel, the Soviet Union, Pakistan, India, Britian, France, and us, we all abide strictly to UN guidelines. Last time I checked, Iran is currently defying all UN guidelines and thumbing its nose at the rest of the world. Syria keeps denying it has a nuclear program (even in the light of a recent attack on a nuclear research site) Also, Iran and Syria are the only two contries who have openly stated thir hatred for America and Israel, and their threat of causing 'harm and pain', aswell as other threats. If you think Iran with a nuke is the same as France with a nuke, then your naieve.
<<This time, most of us are smart enough not to believe the lies that are being fed to us again. Iran was and is far less of a threat than about a dozen other places in the world.
First of all, who is 'feeding' us lies? Is this some conspiracy theory? And would you care to name a dozen contries more threatening to the US than Iran? I will agree, China has the POTENTIAL to be in that catagory, but thats only one, not twelve.
<<Since we are helping them to recruit more young men and women into radical Islam by occupying their lands, we are actually incerasing the number of people willing to die in making such an attempt.
So your saying, before the Iraq war, they wernt able to recruit fanatics? Really? so then those hijackers wernt actualy radical islams? they couldnt be, since we didnt occupy their lands at the time of 9/11. right?
Fanatics dont need a reason to 'sign up' and kill infidels. They were around long before 9/11. Iraq is not the reason why they hate us. Afganistan is not the reason why they hate us. Our values, our ideals, our freedom, is why they hate us. They believe everythign we stand for is evil. Can you imagine treating a woman as an equal is a capital crime? Or the thought of free education to children to be immoral and an act of Satan? well I cant, but they do.
<<Fighting them "other there" does zero to keep them from smuggling a bomb here
So then we deploy our troops here, and hope they find the bomb before it reaches a major city? So being preemptive, and not ALLOWING them to get a bomb wont help? wow, i would think if we took away their ability to make a nuclear bomb, that would make sure we cant be hit by one. Your logic continues to suprise me. But I also wonder hwy you mentioend deploying our troops to protect our water supply and ports...but you didnt mention borders. A simple oversight, im sure. Afterall, who would be against putting our military on our borders?
What I really cant understand is this. you must realize, if we leave Iraq now, itll fall int othe hands of the radicals. If we abandon them now, we leave them to a fate worse than they had under Sudam. Do you really want to abandon those people? Yes, their ARE civilian deaths EVERY day their, some caused by us, most caused by the insurgency. Imagine how many deaths their will be when we leave and the country erupts into civil war? We came their, we caused this catastrophic mess. We must atleast be resposnable for trying to bring peace and stability. Of course, the only way to do that is to secure the borders there, which still hasnt been done, and probably will never be done, as our govt lacks the courage to send enough troops to secure them.
North Korea has finally agreed to dismantle their nuclear program. As for Israel, the Soviet Union, Pakistan, India, Britian, France, and us, we all abide strictly to UN guidelines. Last time I checked, Iran is currently defying all UN guidelines and thumbing its nose at the rest of the world. Syria keeps denying it has a nuclear program (even in the light of a recent attack on a nuclear research site) Also, Iran and Syria are the only two contries who have openly stated thir hatred for America and Israel, and their threat of causing 'harm and pain', aswell as other threats. If you think Iran with a nuke is the same as France with a nuke, then your naieve.
<<This time, most of us are smart enough not to believe the lies that are being fed to us again. Iran was and is far less of a threat than about a dozen other places in the world.
First of all, who is 'feeding' us lies? Is this some conspiracy theory? And would you care to name a dozen contries more threatening to the US than Iran? I will agree, China has the POTENTIAL to be in that catagory, but thats only one, not twelve.
<<Since we are helping them to recruit more young men and women into radical Islam by occupying their lands, we are actually incerasing the number of people willing to die in making such an attempt.
So your saying, before the Iraq war, they wernt able to recruit fanatics? Really? so then those hijackers wernt actualy radical islams? they couldnt be, since we didnt occupy their lands at the time of 9/11. right?
Fanatics dont need a reason to 'sign up' and kill infidels. They were around long before 9/11. Iraq is not the reason why they hate us. Afganistan is not the reason why they hate us. Our values, our ideals, our freedom, is why they hate us. They believe everythign we stand for is evil. Can you imagine treating a woman as an equal is a capital crime? Or the thought of free education to children to be immoral and an act of Satan? well I cant, but they do.
<<Fighting them "other there" does zero to keep them from smuggling a bomb here
So then we deploy our troops here, and hope they find the bomb before it reaches a major city? So being preemptive, and not ALLOWING them to get a bomb wont help? wow, i would think if we took away their ability to make a nuclear bomb, that would make sure we cant be hit by one. Your logic continues to suprise me. But I also wonder hwy you mentioend deploying our troops to protect our water supply and ports...but you didnt mention borders. A simple oversight, im sure. Afterall, who would be against putting our military on our borders?
What I really cant understand is this. you must realize, if we leave Iraq now, itll fall int othe hands of the radicals. If we abandon them now, we leave them to a fate worse than they had under Sudam. Do you really want to abandon those people? Yes, their ARE civilian deaths EVERY day their, some caused by us, most caused by the insurgency. Imagine how many deaths their will be when we leave and the country erupts into civil war? We came their, we caused this catastrophic mess. We must atleast be resposnable for trying to bring peace and stability. Of course, the only way to do that is to secure the borders there, which still hasnt been done, and probably will never be done, as our govt lacks the courage to send enough troops to secure them.
MANNOND
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/28/2007 03:20 AM CDT
>Silvanne, stop using logic before the thread gets shut down.
What WAS I thinking?!?
Seriously, it's so difficult to talk to someone who cannot see that the lies we are being told by the administration in this case are virtually identical to the ones we were told a few years ago by the exact same people (well, the ones who have not either been driven from their positions by their complete ineptitude, or arrested for their outright illegal, and sometimes trasonous behavior)--all that has changed is the name of the country. I guess there will always be those who are so thoroughly brainwashed by Rupert Murdoch and those he shills for that there is no reaching them--if logic appealed to them, they wouldn't be in that position to begin with, right?
It gives me hope how few Americans are falling for the lies this time (Only 19% favor military action against Iran. Over 2/3s prefer diplomatic and economic solutions to the problem <http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/23/foreign.affairs.ap/index.html>. The fact that 80% of Iranians are in favor of full nuclear inspections and a guarantee not to develop nuclear weapons in return for aid from other countries <http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/16/iran.poll/index.html> should show us that if we work the situation correctly, we can save lives on all sides and avoid taking a country with a population that likes America and turn it into yet another center of radical Islamic fascism). I can only hope that my fellow Americans will continue to stand strong in the face of politicians who hold truth in such low regard and human life as of virtually no value.
I am not a pacificist. There are times when war is, if not the only option, at least the lesser of assorted evils. But recklessness with which this current administration chooses to resort to a military solution, without regard for the nation's best interest or even the simple capacity of our armed services, that is the greater evil in this situation.
Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen
A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.
What WAS I thinking?!?
Seriously, it's so difficult to talk to someone who cannot see that the lies we are being told by the administration in this case are virtually identical to the ones we were told a few years ago by the exact same people (well, the ones who have not either been driven from their positions by their complete ineptitude, or arrested for their outright illegal, and sometimes trasonous behavior)--all that has changed is the name of the country. I guess there will always be those who are so thoroughly brainwashed by Rupert Murdoch and those he shills for that there is no reaching them--if logic appealed to them, they wouldn't be in that position to begin with, right?
It gives me hope how few Americans are falling for the lies this time (Only 19% favor military action against Iran. Over 2/3s prefer diplomatic and economic solutions to the problem <http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/23/foreign.affairs.ap/index.html>. The fact that 80% of Iranians are in favor of full nuclear inspections and a guarantee not to develop nuclear weapons in return for aid from other countries <http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/16/iran.poll/index.html> should show us that if we work the situation correctly, we can save lives on all sides and avoid taking a country with a population that likes America and turn it into yet another center of radical Islamic fascism). I can only hope that my fellow Americans will continue to stand strong in the face of politicians who hold truth in such low regard and human life as of virtually no value.
I am not a pacificist. There are times when war is, if not the only option, at least the lesser of assorted evils. But recklessness with which this current administration chooses to resort to a military solution, without regard for the nation's best interest or even the simple capacity of our armed services, that is the greater evil in this situation.
Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen
A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.
MOD-ARHIA
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/28/2007 04:09 AM CDT
Here's what I'M thinking: Many of us have very strong opinions regarding this topic. We are not going to always agree with each other. If you discuss for the sake of discussion and EXPANDING your understanding of the entire situation, please continue. If you are absolutely 100% certain that your opinion is the only valid and correct one and that you will not begin to entertain the ideas of others, then it's time to step away from the keyboard. You've presented your opinion. Discuss, or NOT. But, no more personal attacks. No more holier-than-thou attitude (ironic in this discussion) OR the thread will be shut down. Consider this a nudge.... with my anti-war baseball bat in hand.
AND, while I'm at it... what's happening in California with so many people displaced (not all that long after what happened in Louisiana and the hurricane) is interesting when you think of the cost of rebuilding this country--the one we live in.
Play nice, people. --Arhia
"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." --Mark Twain
AND, while I'm at it... what's happening in California with so many people displaced (not all that long after what happened in Louisiana and the hurricane) is interesting when you think of the cost of rebuilding this country--the one we live in.
Play nice, people. --Arhia
"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." --Mark Twain
MANNOND
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/28/2007 01:48 PM CDT
>If you discuss for the sake of discussion and EXPANDING your understanding of the entire situation, please continue. If you are absolutely 100% certain that your opinion is the only valid and correct one and that you will not begin to entertain the ideas of others, then it's time to step away from the keyboard.
Okay, so here's what I am wondering (and not just about this board but kinda universally): isn't there a sizable difference between a difference of opinion that is solely that--based on personal feeling--and a difference of opinion when there is a verifiable element of fact on one side and not on another?
When one side states a series of things for which the writer provides no verifiable evidence and which are easily disproved by looking at the actual facts, shouldn't that opinion be treated differently from a case where the other side provides solid and relevant sources that disprove the claims of their opponent?
One of the things that really bothers me is that it used to be that reason and fact were what carried a debate. Now, we just say "well, there are two sides to everything, and that's that." Yes, there often are at least two sides to many issues. There were two sides to the McCarthy hearings, for example. But one side (the one claiming that we were being culturally invaded by communism and that this invasion was both pervasive and present at some of the highest levels of our government) was just factually wrong. But for a while, because it had a loud-mouth senator who cared nothing for the truth as its voice, those inaccuracies were used to blind some Americans. In the end, the truth prevailed. But it did not prevail because public discourse was kept at the level of "Well, everyone has their opinion." Please see E. Murrow.
The only defense against such dangerous misinformation is to try to sort the wheat from the chaff. If one side simply makes claims and the other presents evidence, the two sides are not equal. Nor should responsible citizens treat them as such.
This is not an attack on anyone. Just something that has troubled me for a long while about our relativistic and increasingly irrational culture. Am I the only one who sees this as a problem?
Anyone wishing to discuss this, please feel free to contact me at SilvanneDR.
Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen
A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.
Okay, so here's what I am wondering (and not just about this board but kinda universally): isn't there a sizable difference between a difference of opinion that is solely that--based on personal feeling--and a difference of opinion when there is a verifiable element of fact on one side and not on another?
When one side states a series of things for which the writer provides no verifiable evidence and which are easily disproved by looking at the actual facts, shouldn't that opinion be treated differently from a case where the other side provides solid and relevant sources that disprove the claims of their opponent?
One of the things that really bothers me is that it used to be that reason and fact were what carried a debate. Now, we just say "well, there are two sides to everything, and that's that." Yes, there often are at least two sides to many issues. There were two sides to the McCarthy hearings, for example. But one side (the one claiming that we were being culturally invaded by communism and that this invasion was both pervasive and present at some of the highest levels of our government) was just factually wrong. But for a while, because it had a loud-mouth senator who cared nothing for the truth as its voice, those inaccuracies were used to blind some Americans. In the end, the truth prevailed. But it did not prevail because public discourse was kept at the level of "Well, everyone has their opinion." Please see E. Murrow.
The only defense against such dangerous misinformation is to try to sort the wheat from the chaff. If one side simply makes claims and the other presents evidence, the two sides are not equal. Nor should responsible citizens treat them as such.
This is not an attack on anyone. Just something that has troubled me for a long while about our relativistic and increasingly irrational culture. Am I the only one who sees this as a problem?
Anyone wishing to discuss this, please feel free to contact me at SilvanneDR.
Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen
A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.
WEILM
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/28/2007 02:31 PM CDT
>>When one side states a series of things for which the writer provides no verifiable evidence and which are easily disproved by looking at the actual facts, shouldn't that opinion be treated differently from a case where the other side provides solid and relevant sources that disprove the claims of their opponent?
Faith doesn't require facts. Look at organized religion.
Note: This is all I am going to say on the subject, as the whole thing is well-past flames, IMO.
~Kyn (Kynevon)
Info Page http://kynevon.info
Grimoire of Echoes: http://tinyurl.com/2ac987
Hunting Info: http://tinyurl.com/44jlt
Armor Info: http://tinyurl.com/2h5jcp
Faith doesn't require facts. Look at organized religion.
Note: This is all I am going to say on the subject, as the whole thing is well-past flames, IMO.
~Kyn (Kynevon)
Info Page http://kynevon.info
Grimoire of Echoes: http://tinyurl.com/2ac987
Hunting Info: http://tinyurl.com/44jlt
Armor Info: http://tinyurl.com/2h5jcp
MOD-ARHIA
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/28/2007 04:39 PM CDT
When it comes to your personal belief systems--those things regarding morality, in particular--opinions and feelings become very emotionally charged. This format is not the best place for those kinds of heated discussions. They require a lot of respect and empathy, and consideration. When YOU realize that you are becoming upset over a discussion, then it's time to take a step back and re-evaluate the reasons why. I let this discussion continue because I believe in discussion. If you wish to continue this amongst yourselves, in a personal means and a different format, please feel free. What's posted here, however..... needs to lose the heat.
Respectfully,
Arhia
"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." --Mark Twain
Respectfully,
Arhia
"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." --Mark Twain
ALDEN
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/29/2007 01:22 PM CDT
Some of my thoughts:
Al Qaeda was gunning for the U.S. prior to 9/11 and subsequent to it.
The U.S.(we) pursued Al Qaeda into Afghanistan and deposed a government that gave them sanctuary. (when I say we, I mean it because the U.S. is our country, and we are responsible ultimately responsible both good and bad).
We lost sight of the objective- capturing Bin Laden and destroying Al Qaeda- before finishing the job.
We diverted resources from that objective to Iraq. Al Qaeda is making a resurgence in Afghanistan because we do not have the resources there to stop it.
We attacked Iraq, for reasons that have both changed and multiplied since we attacked. Iraq was never a credible nuclear threat. Sadam Hussein was a horrible dictator but no worse than a dozen others scattered around the globe that we decline to invade.
When we first deposed of Sadam, we had a broad range of popular support. Now, we are seen(largely) as occupiers. This is a direct result of poor planning for the aftermath of the war.
Iraq is providing a training ground for future terrorists against the U.S. Al Qaeda is a serious presence now in Iraq only because Sadam was deposed.
Money: we are pouring billions of dollars into Iraq- money that is borrowed and that my daughter will be paying back as an adult. If we truely support this war, we should be paying now- not making our children pay.
Resources: our armed forces are stretched so thin right now, we cannot make a credible threat or make a serious response if something bad does happen. What are we going to do if North Korea does attack South Korea? We do not have the troops to respond, because of our over commitment. It is time to regroup, put resources into Afghanistan to stabilize that government and rooting out Al-Qaeda.
Threats: Absolutely Pakistan and North Korea are higher threats to the U.S. than Iraq was or Iran is. They are unstable governments with nuclear weapons that have delivery systems. However, I agree it is in our interest in preventing Iran from going nuclear. I am also not convinced that Iran will go nuclear. One of the reasons Sadam Hussein never convincingly denied having weapons of mass destruction was to intimidate his neighbors. I believe Iran may be doing the same.
Nuclear: No sane government is going to launch a nuclear attack from its own lands- it would be suicide. Nobody but Russia and China have the ability to do enough damage to the U.S. to even take the edge off of a U.S. nuclear response. A single nuclear bomb going off in New York would be horrible, horrible, horrible- but it will not destroy the U.S.. We have the ability to destroy any nation on earth in retaliation.
Terrorism: We are not fighting terrorism in Iraq. We are occasionally fighting terrorists, along with Shiites and Suni's and assorted thugs fighting for dominance. There is no evidence that our war in Iraq has prevented any attacks on the U.S.. While some conservatives point to the fact that there have been no attacks on the U.S. since 9/11, there is no evidence that the war in Iraq has made any difference. It is far more likely that the War in Afghanistan has, though it could be good intelligence work overseas, it could be our layers of preventative action.
Iran: I hope all the rumbling is just for show. Any attack on Iran would be even more disastrous than that against Iraq. Arab nations have no love for Iran, which is after all a non-Arab country. But they would rally around Iran if attacked. More importantly- for us- it would close down the Straits. I believe over 20% of the worlds oil goes through the straits- oil prices would sky rocket and economies would crumble. As bad as it would be here in the U.S., it would be far, far worse in developing nations. As much as I want to prevent Iran from going nuclear, I think that attacking Iran would have potentially more disastrous results.
"militantly enforcing the overly rigid standards of you and your small collection of friends"
Al Qaeda was gunning for the U.S. prior to 9/11 and subsequent to it.
The U.S.(we) pursued Al Qaeda into Afghanistan and deposed a government that gave them sanctuary. (when I say we, I mean it because the U.S. is our country, and we are responsible ultimately responsible both good and bad).
We lost sight of the objective- capturing Bin Laden and destroying Al Qaeda- before finishing the job.
We diverted resources from that objective to Iraq. Al Qaeda is making a resurgence in Afghanistan because we do not have the resources there to stop it.
We attacked Iraq, for reasons that have both changed and multiplied since we attacked. Iraq was never a credible nuclear threat. Sadam Hussein was a horrible dictator but no worse than a dozen others scattered around the globe that we decline to invade.
When we first deposed of Sadam, we had a broad range of popular support. Now, we are seen(largely) as occupiers. This is a direct result of poor planning for the aftermath of the war.
Iraq is providing a training ground for future terrorists against the U.S. Al Qaeda is a serious presence now in Iraq only because Sadam was deposed.
Money: we are pouring billions of dollars into Iraq- money that is borrowed and that my daughter will be paying back as an adult. If we truely support this war, we should be paying now- not making our children pay.
Resources: our armed forces are stretched so thin right now, we cannot make a credible threat or make a serious response if something bad does happen. What are we going to do if North Korea does attack South Korea? We do not have the troops to respond, because of our over commitment. It is time to regroup, put resources into Afghanistan to stabilize that government and rooting out Al-Qaeda.
Threats: Absolutely Pakistan and North Korea are higher threats to the U.S. than Iraq was or Iran is. They are unstable governments with nuclear weapons that have delivery systems. However, I agree it is in our interest in preventing Iran from going nuclear. I am also not convinced that Iran will go nuclear. One of the reasons Sadam Hussein never convincingly denied having weapons of mass destruction was to intimidate his neighbors. I believe Iran may be doing the same.
Nuclear: No sane government is going to launch a nuclear attack from its own lands- it would be suicide. Nobody but Russia and China have the ability to do enough damage to the U.S. to even take the edge off of a U.S. nuclear response. A single nuclear bomb going off in New York would be horrible, horrible, horrible- but it will not destroy the U.S.. We have the ability to destroy any nation on earth in retaliation.
Terrorism: We are not fighting terrorism in Iraq. We are occasionally fighting terrorists, along with Shiites and Suni's and assorted thugs fighting for dominance. There is no evidence that our war in Iraq has prevented any attacks on the U.S.. While some conservatives point to the fact that there have been no attacks on the U.S. since 9/11, there is no evidence that the war in Iraq has made any difference. It is far more likely that the War in Afghanistan has, though it could be good intelligence work overseas, it could be our layers of preventative action.
Iran: I hope all the rumbling is just for show. Any attack on Iran would be even more disastrous than that against Iraq. Arab nations have no love for Iran, which is after all a non-Arab country. But they would rally around Iran if attacked. More importantly- for us- it would close down the Straits. I believe over 20% of the worlds oil goes through the straits- oil prices would sky rocket and economies would crumble. As bad as it would be here in the U.S., it would be far, far worse in developing nations. As much as I want to prevent Iran from going nuclear, I think that attacking Iran would have potentially more disastrous results.
"militantly enforcing the overly rigid standards of you and your small collection of friends"
SIERRAK
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/30/2007 12:03 AM CDT
For anyone interested in activism, there is a national student walkout on November 16th in Seattle (15th in Tacoma). Please visit http://www.yawr.org/seattle/index.html for more info.
GAUDIOR73
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/30/2007 08:37 AM CDT
Good post, Flavius.
>We have the ability to destroy any nation on earth in retaliation.
And then some.
I agree that it feels like we're spending too much money and resources but this isn't Vietnam. Maybe you don't support the war, but I sure hope you support our troops.
Also I'd like to point out that everyone hates a "War President", if you don't believe me just open your history books. George Sr. and Clinton avoided it... they knew the threat was there - we've known for decades.
>We have the ability to destroy any nation on earth in retaliation.
And then some.
I agree that it feels like we're spending too much money and resources but this isn't Vietnam. Maybe you don't support the war, but I sure hope you support our troops.
Also I'd like to point out that everyone hates a "War President", if you don't believe me just open your history books. George Sr. and Clinton avoided it... they knew the threat was there - we've known for decades.
DAE83
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/30/2007 08:54 AM CDT
<<Also I'd like to point out that everyone hates a "War President", if you don't believe me just open your history books. George Sr. and Clinton avoided it... they knew the threat was there - we've known for decades.>>
I have a few issues with this statement. The current president wasn't loved to start with, It had very little to do with the war that hadn't even happen. I think it was blunder after blunder and a lack of social grace that has turned even those who supported him in the beginning against him.
The other issue is (just open your history books) depending on what history book you have, it can say a variety of different things. Also please be aware just like some books are banned from schools, historians writing the textbooks for children are also being censored. If a book doesn't say what is "proper" for society as sad as it is, it would rarely be used in classrooms. Which means those writing the textbooks would not earn any money for their time and effort.
The biggest threat to American lies within.
"So like I said, don't take it personally. All cultures have their share of fools. It's just that we always felt yours had a lot more than ours."
~~Warrior Mage Guild Leader Senfrislor, The Prydaen in Their Own Words~~
MANNOND
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/30/2007 09:55 AM CDT
>Also I'd like to point out that everyone hates a "War President", if you don't believe me just open your history books.
In opening my history books, I found references to:
George Washington (the most wildly popular President)
James Madison (War of 1812, during which is was both incredibly popular AND unpopular)
William McKinley (Spanish-American War, drew record crowds when he spoke)
and let's not forget all the soldier Presidents who had great popularity: Teddy Roosevelt, Ike Eisenhower, JFK, etc.
Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen
A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.
In opening my history books, I found references to:
George Washington (the most wildly popular President)
James Madison (War of 1812, during which is was both incredibly popular AND unpopular)
William McKinley (Spanish-American War, drew record crowds when he spoke)
and let's not forget all the soldier Presidents who had great popularity: Teddy Roosevelt, Ike Eisenhower, JFK, etc.
Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen
A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.
GRANTJ47
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/30/2007 12:31 PM CDT
<<As for Israel, the Soviet Union, Pakistan, India, Britian, France, and us, we all abide strictly to UN guidelines. Last time I checked, Iran is currently defying all UN guidelines and thumbing its nose at the rest of the world.>>
Umm, Pakistan, India and Israel never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty . They are the only three nations not to sign it. The UN and IAEA do not oversee anything to do with the nuclear programs in any of these coutries. Iran, on the other hand, has signed the treaty and the IAEA does inspect them. At issue is more of a fact if Iran is totally following the rules set in the treaty. So, if anyone is thumbing its nose at the rest of the world it is Pakistan, India and Israel.
Umm, Pakistan, India and Israel never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty . They are the only three nations not to sign it. The UN and IAEA do not oversee anything to do with the nuclear programs in any of these coutries. Iran, on the other hand, has signed the treaty and the IAEA does inspect them. At issue is more of a fact if Iran is totally following the rules set in the treaty. So, if anyone is thumbing its nose at the rest of the world it is Pakistan, India and Israel.
ALDEN
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/30/2007 01:08 PM CDT
"but I sure hope you support our troops."
That question makes me cringe. I absolutely am in awe of the courage and fortitude of the men and women of our armed forces. They are dealing with a situation I would not want to be in, and doing their duty the best way they can.
But how am I supporting our troops? I don't condemn our troops or armed forces. Financially some of my taxes support them. But I am not advocating on their behalf as much as I could.
What makes me cringe is that the whole idea of 'supporting the troops' is being coopted by both sides. The right say "the only way to support our troops is to support this war", the left says "the way to support our troops is for immediate withdrawel". I think both sides uses their 'support for the troops' to support their own agenda's.
I would rather say I admire how our troops have handled themselves, and hope that everyone can differentiate between their feelings about the war, and the troops who are conducting it on our behalf.
I hope that in the future we support our troops by fully funding Veterans health care and by being much more discriminating in putting them in harms way.
"militantly enforcing the overly rigid standards of you and your small collection of friends"
That question makes me cringe. I absolutely am in awe of the courage and fortitude of the men and women of our armed forces. They are dealing with a situation I would not want to be in, and doing their duty the best way they can.
But how am I supporting our troops? I don't condemn our troops or armed forces. Financially some of my taxes support them. But I am not advocating on their behalf as much as I could.
What makes me cringe is that the whole idea of 'supporting the troops' is being coopted by both sides. The right say "the only way to support our troops is to support this war", the left says "the way to support our troops is for immediate withdrawel". I think both sides uses their 'support for the troops' to support their own agenda's.
I would rather say I admire how our troops have handled themselves, and hope that everyone can differentiate between their feelings about the war, and the troops who are conducting it on our behalf.
I hope that in the future we support our troops by fully funding Veterans health care and by being much more discriminating in putting them in harms way.
"militantly enforcing the overly rigid standards of you and your small collection of friends"
GAUDIOR73
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/30/2007 02:50 PM CDT
>The right say "the only way to support our troops is to support this war", the left says "the way to support our troops is for immediate withdrawel".
Funny, I didn't mean either of those. What I meant was on a much more personal level... Seems like everyone is getting their holiday decorations out already - did you remember to buy extra cards to send to a unit of our guys & gals over there... or better yet, did you have your kids make them some cards? When was the last time you thanked a vet? Do you have a yellow ribbon tied around the tree in your front yard? I could go on and on, but I won't.
Funny, I didn't mean either of those. What I meant was on a much more personal level... Seems like everyone is getting their holiday decorations out already - did you remember to buy extra cards to send to a unit of our guys & gals over there... or better yet, did you have your kids make them some cards? When was the last time you thanked a vet? Do you have a yellow ribbon tied around the tree in your front yard? I could go on and on, but I won't.
MOD-ARHIA
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/30/2007 06:44 PM CDT
<<I could go on and on, but I won't. >>
Thank you! (I'm kidding! --mostly.. which is not a comment that's indirectly stating that the troops don't deserve or require support and thought, but more, that the discussion doesn't require ...preaching.) Oh, and really, I'm impressed by the way the discussion is going. Much less heat, much more thought. Very nicely done. --Arhia
"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." --Mark Twain
Thank you! (I'm kidding! --mostly.. which is not a comment that's indirectly stating that the troops don't deserve or require support and thought, but more, that the discussion doesn't require ...preaching.) Oh, and really, I'm impressed by the way the discussion is going. Much less heat, much more thought. Very nicely done. --Arhia
"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." --Mark Twain
JMF90
Re: Seattle anti-war march and rally
10/30/2007 07:28 PM CDT
>So, if anyone is thumbing its nose at the rest of the world it is Pakistan, India and Israel.
You don't think it is worse to sign a treaty and then not follow it than not to sign in the first place? Seriously...
You don't think it is worse to sign a treaty and then not follow it than not to sign in the first place? Seriously...
