Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
blaming our troops for atrocities and barbarity.

---

Quote:

---

I choose to support our troops by opposing George Bush. He and his Cabinet have been humping for Mideast invasions for YEARS, and it's all because of oil. I respect our troops more, I feel more responsibility for them, than Bush does.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero has quite a flexible "enemies list". It could be Saddam, maybe Osama, or the Islamic Republic of (fill in the blank), or maybe it's just "them". I think we need to empty our arsenals and our barracks to make Hero feel safe.

---

Quote:

---

original post by Hero:
Yep. I'd count all of 'them' as my enemies. 'Them' terrorists and 'them' that supports them. 'Them' versus US, I'll take US anytime (even when Clinton was President, although maybe he coulda paid more attention to 'them' and less to Her).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
although maybe he coulda paid more attention to 'them' and less to Her.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I think we need to ask ourselves: "When do I become Mom (or Dad) Tam, so comfortable... and so afraid... that I will rationalize any horror to isolate myself from MY PERSONAL responsibility?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Opus:
At what point do horrors done to us count? At what point is it okay to fight back?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Um...hrm...I don't see any Iraqis on your list. At what point does a third party become the enemy? At what point is it okay to realize we're fighting the wrong people?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Opus:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Um...hrm...I don't see any Iraqis on your list. At what point does a third party become the enemy? At what point is it okay to realize we're fighting the wrong people?

---

Try looking up the name of the leader of the group that shoved a wheelchair bound 69 year old man off the side of a ship.
Then look up where he had taken refuge and when and where he was captured.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Opus:
Try looking up the name of the leader of the group that shoved a wheelchair bound 69 year old man off the side of a ship.
Then look up where he had taken refuge and when and where he was captured.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Uh..well...okay, have we faught back against that guy enough now? Can we go home now?

And since I've got your ear, how does the whole refusing immoral orders thing go? Can you just go up to your C.O. and tell him you think the war in Iraq is an immoral war of agression and you don't have to go?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Opus:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Uh..well...okay, have we faught back against that guy enough now? Can we go home now?

And since I've got your ear, how does the whole refusing immoral orders thing go? Can you just go up to your C.O. and tell him you think the war in Iraq is an immoral war of agression and you don't have to go?

---

Sure, go ahead, it's immoral to order me to fight there and I won't do it. Then just be able to back it up. If you can't back it up then take your punishment. If you can back it up then you don't have to go and can't be punished.
Or are you supporting the "I was just following orders" idea? So a soldier could shoot a village full of innocents and get off because "he was just following orders"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Uh, what? "Back it up?" What are you talking about? The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq committed no act of war against this country, ergo we aggressed. What back up do I need to object to something on moral grounds anyway?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Opus:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Uh, what? "Back it up?" What are you talking about? The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq committed no act of war against this country, ergo we aggressed. What back up do I need to object to something on moral grounds anyway?

---

Where did I say they were responsible for 9/11?
So you would never object to something on moral grounds? Or if you did, wouldn't be able to tell why? The soldiers who have refused have used the moral and legal argument. They think it's an illegal and immoral war.
Or are you saying soldiers have no rights to refuse orders they think are wrong? How about Conscientious objectors? Is that about morals or legality?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Opus:
To save space I'll just put my comments..

Couldn't agree more about going after the Saudi's, but your saddling Bush about his relationship with them is a joke. This country has, under dems and repubs been kissing Saudi butt for decades.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G1223:
I keep wondering if those who want us out of Iraq have any idea of how to actually end the threat to this country.


TANSTAAFL

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
This isn't a come-on.

If you've read my posts, over time you may have noticed that I dwell on the notion of personal responsibility for freedom and justice. It's an appropriate question, seeing as it's Firefly's central theme. Becasue of that, some people assume that I'm laying the responsibility on our armed services, blaming our troops for everything from illegal warfare to atrocities and barbarism. Nothing could be further from the truth. If there is one thing I know about the military, it's that even the generals have to follow orders from the President. The enlisted have no choice in where or how long they serve, what their objectives are, why they're fighting.

Nope, that responsibility belongs here: in the comfortable yet uneasy, ignorant US civilian population. The ones with the power of the vote. We sit on our asses and second-guess the troops. But then we vote for Bush, and throw them into a meat grinder for no reason. I think we need to ask ourselves: "When do I become Mom (or Dad) Tam, so comfortable... and so afraid... that I will rationalize any horror to isolate myself from MY PERSONAL responsibility?"

I choose to support our troops by opposing George Bush. He and his Cabinet have been humping for Mideast invasions for YEARS, and it's all because of oil. I respect our troops more, I feel more responsibility for them, than Bush does.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Just read any of the threads on the topic on this board, people are full of ideas!

HKCavalier

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:

See, there you go with that 'they.' Who are 'they?' everyone in the Mid East? Every Muslim? Brown people? Who are 'they?' I want to know who 'they' are before I agree to let my country bomb people. I knew who 'they' were after 9/11; we had a list of names and a regime that supported them. Iraq has no connection to 9/11, even the Pres has said so. And I morally reject warfare on the grounds of regime change, that's the people of that country's job, not ours.

---

Quote:

---

All terrorism isn't done by fanatical muslims. The reasons for going into Iraq range from WMD, to not abiding by UN agreements made at the ceasefire of Gulf war 1, to constantly attacking US planes, the list goes on, if memory serves this early in the morning, 26 reasons were given to congress for going to war. I also beleive it was done as part of a larger strategy. However, Sadam was harboring terrorists and giving aid to suicide bombers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
As I see it, the GWOT represents a conflict between societies with different basic premises.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
which side are you on?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Which brings me to another couple of questions: Apparently your definition of terrorism isn't limited to stateless fanatics. It seems to include by definition "the state" as a terrorist actor, and automatically places WMD or potential WMD into the category of terrorist weapons. Am I correct?

As for your second point- Which terrorists was Saddam harboring? The ones responsible for attacks on US interests eg. our African embassies, the Cole, and 9-11?

---

Quote:

---

Original post by SergeantX:
I'm on the side of freedom and justice (these used to be known as 'American' values). The GWOT is a ruse designed to inspire the easily frightened into supporting perpetual warfare.

---

Quote:

---

The "state" can perform acts of terrorism seperate from what would be classified as "traditional" for lack of a better term, acts of agression. In other words simply exploding a bomb wouldn't be terrorism, where, how and why you did , could make it so. If a "state" is sponsoring terrorism, or engauging in it, then WMD would have to be on the table.
How about Abu Abbas.

---

Quote:

---

During my service, I never once witnessed a US soldier commit a barbaric
act. In fact, I’ve witnessed the opposite in that US soldiers frequently
exposed themselves to danger to protect non combatants. In every unit I
served with, I found it an unwritten rule to expunge any sociopath that
slipped through basic. We simply reeducated them or threw them out of the
Army. Yes, a US soldier can commit barbaric acts but these acts will be rare
and (are)due to an individual and even rare(r) yet, units. Most importantly, conduct
unbecoming of a US soldier and against international rules of war “WILL”
result in prosecution if exposed. It is against the law.
Terrorists and Insurgents use barbarism to promote terror as a tool in their
war to destabilize the peaceful formation of a new government.
Any attempt to compare the US military with the terrorist or insurgent in
these respects smack of the insanely irrational apologist or deceitful
propagandist demagogue. One needs to be educated as to the truth and guided
back to rational thinking while the other needs to be tried for
insurrection, sedition and espionage then publicly have their tongue cut out
and left hanging in a gibbet for a few weeks from the capitol if found
guilty after all the appeals run out.

Now for a review of a () comment

”I choose to support our troops by opposing George Bush. He and his Cabinet
have been humping for Mideast invasions for YEARS, and it's all because of
oil. I respect our troops more, I feel more responsibility for them, than
Bush does.”

First off no, they have not been “humping” for an invasion for years. No US
government in recent history has desired colonies and empire. That method of
power projection has proven itself a failure and they know it. Also, to
prosecute a war on a whim would be political suicide for a president and a
party. The writer’s implications are irrational and illogical.

Next…
The Middle East has been seething since well before the fall of the Soviet
Union and, “powers” in that region have destabilized without the cold war
support of the US and SU. The US has invaded for oil only in that the
regional destabilization forces it too so, in reality; Bush sent US troops
into Iraq to assist the region in correcting its problems. Safe oil is only
an effect, not the cause.
There are no grandiose “Neocon” (said with my best Darth Vader accent)
imperial aims for oil. If one was to read the philosophy and the goals of
the so called Neocons, they would find the philosophy quite the
philanthropist in that it states the underprivileged nations need financial,
political and military assistance in getting back on there own “independent”
and “self sustaining” feet so as to become safe havens of civilized behavior
and not seething shit holes breeding starvation, misery and terror.
Yes, there are individuals and corporations that desire a piece of the
action and profit; I’ll give you that. There has always been those corrupt
that indulge themselves in war profiteering but, they are not the reason we
invaded Iraq.
I witnessed the President and most of his cabinet on the news for months
state quite clearly that the US would invade because Saddam refused to abide
by “international law”. Yes, the reasoning for the invasion may have been
flawed (WMD data that was not falsified, only inaccurate.) but not only did
Saddam violate the law, he demonstrated complete contempt to the US, UN and
international community in his repeated incorrect actions. WMD and oil pale
in comparison to his contempt of the world, humanity and the Iraqi people.
Example had to be made or others would have taken the same path which
inevitably leads to greater conflict and suffering.
The US invade because Saddam is an egotistical gambler who surrounded
himself with yes men all betting on bum statistics, losing there shirts
along with thousands of lives. Don’t blame Bush; blame the fat head gambler
Saddam, his lackeys and the Baathists who are now murdering there way across
Iraq. The Iraq war was and is just!

Those of you who desire to discuss this rationally are welcome but if you
harp on “Well, Iraq isn’t more stable is it blab, blab” or “Well, there’s
more terrorism today than before, blah, blah” you can save it for yourself.
It falls upon deaf ears and I will not enter argument over irrational,
egoistic chest thumping.
Nation building takes time, effort and blood and we have only just begun to
rebuild Iraq. If the insurgents and terrorists are still as active as they
are today or more so in five years then I’ll reconsider, for now it’s too
early and a crime to quit.

Finally
Opposing Bush doesn’t support the troops. Opposing the war doesn’t support
the troops. The troops are in Iraq fighting a war now and you have a choice
to make; devote your support to rebuilding Iraq or abandoning it and don’t
try to hide behind excuses like “The war is bad, it’s illegal, and people
are suffering, blah, blah” Yes the war is causing suffering but there are
“only” two ways to end it from the home front both with differing results
you can easily predict.

Method one: Protest like you got some guts, show some devotion to a cause
and go out and spend time, effort and money forming groups that eventually
create PACs so you can push out pro war candidates. You’re in the minority
so work hard at it. You will have to make sacrifices and suffer some
hardship but that’s what being the political minority is all about. Be
honest; engage in open, non confrontational debate, argue the points to come
to rational decisions. If you want to prance about singing “kumbyah” and
“hell no we won’t go”, then it’s your right as per the Bill of Rights so go
ahead, knock yourselves out but be warned, it’s a waste of time and your
effort (is) better expended in building an anti war party for the 2008 election.
There is a process as written in our Constitution to oust the leadership.
One way is election the other impeachment but impeachment won’t work because
everyone in the government is really on the same side both Dem and Rep and
no impeachable event has happened.
Yes, I agree with revolution and the founders of this country accepted it
too but revolting over Iraq would be a senseless waste and totally over the
wrong issue.
Be careful with this choice because I warn you the outcome will be a worse
horror in the near future. And, you think this Iraq insurgency is bad…

Method two: Support the rebuilding of Iraq. Let the government continue
doing what it thinks is right. Elect pro Iraq involvement candidates and
tell those corrupt people taking advantage of the war or those who oppose
using sedition to cease and prosecute them to the fullest. Show the world
and especially the Middle East a united America of integrity willing to bear
any cost to save the Iraqi people from the mess they are in.

I prefer this route because anything less would be criminal. To invade a
country, take away its government and then walk away is a crime against the
world. Saddam arranged the date, we slept with Iraq and now we are
responsible to marry her. Anything less soils our integrity and only proves
everything the propaganda says about us. So, show some backbone and a little
integrity and support the troops totally and that includes the CIC. Anything
less will be seen as weakness by the world fostering support for the
terrorists, giving them hope and resolve. Be united and crush the fanatics
resolve and we will soon see the Middle East stable rather than the
worrisome threat that it has been to world peace and prosperity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I think in another thread we developed the concept that a terrorist is someone who seeks to create a state of fear by striking at civilians. We never did decide whether that would apply to a government like China or Iraq terrorizing their own population, or whether we would just call that "tyranny". Any opinions?

---

Quote:

---

But by limiting the definition to "attacks on civilians to create a state of fear" we were able to eliminate considering whether it was done by stateless fanatics (IRA, Al Qaida) or national leaders (Taliban), whether conventional (explosives) or non-conventional (WMD) weapons were used, or whether the goal seemed to be political (Sunni Arabs) or monetary (Colombian rebels.. which would likely be used to further their agenda).

Does the definition seem too broad to you? Another thing we never decided: What would you say about a nation like North Korea that threatens to use WMD? Is a large enough threat sufficient to be a terrorist act, or do you actually have to go through with it? I dunno- what do you think?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Any organization or group that threatens to use WMD on innocent civilians is guilty of terrorism.

---

Quote:

---

How about John F. Kennedy, was he a terrorist when he threatened nuclear war against Russia during the Cuban Missle Crisis? Just trying to nail down the particulars. Maybe its those you oppose are terrorists, like Bush, and those who oppose Bush, like Saddam and Bin Ladden, can't be. That doesn't make sense.

So, does your argument make Saddam a terrorist for his use of such weapons in the '80s and if so, does it not then make prewar US claims of Iraqi ties to terror much more obvious?

Or maybe your concern is innocet civilians. Who are they? We know the Bush-haters, liberals, and appeasors have said that American, British, and other pro-Isreali anti-terrorist civilians are not innocent. Is that your position? A kind of relative innocence test?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
But MAD- the threat of annihilating the entire globe- is terrorism on a global scale.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Any organization or group that threatens to use WMD on innocent civilians is guilty of terrorism.

---

What do you mean by "any"? What about the whole theory of detterance? That mught be too general. How about John F. Kennedy, was he a terrorist when he threatened nuclear war against Russia during the Cuban Missle Crisis?

---

Quote:

---

Just trying to nail down the particulars.

---

Quote:

---

Maybe its those you oppose are terrorists, like Bush, and those who oppose Bush, like Saddam and Bin Ladden, can't be.

---

Quote:

---

That doesn't make sense.

---

Quote:

---

So, does your argument make Saddam a terrorist for his use of such weapons in the '80s and if so, does it not then make prewar US claims of Iraqi ties to terror much more obvious?

---

Quote:

---

Or maybe your concern is innocet civilians. Who are they? We know the Bush-haters, liberals, and appeasors have said that American, British, and other pro-Isreali anti-terrorist civilians are not innocent. Is that your position? A kind of relative innocence test?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
blaming our troops for atrocities and barbarity.

---

Hey, nice backhand. American soldiers do not commit atrocities and barbarity. If you really supported them you'd ackowledge that our soldiers not only do the best they can, they do the best that has ever been done by soldiers under any flag (with the possible exception of the British...those guys are all class and have been for decades). Not only do they fight fair, they are all volunteers, and they all are subject to to Uniform Code of Military Justice. Our enemies cannot claim the same thing. Matter of fact we treat our enemies better then anyone could possibley imagine (at least we do once we stop shooting at them). The meals at Gitmo are better then local school lunches, the cells are better in the local county jail, and I don't have health insurance, but I bet those prisoners have the best health care they've ever had.

Quote:

---

I choose to support our troops by opposing George Bush. He and his Cabinet have been humping for Mideast invasions for YEARS, and it's all because of oil. I respect our troops more, I feel more responsibility for them, than Bush does.

---

Its fine to oppose the President. Thats what Democracy is all about. I do not believe the President wanted a war in the Middle East or anywhere else. But neither is he one to back down from a fight, thats part of the reason I voted for him. Before 9/11 the President's main foriegn policy focus was on tensions with China. Domestically his main concerns were taxes and education.

9/11 made us take a long hard look at the Middle East and right there in the middle was Saddam looking back at us. He has no one to blame but himself (and a few hijackers and Osama Bin Ladden). We looked at the Middle East, we saw it wasn't working, and we set out to change the dynamic in the hopes of defeating Bin Ladden and anyone who supports, harbors, or otherwise encourages people to fly planes full of innocents into buildings full of innocents.

If thats what you oppose you've got a lot of company. Some look just like you, others wouldn't be allowed to get on an airplane, and some would gladly join you in a mass demonstration just for the opportunity to blow themselves up killing you and your fellows and anyone else. You've got issues, thats fine, just be careful who you stand next too during the protest march.

H

---

Quote:

---

But I shared some of the first few posts with some friends of mine who have and do serve in order to get the inside perspective.

---

Quote:

---

...blaming our troops for atrocities and barbarity...

R: Hey, nice backhand. American soldiers do not commit atrocities and barbarity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
MAD has made us safer? All it seems to have done is encourage nuclear proliferation and place a whole bunch nations on hair trigger. I thought Reagan had a much better idea with nuclear disarmament.

---

Quote:

---

But- DANG! Me and my memory! I forgot that Hero still owes me a couple of answers! Since he said that an enemy is a nation (or group) that "takes the field in armed conflict" against us, I asked him how Saddam became our enemy, since Saddam had not militarily acted against us, our interests in the Mideast, or even his neighboring nation-states.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I try to avoid giving Mr. Tar Baby and his quips the time of day, but the war-hysteria in this country has to stop.

---

Quote:

---

I have to believe that talking sense, and calling people like Hero on their b.s. will encourage some of the lurkers here to think a little more critically than Hero.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
If we are terrorists, why haven't we killed you for having a dissenting opinion? Wow, if you respond and disagree with me and by proxy the American government, are you not proving my point?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I try to avoid giving Mr. Tar Baby and his quips the time of day, but the war-hysteria in this country has to stop.

---

"Tar Baby"? No need to get all racial. I demand an apology. You don't see me making racial comments about you.

---