"The Static Drinking Game" - or - "Why Should I Support the Military?" by Succatash

Static wrote: I hope that when I am home, you and I can meet face to face, raise a glass together, hug one another, and never speak of disagreements, but only speak of common ground.

.... And that, children, is what we call 'a class act'.

Static, come home soon. Until that day arrives ... keep your head down, your arse unshot and your spirits up.

Love and hugs.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 12, 2004 7:28 PM

BEATLE

Since I have been on other boards where something like this would turn into a flame war from hell, it's refreshing to see that opinions can be stated, accepted, and responded to with civility.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 12, 2004 7:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Beatle:
Since I have been on other boards where something like this would turn into a flame war from hell, it's refreshing to see that opinions can be stated, accepted, and responded to with civility.

I dont think I've seen a flame war on this site yet, unless I missed one (you all leave me out of everything, you know) - That's one of the things I've learned about the FF fans- Class acts all around-

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 12, 2004 7:40 PM

SHINY

I kind of wanted to give Static a chance to reply first too, but since I'm reading this now, here are a few of my own thoughts on the matter:

1) I believe we were justified in going into Afghanistan (where Static happens to be stationed)
2) I do NOT believe we were justified in going into Iraq (if we really had good evidence they were an imminent threat to the region/world, it would not have been so hard to get broad support for international intervention)
3) I do NOT believe in celebrating the death of anyone, even if the person being killed is an threat to me or mine (it may be necessary, but I take no pleasure in it)
4) I want U.S. soldiers to be safe and to come home when their mission is complete. If I believe their mission is unjust, it is my responsibility as a citizen to push/advocate/lobby/vote for change in the rrelevant U.S. policies so that their mission is changed to something more just.
5) I believe that it is possible to 'support the troops' and still disagree with/fight the policies that have them in a particular situation/with a particular mission.
6) I don't believe in undermining the morale of the troops by blaming them or trying to make them feel guilty if they are honorably fulfilling their duty. I believe we should blame our elected officials if our soldiers are given an unjust mission and even more, ourselves for not being sufficiently educated, skeptical, involved, and vocal about foreign and military policy. I believe it was a terrible injustice that so many who opposed the war in Vietnam blamed the soldiers who were forced into a jungle hell halfway around the world just to return to jeers and taunts at home. It is not the fault of the military when the country they serve fails them. It is OUR fault. WE need to own the decisions that led to these situations, including the decision to do nothing or not get involved until after the fact.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 12, 2004 7:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Static:
Tash,

...Thank you for trusting me enough to speak your mind....

Christopher

Um. Possible misunderstanding here. I don't trust you at all.

You imply that I possess an ability to speak my mind, because I trust you. Oh, I see what you mean. Oh, you're going to make me use the four-letter word that drives society? F.E.A.R.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 12, 2004 7:52 PM

ZAPHODB

Quote:
I dont think I've seen a flame war on this site yet, unless I missed one

There's been one or two threads that came close. Here's one of them - The Big Vid Kerfuffle -

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=13&t=1837

It even made Fandom_Wank. Weird stuff. Heh.

Industrial Looniee & Madness - http://www3.telus.net/vchrusch

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 12, 2004 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ZaphodB:

Quote:
I dont think I've seen a flame war on this site yet, unless I missed one

There's been one or two threads that came close. Here's one of them - The Big Vid Kerfuffle -

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=13&t=1837

It even made Fandom_Wank. Weird stuff. Heh.

Industrial Looniee & Madness - http://www3.telus.net/vchrusch

Yep- That one pretty much nailed it- Glad to say I missed that one-

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 12, 2004 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
It is not the fault of the military when the country they serve fails them. It is OUR fault. WE need to own the decisions that led to these situations, including the decision to do nothing or not get involved until after the fact.

Damn skippy. Thank you, Shiny.
This is why I will do everything in my power as a citizen to ensure that George Bush and his gang of war profiteers are not only removed from power, but find themselves in a jail cell.
Murder for Profit and Photo Ops - the new White House motto.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 12, 2004 8:03 PM

NOOCYTE

Hey 'Tash, your post is cryptic in a way which might be [mis?]interpreted as deliberately provocative. What're you about here?

Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 12, 2004 8:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
6) I don't believe in undermining the morale of the troops by blaming them or trying to make them feel guilty if they are honorably fulfilling their duty.

Individuals make individual choices. It sure does suck being falsely accused. What is the value of duty? It's all so unclear.

Quote:
WE need to own the decisions that led to these situations, including the decision to do nothing or not get involved until after the fact.

There is no way I am in any way responsible for the bullshit and killing. How can you say this?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 12, 2004 8:16 PM

BEATLE

Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
I believe it was a terrible injustice that so many who opposed the war in Vietnam blamed the soldiers who were forced into a jungle hell halfway around the world just to return to jeers and taunts at home.

Thanks Shiny, my father was one of those who was spit on when he returned home and he will be glad to know that there are still those who don't think shame on him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 12, 2004 8:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ZaphodB:
Quote:
I dont think I've seen a flame war on this site yet, unless I missed one

There's been one or two threads that came close. Here's one of them - The Big Vid Kerfuffle -

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=13&t=1837

It even made Fandom_Wank. Weird stuff. Heh.

Succatash looks away nervously and starts whistling. He turns on some lame hippie music and hopes tonight was just a dream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 12, 2004 8:31 PM

Succotash,
If you are an American, you are responsible. Our goverment is supposed to be of the people and for the people. We are our country, we are our government.
It is the mature, educated individual's understanding that they are responsible for the actions of their government that spurred so many people to protest against going to war. It is what keeps us protesting.
Because of my government, my fellow citizens will pay a horrible price. We didn't stop them - It makes me (and you) responsible.

As an aside to Static: I trust you. You understand the concept of duty and honor. You have acted in a forthright and honest manner. You do your duty as you swore an oath to do. I trust you. I trust you more than those that don't understand the concept of duty or why upholding a sworn oath is important to the soul.

The sacrifices you and every member of the armed forces (past and present) make ensure the rights of Americans to express their opinions without fear of unjust persecution ... this includes people who talk without having a clue.

Barbara

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

There is no way I am in any way responsible for the bullshit and killing. How can you say this?

Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
6)
Quote:
WE need to own the decisions that led to these situations, including the decision to do nothing or not get involved until after the fact.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 12, 2004 8:45 PM

AERRIN

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
Succotash,
If you are an American, you are responsible. Our goverment is supposed to be of the people and for the people. We are our country, we are our government.
It is the mature, educated individual's understanding that they are responsible for the actions of their government that spurred so many people to protest against going to war. It is what keeps us protesting.
Because of my government, my fellow citizens will pay a horrible price. We didn't stop them - It makes me (and you) responsible.

While I agree that we have a responsibility to stand up for what we believe in, to protest those decisions we don't like, and to participate in our govermental process..

.. saying that we are all responsible for something like a war is taking it a bit far. Because let me tell you, if you voted for the other side, if you wrote letters and made phone calls and attended marches and spoke out against it - what more are you supposed to do? Saying that those who stepped up and tried to make a difference are still responsible for somehow 'not going far enough' is like saying minorities just haven't done enough to stop discrimination.

There is, realistically, only so much an individual can do. Because of the nature of democracy, the /majority/ rules (theoretically). Which means that if you are the minority, you're tough outta luck, unless the majority decides to champion you. You can attempt to sway them, to change their mind, but ultimately, you can only vote your one vote.

And even then, what the leaders of the country do once elected is not the direct responsibility of the voters - not unless they posess some of River's skills. I doubt many thought Bush would take us to war when the election occured. Had they known, they might have chosen differently - some each way. I believe our leaders have a good deal of responsibility for the actions our government takes. We have a responsibility to sway those actions as we can.

But let's face it - there is a limit. And as someone who took part in a protest or two, and who will certainly be campaigning to elect someone new, I do not in anyway accept that /I/ made any decision that led to war. At best, I'm a few cause-and-effects down the chain. And even that is pushing it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 12, 2004 9:36 PM

GUNRUNNER

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

The thought of soldiers whooping and hollering, excited to kill, is chilling. The fact that Static and his comrades shout Firefly quotes ("No power in the 'verse can stop me!") just before they go kill, doesn't make me very happy.

I am very familiar with the military aviation in particular (My dad helped keep USN A-7s flying in Vietnam) and I would like to point out that when a pilot or gunner or bombardier yells "Splash One!" or something more inappropriate for this forum you may think its chilling but please remember that if these men and women take time to think about what they are doing it will get them quite dead. Ever ounce of thought that they put forward in to thinking that there is a man on the other side of their weapons is one ounce of thought taken away from monitoring their altimeter or RWR or FLIR. What we perceive as acting like it’s a game is one of the things that keep a solder alive.

I would like to say that we have lost hundreds in Iraq and we will lose hundreds more and its a tragedy, but if we successed we have shown the "Evil" nations of world that we will not tolerate what they do. There may not be WMDs in Iraq but by doing what we are doing we show nations like North Korea, Iran and others that we will come after you if you think about persuing such weapons. If we went after the nations hostile to us that had such weapons we would lose THOUSANDS. Believe me you think a few solders being blown up will make headlines imagine what news a North Korea anti ship missile to a USN frigate would generate, or an Iranian Shkval rocket torpedo to a US sub or half dozen super quiet diesel submarines of one nation or another swarming a US battle Group! If we lose several hundred men in Iraq it could mean that thousands of our solders will not die next time.

Believe me by showing the world we will not tolerate even a slight threat to our nations security half way around the world we are protecting American citizens. There are conventional weapons out there that make chemical/biological weapons unnecessary. Imagine what a Mach 6 missile aimed at the White House could do! By showing that we will overthrow a dictator who posed littlie threat we are showing that we will annihilate any nation who might dare mine a major waterway necessary to our commerce or take a US ship over. This is a dangerous time in the world and it’s not because of the US, over the past 10 years weapons that match or exceed our nations capabilities have begun filtering down to nations with scores to settle and our nation’s armed forces have been deprived of necessary weapons. Our warships have less anti ship missiles and what they have are subsonic and easy to destroy with modern anti missile systems. We have fewer and fewer attack jets, the A-6s and F-4s have been retired with no replacement. We need to make a stand against nations and groups who want to see us destroyed, otherwise when North Korean troops come marching thou the DMZ shelling towns or the Persian Gulf is a oil soaked fire ball with Kilo class subs sending UGST torpedoes in to anything that moves the world is going to cry out “Where is the US!” and we are going to be sitting at home scared to send troops in to danger.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 12, 2004 10:50 PM

MANIACNUMBERONE

Wow Knibblet! Do you really belive that American govt is OF the people, BY the people, For the people? We are nothing if not a power-driven entity, fueled by a business attitude.

And Gunnrunner... N Korea and many other countries which the U.S. won't attack already have WMD and our attacks on other less capable countries, like Iraq, have done nothing to deter them from making more WMD and even taunting us to come and try to disarm them.

But neither of those things is what I wanted to say. I wanted to say that you've all apparently missed Succatash's point. I may be wrong here. To me it seems that he is not pleased to have words that he associates with Firefly heroism to be shouted during acts of killing. Does this make sense to anyone else? It seems a little incongruous... I mean, it doesn't fit with the situation. If Static were to say something from the Pilot episode, from one of the war scenes wherein the independents were being heroic in wartime, I could sort of see the parallel, but the lines offered are not those from battle scenes, instead they are usually from other parts of the show which don't have to do with war heroics. Does this make sense yet? To give a parallel, it would be like Luke Skywalker saying "may the force be with you" to someone and then killing them. You just need to have the right context for these things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:55 PM

WILLIAMX

Succatash,

I just want to talk a second about the military culture and why soldiers et al get amped when going into action . . .
Mainly it boils down to fear and desensitizing.
If a soldiers training has been any good then they will have an exceptional respect for the dangers of combat, and they will be afraid of messing up and getting themselves or someone else killed. This has to be dealt with, and an effective way to do so is to replace it with a wierd hooah bravado. The wierd hooah bravado works becuase after being in action you relize that fear never goes away, it must be dealt with daily, hourly . . .
. . . and so you psych yourself up by yelling and denegrating the foe and being impressed by the technology and the weapons and the effects and doing everything except acknowledging that you are terrified and don't want to die, would rather be anywhere but in the fire zone . . .
Don't forget you are young still . . . and the exuberence of youth is essential. I am sure you have heard the phrase old men start the wars young men die in.
So . . . we need a military because the world is dangerous. The military needs to be disciplined, brutal, callous and cruel becuase otherwise it would not be able to function in combat.

I feel I should mention that those qualities above are joined with loyalty, generousity, and a strange compassion . . . it's hard to explain, and I am speaking in massive generalizations, so keep that in mind.

anyway, it's true this war sucks. Our administration sucks. No matter what we are stuck in this middle east for the next ten years, no matter that this Iraq war was a sham and a vendetta. (Afghanistan I view differently.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 2:51 AM

CIARA

I completely understand, Maniac, AND Succatash. But it still remains that the troops over there should have our support, whether we support the war effort or NOT. Static deserves our support, friendship and counsel. He's away from his family in an awful place where awful things happen. I, for one, find nothing-NOTHING wrong with him taking a little solace from using the Firefly lines during battle. It gives a feeling of oneness, of home, familiarity. Who are we to deny him that? THAT is the context I see the situation in.

Just a humble supplicant in service to all things Joss

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 2:57 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

If their use of Firefly quotes contributes one little bit to bringing Static and his comrades home safe, I'm for it.

I know that the little catchphrases my unit in Vietnam shared brought us closer. They allowed us to express our mutual concern without getting all gushy about it. During rocket attacks or infiltration alerts, thinking about "us" instead of "me" kept us all safer.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 3:20 AM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Ideally, I consider the military to be evil, a necessary evil. It's a cruel world out there, and let me reiterate, I'm glad we have a military. Because the world is cruel. By "Evil" I mean, purposefully training a group of people to kill. Too bad we need a military, but we obviously need one, it's a reality.

I see where you are coming from. I disagree very strongly with your position, and think I see the bug. I should probably mention that I am a vet, rode submarines for the US Navy, and slept with nuclear weapons.

You see, if you have to come up with the concept of "necessary evil", I see this a bug in the moral philosophy you are utilizing to figure out what to do about this issue. Necessary is not one of the defining characterists of evil, in fact if it is necessary, then it cannot be evil. It may be unpleasant, or it may make you uncomfortable, like medicine, but that hardly makes it evil.

You are saying that killing is always bad, and in one sense you have a point. For the guy dying, it ain't a picnic. But there are times when killing is the only way to prevent MORE death and destruction, more waste of necessary lives and equipment.

I see this as a "low resolution" view of morality. You've seen those pictures that are all pixelated, and its difficult to see more than a vague outline of the object being photographed? Its kind of like that. As a first cut, or low res ideal, its a pretty good one. But it is not the whole story, or a complete picture.

Some folks want you dead, and they don't even know you. They don't care to know you. They know you are not one of them, and would just as soon waste your life, as look at you. Its hard to get folks like that to change their mind, and if they are willing to act, you have to be willing to stop them. And be willing to use any means necessary to do that.

If that means killing them, then that is what it means. The alternative is to let them kill you. You want to live, as do most folks, which is why MAD worked during the Cold war. Nobody wanted to start a nuclear armageddon, as that would be bad for everyone. So none got started. (although a few times it was pretty dicey)

But for some, as we have seen, even MAD won't work to prevent them from trying to kill you. You may cry and find it unpleasant when Ole Yeller got rabies, but its either kill him, or let him kill your family. It has to be done, or even the valued tenets of a morality that says "Thou shalt not kill" dies out, along with you and everyone who believes that way.

You don't like it, and I can't say I blame you. But when the theory is in conflict with the real world, it is the theory that needs fixing, because the universe doesn't give a damn what we think about anything. It simply is. It works, it runs, people are free to do whatever they can, and you either stop those from harming you or others, or else let the bad guys win.

Hope this helps. I wish we lived in a world where "thou shalt not kill" could be the law of the land. But we live in this one, and either adjust to its realities, or die. That is life.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 3:23 AM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by Ciara:
I completely understand, Maniac, AND Succatash. But it still remains that the troops over there should have our support, whether we support the war effort or NOT.

I have to agree here. I don't really see how you can support the troops and NOT their mission. Its a bit like telling a pipe fitter that you like him as a person, but think pipe fitting in and of itself is some kind of evil. In the pipe fitter's case, it is likely to have any kind of impact on his ability to do his job, and even if it does, it ain't that big a deal.

But in a soldier's case, I see those doubts being hazzardous, an added burden in an already hostile and dangerous situation.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 4:46 AM

TRAGICSTORY

Tash,
The simple answer to your question of "Why should I support the military?" is "Because you reap the benefits of their past exploits."

The military, the World Bank and the IMF are what allow you to live your lifestyle. Our standard of living is so high because we exploit the rest of the world. That is why the world hates us. We are Top Dog and that makes everyone else our Bitch. There will always be a Top Dog and every Top Dog abuses their postition because it benifits them the most. The only problem is once we lose Top Dog status, every country in the world will set out to get revenge. (You need to look no further than the UN to see the seeds of Anti-American groups forming.)

America is in Afganistan and Iraq because those are countries that are hurting our position as Top Dog. Terrorists are the equivilant of our CIA, except that they are on someone else's payrole. They do what they are told to do and each country can disavow all knowledge. Lybia and the bombing of Pan Am leaps to mind.

So in closing I will suggest that we Americans are already hated for many reasons. However our military makes us hated and FEARED. And that is what sustains the United States.

(My Solution)

Withdraw from the UN. Withdraw from all foreign bases. Add a neutrality amendment to the constitution. Close the borders.

This would pretty much cause World War III (in which the US would be neutral amd make hand over fist selling supplies to both sides)

LOL, I just realized my signature answered your questin alot better than my rant.

-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 5:15 AM

I hope this board doesn't turn all political like the Official Message Board.

No power in the 'verse can stop me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 5:34 AM

Quote:
. I don't really see how you can support the troops and NOT their mission. Its a bit like telling a pipe fitter that you like him as a person, but think pipe fitting in and of itself is some kind of evil. In the pipe fitter's case, it is likely to have any kind of impact on his ability to do his job, and even if it does, it ain't that big a deal.

Not the same thing- You cannot concievably compare pipefitting with killing people, no matter how cute you want the metaphor to be- You can easily support the man, not the job- In the military, there is a chain of command, which you must follow, and the orders are given from the top down based on appointed folks (the topmost being the one the majority elected, right or wrong, idiot or not) - To say you support them and not the job means you support THEM, and want them to be safe, and kill who they need to kill and come home again asap, and work in your own country to insure that the decision to have them somewhere is changed-
The 'pipefitter' metaphor is BS- He is doing the job, he makes the decisions, HE can quit- So if pipefitting is bad, he might just be making the wrong life choice- The soldier does not have that option (he cant just go 'I think this is a bad job' and quit), therefore, you can support him (the soldier) and not the job- I've done a lot of jobs I didnt like, but I always did them 100%, and it's the same with them- I dont like what they are doing, but I expect 100% out of them regardless till it's time for them to come home- I have friends in Iraq, they know I want them home safe and want them to do whatever they have to do to get the job done and stay safe- But they also know that I think the decision to invade was a bad call, so I write letters and speak out- It might sound like a contradiction, but, hey, as we say around here, 'some people juggle geese'-

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 5:53 AM

Quote:
The soldier does not have that option

Except for the fact that we have an all-volunteer military. There's no draft or required service. Every man and woman in our armed forces is serving by their own choice, knowing full well the sole and exact purpose the military fulfills. And I, for one, applaud each and every one of them.

I believe the pipefitter analogy is valid.

No power in the 'verse can stop me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 6:11 AM

WILLIAMX

The moment an individual completes the oath of servive, they have abrogated numerous of thier rights . . . including the right to speak ill of the governement and the mission they may find themselves performing.

The fact that this war is on, and it's a bad mission, in no way causes me to look down onthe troops. the all volounteer gig doesn't mean that the military or the people within it can pick and choose it's missions. The commander in chief is ultimitly responsible to the american people and it is not the soldiers job to tell the CiC or the american people how and where things should be done. They take orders, not give them . . .

It's easy to support the troops yet deplore the mission. It's really the only course of dissent I can follow, since I myself am a vet, from a family of vets.
Others may not have this boundary . . .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 6:14 AM

KUGELBLITZ

You cannot compare ANYTHING to killing people. Killing someone is likely the one act which can completely and totally separate someone from the pale. There are other acts that may seem of this life-shaking type, but they are mainly sanctioned-falling in love, childbirth and so on. This not to draw a comparison between killing and childbirth.

Should you support the military? I think you mean those you communicate with, specifically.

Look, the reverse of not supporting our fellow citizens abroad is to despise them. There does seem to be some kind of growth involved in the fact that returning servicemen are not reviled as they were in Vietnam. The fallout from that kind of response is still happening, now.

Perhaps our perceptions are attuned to the fact that we now know who put the soldiers there and those are the people who deserve our criticism. Great. Write some letters if that is your deal.

It is quite myopic to think that the generic "you" has some specific and constructive advise to someone humping around in a rifle platoon in the mountains.

Should you support the military, i.e. the Armed Forces?

Supporting the military is a vague concept. The Army Materiel Command does that just fine. What you mean is, do you or can you be civil to someone who is actively engaged in the practice of slaying people because our government condones this?

Form my experience, soldiers are like any other people, some of them you will like and some not, your mileage may vary. With the rather HUGE exception that they are members of a team and must, MUST be very, very tuned into what they are doing. The penalities for inattention or poor soldiering are much more extreme than a burst pipe or backed up sewage, obviously. Not only that, you can do everything correctly and still wind up in serious straits or worse.

There is a culture therein that must be understood before the Hooahs or Urrahs or Alliantes can be viewed as cheerleading, although sometimes they are.

So for the one idea, read up on some statecraft, on the other try looking into some of the soldier level accounts of combat. They may or may not help, but you will certainly be wiser for doing so.

I will happily provide a bibliography if you like.

"Could you be more specific"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 6:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Adeptus:
Quote:
The soldier does not have that option
Except for the fact that we have an all-volunteer military. There's no draft or required service. Every man and woman in our armed forces is serving by their own choice, knowing full well the sole and exact purpose the military fulfills. And I, for one, applaud each and every one of them.

I believe the pipefitter analogy is valid.

No power in the 'verse can stop me.

You're right, there is no draft or required service, but you volunteer to served based on the belief that your country will put you to work in situations that are Right (with a capital R) and Justified- But getting out of the military is NOT volunteer- You ink a contract that says you will serve x period of time, not one that says 'if you think this place deserves attacked you can go here, if not stay home'-
The 'pipefitter' can say, "I dont like this job, I cant handle it, I quit" and no one gets killed (just a little basement flooding)- The soldier says "I dont like this job, I cant handle it," and the superior says, "too bad boy, you got 3 more years"- And should the soldier get out by some means, his skills that might have saved someone might be what gets someone killed-

And it's not that I cant see the 'pipefitter' as a metaphor (I understand your point, really), it's also that I just dont like that metaphor personally- I dont like trivial things compared to death, that's all- It's like when a buddy of mine always says (and please lets not get into this one, just using an example) 'Bush lied about WMD, but Clinton lied about sex' - I HATE that, they are both lies and liars, sure, but one lie doesnt create BODIES-

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 6:27 AM

CHANNAIN

i DO aim to misbehave

Well. You certainly had a great deal to say. And you said it eloquently as usual. I may not agree with it all, but as always I respect your right to your opinion. What the hell is the First Amendment for, anyway?

Speaking of that...

First - if you're going to talk about September 11, talk about September 11. 911 is the emergency hotline to the police. 911 is not, nor has it ever been the day I watched two giant buildings on American soil disintegrate over and over and over again on national TV. 911 is not the day I was glued to the NASDAQ Web site, watching as their stock market research editors - my peers at the time - post SCREAMING headlines about what was happening right down the street, and Washington D.C.

Second. Have you ever seen what happens to a civilian war survivor during a thunderstorm? My best friend was 13 years old when the civil war between Christian-controlled East Beirut and the Muslim faction in West Beirut started in 1975. That city is still in the midst of reconstruction, and she's only been able to go home to visit family twice since I've known her - twice in 16 years. I won't go into the politics or logistics of all of that - frankly, that part didn't touch me so much as seeing a grown woman jump out of her skin because a clap of thunder overhead happens to make the same sound that bombs did when she heard them coming down outside the apartment she grew up in. She's told me about how four of the five members of her family would lean in to light their cigarettes from the same trembling candle during those bombings.

The American Embassy in Beirut was bombed April 18, 1983. The American Marine military barracks in Beirut was bombed later that same year, October 23, 1983. And there has been more acts of terror against the U.S. at our posts in other parts of the world both before and since. We should have been doing something about terrorism long before September 11, and as horrible as it was, I'm afraid it was only a matter of time before someone found a way to bring the terror HOME.

Do I support war? No. War should be the absolute, final resort to any situation, avoided at all costs. I hate that my friend had to experience the horrors of it. I also hate that now, because of the War against Terror, she gets suspicious looks. She's Armenian, but she looks Middle-Eastern, hence the unwarranted looks. It's even worse for her brother, who lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma now. He was sent out of Beirut as a teenager in order to keep from being "recruited" to fight.

Do I support the troops? YES. Why? Is it because of Static and how I'd like to see his wedding pictures sometime in the near future? You betcha. Is it because during World War II and Korea my father served in the U.S. Navy? Actually, I think about that every time I stand up with him as he salutes the flag during Memorial Day services. Not supporting the troops would be disrespecting them, which would lead me to disrespect him.

The other huge part of it is this. My best friend's son was born in Doha, Qatar, April 13, 1986, 11 years to the day that the civil war began in Beirut. I've known him since he was 2, watched him grow up, made him the subject of one of my best pieces of artwork. He'll be 18 this year, and this June he will be joining the Marines.

Now ask me why I support the troops. I'll take my two shots of Cuervo now, please.

Nora

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 7:07 AM

Quote:
They take orders, not give them . . .

But it was the individual's choice to put themselves into this position. You can't enter the military without expecting to be directly involved in combat, or indirectly supporting it in some way. The job of the military is to fight wars, and in so doing, kill lots of people. Everyone who is an employee of the Department of Defense is either directly, or indirectly involved in killing people because the core of our military are the Combat Arms divisions. All other divisions and jobs only exist to support the core.

I also think you guys have missed the analogy that was used. No one is comparing pipefitting to killing, that would be ridiculous. Perhaps Drakon's comparison was too specific. What if we said that a person has Profession X, and you meet this person and say, "I think you're a really great fellow, but I think your profession is straight up evil and I hate it." You'd be pretty lucky if you didn't come away with a bloody nose and a black eye. Even if you were just commenting about one particular job (within the profession) that this person was doing sure wouldn't do a whole lot for their morale.

You see, you can't say that the job is evil, but that the person is good because good people don't make a profession out of doing evil things. Good people do good jobs, like being a policeman, fireman or soldier, and evil people do evil jobs like being a thief, arsonist or sadistic, murderous dictator.

So if you denigrate our troops' mission, you're only tearing down their morale. If you denigrate their profession, you're denigrating them. If you really feel that deposing a man like Saddam is evil (I can't for the life of me figure that one out), you could at least wait until the troops got home before you started casting aspersions.

No power in the 'verse can stop me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 7:25 AM

NOOCYTE

I'm really going to try and not write a dissertation here....

I do not believe that we should have gone into Iraq. It was a cynical, political (as in domestic. As in approval rating. As in election.), economic (as in Oil) move, which was reviled by the majority of the 'civilized' world. The fact that it has beneficial spin-offs (like removing the mad despot, Saddam from power; like presenting a strong front to potentially threatening nations; like potentially [though by no means certainly!] reducing the degree to which we are beholden to the Saudis, and thus strengthening our hand in negotiations [etc.] with them) must be seen as secondary to the decidedly NON-righteous reasons for going in.

I DO believe we should be in Afghanistan. The toppling of a dangerously fanatical, aggressive regime which DIRECTLY aided and abetted those who did us serious harm was imperative. Further, sticking around to finish the job, and support that nation's efforts to establish a more adaptive form of self-governance is the right thing to do. Indeed, it is a legitimate expression of a policy which, had it been implemented before, might have nipped much of the terroristic campaigns against the US in the bud. By contrast, previous policies of going in and aiding that group, blasting the other group, then bugging out when the immediate aims had been accomplished arguably sowed the seeds which came to abominable bloom on a certain Tuesday morning in 2001.

None of this is a Soldier's (or Marine's or Seaman's, or Airman's) sphere of influence. The ancient Hindu text [actually, pre-Hindu...but that's another conversation) the Bagavad-Gita depicts the warrior king, Arjuna, poised on the brink of a huge battle, agonizing about the implications of what he is about to do. At that moment, his charioteer (the god, Krishna in disguise, as it happens), freezes time and walks him through the Very Big Picture...I won't get into that picture (see earlier "not a dissertation" comment [has that ship already sailed?] ). The upshot (pardon the pun) is that a warrior's proper duty is to do what he is doing, fully, authentically, humbly, and skillfully, to embody the duty/path (dharma) which he is positioned to implement. His duty is to carry out his mission with 100% of his being, to hold nothing in reserve...not only because that tends to get one dead, but because the surrendering of Self (all the niggling little second thoughts and ego trips) to the task at hand is the highest expression of being. It is, in fact, central to Joseph Campbell's definition of a Hero. A warror's path is to put all that he (pardon sexism of generic pronoun) is into what he does...however horrific a moment's reflection would reveal that thing to be.

It is up to the leaders who send warriors into battle (and the people who [supposedly] elect them) to choose righteous missions. For warriors to arrogate to themselves the task of making policy is a sure path to chaos, weakness, dishonor, and, ultimately defeat.

That said, a warrior still has choice. If one's CO commands one to burn a village of non-combatants, then a warror/hero can choose to surrender Self to the task of refusing the order (upon pain of death, imprisonment, and pariah status if not later vindicated). A moment's hesitation in such a situation would leave one open to being convinced (moral defeat), in much the same way that hesitation in battle leaves one open to being mowed down by the enemy. IMHO, the British officer who refused Wesley Clarke's (ill-considered, ego-driven) order to block Russian planes from touching down in Cosovo (and thus potentially triggering hostilities with Russia!) acted heroically. Similarly, when John Kerry was stationed in Viet Nam, he carried out his duty. It was after he came home that he spoke out against the war. Heroic.

In this vein, I think that STATIC and all his compatriots amply derserve our full, unalloyed, unapologetic support...whatever we may think of the policies which place them on the battlefield. For them to approach their grisly task with the full exuberance of their being, to execute this task with selfless, skillful, spontaneous elan, to quote Firefly, or Sun Tsu, or Phyllis freakin Diller is all to the good...is, quite literally, heroic.

Where we get to be heroic is at the polls, or the protests, or the word processor, as we strive to alter the landscape of our leadership and align it more with what we consider to be an honorable course. I loathe the current administration with every fiber of my being. I cringe at the thought of snuffing out a human consciousness. I am proud to bursting of STATIC and his compatriots.

Well, so much for the no dissertation thing...

Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 7:54 AM

WERESPAZ

Dear Tash,

I don't know where to start, so I guess I'll start with what comes to mind first. I understand what your saying, and I've had some of the very same thoughts you have. I personally deplore war and all it stands for. I hate the thought of killing people merely because of a clash of beliefs. What can I say, I'm a humanitarian, and from what it sounds like your are too. Isn't that why most people don't like war/killing? As a humanitarian, one needs to care about all people, including soldiers. As a humanitarian myself, I want to see Static come home safe and sound, and that includes mentally sound. If quoting Firefly as he does his soldier activities helps him keep his sanity, than quote away. Heck, about killing there even Mal's quote, "If someone tries to kill you, you try and kill 'em right back" that's hard not to think about it's literal meaning. So I say, support our troops because they are people too. You talk about them choosing not to fight and many have. The numbers of soldiers who have commited suicide while on duty in Iraq is staggering. The number of soldiers who have gone AWOL while on R&R is also staggering. Even though "breaking down a solder to rebuild him" is a neccessary part of the job, many still have a brain when they're done with basic training (if they started with one), and they are ALL still people. You say military people freak you out, I think that's just your own personal stereotypes getting in the way of your perceptions. Have you ever been assaulted by a military person? How about a non- military person? Has a military person ever threaten you? How about a non-military person. My point is, many people kill without ever going into the military, and not everyone who goes into the military will kill somebody. As far as hooping and hollering about the "joy of killing", I guarantee that deep down, they don't want to, and they nobody certainly wants to just for the mere act of it. The problem is, they don't have time to think about it that way, they have a job to do, and thinking too much is just going to put thier life and the lives of their fellow soldiers in jeopardy. When they get home, they'll have plenty of time to think about it then, and that's when we need to support them the most. That's one (of the many) reasons I deplore pres. Bush so much, he doesn't seem to care about the troops that do come home physically safe. As I understand it, he's cut program funding for returning vets, and that's wrong. In the end, if you don't like war, get out there and VOTE in November, get your friends/coworkers and family to vote too. That's about the end of my little diatribe. Hopefully you haven't scared Static off because I happen to think he's a great guy and diserves his fair share (maybe more) of respect, both as a soldier and a Browncoat.

-The SpAz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 7:54 AM

JASONZZZ

G:

I *completely* agree! Being in battle is not about you. If you start thinking about you and the situation you are in, you falter, you hesitate , and next thing you know, not only will you be wearing a bodybag, but so will a couple of your buddies next to you. Fighting a war isn't about you, your loved ones at home, the mission, or the ideals behind it; when you are waist high in muck and crap is exploding all around you, it's all about the guy next to you. It's all about your buddies - it's duty and honor to your group. It's about getting your ass and your buddies' asses out of this one and maybe making it thru the next one too.

Like Noocyte said, being a soldier is not about being psychopathic killing of human beings, it's about putting everything that you are, your training and your craft, into what you are doing. Everything that the military teaches you is about keeping yourself alive - yeah, part of it involves killing or disabling people who are trying to get your ass dead. A fine drill-sergeant once said "You are *not* here to give your lives for your country. You *are* here to make sure that your opponent has every chance he has to do it for his."

Staying alive.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
If their use of Firefly quotes contributes one little bit to bringing Static and his comrades home safe, I'm for it.

I know that the little catchphrases my unit in Vietnam shared brought us closer. They allowed us to express our mutual concern without getting all gushy about it. During rocket attacks or infiltration alerts, thinking about "us" instead of "me" kept us all safer.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 7:56 AM

Quote:
It was a cynical, political (as in domestic. As in approval rating. As in election.)

Except that the whole process was started two full years before the election, and only a little over a year after the worst attack on our soil since December 7th, 1941. If it were just a political machination, they would likely have waited until Election Day was more than just a gleam in the electorate's eye.

Quote:
The fact that it has beneficial spin-offs (like removing the mad despot, Saddam from power; like presenting a strong front to potentially threatening nations; like potentially [though by no means certainly!] reducing the degree to which we are beholden to the Saudis, and thus strengthening our hand in negotiations [etc.] with them) must be seen as secondary to the decidedly NON-righteous reasons for going in.

You don't see freeing an entire nation from the insane grip of a murderous, sadistic tyrant as righteous enough in and of itself? Also, we have made definite gains in our "negotiations" with N. Korea and Iran over their possession of nuclear weapons. We may be operating a little bit differently from the way we used to do things, but that does not imply that our methods now are necessarily wrong, nor that our methods before were necessarily right.

The times, they are a-changin'.

No power in the 'verse can stop me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 8:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Noocyte:
I loathe the current administration with every fiber of my being. I cringe at the thought of snuffing out a human consciousness. I am proud to bursting of STATIC and his compatriots.

Thank you for summing up my feelings no neatly. I come from a line of warriors that have served this country since before it declared independence.

I served 10 years. Between us, my brothers and sisters served 40+ years. My little sister is medically retired from the Army after a horrific injury that had her erroneously reported as dead -- the two year battle to get that corrected at Ft. Knox is another story.

I remember the bombing in Beirut. I was stationed three miles from RAF Mildenhall (home of the 2nd largest military mortuary in Europe).

The Marines who were escorting their blood brothers all the way home to turn them over to the care of relatives for burial were there too.

There was nothing we could do cure the pain behind their eyes so, we did what we could. It wasn't much. We ensured that every Marine had someone to dance with. Imagine dancing a slow dance with a man who is trembling like a kitten in a snowstorm. Imagine running your hair along his cheek to wipe away the tears, the whole time pretending that this big Marine isn't crying like a baby.

Do NOT think that I do not fully support, defend and trust our military. They deserve our fullest support.

Do NOT think that I don't despise Dubya and his whole rat's nest of lying zealots. I see them cutting medical support to veterans. I see them reducing pensions. I have YET to see the President at a military funeral.

I am furious that the Disabled Veterans of America are not being given full access to the wounded in hospitals when they need compassion, understanding and information the most. Dubya hasn't answered their letter of inquiry.

I want nothing more than to see George Bush and the Cabal that started this mess up on war crimes charges.

Our administration sucks. I have no doubt that my vocal opposition to their war will get me on a 'no fly list'. A list that is so secret, you cannot find out who put you on it and there's no way to get off.

I love my military. I want them home. Safe. Secure. Sound. Whatever they have to do to accomplish that, I'll be behind them.

What makes me cry is the knowledge that at RAF Mildenhall, someone is dancing with a man or woman who is trembling like a kitten in a blizzard.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 8:18 AM

NOOCYTE

I actually have to dash soon, so pardon if I don't follow up on this quick reply for a while...

Quote:

It was a cynical, political (as in domestic. As in approval rating. As in election.)

Except that the whole process was started two full years before the election, and only a little over a year after the worst attack on our soil since December 7th, 1941. If it were just a political machination, they would likely have waited until Election Day was more than just a gleam in the electorate's eye.

The fact that this 'process' was begun so far ahead of time does not contradict my point. The opposite, actually, in that it suggests that the notion of going into Iraq was a foregone conclusioin before there was a substantive link between Al Quaeda and the Baathist regime (not that there really is one now, mind you).

And, don't underestimate how far in advance an administration will start thinking about gathering political capital for an election (not to mention that congressional elections were in the much more near term at the time).

Quote:

You don't see freeing an entire nation from the insane grip of a murderous, sadistic tyrant as righteous?

As I'd said, I see that as a felicitous spin-off from the much shadier central goals of the campaign. If I inadvertently save lives in the course of committing an immoral act, this does not make the act any less immoral. I'm pleased as punch that Saddam is history! But conducting foreign policy as the current administration has done, IMHO, only increases the chance of history repeating itself!

Quote:
Also, we have made definite gains in our "negotiations" with N. Korea and Iran over their possession of nuclear weapons.

Iran is an open question, as some change has been brewing there for some time. But I have insufficient data to render a judgment on any connection between our war in Iraq and the goings-on there.

As for N. Korea, there is much to suggest that the whole "lookie here! I've got nukes!" thing was a strategem to bring other nations to the table on quesions of aid and trade, having nothing to do with our Iraq war. Not to mention that the way we toppled the government/military in Iraq is in no way comparable to the world of hurt we'd be getting into if we endeavored to take on the N. Korean military!

Quote:
We may be operating a little bit differently from the way we used to do things, but that does not imply that our methods now are necessarily wrong, nor that our methods before were necessarily right.

It remains to be seen how differently we are operating (one of the chief questions being one of follow-through, for which the jury is still out...though Afghanistan is a glimmer of hope there). An important point is that the degree to which the current administratiion acts to alienate the rest of the world in its actions is an ominous sign for starving the roots of anti-Americanism, and so avertig the need for a War On terror.

Sorry, gotta flee. Glad we're keeping this civil; I make it a policy NEVER to get in on political threads on the OB; I don't do ad hominem

Keep flyin'!

Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 8:27 AM

JASONZZZ

Adeptus:

you've got my full agreement on that one. The military is an instrument of our country's political process. How it is used exactly has changed over the years, but basically it is an extension of diplomacy. No matter how mad we think or see the administration in how we use our military, we need to keep reminding ourselves that what you see is about 10% of the story. Our country and many good working men and women negotiate, discuss, implore others to act kindly (yeah, certainly in many instances, it's with a certain self interest) to their people, different people/rulers respond differently to different words. If kind words and other economic motivations don't work, then it might degenerate into the threat of force; and sometimes you actually have to use it. In the end, these are all tools that anyone has before them. If it's not a tool that you would employ in your everyday life, that's fine too - not many people do. But realize that that's what state craft is. It's not about, "you do this or I'll bust your nose in". Many Many other avenues have already been explored (that you prolly don't and will never hear about) before the use or show of force.

Moving troops and stationing troops are very very expensive and it takes a long time to move an Army around - all of the logistics can take 6 to 9 months. It's not an easy thing to do and you bet that it's not done on the drop of a hat.

Quote:
Originally posted by Adeptus:
Quote:
It was a cynical, political (as in domestic. As in approval rating. As in election.)
Except that the whole process was started two full years before the election, and only a little over a year after the worst attack on our soil since December 7th, 1941. If it were just a political machination, they would likely have waited until Election Day was more than just a gleam in the electorate's eye.
Quote:
The fact that it has beneficial spin-offs (like removing the mad despot, Saddam from power; like presenting a strong front to potentially threatening nations; like potentially [though by no means certainly!] reducing the degree to which we are beholden to the Saudis, and thus strengthening our hand in negotiations [etc.] with them) must be seen as secondary to the decidedly NON-righteous reasons for going in.
You don't see freeing an entire nation from the insane grip of a murderous, sadistic tyrant as righteous enough in and of itself? Also, we have made definite gains in our "negotiations" with N. Korea and Iran over their possession of nuclear weapons. We may be operating a little bit differently from the way we used to do things, but that does not imply that our methods now are necessarily wrong, nor that our methods before were necessarily right.

The times, they are a-changin'.

No power in the 'verse can stop me.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 10:13 AM

Quote:
The fact that this 'process' was begun so far ahead of time does not contradict my point.

I rather think it does. Look I'll grant you that it's not impossible to find a politician wagging the dog as it were, but in order to justify the accusation we need some sort of solid, concrete evidence to back it up (otherwise it's just libel.) In the case of President Bush, despite the fact that labeling him a warmonger is wildly popular amongst certain circles, if we examine his approach to armed conflict, we find that it is nothing but measured and restrained. Even after September 11th, Bush led our nation, and much of the world, calmly into the field of battle to exact justice on those who attack our land. When, with great foresight, he discerned the need to eliminate another growing threat in the Middle East, he also calmly led our nation and many of the world's nations to battle in Iraq.

Quite frankly, I feel we spent too much time waiting on Iraq and this is why we're having difficulty finding the kind of evidence that we expected. However, it also demonstrates that Bush is not a warmonger as some would like to suggest. Instead it shows that Bush is a man of peace, dedicated to resolution, who uses the tool of the military, which we have place at his disposal, as a last resort.

When you take the above into consideration with the fact that the actual war itself was begun more than a year prior to Election Day, and that the process was begun several months before that. If you also consider war did not save Bush's father from losing his encumbent seat, and the fact that this particular war was rather unpopular with many voters, it becomes very difficult to write off Operation Enduring Freedom as a political maneuver.

Quote:
As I'd said, I see that as a felicitous spin-off from the much shadier central goals of the campaign.

But, again, on what do you base your conclusion that the goals really were shady? What substantive evidence do you have to back up your allegation? Or have you prejudicially decided that since Bush is a bad man, he must have gone to war for all the wrong reasons?

No power in the 'verse can stop me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 10:34 AM

GUNRUNNER

Quote:
Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
And Gunnrunner... N Korea and many other countries which the U.S. won't attack already have WMD and our attacks on other less capable countries, like Iraq, have done nothing to deter them from making more WMD and even taunting us to come and try to disarm them.

Not completely true. In the past 3 years several sales of major arms have fallen thou. For example a Russian Aircraft carrier was sold with the stipulation that it would not be use for military purposes. This carrier sale would have destabilized the whole Far East. What helped stop it, the fact that the US would sell weapons to nations it would threaten that could blow it out of the water! Iran has not put in any additional orders for Submarines and Supercavatating weapons, why because the US wouldn’t stand for such a threat and we would cripple any nation's ecomomy who would sell them such weapons.

The only nations that seems to be selling weapons hand over fist and fueling potentional global chaos is France and Germany. Scorpine' and Type 212 SSKs to several nations. Older subs to Pakistan and India. Roland SAMs, Helicopter dipping sonar, even Carriers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 10:37 AM

WERESPAZ

Quote:

Even after September 11th, Bush led our nation, and much of the world, calmly into the field of battle to exact justice on those who attack our land.

Hmm. I don't remember attacking Saudi Arabia, as 15 of the 19 highjackers were from there.

Quote:

I feel we spent too much time waiting on Iraq and this is why we're having difficulty finding the kind of evidence that we expected.

Spent too much time doing what? There were U.N. inspectors all over Iraq, and when they weren't getting delayed by misleading or wrong U.S. intelligence they weren't finding anything. Why? Because as we're finding out now, Iraq didn't have anything. If the inspectors would've had 6 months to a year of time, they would've reached the same conclusions as we are arriving at now, without the loss of several hundred U.S. service men and woman and the countless loss of Iraqi lives.

Quote:

he also calmly led our nation and many of the world's nations to battle in Iraq

Who? Us, Brittain and about a thousand troops from Australia? That's many?

All other political motivations aside, I think if Bush was a patient man, he would've waited until the U.N. Inspectors came back from Iraq either saying A)"Saddam is not cooperating" or B)"We have some evidence that he is desparately trying to reconstitute his WMD program and at some time in the future could have some." Nothing like that was being said about the inspections.

-The SpAz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 11:02 AM

WILLIAMX

Iraq is not yet free. It is an occupied territory.
Granted we are more benovlent than the previous occupier, but none the less it is not our country yet we control it.

When we leave Iraq there will be a civil war. The Arabs hate the Kurds, the Shi'ites hate the Sunni and everyone hates the Ba'aath. (could be I am a little bit wrong with these, the point is Iraq's population is violent, armed, willing to die and unwilling to compromise.)

Plus we are starting to be stingy with the reconstruction money.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 11:06 AM

Quote:
Hmm. I don't remember attacking Saudi Arabia, as 15 of the 19 highjackers were from there.

That's because the Taliban was operating in Afghanistan, with the aid and sanction of the government there. Not in Saudi Arabia with the aid of their government. While there are some improvements that can be made in our relationship with Saudi Arabia, I hardly see how attacking their country, because a few of its people happened to be members of the guilty organization, (which was operating without her aid or sanction) would help in that endeavor.

Also, we only took military action in Afghanistan because the government there refused to turn over bin Laden. Even a guilty government won't be attacked if they cooperate.

Quote:
If the inspectors would've had 6 months to a year of time

A popular theory to be sure, but the statements of Hans Blix, members of the UNSC, Congressmen and former Presidents of our nation, all indicate that they believed that Saddam was still in possession of, and pursuing programs to create, weapons of mass destruction. It's funny how all their tunes changed so suddendly. I mean for twelve full years they were unsatisfied as to the nature of Saddam's cooperation with inspections then, almost over night, they sincerely decide that "Hey, maybe he really was telling the truth." Somehow I doubt it.

I believe that many of the WMDs that Saddam had were destroyed and/or moved during the time wasted at the United Nations.

Quote:
Who? Us, Brittain and about a thousand troops from Australia? That's many?

Don't forget the Polish!

It's true that only a handful of nations sent troops during the initial period of combat (more have since sent security forces), but we can't discount the aid and comfort that 30+ other nations gave to us in our mission. Boots on the ground are important, but so are the rights to use bases, and to fly over air space and so on. Even just to stand beside the United States to show your support for this action is a welcomed form of support.

No power in the 'verse can stop me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 11:18 AM

FORTUNATUS

I could go on and on and on about this subject, but I won't. It's all been said quite a few times already. So, I'll just make the one comment.

Quote:
What kind of friend would I be to let an honest opinion come between us?

Static, you, sir, are a class act. I'm glad, however peripherally and distantly, to know you. Come home in one piece, and thank you for what you do.

_______________
"Yep. That's a cow fetus."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 11:41 AM

WERESPAZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Fortunatus:
I could go on and on and on about this subject, but I won't. It's all been said quite a few times already. So, I'll just make the one comment.

Quote:
What kind of friend would I be to let an honest opinion come between us?

Static, you, sir, are a class act. I'm glad, however peripherally and distantly, to know you. Come home in one piece, and thank you for what you do.

_______________
"Yep. That's a cow fetus."

I may not agree with you on a lot of things, but I agree with you on all parts of this post. Werespaz over and out.

-The SpAz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 13, 2004 3:16 PM