I want a parade.

[padisha emperor]

Making fun of people is an integral part of the American way of life. After getting pretty well thrashed in WWI, France then got its butt handed to it in WWII, and after all that talk about the Maginot line, the Germans went through Belgium, just like they did in WWI. It lends itself to ridicule. If you want to feel better about it, call us fat.

when somebody is bashing me, I prefer try to find a smart solution with a discussion instead of bahsing him too to answer. because this last way goes to a climb of "violence", the first one (diplomacy) can go to a "cease-fire" and cooperation, interest of both parts.
(this is for CONVERSATION between me and somebody else, not for real war or conflicts between States, don't extrapolize )

 

[Hobbit]

when somebody is bashing me, I prefer try to find a smart solution with a discussion instead of bahsing him too to answer. because this last way goes to a climb of "violence", the first one (diplomacy) can go to a "cease-fire" and cooperation, interest of both parts.
(this is for CONVERSATION between me and somebody else, not for real war or conflicts between States, don't extrapolize )

Different strokes, I guess. Seriously, though, guys in America rip on each other all the time, and as long as it stays good-natured ribbing, nobody really cares and just rips right back...and it's usually hilarious. There's not really any spoken rules of where the line is drawn, but common sense should keep you out of trouble.

 

[liberalogic]

You are getting very close to the heart of the matter. I suspect the answer will be "...because it was/is an illegal and unjust war. Soldiers who prosecuted such a war son't deserve to be honored, they deserve to be tried for warcrimes! And, by the way, it's all Bush's fault that US soldiers are criminals." Problem is, the libs haven't got the cajones to come out and say that when that is what they really mean. Then again, libs always have trouble telling the truth.

I have the "cajones." As I said before, it's not like I want soldiers to die. But at the same time, I strongly disagree with the way in Iraq and I see no way that I can support the troops if I don't support what they're doing.

 

[kurtsprincess]

I have the "cajones." As I said before, it's not like I want soldiers to die. But at the same time, I strongly disagree with the way in Iraq and I see no way that I can support the troops if I don't support what they're doing.

LL.........what type of war do you think is a "just war"?

I personally am grateful to each and every individual who is fighting, and/or peacekeeping, overseas........regardless of where they are stationed. I would rather engage the enemy on their homeland than to engage them on our homeland. And, if we can help another nation achieve the beginnings of democracy, then we have at least accomplished two things that I feel we should have a parade to celebrate.

And, as another poster here has said..........you are free to stay home. You probably wouldn't stand up and honor the flag when it passed anyway and that would just piss me off and ruin the parade for me. So.........stay home and let the rest of us enjoy honoring those that felt compelled to serve and protect.

 

[liberalogic]

LL.........what type of war do you think is a "just war"?

I personally am grateful to each and every individual who is fighting, and/or peacekeeping, overseas........regardless of where they are stationed. I would rather engage the enemy on their homeland than to engage them on our homeland. And, if we can help another nation achieve the beginnings of democracy, then we have at least accomplished two things that I feel we should have a parade to celebrate.

And, as another poster here has said..........you are free to stay home. You probably wouldn't stand up and honor the flag when it passed anyway and that would just piss me off and ruin the parade for me. So.........stay home and let the rest of us enjoy honoring those that felt compelled to serve and protect.

As I said before, I do not wish death on the soldiers, but at the same time I feel it is hypocritical of me to say "O, well I don't support the war, but I support the troops." If I don't support what they're fighting for, what kind of half-assed support would I be giving them?

The fact is that I think the Iraq War is unjust. The soldiers there have not protected my freedom and they have not defended America. They have fought a war that was not necessary in the first place. So by throwing them a parade, I would be saying thank you, but I am not thankful for what they fought for. I'm not anti-American, I value all of my freedoms and I respect the idea of my country. At the same time, though, when the principles of our country are distorted for an unjust cause (the war in Iraq), I become angry at those in charge. If anything, I'm extremely patriotic because I want my government to live up to the ideals of this nation and allow it to flourish, not make it more dangerous and drag us into a deficit.

I would throw a parade for those fighting in Afghanistan because their job was to eliminate the Taliban-- a key player in the 9/11 attacks. Their work has defended my freedom and has sought revenge from those who have harmed us.

 

[dilloduck]

As I said before, I do not wish death on the soldiers, but at the same time I feel it is hypocritical of me to say "O, well I don't support the war, but I support the troops." If I don't support what they're fighting for, what kind of half-assed support would I be giving them?

The fact is that I think the Iraq War is unjust. The soldiers there have not protected my freedom and they have not defended America. They have fought a war that was not necessary in the first place. So by throwing them a parade, I would be saying thank you, but I am not thankful for what they fought for. I'm not anti-American, I value all of my freedoms and I respect the idea of my country. At the same time, though, when the principles of our country are distorted for an unjust cause (the war in Iraq), I become angry at those in charge. If anything, I'm extremely patriotic because I want my government to live up to the ideals of this nation and allow it to flourish, not make it more dangerous and drag us into a deficit.

I would throw a parade for those fighting in Afghanistan because their job was to eliminate the Taliban-- a key player in the 9/11 attacks. Their work has defended my freedom and has sought revenge from those who have harmed us.

Damn--and I was so hoping to have someome just like you standing by me in a parade to honor American soldiers !

 

[CSM]

As I said before, I do not wish death on the soldiers, but at the same time I feel it is hypocritical of me to say "O, well I don't support the war, but I support the troops." If I don't support what they're fighting for, what kind of half-assed support would I be giving them?

The fact is that I think the Iraq War is unjust. The soldiers there have not protected my freedom and they have not defended America. They have fought a war that was not necessary in the first place. So by throwing them a parade, I would be saying thank you, but I am not thankful for what they fought for. I'm not anti-American, I value all of my freedoms and I respect the idea of my country. At the same time, though, when the principles of our country are distorted for an unjust cause (the war in Iraq), I become angry at those in charge. If anything, I'm extremely patriotic because I want my government to live up to the ideals of this nation and allow it to flourish, not make it more dangerous and drag us into a deficit.

I would throw a parade for those fighting in Afghanistan because their job was to eliminate the Taliban-- a key player in the 9/11 attacks. Their work has defended my freedom and has sought revenge from those who have harmed us.

What you really really mean is YOUR interpretation of principle and YOUR methodology for supporting those principles. You mean YOUR view of conception of ideals.

Here is another small factoid...soldiers dont get to pick and choose which individual citizen they fight for, they fight for all of them whether an individual citizen likes/wants it or not. If soldiers did get to select which individuals they fight for, there would be many, many libs wearing Muslim garb and living by Muslim principles and seeking Muslim ideals...whether they wanted to or not.

 

[liberalogic]

What you really really mean is YOUR interpretation of principle and YOUR methodology for supporting those principles. You mean YOUR view of conception of ideals.
QUOTE]

Well what else would I mean? It's all a matter of my view...you're not stating anything new.

 

[Gunny]

What you really really mean is YOUR interpretation of principle and YOUR methodology for supporting those principles. You mean YOUR view of conception of ideals.

Here is another small factoid...soldiers dont get to pick and choose which individual citizen they fight for, they fight for all of them whether an individual citizen likes/wants it or not. If soldiers did get to select which individuals they fight for, there would be many, many libs wearing Muslim garb and living by Muslim principles and seeking Muslim ideals...whether they wanted to or not.

Isn't THAT the truth? I'd rep you, but alas ......

 

[Gunny]

As I said before, I do not wish death on the soldiers, but at the same time I feel it is hypocritical of me to say "O, well I don't support the war, but I support the troops." If I don't support what they're fighting for, what kind of half-assed support would I be giving them?

The fact is that I think the Iraq War is unjust. The soldiers there have not protected my freedom and they have not defended America. They have fought a war that was not necessary in the first place. So by throwing them a parade, I would be saying thank you, but I am not thankful for what they fought for. I'm not anti-American, I value all of my freedoms and I respect the idea of my country. At the same time, though, when the principles of our country are distorted for an unjust cause (the war in Iraq), I become angry at those in charge. If anything, I'm extremely patriotic because I want my government to live up to the ideals of this nation and allow it to flourish, not make it more dangerous and drag us into a deficit.

I would throw a parade for those fighting in Afghanistan because their job was to eliminate the Taliban-- a key player in the 9/11 attacks. Their work has defended my freedom and has sought revenge from those who have harmed us.

Your argument reeks of selfishness and disregard for other human beings. Long as it's about YOUR freedom and only US soil, it's okay, huh?

Saddam Hussein was a butcher. The people of Iraq don't deserve freedom from terror because they don't live in YOUR neighborhood? That's just crap, brother.

I be you support the UN though, don't you? SO why didn't the UN do something the first ..oh.... 5 or 6 times Saddam violated the terms of the ceasefire? Why didn't Clinton? Oh yeah .... he was otherwise disposed.

The only thing i can agree with that you posted is that it is hypocritical to say you support the troops but not the war. In that at least, you are honest.

I still find your entire opinion on the topic uneducated and contemptible.

 

[kurtsprincess]

As I said before, I do not wish death on the soldiers, but at the same time I feel it is hypocritical of me to say "O, well I don't support the war, but I support the troops." If I don't support what they're fighting for, what kind of half-assed support would I be giving them?

The fact is that I think the Iraq War is unjust. The soldiers there have not protected my freedom and they have not defended America. They have fought a war that was not necessary in the first place. So by throwing them a parade, I would be saying thank you, but I am not thankful for what they fought for. I'm not anti-American, I value all of my freedoms and I respect the idea of my country. At the same time, though, when the principles of our country are distorted for an unjust cause (the war in Iraq), I become angry at those in charge. If anything, I'm extremely patriotic because I want my government to live up to the ideals of this nation and allow it to flourish, not make it more dangerous and drag us into a deficit.

I would throw a parade for those fighting in Afghanistan because their job was to eliminate the Taliban-- a key player in the 9/11 attacks. Their work has defended my freedom and has sought revenge from those who have harmed us.

LL......I used to sit in the bleachers when my sons practiced or played Little League (I was the team mother). I would listen to parents bitch and complain about the way the coach was coaching; about who, what, where, when and how the coach made decisions. One day I listened to this guy ranting and raving and talking about how he would do things differently, yada, yada, yada........and I had enough. I asked him a simple question "If you know so much about how to coach Little Leage, why aren't you out there coaching them? Of course he had a million excuses about why he couldn't.

You kinda remind of this guy. Bitching and complaining about how, what, where, when and why .......... and yet you are not willing to step up to the plate and make it happen differently than it is. It's my contention that unless you've been there/done that, you don't get a say in how it's being done.

So, unless you've done something worthy of a parade, then who are you to determine under what circumstances a parade should be given?

As for your comment about throwing a parade for the troops who fought in Afghanistan.............what a crock! A parade is to support our troops for their personal sacrifices while serving..........no matter what country they served in. Are we supposed to tell those that have fought in both Iraq and Afghanistan that they are being honored for fighting in Afghanistan, but if they fought in Iraq they are dishonorable?

You either believe that serving in the military is a honorable thing or it isn't; regardless of where that service was conducted.

 

[CSM]

What you really really mean is YOUR interpretation of principle and YOUR methodology for supporting those principles. You mean YOUR view of conception of ideals.
QUOTE]

Well what else would I mean? It's all a matter of my view...you're not stating anything new.

Of course. Your view is the only CORRECT view I bet.

Just so I am very clear about this:

You are wrong; your views are distorted (if not perverted), and you have no clue regarding the justness of the war in Iraq or what the principles and ideals of this country are. You have even less of a clue about why soldiers fight and who they fight for.

 

[liberalogic]

"You either believe that serving in the military is a honorable thing or it isn't; regardless of where that service was conducted."

Let me rephrase my position on this-- not that it will make you agree with me, but it will narrow my argument to a point where I can say that I'm being fair (at least in my own mind).

I do think it's honorable to serve in the military. But unlike others, that is not the only "honorable" thing that an American can do. I will support those who joined the military before the Iraq war because they had no idea what they were getting themselves into. I cannot support those who joined the military specifically to "serve their country" and go to Iraq. I think it is a perverse and unjust cause and I can't support those who knowingly go into it. That's my opinion...is it right? No. Is it wrong? No. And I say this because of the arrogant response that CSM gives to me. There is no right or wrong, and it's hypocritical to tell me that I have only one view, when everyone else here has only one view as well (except it is one that differs from mine). So to the babies (not you kurtsprincess), if you have something to say, you can talk about the issue itself. All that personal attacks do is tell me that you have a weak stance on the issue.

"You kinda remind of this guy. Bitching and complaining about how, what, where, when and why .......... and yet you are not willing to step up to the plate and make it happen differently than it is. It's my contention that unless you've been there/done that, you don't get a say in how it's being done."

That's an unfair statement. How many issues have you supported or opposed that have nothing to do with you? For instance, let's just assume that you are opposed to gay marriage (it doesn't matter if you are or aren't--I'm just using an example). If it has nothing to do with you directly (meaning you're not gay and you aren't trying to get married as a gay person), then why should you be able to comment on it if you're not involved or if you're not in their shoes?

The reason why you should be able to oppose it is because you live in this country. It's our duty as free citizens to stand up for what we believe in regardless of whether or not we're directly involved. If it effects my country,I'm going to say something about it.

Your argument reeks of selfishness and disregard for other human beings. Long as it's about YOUR freedom and only US soil, it's okay, huh?

Saddam Hussein was a butcher. The people of Iraq don't deserve freedom from terror because they don't live in YOUR neighborhood? That's just crap, brother.

"I be you support the UN though, don't you? SO why didn't the UN do something the first ..oh.... 5 or 6 times Saddam violated the terms of the ceasefire? Why didn't Clinton? Oh yeah .... he was otherwise disposed."

Okay, now here's the meat of the issue.

As you said earlier, you think war (as a christian) should be a last resort. Well, you've already shown that that is not what you believe. It was not a last resort in this case...we made it a last resort. There's a huge difference.

And was Saddam Hussein a good guy? No he wasn't. And yes I would've supported the UN.

You tell me that the soldiers die for my freedom and that I should appreciate that, but then you go on to talk about how just it is to liberate Iraq so that they can live in freedom. So, how have they protected my freedom in Iraq? How have they fought for me, you, or anyone else in this country? They've fought for Iraq-- NOT OUR FREEDOM.

As you said, I am very selfish, yes? Well perhaps it's more selfish to invade one country that lives in oppression and to leave all the others out. If we are fighting for freedom, why only Iraq? What about Cuba? We can dig Kennedy up and have him botch the Bay of Pigs again. Iran? Well, I'm sure that one's coming soon. North Korea?

We're told that this war is being fought to protect US, but you yourself say that we're being selfish and we should be spreading freedom and democracy. Well here's why it's not selfish to not invade Iraq: We have placed ourselves billions upon billions of dollars in debt...why couldn't we feed the homeless with that money? Or put it towards science to help cure disease? What about all the civilians and soldiers who've died? I think it's selfish for them to die so that we can say that we're not selfish.

We were told that we're fighting a war on terrorism-- a war to prevent future attacks like 9/11. It's selfish of me to want to avenge those deaths by capturing those who were responsible for them instead of invading a country to spread freedom dust. Come out of the cave with Bin Laden's head first and then invade anywhere you want.

 

[Gunny]

"You either believe that serving in the military is a honorable thing or it isn't; regardless of where that service was conducted."

Let me rephrase my position on this-- not that it will make you agree with
me, but it will narrow my argument to a point where I can say that I'm being fair (at least in my own mind).

I do think it's honorable to serve in the military. But unlike others, that is not the only "honorable" thing that an American can do. I will support those who joined the military before the Iraq war because they had no idea what they were getting themselves into. I cannot support those who joined the military specifically to "serve their country" and go to Iraq. I think it is a perverse and unjust cause and I can't support those who knowingly go into it. That's my opinion...is it right? No. Is it wrong? No. And I say this because of the arrogant response that CSM gives to me. There is no right or wrong, and it's hypocritical to tell me that I have only one view, when everyone else here has only one view as well (except it is one that differs from mine). So to the babies (not you kurtsprincess), if you have something to say, you can talk about the issue itself. All that personal attacks do is tell me that you have a weak stance on the issue.

"You kinda remind of this guy. Bitching and complaining about how, what, where, when and why .......... and yet you are not willing to step up to the plate and make it happen differently than it is. It's my contention that unless you've been there/done that, you don't get a say in how it's being done."

That's an unfair statement. How many issues have you supported or opposed that have nothing to do with you? For instance, let's just assume that you are opposed to gay marriage (it doesn't matter if you are or aren't--I'm just using an example). If it has nothing to do with you directly (meaning you're not gay and you aren't trying to get married as a gay person), then why should you be able to comment on it if you're not involved or if you're not in their shoes?

The reason why you should be able to oppose it is because you live in this country. It's our duty as free citizens to stand up for what we believe in regardless of whether or not we're directly involved. If it effects my country,I'm going to say something about it.

Your argument reeks of selfishness and disregard for other human beings. Long as it's about YOUR freedom and only US soil, it's okay, huh?

Saddam Hussein was a butcher. The people of Iraq don't deserve freedom from terror because they don't live in YOUR neighborhood? That's just crap, brother.

"I be you support the UN though, don't you? SO why didn't the UN do something the first ..oh.... 5 or 6 times Saddam violated the terms of the ceasefire? Why didn't Clinton? Oh yeah .... he was otherwise disposed."

Okay, now here's the meat of the issue.

As you said earlier, you think war (as a christian) should be a last resort. Well, you've already shown that that is not what you believe. It was not a last resort in this case...we made it a last resort. There's a huge difference.

You are incorrect in your assumption.

And was Saddam Hussein a good guy? No he wasn't. And yes I would've supported the UN.

You tell me that the soldiers die for my freedom and that I should appreciate that, but then you go on to talk about how just it is to liberate Iraq so that they can live in freedom. So, how have they protected my freedom in Iraq? How have they fought for me, you, or anyone else in this country? They've fought for Iraq-- NOT OUR FREEDOM.

So? What's your point? Besides the fact that you are completely self-centered on the matter? If it isn't for YOU, then it is unjust. Bullshit.

As you said, I am very selfish, yes? Well perhaps it's more selfish to invade one country that lives in oppression and to leave all the others out. If we are fighting for freedom, why only Iraq? What about Cuba? We can dig Kennedy up and have him botch the Bay of Pigs again. Iran? Well, I'm sure that one's coming soon. North Korea?

You're asking the wrong person. I DON'T differentiate and am more than willing to take the rest of them out as well.

We're told that this war is being fought to protect US, but you yourself say that we're being selfish and we should be spreading freedom and democracy. Well here's why it's not selfish to not invade Iraq: We have placed ourselves billions upon billions of dollars in debt...why couldn't we feed the homeless with that money? Or put it towards science to help cure disease? What about all the civilians and soldiers who've died? I think it's selfish for them to die so that we can say that we're not selfish.

No, I said YOU are being selfish. Big difference.

And yeah let's just put it towards science instead of using it to liberate an oppressed people.

We were told that we're fighting a war on terrorism-- a war to prevent future attacks like 9/11. It's selfish of me to want to avenge those deaths by capturing those who were responsible for them instead of invading a country to spread freedom dust. Come out of the cave with Bin Laden's head first and then invade anywhere you want.

While you're dicking around with your calculator, don't forget to add up the 13 years of defense costs to babysit Saddam's sorry ass because he can't be trusted to not invade any nation bordering his.

I'm also quite sure the people who no longer live in fear of being put in a tree chipper feet first take great comfort in your "generosity."

The man was a menace. He continually threatened us. Do you have to wait until he acquires a nuke and blows NYC or DC or LA off the map before you get dialed-in to reality? Or does a need to gas a few thousand more Kurds?

I don't expect to get through to you. Obviously you are left-wing-media brainwashed and nothing short of an ICBM flying right up your ass would straighten your mind out, and then you'd blame that too on Bush for not protecting your butt properly.

Wake up.

 

[kurtsprincess]

LL.........while I don't agree with your perspective on the military, or the war, I applaud you for your convictions and your willingness to try and explain why you believe the way you do.

How many issues have you supported or opposed that have nothing to do with you?

None. It's just one of my little personal standards. For example......... medical marijuana has nothing to do with me, therefore, I don't comment on the issue. I don't personally have enough experience to comment one way or another. However, if there should ever be a time when it does involve me, or affect my life in some way or another, I will comment.

The reason why you should be able to oppose it is because you live in this country. It's our duty as free citizens to stand up for what we believe in regardless of whether or not we're directly involved. If it effects my country,I'm going to say something about it.

Then you do understand the concept of duty as a belief in something. Something that compels one to take action of some type. You are getting closer to understanding why our military are in Iraq........even those who volunteered after the war was begun.........because they felt it was their duty to stand up for what they believe in.

Therefore, they should be honored for doing their duty as free citizens; which would be standing up for what they believe in, because the war is affecting their country.

 

[deaddude]

Yes that is just what the country needs right now, another well intentioned, but ultimately useless waste of tax dollars, all while we continue to borrow money from china.

 

[CSM]

"You either believe that serving in the military is a honorable thing or it isn't; regardless of where that service was conducted."

Let me rephrase my position on this-- not that it will make you agree with me, but it will narrow my argument to a point where I can say that I'm being fair (at least in my own mind).

I do think it's honorable to serve in the military. But unlike others, that is not the only "honorable" thing that an American can do. I will support those who joined the military before the Iraq war because they had no idea what they were getting themselves into. I cannot support those who joined the military specifically to "serve their country" and go to Iraq. I think it is a perverse and unjust cause and I can't support those who knowingly go into it. That's my opinion...is it right? No. Is it wrong? No. And I say this because of the arrogant response that CSM gives to me. There is no right or wrong, and it's hypocritical to tell me that I have only one view, when everyone else here has only one view as well (except it is one that differs from mine). So to the babies (not you kurtsprincess), if you have something to say, you can talk about the issue itself. All that personal attacks do is tell me that you have a weak stance on the issue.

In your original post you stated with certainty that the war is unjust. Obviously we disagree. I do not see where I made a "personal attack" on you unless you consider my pointing out the fact that your personal opinion is not necessarily correct, that you do not understand why soldiers do what they do (regardless of your likes or dislikes). As for my arrogance, I would say that you are far more arrogant than I as displayed in your giving us babies (as you put it) permission to talk about the issue itself.

The weak stance on the issue you percieve is no weaker than your original baseless assertions on the Iraq war. You offer nothiing in support of your statements except your opinion. That is somethinng I refuse to acknowledge as substantiating evidence or as support for your position.

I have been in the unenviable position of having served in the military where people like you publicly undermined the US military with statements such as yours. I was there when such statements were used as propaganda by the enemy and I was there when such statements gave aid and comfort to the enemy. I will not sit idly by and let such statements pass without opposing comment. I will not let any citizen of this country make disparaging remarks about US soldiers based on their view of what is the 'correct' reason for fighting in this country's wars. You will honor those who joined prior to the opening of hostilities in Iraq but not those that joined after (by your own admission) and I take great offense to that. Those same soldiers you refuse to honor because of the events in Iraq today may be the soldiers that have to fight for YOUR cause tomorrow. As I stated earlier, soldiers do not get to pick and choose which individual citizens they will fight for. They do not have the luxury (and most do not have the desire) to discriminate in which citizens they respect, honor or defend. They do not even have the right to publicly state their opinion on things political (while in uniform). I watched the "silent majority" of this country let events and propaganda run rampant during and after the VietNam era. I will NOT become part of that silent majority.

 

[liberalogic]

sorta, kinda, what have you. In your original post you stated with certainty that the war is unjust. Obviously we disagree. I do not see where I made a "personal attack" on you unless you consider my pointing out the fact that your personal opinion is not necessarily correct, that you do not understand why soldiers do what they do (regardless of your likes or dislikes). As for my arrogance, I would say that you are far more arrogant than I as displayed in your giving us babies (as you put it) permission to talk about the issue itself.

CSM, I apologize for calling you a baby. I just get very frustrated when people tell me that I think my opinion is the only one that is correct (because being as though most people here don't like me, I hear that a lot). We are all debating opinions here-- of course I think mine is right, but on the other hand, do you think yours is wrong? I'd just rather hear people tell me why they think I'm wrong, rather than tell me I'm narrow-minded. Because we're all narrow-minded in our own way. And the truth of the matter is that in many of my posts, I've compromised with others in an attempt to form a cohesive, unified position. And you're absolutely right-- I do come across as arrogant very often, but if you knew me as a person, you'd see that I'm the farthest thing from that. The arrogance that appears on the screen is often derived from frustration, not condescension.

I have been in the unenviable position of having served in the military where people like you publicly undermined the US military with statements such as yours.

I am not undermining the military-- I'm undermining the President. Personally, I see a huge distinction between blind patriotism and patriotism. No matter the circumstances (whether it's a social issue, an economic issue, or a military issue), I am not automatically going to side with the government (whether it's a democrat, republican, or another). For example, I am for gay marriage and even the new trend-- polygamy, but just because the President or EVEN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, says it's wrong, I still stand by my position. It is the same thing with the military. If I believe that a war is unjust, I'm going to speak out about it just like I would with any other issue. It's not a slam against our military-- it's just another issue.

It's not my choice to not support those who willingly go to Iraq-- it's the consequence of my belief that the war is unjust. All of the bullshit liberals who say, "I'm against the war, but I support our troops" are full of shit. Quite frankly, it's irresponsible of them to say that. How can you support people who are fighting for a cause that you are against? It's NOT possible and it's hypocritical. The soldiers don't deserve to have fake support-- they deserve true support.

And once again, I'd like to emphasize the fact that I'm not anti-military or anti-war. And for those who have protected my freedom, I am 100% grateful and I support them with conviction. The problem today, is that I don't see the role of the soldiers in Iraq as protecting our freedom, instead I see them on a misguided mission.

You have all the right to disagree with me about my perspective on the war itself. But until I support the war in Iraq, I can't support the troops. It just doesn't make sense.

Please be aware, though, that I am not condemning the troops or wishing death upon them. They didn't decide to start the war-- the President did. Therefore, any hostility that I have is not directed at the troops themselves, but instead at the man in the oval office.

And just for the record, for those who continue to push the irrelevant issue of "spreading freedom abroad," I have a better argument that you can use in the future. The brilliance behind Iraq is not that we are there to spread freedom (that's just the shit that spews from the mouth of the President). By invading Iraq, we have entrenched our presence in the middle east. By doing this, we have a solid base out of which we can operate to attack the real terrorists on their home soil. Our presence in that region is crucial because the sooner we begin to reshape the entire area, the safer we, as a country, will be. And we can't do that from Washington-- we can only do it where the problem lies.

 

[Gunny]

In your original post you stated with certainty that the war is unjust. Obviously we disagree. I do not see where I made a "personal attack" on you unless you consider my pointing out the fact that your personal opinion is not necessarily correct, that you do not understand why soldiers do what they do (regardless of your likes or dislikes). As for my arrogance, I would say that you are far more arrogant than I as displayed in your giving us babies (as you put it) permission to talk about the issue itself.

The weak stance on the issue you percieve is no weaker than your original baseless assertions on the Iraq war. You offer nothiing in support of your statements except your opinion. That is somethinng I refuse to acknowledge as substantiating evidence or as support for your position.

I have been in the unenviable position of having served in the military where people like you publicly undermined the US military with statements such as yours. I was there when such statements were used as propaganda by the enemy and I was there when such statements gave aid and comfort to the enemy. I will not sit idly by and let such statements pass without opposing comment. I will not let any citizen of this country make disparaging remarks about US soldiers based on their view of what is the 'correct' reason for fighting in this country's wars. You will honor those who joined prior to the opening of hostilities in Iraq but not those that joined after (by your own admission) and I take great offense to that. Those same soldiers you refuse to honor because of the events in Iraq today may be the soldiers that have to fight for YOUR cause tomorrow. As I stated earlier, soldiers do not get to pick and choose which individual citizens they will fight for. They do not have the luxury (and most do not have the desire) to discriminate in which citizens they respect, honor or defend. They do not even have the right to publicly state their opinion on things political (while in uniform). I watched the "silent majority" of this country let events and propaganda run rampant during and after the VietNam era. I will NOT become part of that silent majority.

Well said.

 

[dilloduck]

CSM, I apologize for calling you a baby. I just get very frustrated when people tell me that I think my opinion is the only one that is correct (because being as though most people here don't like me, I hear that a lot). We are all debating opinions here-- of course I think mine is right, but on the other hand, do you think yours is wrong? I'd just rather hear people tell me why they think I'm wrong, rather than tell me I'm narrow-minded. Because we're all narrow-minded in our own way. And the truth of the matter is that in many of my posts, I've compromised with others in an attempt to form a cohesive, unified position. And you're absolutely right-- I do come across as arrogant very often, but if you knew me as a person, you'd see that I'm the farthest thing from that. The arrogance that appears on the screen is often derived from frustration, not condescension.

I have been in the unenviable position of having served in the military where people like you publicly undermined the US military with statements such as yours.

I am not undermining the military-- I'm undermining the President. Personally, I see a huge distinction between blind patriotism and patriotism. No matter the circumstances (whether it's a social issue, an economic issue, or a military issue), I am not automatically going to side with the government (whether it's a democrat, republican, or another). For example, I am for gay marriage and even the new trend-- polygamy, but just because the President or EVEN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, says it's wrong, I still stand by my position. It is the same thing with the military. If I believe that a war is unjust, I'm going to speak out about it just like I would with any other issue. It's not a slam against our military-- it's just another issue.

It's not my choice to not support those who willingly go to Iraq-- it's the consequence of my belief that the war is unjust. All of the bullshit liberals who say, "I'm against the war, but I support our troops" are full of shit. Quite frankly, it's irresponsible of them to say that. How can you support people who are fighting for a cause that you are against? It's NOT possible and it's hypocritical. The soldiers don't deserve to have fake support-- they deserve true support.

And once again, I'd like to emphasize the fact that I'm not anti-military or anti-war. And for those who have protected my freedom, I am 100% grateful and I support them with conviction. The problem today, is that I don't see the role of the soldiers in Iraq as protecting our freedom, instead I see them on a misguided mission.

You have all the right to disagree with me about my perspective on the war itself. But until I support the war in Iraq, I can't support the troops. It just doesn't make sense.

Please be aware, though, that I am not condemning the troops or wishing death upon them. They didn't decide to start the war-- the President did. Therefore, any hostility that I have is not directed at the troops themselves, but instead at the man in the oval office.

And just for the record, for those who continue to push the irrelevant issue of "spreading freedom abroad," I have a better argument that you can use in the future. The brilliance behind Iraq is not that we are there to spread freedom (that's just the shit that spews from the mouth of the President). By invading Iraq, we have entrenched our presence in the middle east. By doing this, we have a solid base out of which we can operate to attack the real terrorists on their home soil. Our presence in that region is crucial because the sooner we begin to reshape the entire area, the safer we, as a country, will be. And we can't do that from Washington-- we can only do it where the problem lies.

Assuming that people who support the war effort, our troops and the president just do it out of blind patriotism is getting to be a pretty weak accusation. They can back up thier beliefs quite nicely without having to resort to just saying "It's the Republican thing to do". You may WANT to believe that people who support this effort as a war on terrorism simply because they are "sheep" but these "sheep" can make thier case better than you can without having to resort to partisan politics.