PDA

View Full Version : If you support the war in Iraq.....



PeedeeShaolin
23rd November 04, 06:14 PM
If you support the war, which WAS based on the bullshit claim of WMDs and has now changed to FREEDOM and the whole "we were in possible future danger" thing, then you have NO EXCUSE sitting home on your lazy ASS and "supporting our troops" by buying a 90 cent fucking RIBBON and pasting it to your car.

If you can join up and help, go do it pussy.

If this is good enough for your own countrymen to die for then it sure as hell is good enough for YOU to die for since you support it so much correct? Or is your life worth MORE somehow?

The military is so starved for manpower, and they've been saying this for a WHILE now, that soldiers are being called back after their time is up, sometimes against their will. Don't you think YOU, as a supportive and able-bodied American who was all for them going over there, should man-up and get off your couch and HELP a little bit instead of watching OTHER people do it? Since its important enough for them to DIE and everything.....

So if you are of age and SUPPORT the war then whats your reason for staying home and watching OTHEr people fight on TV instead of defending your country yourself?

Just wondering.

Judah Maccabee
23rd November 04, 06:29 PM
If you're following this line of argument, and you see the stopping of the Janjaweed militia committing genocide in Sudan as a necessary and worthwhile goal, then you have no excuse sitting there donating 90 cents into a 7-11 coinbox.

If you can join up and help. go do it, pussy.

Don't you think YOU, as a supportive and able-bodied American who is all for stopping genocide, should man-up and get off your couch and HELP a little bit instead of watching OTHER people do it? Since its important enough for them to DIE and everything.....


So if you are of age and SUPPORT stopping genocide, then whats your reason for staying home and watching OTHER people fight on TV instead of stopping genocide yourself?

etc. etc.

HAPKO3
23rd November 04, 06:43 PM
Good point, Steve. The tired old argument that "if you support X then go do it yourself" has absolutely no value.

Here's some similar statements:

"If you support the death penalty, don't be a pussy and go execute people"
"If you support fighting crime, don't be a pussy and join the police academy"

etc. etc.

The Wastrel
23rd November 04, 07:07 PM
Good point, Steve. The tired old argument that "if you support X then go do it yourself" has absolutely no value.

Here's some similar statements:

"If you support the death penalty, don't be a pussy and go execute people"
"If you support fighting crime, don't be a pussy and join the police academy"

etc. etc.


It's too strong to say it has NO value, and your first analogy is seriously flawed, the second one less so.

HAPKO3
23rd November 04, 07:08 PM
None whatsoever, IMO.

Point granted about the first analogy, but what's wrong with the second one?

The Wastrel
23rd November 04, 07:14 PM
None whatsoever, IMO.

Point granted about the first analogy, but what's wrong with the second one?

Historically, the tradition of the US military, particularly the enlisted corps, was that of the citizen-soldier, mobilized to a nation's purpose, and then de-mobbed to rejoin society when the job was done. Granted, that has changed considerably, but there is still very much a tradition of service. A four-year tour and you've done your duty.

The police forces on the other hand are traditionally career services.

HAPKO3
23rd November 04, 07:16 PM
Fair enough.

Judah Maccabee
23rd November 04, 07:38 PM
As long as the military is short-changed in the federal budget, it will no longer be the middle-class enterprise it must be in order to maintain its current modality.

PNAC, baby.

The Wastrel
23rd November 04, 07:44 PM
As long as the military is short-changed in the federal budget, it will no longer be the middle-class enterprise it must be in order to maintain its current modality.

PNAC, baby.

First, are there really people who think the PNAC is some sort of colossally good idea?

Second, you know nothing about the military.

Judah Maccabee
23rd November 04, 07:46 PM
We went over PNAC in our Geopolitics class, then contrasted its proscriptions with Chomsky.

Why is PNAC not a good plan?

The Wastrel
23rd November 04, 07:47 PM
We went over PNAC in our Geopolitics class, then contrasted its proscriptions with Chomsky.

Why is PNAC not a good plan?

Why did you spend any time on Chomsky?

Judah Maccabee
23rd November 04, 07:57 PM
The professor used him as a counterpoint, claiming that Chomsky was the most prominent leftist thinker in America and the world, and said his ideological analysis and insight could be generalized to the leftist school of thought.

I didn't spend any time on Chomsky. I spent time on ANTI-CHOMSKY

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/189355497X/qid=1101257844/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-6288281-2519255?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Why isn't PNAC a good plan?

punchingdummy
23rd November 04, 08:00 PM
Why is PNAC not a good plan?

The whole idea of the US as the moral authority projecting our values is a slipperly slope. There is a time and place where this is appropriate, but too much is a recipe for the US downfall. PNAC seems to cross that line and, IMHO, leads the US to the abyss.

The Wastrel
23rd November 04, 08:02 PM
The professor used him as a counterpoint, claiming that Chomsky was the most prominent leftist thinker in America and the world, and said his ideological analysis and insight could be generalized to the leftist school of thought.

I didn't spend any time on Chomsky. I spent time on ANTI-CHOMSKY

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/189355497X/qid=1101257844/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-6288281-2519255?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Why isn't PNAC a good plan?


I'm not at home, and don't have the time or the resources to attack PNAC. I'm just curious why anyone would waste time on Chomsky, or even anti-Chomsky. He is not a serious political thinker. Period.

HAPKO3
23rd November 04, 08:11 PM
I'm not at home, and don't have the time or the resources to attack PNAC. I'm just curious why anyone would waste time on Chomsky, or even anti-Chomsky. He is not a serious political thinker. Period.
It always amazed me how much talk there is around that guy. He did some interesting work in linguistics a while ago, but beyond that, he comes across as a semi-coherent lunatic.

Leodom
23rd November 04, 09:04 PM
If you support the war, which WAS based on the bullshit claim of WMDs and has now changed to FREEDOM and the whole "we were in possible future danger" thing, then you have NO EXCUSE sitting home on your lazy ASS and "supporting our troops" by buying a 90 cent fucking RIBBON and pasting it to your car.

If you can join up and help, go do it pussy.

If this is good enough for your own countrymen to die for then it sure as hell is good enough for YOU to die for since you support it so much correct? Or is your life worth MORE somehow?

The military is so starved for manpower, and they've been saying this for a WHILE now, that soldiers are being called back after their time is up, sometimes against their will. Don't you think YOU, as a supportive and able-bodied American who was all for them going over there, should man-up and get off your couch and HELP a little bit instead of watching OTHER people do it? Since its important enough for them to DIE and everything.....

So if you are of age and SUPPORT the war then whats your reason for staying home and watching OTHEr people fight on TV instead of defending your country yourself?

Just wondering.

The war in Iraq is one of many things I support. I can't do it all.

Scrapper
23rd November 04, 09:27 PM
PeeDee...

Do you actively participate in everything you "support?" You are against the war in Iraq, but you aren't over there organizing car bombs, and defending Falujah. I support the war in Iraq, but I am not a soldier, nor does my becoming one help me support many of the things I endorse. It is very arrogant of you to presume to know best how I can support the things I chose to. I will offer my support in any form I chose to any thing I chose and I don't need your approval, nor do I need to make excuses to you.

I supported the efforts in Iraq at the polls, but I chose to stay here to pursue the other things that I feel are important. So please peddle your simplistic, single-minded jingoistic rhetoric somewhere else. We are all stocked up here.

The Wastrel
23rd November 04, 09:30 PM
PeeDee...

You are against the war in Iraq, but you aren't over there organizing car bombs, and defending Falujah.


This is a grotesque distortion.

Scrapper
23rd November 04, 09:32 PM
No more grotesque than his.....

The Wastrel
23rd November 04, 09:34 PM
Yes it is. Far more.

Scrapper
23rd November 04, 09:37 PM
He made the rules: "If you support the war in Iraq...go fight." Than he uses words like "pussy" to incite an emotional response from those he wished to antagonize.

If it is ok for him to grossly over-simplify everyone else's priorities, than it is Ok for us to do the same. If you support not having us in Iraq, go stop us. Fair is fair.

It is obviously not that simple, and it is a gross distortion, but those are the rules he chose...not me.

Don't get mad at me for being unreasonable...this is his thread...(I did't even call him a pussy.)

PeedeeShaolin
23rd November 04, 09:47 PM
If you're insulted its your guilty conscience.

I never said I supported ANY U.S. action in the Sudan so Stevie's analogy is absolute BULLSHIT and its obvious.

I ask you this AGAIN and I just want a simple DIRECT answer:

If you SUPPORT THE WAR, you got this so far(?), and you think its WORTHY that AMERICAN SOLDIERS are DYING because they think our country will be in DANGER, read that again...oh fuck it I'll just type it again, they were TOLD our country will be in DANGER if their mission fails AND our military is SHORTHANDED and in NEED OF MANPOWER....then whats your MISERABLE excuse for not fighting for your country when it NEEDS men AND the whole reason they're there is necessary?

Please answer and I'll shut up. I doubt any of you can.

PeedeeShaolin
23rd November 04, 09:52 PM
"If you support fighting crime, don't be a pussy and join the police academy"

Another line I'll destroy in about 5 seconds with one brain tied behind my back.

If I BELIVED my COUNTRY WAS IN DANGER by criminals and I was told unless police started DYING left an right by confronting criminals and then my police force was saying they NEEDED more manpower I would be a TOTAL pussy for not helping out.

Not only would I be a pussy for not helping out in the very same cause that I support OTHER people dying for but I would be a SCUMBAG for not helping DEFEND MY NATION when I was told my NATION WAS IN DANGER and NEEDED MANPOWER to succed in its mission.

...answer the previous post please.

Scrapper
23rd November 04, 09:59 PM
There are things here that are MORE important to me than going to Iraq. If someone had said to me that I had to fight in Iraq to be considered a supporter of the action, then my priorities here would have preempted that support. In this case they do not. I don't have to go to Iraq to support our action there. I am not sure what you are looking for...There are millions of reasons for a person to not want to , or be able to be a soldier, that does not mean they can't think military action is a good idea. The very nature of your question implies that anyone not currently actively serving in Iraq has no right to an opinion on it. That is silly. You continue to imply that a persons reasons for not serving in the military are "miserable." You do everyone who is not in the military a huge disservice...you don't know anything about the people you are deriding. You are doing it to be inflammatory. You are not even asking a legitamate question...you are just calling everyone who disagrres with your position on Iraq a pussy because (for whatever reason...) they can't or won't enlist. Everyone else's reasons are their own business, to cast aspersions about them because you don't understand them is the act of a small child who has latched onto a simple concept and tried to apply it to a complex scenario. Just yelling it louder won't make it any more relevant. You don't get to ask why a person isn't in the military, because IT"S NOT YOUR LIFE...It is pure arrogance to insist that everyone prioritize their beliefs the way you do.

As I said before, you aren't actively trying to stop AMerica's action in Iraq....what gives you any moral authority?

Judah Maccabee
23rd November 04, 10:03 PM
My analogy was in terms of general reference to anyone and entirely applicable to this situation in hand. Unless you believe that stopping genocide isn't worthwhile?

Scrapper
23rd November 04, 10:12 PM
Can I support cancer research if I'm not a research scientist?
How about supporting tough sentencing if I'm not a judge?
Is it OK to support women's rights if I don't have a uterus?

Just a few of the things I support passively...

Jolly_Roger
23rd November 04, 10:13 PM
Unless you believe that stopping genocide isn't worthwhile?
It's always a worthwile effort. Even more, it is, I think, part of what makes us human (or, to a point, humane) to try and stop genocide. But which country can stop the U.S. now?

Judah Maccabee
23rd November 04, 10:18 PM
And just who is America genociding, jolly_roger?

Xango
23rd November 04, 10:25 PM
The general argument, that in order to be in favor of a course of action one must personally further it, is specious.

Jolly_Roger
23rd November 04, 10:28 PM
And just who is America genociding, jolly_roger?

The Shi'ite oposition to the puppet government in Fallujah, for one.
The clans charged with the guarding of the Imam Al'i for another.
The minorities in Kandahar, for another.
The people of the U.S. which, due to being poor and having criminal records, are denied public housing, despite having paid their debt to society.

Make no mistake. Saddam was also a genocidial dictator. But it seems to me much worse when a country by itself takes on the job of "liberating" countries in the world, and even worse when it engages in slaughter and denial of the human rights it supposedly defends, like in Guantanamo Bay.

Judah Maccabee
23rd November 04, 10:34 PM
There is an incredible amount of difference between discrimination, prejudice, and genocide.


Genocide: The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

You're absolutely ridiculous.

Red Elvis
23rd November 04, 10:38 PM
I ask you this AGAIN and I just want a simple DIRECT answer....
Please answer and I'll shut up. I doubt any of you can.

I joined the Army in 1990 to go and help my Country during the first Gulf War. Not only did I join the Army but I signed up for the infantry so I would be assured an active role on the front line and not in some tent slopping food on a plate. I did my duty and I would have gone anywhere and fought anyone if told to do so. My term of enlistment was up in 1998 and I received an honorable discharge. Am I a Pussy or am I someone who can speak out in support of the war if I so desire?

Please answer and I'll shut up.

Jolly_Roger
23rd November 04, 10:40 PM
Isn't denying people public housing a way to exterminate them?
Isn't carpet bombing the mountain clans of Ali's guardians killing them?
Isn't storming a Shi'ite city and killing it's people genocide?
Isn't attacking and taking over a country which hasn't called you, while killing every able-body men who looks suspicious genocide?

Xango
23rd November 04, 10:47 PM
Isn't the fact that you don't know that Fallujah is a Sunni stronghold a powerful indicator that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?

Judah Maccabee
23rd November 04, 10:48 PM
They hardly comprise genocide. Deaths of war, yes. Genocide, far from it. Chomsky claimed that America was precipitating genocide prior to our Afghan invasion because we blocked food convoys from Pakistan and predicted millions of people would die. Had that actually happened, that could be constituted as genocide.

However, we not only allowed food through, we also provided millions of dollars of food aid directly to the people. Chomsky now claims that people misunderstood him, but his words indicate otherwise.

The actions you describe in scale, intent, and organization don't merit the label.

Xango
23rd November 04, 10:49 PM
I like you, Jolly_Roger, but you're seriously off base here. America has committed genocide against Native American tribes, but never otherwise, to my knowledge. Massacre, for example, is not serious enough to merit the charge of genocide.

punchingdummy
23rd November 04, 10:52 PM
Isn't denying people public housing a way to exterminate them?
Isn't carpet bombing the mountain clans of Ali's guardians killing them?
Isn't storming a Shi'ite city and killing it's people genocide?
Isn't attacking and taking over a country which hasn't called you, while killing every able-body men who looks suspicious genocide?

I had to check and see if this thread was in Trollshido. It's the only place any of these statements could make any sense whatsover...

punchingdummy
23rd November 04, 10:55 PM
The people of the U.S. which, due to being poor and having criminal records, are denied public housing, despite having paid their debt to society.

So those who have been imprisoned are now somehow entitled to public housing upon their release?

Jolly_Roger
23rd November 04, 11:00 PM
Isn't the fact that you don't know that Fallujah is a Sunni stronghold a powerful indicator that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?


Sadly, it isn't so. While the Sunnis were present in Fallujah more than in other parts of Iraq (which was a Shi'ite country), some of the most respected historians of Islam were present in the city, like Bakr al-Dulaimi.
And the most influential cleric of the region, Moqtada al-Sadr, was a rabid representative of the Shi'ite faction.
But, perhaps, more importantly, while the shrine of the Imam Al'i is a sacred monument to both Sun'ni and Shi'ite, the Shi'ite, placing their lineage of leaders on the family of the prophet, always considered the last of the "golden age" Imams theirs. Tradition demanded that the guardians were Shi'ite, and the Shi'ite community around the globe has felt the impact of the massacre of Fallujah more deeply than the Sunnite one.

I also like you, Xango! :-) Perhaps, we can't agree on the word using to describe those war crimes, but I think that we can agree that they ARE crimes. For me, genocide does not automatically equate concentration camps, but it does equate massive actions against a religious/ethnic/social group, not neccesarily military actions, but which lead to the destruction of the said group.

And Steve, I do agree that Chomsky exaggerated that issue, and that the Us/Pakistan relationship is a lot more complex. Still, the invasion of Iraq it seems undefensible to me.

Jolly_Roger
23rd November 04, 11:02 PM
So those who have been imprisoned are now somehow entitled to public housing upon their release?

No, but there's a difference between being automatically entitled and being left out when applying.
Perhaps it's my sources, human rights watch (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/11/18/usdom9691.htm). Please, tell me if I did make a mistake on this one.

punchingdummy
23rd November 04, 11:06 PM
No, but there's a difference between being automatically entitled and being left out when applying.
Perhaps it's my sources, human rights watch (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/11/18/usdom9691.htm). Please, tell me if I did make a mistake on this one.

Not if you are a hardcore liberal.

Otherwise, you are way off base. I would venture that most of the US is fine with convicted felons getting left out of public housing.

Jolly_Roger
23rd November 04, 11:11 PM
I would venture that most of the US is fine with convicted felons getting left out of public housing.

Perhaps, then, the difference in our opinions lies in the fact that I think convicted felons who had served their time do have the same rights that everyone else does, and most of the U.S. doesn't.
But then, that my views are seen as hardcore liberal in the U.S., while about tame here, shouldn't surprise me any longer.

albert
23rd November 04, 11:12 PM
For me, genocide does not automatically equate concentration camps, but it does equate massive actions against a religious/ethnic/social group, not neccesarily military actions, but which lead to the destruction of the said group.

This seems like it's in accord with the UN's definition of genocide. Denying public housing would fall under the third condition: "Deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to physically destroy the group (the whole group or even part of the group)."

http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/treaties/genocide.asp

Jolly_Roger
23rd November 04, 11:14 PM
Thanks for the link, albert, but we all now that those bleedin' heart liberals on the U.N. are a bunch of pussies who didn't even want to go nukular in Iraq! :-)

punchingdummy
23rd November 04, 11:16 PM
Perhaps, then, the difference in our opinions lies in the fact that I think convicted felons who had served their time do have the same rights that everyone else does, and most of the U.S. doesn't.
But then, that my views are seen as hardcore liberal in the U.S., while about tame here, shouldn't surprise me any longer.

Think of it this way...a good number of those felonies took place either in that public housing or while supported by the public housing. Why should they have another equal shot at the freebee they abused when they get released?

punchingdummy
23rd November 04, 11:18 PM
This seems like it's in accord with the UN's definition of genocide. Denying public housing would fall under the third condition: "Deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to physically destroy the group (the whole group or even part of the group)."

http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/treaties/genocide.asp

So any action against a religious sect which attacks your civilians is genocide by definition? Get real folks.

Jolly_Roger
23rd November 04, 11:34 PM
Think of it this way...a good number of those felonies took place either in that public housing or while supported by the public housing. Why should they have another equal shot at the freebee they abused when they get released?

Because the idea behind prision it's that is a reformatory experience. If a society doesn't belive that, it's better off shooting the offenders in the first place, since there's no certainity that they won't violate their obligations again.
For example, let me quote a discussion we often have in our ancient oriental studies center.
It seems that the law, since it's begging, has recognized the need for the chance of redepmtion.
In the case of Ur-Nammu the lawgiver (an ancient sumerian king of Ur), there's quite explicitly stated that:
"if one man deflowers the slave of another, this man will pay the owner 5 sicles of silver"
after that, there's a corollary stating that if it's his second offense, the price will go up.
We have often argued that examples like this show that even in ancient Sumer, once a crime was paid in full, the person was (theoretically) free of guilt. Of course, it did carried social consequences, but not legal ones.
I must add that, being a religious people, the Sumerians, when doing a contrition rite, giving word or making repairs of an offense, would always invoke a god/goddess (either the god of the city, or Enlil or Nanna, because of their kindness to humans), putting themselves at the mercy of the god in an effort to show their fellow citizens the truth of their intentions. So grieving an oath was held sacred, and the citizen was not legaly hinderes.There is surprisingly little record of repeated offenders, since for them, religion was ever present, and those who did repeated offenses were dealt speedly, often by their families or neighbours, who understood the fragility of that social fabric.

PeedeeShaolin
23rd November 04, 11:38 PM
Can I support cancer research if I'm not a research scientist?
How about supporting tough sentencing if I'm not a judge?
Is it OK to support women's rights if I don't have a uterus?

Just a few of the things I support passively...

Of curse you can support those things. However, those things you mentioned were not specifically mentioned by your President and Govt as DIRECT THREATS to your country and scientists aren't FUCKING GETTING KILLED as a result of that research and judges arent getting KILLED because of tougher sentencing now are they?

The point is that if you support an invasion of another country, which DIRECTLY puts the lives of your OWN COUNTRYMEN in danger, that action must be deemed NECESSARY by you, otherwise you wouldnt feel your country's soldiers should DIE supporting it.

Now since we've been told OVER AND OVER that this war is a KEY WAR in the War on Terror, and you DIRECTLY SUPPORT IT enough that you feel its WORTH our guys DYING, then you are a TRUE PUSSY for sitting on your ass and HIDING in while other people fight for you.

Period.

And you notice how STILL not ONE PERSON can answer my question.

PeedeeShaolin
23rd November 04, 11:41 PM
joined the Army in 1990 to go and help my Country during the first Gulf War. Not only did I join the Army but I signed up for the infantry so I would be assured an active role on the front line and not in some tent slopping food on a plate. I did my duty and I would have gone anywhere and fought anyone if told to do so. My term of enlistment was up in 1998 and I received an honorable discharge. Am I a Pussy or am I someone who can speak out in support of the war if I so desire?

In your case you actually FOUGHT and served your country so you, in my opinion, are clear.

However, since your military has said OVER AND OVER that they NEED MORE MEN and they are even FORCING people to serve past their terms in order to get that manpower AND your govt had DIRECTLY told you that this war is KEY in the war on terror then if you were of age and ability to help your fellow countrymen in this cause that you think is so noble I would want to know the answer to my original question: why arent you helping out?

albert
23rd November 04, 11:43 PM
So any action against a religious sect which attacks your civilians is genocide by definition? Get real folks.

Yes, that's an entailed consequence of the definition. So according to that the war on radical Islam is genocide. One possible response to this issue would be just saying genocide is more common than once thought, and it's not always completely unjustified. One shouldn't just narrowly assert "genocide is rounding up people and killing them." It encompasses more than that. How much more and under what conditions the definition falls under is up for debate.

punchingdummy
23rd November 04, 11:48 PM
Because the idea behind prision it's that is a reformatory experience. If a society doesn't belive that, it's better off shooting the offenders in the first place, since there's no certainity that they won't violate their obligations again.

There is little reform in the current US prison system. It would seem the majority of the education provided on the inside is in the form of raping, stealing and killing in order to avoid being raped, stolen from or killed.

I'm not an expert on criminal justice. This is just MHO.

PeedeeShaolin
23rd November 04, 11:49 PM
Very simple question to answer. I wonder why people are avoiding it?

punchingdummy
23rd November 04, 11:49 PM
In your case you actually FOUGHT and served your country so you, in my opinion, are clear.

So those of us who volunteered and asked for infantry but did not fight are not clear?

Scrapper
23rd November 04, 11:51 PM
I believe that using our (all volunteer) Armed forces to invade Iraq was essential to the security of the US as well as many other places. And just like every other individual in a high-risk occupation, I expect our soldiers to do the job they are paid to do. Protect this country and its interests as ordered by their commander.

The reason why no one is answering your question as you stated it, is because you stated it in such manner that any answer confirms your thesis. It is like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?" I'm not making any excuses for staying home. I'm here because this is where I chose to be. I'm not a pussy, or bitch, or a wuss. But I am not a soldier either, I will leave that to those who chose that as their path...it is not mine for my own reasons. To discuss them would be to concede your point, which is insulting, inflammatory and ultimately irrelevant to any intelligent discussion.

NextGuard
23rd November 04, 11:51 PM
Yes, that's an entailed consequence of the definition. So according to that the war on radical Islam is genocide. One possible response to this issue would be just saying genocide is more common than once thought, and it's not always completely unjustified. One shouldn't just narrowly assert "genocide is rounding up people and killing them." It encompasses more than that. How much more and under what conditions the definition falls under is up for debate.

Except it's not a war on their religion. They are free to believe whatever the heck they want to believe. It's a war on some of the actions taken in the name of radical Islam. If radical islamists stopped using those tactics, the problem, from our side, would go away.

PeedeeShaolin
23rd November 04, 11:53 PM
Iraq's stability is so important that its worth over a THOUSAND dead Americans so far, right? If you didnt believe that stability was WORTH those dead soldiers lives you wouldn't be supporting the invasion/occupation.

Well if that stability is so important that its worth a thousand dead Americans and counting and the military has said OVER AND OVER they NEED MANPOWER then WHY ARE YOU NOT HELPING?

Is defending your country when its TRUELY in DANGER BENEATH YOU or something?

And if you think your country is NOT in danger then your a lowlife for letting those soliders die.

Theres really no nice way to say it and NOBODY is going to be able to answer me with a straight face.

Have fun looking into the mirror.

Jolly_Roger
23rd November 04, 11:53 PM
There is little reform in the current US prison system. It would seem the majority of the education provided on the inside is in the form of raping, stealing and killing in order to avoid being raped, stolen from or killed.

I'm not an expert on criminal justice. This is just MHO.

Hey, no trouble! This is just my (not so) humble opinion too! :-)
What I mean it's, if a government (not just the U.S., in Argentina we have the same problem) has taken the role of reeducating felons as a way of protecting society (for which is elected), it's contradictory to condemn them to a life of shunning and forcing them to live apart from society, where they can easily fall again into crime.
I think that, at least here, there's a bad need of a reform in the penitentiary system. Still, some non-guvernamental organizations try to help those ex-cons.
Still, there's a sizeable portion of the country which doesn't care for them. Woudln't say that is the majority, though.

PeedeeShaolin
23rd November 04, 11:54 PM
In case you cant tell I'm upset about this and theres a dman good reason for it but I'll keep that reason to myself like I do alot of other things.

PeedeeShaolin
23rd November 04, 11:56 PM
I'm not making any excuses for staying home. I'm here because this is where I chose to be. I'm not a pussy, or bitch, or a wuss. But I am not a soldier either, I will leave that to those who chose that as their path...it is not mine for my own reasons.

If your country was attacked would you fight for it?

If you say YES then you are TRULY a pussy for not fighting NOW because, as we've heard OVER AND OVER, your country IS in danger from these people and from what will happen if they gain control of that country. Our country is in danger enough that over 1,000 soldiers have died already.

If you WOULDN'T defend your country then your a pussy all the same.

And nobody will answer because I'm correct and you have no comeback for the truth.

albert
23rd November 04, 11:58 PM
Except it's not a war on their religion. They are free to believe whatever the heck they want to believe. It's a war on some of the actions taken in the name of radical Islam. If radical islamists stopped using those tactics, the problem, from our side, would go away.

Umm...sorry to burst your bubble, but the very definition of radical Islam involves using violence. Faith demonstrated through action is key for those people. I highly doubt they will lay down their arms anytime soon.

Jolly_Roger
23rd November 04, 11:58 PM
In case you cant tell I'm upset about this and theres a dman good reason for it but I'll keep that reason to myself like I do alot of other things.

After saying that, you would think us heartless if we didn't ask you what was the reason that prompted you on this course.

PeedeeShaolin
24th November 04, 12:02 AM
All I want is anyone who supprts our soliders DYING for this cause to explain WHY they feel they can't help defend their country when it both needs them and is in danger.

Simple question but you wont find one person who will answer it.

Thats why I call them pussies and, so far, it would seem I'm correct.

Jolly_Roger
24th November 04, 12:04 AM
Sadly, if wars and imperialism were actually fought by those who encourage and profit by them, the earth's wars would have stopped after the Mogol's empire.

Red Elvis
24th November 04, 12:05 AM
In your case you actually FOUGHT and served your country so you, in my opinion, are clear.

However, since your military has said OVER AND OVER that they NEED MORE MEN and they are even FORCING people to serve past their terms in order to get that manpower AND your govt had DIRECTLY told you that this war is KEY in the war on terror then if you were of age and ability to help your fellow countrymen in this cause that you think is so noble I would want to know the answer to my original question: why arent you helping out?

When you say YOU and YOUR are you asking me or are you talking to everybody else again? I have already served my country and am no longer eligible for service due in part to age and to injuries limiting my ability to serve. There comes a point when you get older that you no longer have the option of serving but it shouldn't stop your ability to support or defend the actions of the U.S. when you so choose. Furthermore, I don't believe I said one way or the other how I feel about this war. I believe I said, "am I someone who can speak out in support of the war if I so desire?" Were I in support of the war and unable to serve active duty what would you have me do, quit my job and go to Iraq in a cheerleader outfit?

In regards to your comment about, "even FORCING people to serve past their terms in order to get that manpower" please remember that every enlistee has an eight year obligation regardless of how long they initially signed up for. It is in EVERY contract for EVERY branch of service and EVERYBODY that enlists signs it. They can keep you in and you are fulfilling your end of the contract. Point blank. All this talk about a backdoor draft is BS for the uneducated.

One more point, regardless of how you feel this is also YOUR military and Your government. Just because you don't like the current administration and course of actions doesn't mean you have to turn your back on the men and woman who are serving.

Judah Maccabee
24th November 04, 12:06 AM
PD, can you at least acknowledge that your attitude and question are predicated on the idea that the only way to take a role in this conflict is to enlist in active front line duty of an armed force?

Scrapper
24th November 04, 12:11 AM
If your country was attacked would you fight for it?

If you say YES then you are TRULY a pussy for not fighting NOW because, as we've heard OVER AND OVER, your country IS in danger from these people and from what will happen if they gain control of that country. Our country is in danger enough that over 1,000 soldiers have died already.

If you WOULDN'T defend your country then your a pussy all the same.

And nobody will answer because I'm correct and you have no comeback for the truth.


You don't have the moral authority to make any of those judgements. I'm sorry. But you don't. You keep demanding an explanation for something that you are not entitled to. Nobody here has to answer to you, but you keep pushing for some kind of vindication. I wonder what it is you want so badly from us. You already know that the reason most of the war supporters that are not active military chose not to enlist because they do not wish to be soldiers. They lack the skills or the temperament to be effective. Others chose not to because they have priorities that they feel more strongly about than the Iraq war.

Is that what's bothering you? That some of us DARE to have an opinion on the Iraq war, but not strongly enough to drop everything we are doing here to go fight? Some of us have businesses, families, obligations that don't give us the LUXURY of jumping up to answer the call to arms. Is the problem that we chose to allow our professional fighting men and women to represent our interests in this, (which is incidentally their job)? Is THAT the problem? What do you want to hear, Peedee? That we WANT Americans do die in our stead? Would that make you feel better? If you think for one second that this is the case than you are every bit as stupid as you sound, and I had sincerely hoped that was not the case.

This childish tantrum you are on insults the intelligence of everyone on this forum.

Red Elvis
24th November 04, 12:17 AM
If you say YES then you are TRULY a pussy for not fighting NOW ...

If you WOULDN'T defend your country then your a pussy all the same.

BEDEVERE: Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
VILLAGER #1: Are there?
VILLAGER #2: Ah?
VILLAGER #1: What are they?
CROWD: Tell us! Tell us!...
VILLAGER #2: Do they hurt?
BEDEVERE: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2: Burn!
CROWD: Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1: More witches!
VILLAGER #2: Wood!
BEDEVERE: So, why do witches burn?
VILLAGER #3: Because they're made of... wood?
BEDEVERE: Good!
CROWD: Oh, yeah. Oh.
BEDEVERE: So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE: Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #1: Oh, yeah.
RANDOM: Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
BEDEVERE: Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1: No. No.
VILLAGER #2: No, it floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond!
CROWD: The pond! Throw her into the pond!

BEDEVERE: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1: Cider!
VILLAGER #2: Uh, gra-- gravy!
VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
VILLAGER #2: Mud!
VILLAGER #3: Uh, churches! Churches!
VILLAGER #2: Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR: A duck!
CROWD: Oooh.
BEDEVERE: Exactly. So, logically...
VILLAGER #1: If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE: And therefore?
VILLAGER #2: A witch!

PeedeeShaolin
24th November 04, 12:22 AM
Your avoiding the Q because you'd be unable to look in the mirror if you didn't.

HAPKO3
24th November 04, 12:24 AM
Offtopic: Red Elvis - Did you go to that concert in LA last weekend?

PeedeeShaolin
24th November 04, 12:25 AM
Is that what's bothering you? That some of us DARE to have an opinion on the Iraq war, but not strongly enough to drop everything we are doing here to go fight? Some of us have businesses, families, obligations that don't give us the LUXURY of jumping up to answer the call to arms

Your coming close to sounding like scum.

The LUXURY? Are you fucking KIDDING ME?

What the FUCK can be more important than THE SAFETY OF YOUR NATION? Your JOB?

supercrap
24th November 04, 12:25 AM
I never get tired of that scene...

Jolly_Roger
24th November 04, 12:26 AM
One good holy grial qoute on topic deserves another:


Tim the Enchanter: There he is!
King Arthur: Where?
Tim the Enchanter: There!
King Arthur: What? Behind the rabbit?
Tim the Enchanter: It IS the rabbit!
King Arthur: You silly sod!
Tim the Enchanter: What?
King Arthur: You got us all worked up!
Tim the Enchanter: Well, that's no ordinary rabbit.
King Arthur: Ohh.
Tim the Enchanter: That's the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on!
Sir Robin: You tit! I soiled my armor I was so scared!
Tim the Enchanter: Look, that rabbit's got a vicious streak a mile wide! It's a killer!
Sir Galahad: Get stuffed!
Tim the Enchanter: He'll do you up a treat, mate.
Sir Galahad: Oh yeah?
Sir Robin: You mangy Scots git!
Tim the Enchanter: I'm warning you!
Sir Robin: What's he do? Nibble your bum?
Tim the Enchanter: He's got huge, sharp - eh - he can leap about - look at the bones!
King Arthur: Go on, Bors. Chop his head off!
Bors: Right! Silly little bleeder. One rabbit stew comin' right up!

HAPKO3
24th November 04, 12:27 AM
Your avoiding the Q because you'd be unable to look in the mirror if you didn't.
Your question is complete and utter bullshit, and you should know this as well as I do.

Whether or not you support something is not a black and white issue. There are degrees of support. For example, I could very well support this war, but not enough to actually go and enlist. Or I could be a rabid supporter, and enlist at the first opportunity. Or I could support it just as strongly as I support something else, say stem cell research, and chose to work in the latter.
You are throwing a hissy fit over nothing. Please stop.

Judah Maccabee
24th November 04, 12:27 AM
PD, can you at least acknowledge that your attitude and question are predicated on the idea that the only way to take a role in this conflict is to enlist in active front line duty of an armed force?

Or at least "legitimate role in your eyes"

HAPKO3
24th November 04, 12:28 AM
Your coming close to sounding like scum.

The LUXURY? Are you fucking KIDDING ME?

What the FUCK can be more important than THE SAFETY OF YOUR NATION? Your JOB?

Also, you're equating supporting the war with buying all the rhetoric behind it.

Scrapper
24th November 04, 12:29 AM
Ahhhh....now the rhetoric begins. You already know the answer to your question...you just don't llike it. You are hoping one of us will give you something to rant about...that's why you keep using the term "pussy." But so far no one has bit. Now you will either degenerate to repeating the same thing over and over again (like "you won't answer me because your a pussy!" or "You just don't want to look in the mirror!") untill a flame war begins.

C'mon Peedee, you know all this already.

I'm sorry that you don't like the answers you have been given. I suspect you already knew the answers before you started the thread. You just want an argument.


P.S> I have no trouble looking in the mirror.

Red Elvis
24th November 04, 12:29 AM
Offtopic: Red Elvis - Did you go to that concert in LA last weekend?

Off topic reply... Which concert?

PeedeeShaolin
24th November 04, 12:29 AM
Then tell us Hap, whats the reason over 1,000 American soldeirs have died? If it wasn't because their country was in danger, like they were told, then whst are they dying for?

I'm really not going to let you off the hook here because you're avoiding a simple and direct question.

Scrapper
24th November 04, 12:33 AM
<gives PeeDee a big Hug>

Feel better now?

Jolly_Roger
24th November 04, 12:33 AM
Just to know...if those of you who support the war would go to war, why would the reason have to be?

PeedeeShaolin
24th November 04, 12:33 AM
Whether or not you support something is not a black and white issue. There are degrees of support. For example, I could very well support this war, but not enough to actually go and enlist. Or I could be a rabid supporter, and enlist at the first opportunity. Or I could support it just as strongly as I support something else, say stem cell research, and chose to work in the latter.

Your starting to sound pretty sad here.

One thing you IGNORE CONSTANTLY:

YOU SUPPORT AN ACTION WHICH DIRECTLY PUTS THE LIVES OF YOUR FELLOW COUNTRYMEN AT RISK and over 1,000 have died already not to mention the ones that are crippled and fucked up.

THATS THE DIFFERENCE that you HIDE FROM isn't it?

So, to sum up, its good enough for THEM to DIE....just not YOU. You're better then them.

PeedeeShaolin
24th November 04, 12:34 AM
They wont answer because they feel the best way to support Americans dying in the desert is to wave a flg from their couch and type "USA" on the internet while other peoples kids die.

Jolly_Roger
24th November 04, 12:37 AM
No, but, I mean, in a theoretical situation.
For example, I would fight if my country were invaded, and my family put to risk. I wouldn't go anywhere else to fight, because I sure as hell don't trust politician's motives. But that's just me.

HAPKO3
24th November 04, 12:37 AM
Off topic reply... Which concert?Red Elvises.

PeedeeShaolin
24th November 04, 12:38 AM
DODGLEBALL! DODGE that question maybe it'll go away in time for you to feel better.

HAPKO3
24th November 04, 12:41 AM
Then tell us Hap, whats the reason over 1,000 American soldeirs have died? If it wasn't because their country was in danger, like they were told, then whst are they dying for?

I'm really not going to let you off the hook here because you're avoiding a simple and direct question.
That's a very good question. To fully answer it is beyond the scope of this thread, but, in my analysis, the war in Iraq was an example of the administration thinking a couple of moves in advance in the game over the whole Middle East. If this war is successful, it would give the US a good base in the region, something we've needed desparately for quite some time, and set a precedent for a democracy, allowing US influence to spread slowly over the neighbouring countries.

Your simple question was why wouldn't someone who supports this war go and enlist. I gave you a couple of different andswers. There are more. Different people have different reasons.

supercrap
24th November 04, 12:42 AM
changed my mind... I'm staying out of political ness. Enough of that with wing chun.

PeedeeShaolin
24th November 04, 12:42 AM
YOU SUPPORT AN ACTION WHICH DIRECTLY PUTS THE LIVES OF YOUR FELLOW COUNTRYMEN AT RISK and over 1,000 have died already not to mention the ones that are crippled and fucked up.

THATS THE DIFFERENCE that you HIDE FROM isn't it?

So, to sum up, its good enough for THEM to DIE....just not YOU. You're better then them.

And don't forget the part where the MILITARY IS SHORTHANDED AND NEEDS MORE MANPOWER.

That just ADDS to the picture doesn't it?

"YES! The country is in DANGER! Go over there and FIGHT and POSSIBLY DIE!"

"We're doing our best, but we need help now because the situation is much worse than we thought."

"Well FUCK THAT, MY life is worth MORE than any of those GRUNTS! I could really care LESS if my country was in danger as long as I have my TV! USA! Keep fighting boys! I'll cheer you on! This is WORTH you dying for, just not ME! I have SCHOOL to attend!"

HAPKO3
24th November 04, 12:46 AM
Your starting to sound pretty sad here.

One thing you IGNORE CONSTANTLY:

YOU SUPPORT AN ACTION WHICH DIRECTLY PUTS THE LIVES OF YOUR FELLOW COUNTRYMEN AT RISK and over 1,000 have died already not to mention the ones that are crippled and fucked up.

THATS THE DIFFERENCE that you HIDE FROM isn't it?

So, to sum up, its good enough for THEM to DIE....just not YOU. You're better then them.

First of all, I never said I support the war, that's just something you assumed. All I said is that your little fit is laughable. My thoughts on the war are mixed, and I definitly don't agree with the way Bush and co have been handling it. That, however, is besides the point.

We in the US have a proffesional army. People who sign up do so knowing that they might be placed in harms way. That's a career choice, or a life choice if you will, that they made. I chose otherwise, and I have aboslutely no moral qualms over leaving war to the warriors. I support it with my taxes.

It would truly have to take something exceptional for me to pick up arms and go fight. Some vague threat (even if there ever was one) in Iraq does not qualify. This doesn't make me better of worse than others. It's just a choice that I made.

HAPKO3
24th November 04, 12:47 AM
EDITED

Red Elvis
24th November 04, 12:48 AM
Red Elvises.

No, might go this Friday while they are in Huntington Beach... closer to my pad.

As for Peedee... there is nothing anyone can say in this thread that is going to change anybody's mind or justify either being in support of or against the war in Iraq. Tell us what has you so fired up all of the sudden... it's not like this just happened yesterday or something. All this going back and forth is getting pointless.

Jolly_Roger
24th November 04, 12:49 AM
If this war is successful, it would give the US a good base in the region, something we've needed desparately for quite some time, and set a precedent for a democracy, allowing US influence to spread slowly over the neighbouring countries.
.

How does unilateraly deciding to invade a country, against the wishes of most of the world, and putting up a puppet government promote democracy?

PeedeeShaolin
24th November 04, 12:50 AM
But you realize by making that choice to SUPPORT the invasion you're saying its GOOD ENOUGH for those kids to die or be crippled but just not important enough for YOU to do the same.

Those kids didn't sign up for the military to fight and die unless it was NECESSARY and you KNOW thats true.

Now...if its NECESSARY for our country and the military NEEDS MORE PEOPLE to achieve that necessity, whats your excuse?

Seriously man.

Red Elvis
24th November 04, 12:53 AM
First of all, I never said I support the war, that's just something you assumed. All I said is that your little fit is laughable. My thoughts on the war are mixed, and I definitly don't agree with the way Bush and co have been handling it. That, however, is besides the point.
.


Well, apparently if you disagree with his rationale than you support the war. I still haven't stated my opinion one way or the other but apparently because I do not agree 100% with PeeDee then I'm just part of the problem.

supercrap
24th November 04, 12:53 AM
How does unilateraly deciding to invade a country, against the wishes of most of the world, and putting up a puppet government promote democracy?
Here here...

I don't think many neighbouring countries want the US's 'help' seeing as the last town they helped, Fallujeh, is nothing but a smouldering ghost town.

Scrapper
24th November 04, 12:54 AM
I think PeeDee has a point.

While people say you have jobs, families etc, what, you think everyone else in the army is a nobody with no life? They all sacrificed something. Personally, I'm totally against the war, and war in general, so I don't feel guilty for not signing up. But for those of you who think it's a worthy event, you need to argue this out with peedee...


I think the part that PeeDee is struggling with is the "volunteer" aspect of the US military. He seems to feel that the US is kidnapping 13 year old boys and forcing them to fight. He basically insults the intelligence of every military person with this thread. He is obviously upset, but this attitude of "if you want it, you go do it!" is unbecoming to a miltary person. It spits in the eye of what they stand for and insults the oath they took as soldiers and trivializes the path they walk in representing the USA.

For the record, Peedee....
I have four friends currently active in the middle east. Two of them have children in my classes. Somebody has to teach in the schools, work in the hospitals, buy the consumer goods, and do all the things that make America able to support its military. I chose to continue to teach children (and yes...children of soldiers) instead of going to fight. I refuse to be ashamed of that. I don't care what you care to call me from behind your keyboard. You have referred to me as a pussy and "almost like scum" because i didn't agree with you. I suspect that you are feeling a very strong need to lash out at someone over this, so I won't retaliate along those lines. I am very sorry for whatever it is that has you so upset about this, but a tantrum won't make it any better.

Judah Maccabee
24th November 04, 12:54 AM
Now...if its NECESSARY for our country and the military NEEDS MORE PEOPLE to achieve that necessity, whats your excuse?

Seriously man.

Because there are multiple ways of being involved in supporting the current war effort. Of course, anyone who equated lobbying their representative and/or starting fundraisers to help pay for some of the costs of war (equipment, minor luxuries like magazines, etc) with serving an active role in the armed forces would be utterly ridiculous.

You believe there is only one appropriate way to support this conflict, and no one else here, even veterans of prior conflicts, agree with you.

HAPKO3
24th November 04, 12:55 AM
How does unilateraly deciding to invade a country, against the wishes of most of the world, and putting up a puppet government promote democracy?
The idea, as I understand it, was for the puppet gov't to be replaced with a democtratically elected gov't that would be friendly to the US for a number of reasons (economic aid, liberation from saddam, whatever) and then milk the relationship for what it's worth. I could be wrong though.

From what I understand the real threat was not Saddam, but whatever would come after Saddam. His regime was weakening, his sons and the higher ups in his gov't were splitting up into factions and preparing for a power struggle, neighbouring countries (IRan in particular) were infultrating it in order to tilt the scales in favor of an Islamic gov't, which would naturally create another enemy for the US. It's my understanding that Bush and co acted to pervent that, and to establish a good foothold in the region.

So far, we've have Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia as bases from which to act, and all three of those countries make pretty shitty bases of operation for an assortment of reasons. Now we have Pakistan to boot. I have a bad feeling about Pakistan, by the way. I see history repeating itself.

Scrapper
24th November 04, 12:55 AM
Good night all.

PeedeeShaolin
24th November 04, 12:56 AM
Well, apparently if you disagree with his rationale than you support the war. I still haven't stated my opinion one way or the other but apparently because I do not agree 100% with PeeDee then I'm just part of the problem.

Look man, I never said you were part of any problem. All I did was ask if you supported those kids dying and getting fucked up then why, if you are of able body, wouldnt you help them when they need the help badly and the cause they're fighting for is worthy of Americans dying in your eyes.

Thats it, I'm done. I dont even want to think about this anymore and I'm not even going to return to the thread.

If you dont want to answer the question thats between you and the man in the mirror.

Judah Maccabee
24th November 04, 12:59 AM
The man in the mirror said it wasn't nice to ignore 4 polite requests to clarify your position.

http://www.sleepwithcj.com/Man_in_Mirror.jpg

Jolly_Roger
24th November 04, 01:02 AM
The idea, as I understand it, was for the puppet gov't to be replaced with a democtratically elected gov't that would be friendly to the US for a number of reasons (economic aid, liberation from saddam, whatever) and then milk the relationship for what it's worth. I could be wrong though.


Which is quite democratic, in the sense that the will of the people will be done, but only if you understand people as "Americans who supported the war".
However, since the Iraqis don't have much interest in recognizing that for them to be considered people, they must think like the said americans, I am afraid that much more democratization will have to be acomplished in Iraq.

I don't think Pakistan would launch an attack, not with Iran close, waiting for the opportunity to ally themselves with their old enemies, the Hindus.

ICY
24th November 04, 12:41 PM
I'm not eligible for service in the US or British armed forces.

HAPKO3
24th November 04, 12:54 PM
Which is quite democratic, in the sense that the will of the people will be done, but only if you understand people as "Americans who supported the war".
However, since the Iraqis don't have much interest in recognizing that for them to be considered people, they must think like the said americans, I am afraid that much more democratization will have to be acomplished in Iraq.

I don't think Pakistan would launch an attack, not with Iran close, waiting for the opportunity to ally themselves with their old enemies, the Hindus.

The way I see it, the push is to get them to wear nikes, watch mtv, jack off to our porn, get liberal arts educations, and, overall, adopt "Western" values. That way they won't come kill us any time soon. And, honestly, I don't really see any other way besides a head on clash.

As far as Pakistan goes, what I'm worried about is the long term. We have a terrible history with supporting convenient dictators. Muscharaf (or however you spell his name) is our cute little pet despot right now, but there's no saying that he won't turn on us in the future, or that his cruelty will create and anti-American backlash once he falls, like what happened in Iran. A lot of these people we're fighting now are our ouwn creation, and I don't want to see history repeat itself for the 37th time.

Jolly_Roger
24th November 04, 03:36 PM
The way I see it, the push is to get them to wear nikes, watch mtv, jack off to our porn, get liberal arts educations, and, overall, adopt "Western" values. That way they won't come kill us any time soon. And, honestly, I don't really see any other way besides a head on clash.

As far as Pakistan goes, what I'm worried about is the long term. We have a terrible history with supporting convenient dictators. Muscharaf (or however you spell his name) is our cute little pet despot right now, but there's no saying that he won't turn on us in the future, or that his cruelty will create and anti-American backlash once he falls, like what happened in Iran. A lot of these people we're fighting now are our ouwn creation, and I don't want to see history repeat itself for the 37th time.

Well, what you are describing, the imposition of a culture, wouldn't you say that is a kind of slavery?. Besides, what makes you think that the Iraqis had attacked America?

And about Pakistan...yes, it's quite possible that there will be anti-american sentiment, on the account of the backing up of dictators. But how would you feel if, say, China backed a coup and set up Justin Timberlake as Uberlord of the U.S.?

"Señorita" would be the national anthem.

DCS
24th November 04, 03:47 PM
The way I see it, the push is to get them to wear nikes, watch mtv, jack off to our porn, get liberal arts educations, and, overall, adopt "Western" values. That way they won't come kill us any time soon. And, honestly, I don't really see any other way besides a head on clash.


And it really works (see Kuwait's example of democracy):


Legal system: civil law system with Islamic law significant in personal matters; has not accepted compulsory ICJ jurisdiction

Suffrage: adult males who have been naturalized for 30 years or more or have resided in Kuwait since before 1920 and their male descendants at age 21
note: only 10% of all citizens are eligible to vote; in 1996, naturalized citizens who do not meet the pre-1920 qualification but have been naturalized for 30 years were eligible to vote for the first time

Political parties and leaders: none

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Kuwait

HAPKO3
24th November 04, 03:58 PM
Well, what you are describing, the imposition of a culture, wouldn't you say that is a kind of slavery?. Besides, what makes you think that the Iraqis had attacked America?

And about Pakistan...yes, it's quite possible that there will be anti-american sentiment, on the account of the backing up of dictators. But how would you feel if, say, China backed a coup and set up Justin Timberlake as Uberlord of the U.S.?

"Señorita" would be the national anthem.

Look, you keep talking to me as if I'm expressing strong support for all of this. Yes, the imposition of culture can be classified as unethical. It's also no easy to do - so far we've not been too effective at it. It's definitly an evil. The question is whether or not it's the least of the possible evils. The way I look at it, it may very well be.

Matt W.
24th November 04, 04:05 PM
I am currently considering joining the national guard. Have talked to a recruiter and am trying to work a few things out and make some decisions. Whether I join or not will depend on many factors such as... I want to join as an officer, but may not be able to at the location I want to enlist at. That's not a deal breaker, but will affect other things such as... Pay (can I support my family on it). And what career path I will do (I want to do something Law Enforcement related).

Having said that, the whole premise behind Peedee's question is BS.

The Wastrel
24th November 04, 04:40 PM
The general argument, that in order to be in favor of a course of action one must personally further it, is specious.


Yes, but there is a valid question here about military service and pocketbook patriotism that Peedee fails to deliver very well. Is it one I'm interested in? No.t really. There's nothing surprising about it.

Samuel Johnson, always quotable, said, "Pariotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

To which Ambrose Bierce later replied, "In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first".

I tend to agree with Ambrose.

punchingdummy
24th November 04, 06:57 PM
While it may serve as refuge to scoundrels, there are the genuine loyalists residing there as well.

The Wastrel
24th November 04, 07:47 PM
While it may serve as refuge to scoundrels, there are the genuine loyalists residing there as well.


But they are the last to deliver their loud and strenuous protestations of undying love of country.

Jolly_Roger
25th November 04, 01:10 AM
Look, you keep talking to me as if I'm expressing strong support for all of this. Yes, the imposition of culture can be classified as unethical. It's also no easy to do - so far we've not been too effective at it. It's definitly an evil. The question is whether or not it's the least of the possible evils. The way I look at it, it may very well be.

No, please, Hapko, don't misunderstand me! The internet is a difficult medium for these sensitive issues.
I don't mean to imply that you are expressing strong support on this course. The issue of cultural colonialism is a very sensitive one, especially on countries of English ascendancy.
Still, I think we can all agree that, in all the cases that it was tried, as a mean to pacify a country, and impose a good relationship with a colonial power, it failed, resulting in tremendous amount of blood spilled. Just look at the India, and Jawaharlal Nehru in the massacres of the exodus to Pakistán, or, before him, the rampant nationalism which invoked in the Rajputah under Tikal's influence. Or look at Hong Xiuchuang and the boxer rebellion. Or the victory of Ay over the foreing influence (in the sense of another culture) of Akenathen. Or just look at the example which DCS clearly told us, Kwait.

Cultural imposition is an incredible perverse form of colonialism, and one which begets more blood.
If the U.S. really wanted peace, it would withdrawn all troops from the region.

Judah Maccabee
25th November 04, 11:49 AM
Withdrawing troops from the region would have resulted in Zarqawi or another similar figure taking power. The news apparently reported that Fallujah had weapon cache's large enough that a militant force could hold the whole country by strength of arms.

Jolly_Roger
25th November 04, 01:48 PM
But there's a military force holding the country down by the force of arms. It's just that it is foreing.