But what about sympathy ? by Fremdfirma

Quote:
Originally posted by crystalkei:
Why did they join the military? what were they thinking?

Perhaps they joined to defend this country and not to attack other countries? I'd fight to protect America, but I'm not remotely interested in going to Iraq.

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

Monday, October 22, 2007 10:15 AM

CRYSTALKEI

this is gonna make people hate me, but okay here goes...my theory on these things is that until you sit in the security breifing with the president, you don't know what is really going on.

My father spent 23 years as a Korean Linguist for the AF. He even got to wake Regan one time, we won't know why for another 35 years, but hey, whatever. Anyhoo...the truth is not going to be broadcast on CNN. Maybe George W went into Iraq to be a bossy head, or maybe there are reasons, still unknown to us, or maybe he decided to make the Middle East stable. Is it gonna be stable? Not for years, and not without us being there, like we are in Germany, Korea, & Japan.

Are our troops defending America? I think so, but we all speculate without all the information. Ask a Farci or Persian linguist if they think we should be in Iraq...

Jayne Cobb, the Dick Casablancas of Firefly

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

Monday, October 22, 2007 10:19 AM

KELKHIL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Ok, this issue kinda deserves it's own topic, and so it will get one.

Look, I am all for honoring someone's sacrifice in the line of duty, but we're taken to the realm of the ridiculous in two cases.
=====================
Part I: Soldiers.

Firstoff, a soldier of the US Army, is a *volunteer*, they signed up of their own free will for military service, which is dangerous even in peacetime as you are often dealing with large dangerous machinery and things go wrong and you can get hurt or killed even if you do everything right.

The risk is there, they acknowledged it, they agreed to it.

They got sent to a WAR zone, you know, like a war ? where people shoot at and kill each other, and people die, yes ? - and they did not stand down the order as an illegal one and thus accepted it and the risk that went with it, again of their own free will.

So why do we act like it's some kind of godawful *tragedy* when one of them catches lead ?!

Lemme repeat, it's a WAR, people DIE, and they VOLUNTEERED.

I respect that they gave their lives in the earnest belief that they were doing what was right and needful, whether I agree or not, and I honor that committment, but curse it, they knew it could happen, was likely TO happen, when they accepted the orders to ship out.

I feel it is somewhat demeaning to our boys and girls over there to act like a combat death is some kind of unexpected shocking tragedy that we've been blindsided with, and it further demeans the service and dangers faced every day by those who do come back in one piece.

Everyone who wears the uniform knows the risks, and true courage isn't not being afraid, true courage is being scared out of your goddamned wits and still doing your job effectively and well - and to act so surprised when those risks catch up to someone over there is an insult to the people still facing them.

Just my two cents for ya, which is about all I got left at the moment since some of my contacts have been rotated home and I was buyin rounds for em last night.

Death is part of life, and the Reaper comes to us all, it's just a matter of how and when, and while I'll raise a glass in honor to those fallen in the line of duty, be damned if imma treat it like some unexpected tragedy - that demeans the precious gift they gave us of their own free will... their life.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

I usually enjoy reading in the RWE but tend not to post because it always seems that most of the bases are covered before I get to read them. Today I get a chance!

1st - Yes the risk IS there and we accepted that risk when we sighned that contract that stated that we were the property of the United Stated Government. Yes we understood that it meant we might get hurt or killed in the line of duty. Notice that it is not us (the ones who were hurt or killed) that are looking for the publicity. It is the Government to bolster THEIR cause or our outraged Families who want the publicity.

2nd - You cannot "stand down" an illegal order the same as you cannot sue the Government without their permission. Oh sure you can say "I refuse to comply because I feel that "blank" is an Illegal Order" all you want, but until some one in Washington agrees with you, you are out of luck and better obey or else. Best case scenario you go to prison, worst case you are shot (this can happen and is legal in a time of "war") for your belief.

3rd - You said "They got sent to a WAR zone, you know, like a war ?" Yes it is a War Zone but last I check this is not a war (unless Congress has found some one to Declare War upon). Were it a war we would be fighting and doing what we were trained to do instead of Policing the area. An Army is for War not Policing. We were trained to stay alive and to put a stop to hostilities, not to prevent it from happening in a City with Civilians around. Thinking it is possible is asinine to say the least and down right ignorant to boot.

All I got for now.
Hope ya'll arn't gonna flame me too bad on this one!

Kelkhil

The Shirtless Forsaken

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

Monday, October 22, 2007 10:27 AM

Well the death of our soldiers isn't a shocking, unexpected tragedy, but it is a preventable one,

and not all those boys and girls signed up to fight an illegal war. Some signed up with faith in our system that we would put them in harms way only in the defense of this nation. Misguided maybe, but most of them probably believed in America, and "freedom," etc.

but every soldier that dies is a tragedy that was avoidable. Every American that dies in Iraq is a resource we squandered. I don't know...every time anybody dies early its a tragedy.

I don't have less sympathy for them becuse they've carried out orders that would be really frikken hard for them to verify as illegal from where they are sitting. Cudos to those who have, but sometimes its easier to get shot at than to exhibit that kind of bravery.

........................

As to the police,

yeah. I want to have a great deal of sympathy for them every time one of them goes down in the line of duty, but often I think they are part of the problem. And I think that they are shocked and horrified and vindictive and overly righteous when one of their own is sruck down.

They are genuinely outraged that their job is thankless...they think they should be treated as heroes because they wear a badge. Well there's a lot of baggage hanging from that shield, and having a grudge against the people they are supposed to be protecting doesn't help matters.

Is it a hard job? Fuck yes. Is it dangerous, most certainly. Is it thankless? Yes.

I want cops who know that, and don't think they look like a badass because they have a gun and a nightstick. I'm sure there are plenty of them out there too. I can respect that a cop takes risks, and still not fully feel like I'm on his side. I've known enough in passing to be a little frightened by their mentality of "us versus them."

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

Monday, October 22, 2007 10:30 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Perhaps they joined to defend this country and not to attack other countries? I'd fight to protect America, but I'm not remotely interested in going to Iraq.

General: "I order you to defend this ridge."

Private Fred: "This ridge? Sorry I joined to defend THAT ridge. I'm morally opposed to defending THIS ridge."

Hmmm...does not seem to work.

H

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

Monday, October 22, 2007 10:36 AM

Crystalkei,

while I appreciate your optimism, and agree that in reality, we cannot know everything passing between the people at the top,

I can only answer with this. We elect our officials. It is our duty to know as much about these issues as we can. If things stink from where we are, it is our duty to shift gears.

If we blindly trust our officials, we are falling down on the job. If he can't credibly lie to us for some greater good, something I highly doubt is happening anyway, we can only act upon the information we have, which in my opinion, is quite impeachable.

That kind of trust just isn't workable in a representative democracy, and I'd encourage you to form your own assessment of the situation,based upon the limited information you can come by, rather than trusting to a daddy government.

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

Monday, October 22, 2007 10:44 AM

CRYSTALKEI

hmm, i don't blindly follow the things the government tells me. I just know that I don't have the whole story. I form my opinions from many different sources. it's like this...do you follow everything fox news, or msn, or cnn, or jon stewart tells you? no. you have to search out truth in all things. but now, i could talk about religion, so I think i'll bow out.

Jayne Cobb, the Dick Casablancas of Firefly

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

Monday, October 22, 2007 11:05 AM

Nah, I am certainly not going to flame you Kel, given that the nastiness of some folk here really has driven all but a puny few from posting at all - even if I do not agree, anyone offering a reasonable and honest discussion is going to get the same in return...

(Just duck when someone offering something else pops up, cause I can get verbally unpleasant at them, kk ?)

I agree with #1, sure the Gov and the Mil milk it for sympathy, that's what kind of offends me cause it demeans the risks everyone deployed is still taking, cause of how they do it.

With #2, that's a very personal thing, once upon a long time ago, I did serve, and on two very notable, in fact one being somewhat notorious... occasions I was indeed issued an unlawful order, in a rather blatant fashion, and according to my duty outright refused - the first occasion was an officer unaware that he was issuing an unlawful order, who later retracted it with apology (he was a good XO, just kinda.. new..) and the other was a very angry E-6 with a lot of non-service personal issues goin on - unlawful orders do happen, and yes, you are very likely to catch all amount of hell, up to and including being shot, but if you truly, earnestly *believe* in your heart that the order you have been issued is unlawful, it's not just your right, but your outright DUTY to refuse to obey, and that duty takes precedence even over and above preserving your own life.

Obeying an order you truly believe to be illegal is a violation of one's duty and unforgiveable cowardice, as is dodging or shirking the uglier parts of that duty when it comes to you - if your orders are in your belief legal, and from the proper chain of command, then you execute them speedily, faithfully and well no matter how you feel about them.

Believe you me, I've done my own share of risky, dangerous, and downright onerous duties in my time, which is long since past, because those were legal orders, and once faced a courts martial for disobeying an illegal one, which when it all came out, resulted in a certain E-6 being medically retired as mentally unfit for service.

Anyhows, once they get on the boat, plane, or what have to, to go to the hot zone, they have by deed acknowledged the order is legal, and thus assume all risks thereof.

As for #3 No matter what terms everyone dresses it up in, it's a shooting war, people shoot at us, we shoot back... regardless of declarations, legalities or what have you, I am just callin a spade a spade there, is all.

The objectives may be different than a full on standard war of conquest, defense or attrition, but the bullets flying in either direction don't much care, you know ?

For the record, I don't believe we should be over there, but I am not gonna bitch at the grunts on the bottom end of the chain of command for that - even if you did, what are THEY gonna DO about it ? I save my bitchin for thems with the stars on their shoulders setting the policy.... and pick out random grunts on the line with no close family and send them care packages with field basics, and if they wanna write back, they're welcome to - cause mail call is damn depressing when you have nothing to look forward to.

Sadly, I have a stack of letters from units informing me of the demise of a troop I was writing to, but I temper that with the two who recently mustered out and came to raise glasses with me for those who didn't make it - it was the discussion with them over a pitcher or three that prompted me to write the original post in the first place.

I also do "decompression therapy" to help em get back into civilian life, cause it's awful hard on some of them, especially when they don't have any close family to begin with, and it helps to talk to someone ex-mil, even a former supply slinger like me.

I don't do stupid ribbons, I do actual help, such as I can manage to.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

Monday, October 22, 2007 11:09 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Perhaps they joined to defend this country and not to attack other countries? I'd fight to protect America, but I'm not remotely interested in going to Iraq.

General: "I order you to defend this ridge."

Private Fred: "This ridge? Sorry I joined to defend THAT ridge. I'm morally opposed to defending THIS ridge."

Hmmm...does not seem to work.

H

And if Iraq were in America, or, you know, actually posed a threat to it... that might make a modicrum of sense.

Alas... neither of those things happen to be true.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

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

Monday, October 22, 2007 9:16 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Since I don't figure either side to be my "side", I feel no remorse when I read about casualties on either side. I'm not heartless here. I have friends and family in the millitary and I would feel bad if I were never able to talk to them again. It just doesn't phaze me when I read about the deaths and that would be the same if the death count were 100 fold what it is today. Both sides are brave and both sides are foolish, and as long as humans are greedy swine, the death will never end.

I'm sure as hell glad there are lots of people out there that our government doesn't like that tend to take up a majority of their time and resources. I shiver to think what life will be like for the citizens they're trying to protect when there is no one left to protect them from but themselves.

Imagine an entire global government who has just gone "Rambo" because they have nothing left to fight. Scary thought indeed.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

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

Monday, October 22, 2007 9:51 PM

I have this theory, which seems pretty solid, about what I call coffee shop liberals. I coined the term a few years ago when I was living in Memphis. We would go to this coffee shop in midtown, and there would always be these people there talking about how rotten the “Man” was. You could sum up their whole position on foreign and domestic police by “as long as it doesn’t cramp their harmony – it’s all good.” A coffee shop liberal is someone who would be against the war in Iraq, not because American soldiers are dying or because Iraqi civilians are dying, though they’re happy to use these arguments when it suits them, but the real reason they oppose the war is because hearing about it upsets the harmony of their day. They can’t fully enjoy the giant $87 mocha flavored non-fat cappuccino if they have to be bothered by hearing about the war in Iraq. I guess that maybe 75% of the anti-war camp are coffee shop liberals.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Monday, October 22, 2007 10:02 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Yeah, if you pay $87 for coffee, you're a fag.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:18 AM

JONGSSTRAW

The cost of this war is approaching $ 1 trillion dollars...think about that....that's a million piles of a million dollars. Could buy a lot of sychronizers, strawberries, & ice planets with that.

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 4:59 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
And if Iraq were in America, or, you know, actually posed a threat to it... that might make a modicrum of sense.

I note for the record that we sent troops to Africa,invaded and occupied Iran...all during World War 2 when our fight was with Germany and Japan. In Africa we fought the French and occupied Morocco and established a supply route for operations against Germany and Italy in Tunisia, in Iran, we just wanted the land route to Russia (and some oil).

Sometimes the fighting takes you places you don't expect. I doubt it would have made much sense to sit down with every soldier and explain...in detail...why they joined the Army to fight Japs or Krauts and now their riding shotgun for a truck convoy outside Tehran.

H

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 7:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I note for the record that we sent troops to Africa,invaded and occupied Iran...all during World War 2 when our fight was with Germany and Japan. In Africa we fought the French and occupied Morocco and established a supply route for operations against Germany and Italy in Tunisia, in Iran, we just wanted the land route to Russia (and some oil).

Sometimes the fighting takes you places you don't expect. I doubt it would have made much sense to sit down with every soldier and explain...in detail...why they joined the Army to fight Japs or Krauts and now their riding shotgun for a truck convoy outside Tehran.

I note for the record that we went to New Zealand and the Philippines to fight the Japanese. Why? Because that's where they were. We went to North Africa because that's where the Germans were.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and not a whole lot to do with global terrorism, if you want to use North Africa as justification then we should be attacking Saudi Arabia not Iraq.

Going back to your previous post there's two problems, one I never said anything about disobeying orders, if I was in the military I'd have gone to Iraq if I was told to but then left as soon as my commitment was done. Second there's no moral issues involved, I am not morally opposed to the war in Iraq I just think it was a retarded idea and a completely unnecessary war that was started because of the personal desires of the President.

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 7:27 AM

interesting finn,

I'd wager though, just using our community as a cross section of anti-war critics that very few of us if any are in that 75 percent you speak of. Weird, huh?
....................

and on edit,

what the hell is wrong with that? You say they don't care about the people dying in Iraq, but then say that the fact that they are dying upsets the harmony of their day...basically that they apparently care, enough that it offends their sensibilities.

Hell, that at least is something. That's the kind of thing you object to? You'd rather them drink their coffee and shut up and focus on their own shit, like good Americans?

I don't really understand your point, maybe.

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 7:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I'd wager though, just using our community as a cross section of anti-war critics that very few of us if any are in that 75 percent you speak of. Weird, huh?

Seconded, most of the people I know who are anti-war don't even hang around coffee shops much less hang around them and whine about their harmony.

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 8:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I guess that maybe 75% of the anti-war camp are coffee shop liberals.

And since about 70% of the American people are against the war, that means... (let me do the math).... about 53% of Americans are coffee-shop liberals.

So sayeth Finn.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Yeah, if you pay $87 for coffee, you're a fag.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Good one 6 Chrisisall

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I have this theory, which seems pretty solid, about what I call coffee shop liberals.

Funny Finn, I have exactly the same theory concerning the "Authority Addicts" as I call them. As long as they personally see no blood, nothing phases them, 'cause the "Man" is taking care of them, and the only anger they feel is towards the "Questioners" and their filthy schemes to shake up the obviously-working-well-enough status quo

.

Doesn't drink...coffee...Chrisisall

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I'd wager though, just using our community as a cross section of anti-war critics that very few of us if any are in that 75 percent you speak of. Weird, huh?

My guess is that far more of you fit that category then you’d ever admit. How many in the anti-war camp feel that a genocidal civil war, like that following the US withdrawal from Southeast Asia, is preferable to maintaining the current effort? I would say most of them. Of all the anti-war types, Frem is perhaps the most honest. He’s the only one to have come out and say what I suspect many in the anti-war camp feel, which is that he doesn’t feel very strongly about the death of American soldiers and he doesn’t care at all about the death of Iraqi civilians, it’s just the idea of the war that grates him the wrong way. It upsets his sense of universal balance in the world. He’d much rather the Iraqis be butchered and enslaved under a totalitarian regime then have to be bothered by hearing about the war in Iraq on TV. And I suspect that many if not most of the anti-war camp feel exactly that way, whether they admit it or not.

And as far as “our community” goes, you can’t paint everyone who criticizes the war in Iraq as anti-war. That would make me an anti-war type, which I assure you I’m not. That’s kind of silly, but anti-war types do just that, because it serves their purposes right now. Right now 70% of the country has voiced opposition to the war, but that doesn’t make 70% of the country anti-war, because when the war started 70% of the country was in favor of the war. So if you add up the anti-war percentage and the pro-war percentage you get 140%, which doesn’t make a lot sense, does it?

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:10 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FINN: Except that I have long advocated that we do several things to prevent- or at least minimize- "ethnic cleansing" and to grant economic sovereignty to the people of Iraq instead of keeping them in thrall to our monetary interests. Because I really DO care about what happens to the Iraqis, and instead of just whining about the war I like to think of alternatives. (kinda like my view of capitalism.)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:32 AM

that's just fucking dumb. Hell I was raised on 80's movies. I followed a lot of the coverage of the gulf war, though at the time I had my head up my ass. I like guns and explosions as much as the next red blooded american. It's when I started to think about the actual cost of those real explosions that I started not to like war, and this most recent war of our choosing has succeeded only in more death and strife than would have occured, had we left Iraq alone.

And just a question, why would you not be anti-war? I'm not saying its always up to us or even our leaders what war we need to get involved in, but shouldn't everybody be anti-war?

And if we as Americans cared about these countries, we've been able to influence them for a long while. We could have made all kinds of stipulations if we had cared about the people who actually live in them, but we've never had a problem with bribing a few people to steal the resources of the many, fuck the many. We've only cared about how a country ran itself if it cut into our ability to take from it.

............

Yeah, I'm one of the people who thought the war was neccesary, but those were back in my naive days of thinking the President wouldn't be stupid enough to lie to the American People. When making my case to seombody, I believe I said that very thing. Of course, I obviously didn't know dick aobut our President, and I knew less about our history.

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
that's just fucking dumb.

In my observation, not so much, but it’s just a theory – you don’t have to agree with it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
And just a question, why would you not be anti-war? I'm not saying its always up to us or even our leaders what war we need to get involved in, but shouldn't everybody be anti-war?

Because I don’t buy into the current line of political correctness. I’m not going to call myself anti-war because it suits some people’s sensibilities. I may not be in favor of every war or think that war is an ideal condition, obviously, but war does serve a purpose for good people and a very necessary purpose.

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 11:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
My guess is that far more of you fit that category then you’d ever admit.

Which of course makes it impossible to disprove your hypothesis because you will just keep saying "You really do feel that way you just won't admit it" no matter how many people say they don't.

Quote:
How many in the anti-war camp feel that a genocidal civil war, like that following the US withdrawal from Southeast Asia, is preferable to maintaining the current effort?

A better question is can it be avoided? Sure there isn't a total war going on right now but they are still killing each other and we can't stop every attack. If we stay there for long enough the effect will probably end up being a constant low-intensity civil war for decades until the same result comes about. The difference being that we will have lost a bunch of people and a fucking enormous amount of money.

Quote:
Frem is perhaps the most honest.

Well this really applies to every thread he's in...

Quote:
He’s the only one to have come out and say what I suspect many in the anti-war camp feel, which is that he doesn’t feel very strongly about the death of American soldiers and he doesn’t care at all about the death of Iraqi civilians

Speaking for myself, I feel a little bad about the dead soldiers (though I'm not bawling my eyes out at the evening news), I feel worse about the crippled soldiers (be it emotional or physical), and I really can't bring myself to care about the Iraqi's except that the pro-war people keep going on and on about how many will die if we hadn't gone in/left now but never seem to acknowledge that they are dying by the truckload anyway.

Quote:
It upsets his sense of universal balance in the world.

I don't know where you are getting these New Age ideas that you are putting into everyone's mouths but I don't know anyone who thinks like that and I really doubt the Frem does.

Quote:
He’d much rather the Iraqis be butchered and enslaved under a totalitarian regime then have to be bothered by hearing about the war in Iraq on TV.

Or maybe just maybe he doesn't think it's our job to take care of the world.

Quote:
And I suspect that many if not most of the anti-war camp feel exactly that way, whether they admit it or not.

Right Finn, you've seen into all our souls and can tell what we feel.

Quote:
Right now 70% of the country has voiced opposition to the war, but that doesn’t make 70% of the country anti-war, because when the war started 70% of the country was in favor of the war. So if you add up the anti-war percentage and the pro-war percentage you get 140%, which doesn’t make a lot sense, does it?

No, but then the calculation is false anyways, you do know that people can, and occasionally do, change their minds right? Especially when they realize that they were led into a an enormously costly war under false pretenses.

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 11:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Right Finn, you've seen into all our souls and can tell what we feel.

You could say that.

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
A better question is can it be avoided?

Actually I prefer my question, which rarely gets a straight answer from many on the anti-war side.

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
No, but then the calculation is false anyways, you do know that people can, and occasionally do, change their minds right?

That’s kind of my point, Einstein. Probably the majority of people currently opposed to the war in Iraq aren’t anti-war at all. You could just as easily call them pro-war people who don’t happen to agree with this war.

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 11:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
No, but then the calculation is false anyways, you do know that people can, and occasionally do, change their minds right?
That’s kind of my point, Einstein. Probably the majority of people currently opposed to the war in Iraq aren’t anti-war at all. You could just as easily call them pro-war people who don’t happen to agree with this war.

Which, for the purposes of discussion for this war, means they are anti-war. When you are talking about a specific war a persons opinion about a different war is irrelevant.

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Which, for the purposes of discussion for this war, means they are anti-war. When you are talking about a specific war a persons opinion about a different war is irrelevant.

No, I don’t think so. I don’t consider a position that disagrees with only one war to be “anti-war.” If someone was a proponent of every other war in history, but happened to disagree with this one, you would say this person is anti-war? That doesn’t make any sense to me and it certainly does describe this person’s general perception of war.

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:29 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I guess that maybe 75% of the anti-war camp are coffee shop liberals." And with 70% being against the war that makes 53% of the country anti-war coffee-shop liberals. Now, as best I can tell, by Finn's own definition, they are anti-war.

Someone - help me out with Finn's math here (which I see he impaled himself on and is now desperately wriggling trying to get off the hook) -

"when the war started 70% of the country was in favor of the war"
but
53% of the country are anti-war coffee shop liberals.

Any takers on how this adds up to only 100% ??

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:41 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Someone - help me out with Finn's math here (which I see he impled himself on and is now desperately wriggling trying to get off the hook) -

"when the war started 70% of the country was in favor of the war"
but
53% of the country are anti-war coffee shop liberals.

Any takers on how this adds up to only 100% ??

Lets see,
take Finn's numbers and mesh them with Signy's numbers, throw context out the window and what do you get? Another blatant misrepresentation trying to discredit another Poster you do not agree with.

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 1:30 PM

Instead of guessing, try asking.

No, I DON'T give a damn about them, comparitively, no more that I do the seemingly endless round of tribal slaughters in africa - we're not the world police, and we got problems enough HERE that should be dealt with as a priority, that money coulda bought universal healthcare, coulda repaired our hangin-by-a-thread infrastruction, coulda woulda shoulda...

But no, we spend it to go ram "freedom" down the throats of some dipwads thousands of miles from here, who don't want it (or didn't want it bad enough to spill the blood necessary) won't keep it (having been blasted damn near back to the stone age by us) when we do finally bail out, and resent the hell out of us for doing it.

Pardon me, but that's just fucking idiotic.

I said it was idiotic then, and I flat told you this was *exactly* how it would wind up, and now... here we are, aren't we ?

And I know damn well they're gonna screw the living hell out of these poor sodders when they come back all fucked up physically and mentally from a warzone - it's what has ALWAYS happened, every single time since the end of the civil war, from the Bonus Marchers to the Nam Vets, what naive fuckin cluelessness convinces these morons that the Gov will keep it's promises to them, when it ain't never happened even once in over 150 years ?

File it under... saw that comin.

And heaven help us if the stupid pissants start something with Syria, Iran or Turkey, cause then the shit is *really* gonna hit the fan, just you watch.

Neutral relations with all, entangling alliances with none.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 1:36 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey BigNo

All I did was take Finn's own numbers - his own words ... show me how I misrepresented anything he said. Please.

So, what do YOU have to say about the actual topic. Anything at all ???

***************************************************************
Man, I'm going to have to watch my fingers - it's awfully easy to type 'bingo'.

There was a farmer, had a dog, and Bingo was his name-O! B-I-N-G-O, B-I-N-G-O, B-I-N-G-O, and Bingo was his name-O!

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Instead of guessing, try asking.

Ah but you didn't answer his other assertion, have you been going hippy on us Frem? Are you, as Finn in all his psychic glory asserts, opposed to the war for the simple reason of that it disrupts your harmony? Or are Finn's psychic powers imaginary?

P.S. I agree with almost everything that you posted there too.

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:50 PM

Oh yes, and speaking of honesty, remember what I said was gonna happen if folks continued to use the word Liberal as a slur around here... well, it's payday.

You think you're sick of "coffee shop liberals" ?

Well lemme tell you buddy, I am right sick of neo-neanderthal, knuckle-draggin, beard-waggin rejects from the evolutionary continuum pretending to be conservative while handing my rights over to the Gov so it can be our daddy, as if - not to mention this pack of horribly-inbred redneck bigoted scum despises anyone who actually THINKS instead of obeying, and frankly celebrates their deliberate ignorance while demanding that folks listen to them while they mutter talking points copied from some Fox "news" or some hard-right radio show cause they cannot abide anyone, even them daring to think for themselves... hell even their religion is against it in the fashion which they practice it, and when it comes right down to it they'll believe even the most ridiculous bullshit without a second thought, or even a first one, had they any, just as long as it goes along with how they wanna look at the world, reality notwithstanding - and on top of that they go around blaming problems they themselves with their ignorance and stupidity are directly responsible for on them "damned liburrruls", chanting it empty-eyed in a hyponotic drone like Guiliani with 9-11 somehow hoping to make it true by simple repetition, muchlike the faery tales which are most of what they believe anyhow.

And then when someone starts poking holes in that thin and obvious veil of bullshit, since their stupid hick ass that's "Prroud to be ignerrrnt!" doesn't have any evidence or even the mental resources to argue it, they throw a fucking tantrum like a two year old and resort to pure verbal venom that isn't even interesting of itself due to the sheer monotony of their pathetically weak vocabulary, since actual education is some kind of affront to them, right up there with the rights of minorities and women.

So, give me the coffee shop liberals, at least they have the pretense of coherent thought, while most of you evolutionary throwbacks we call conservatives would be hard pressed to even prove their own sentience to the turing test!

Ok, yes, that was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but being an Anarchist - which is as "Liberal" as one could possibly get, I am sick of hearing it used as a slur of the same hateful connotations as a racial slam - and thus felt the need to forcefeed some of the same back to them whats dishin it out.

Besides, you probably laughed, I know you did, cause I heard you snicker from here.

-F

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:28 PM

Oh, sorry bout that Fred, I thought it was obvious, you mighta missed that dicussion previous.

I am an Anarchist, see - you need a government to have a war, and I don't want either one.

You take ONE person, alone, operating solo... even with a firearm, in their entire life, minus the physical needs of food, sleep and what have you, allright ?

How many people can they kill, I mean, if they just stood there like sheep (not damned likely) and let it happen ?

How many people can a GOVERNMENT kill... with an army, or a flight of bombers, or even a nuke, in an HOUR ?

Wars are a function of government, the largest of the evils perpetuated upon us by a problem masquerading as it's own solution, and those wars are mostly folk who do not know each other and have no specific reason to wish harm on the individual someone at the other end of the barrel.

I just kind of have this issue with the idea of shooting somebody I never met, don't even know, who has done no direct harm to me, cause somebody else told me to do it, you understand - I gotta have a better reason than that to bust caps on someone.

I am against THIS war cause it was a damned stupid idea to begin with, poorly executed, and with no realistic hope of accomplishing any of the stated objectives, which I strongly suspect were just bullshit in the first place, a mere excuse to funnel government largess into the pockets of the Mil-Indy complex.
(See Also: War is a Racket, Smedley Butler)

It pisses me off that we are spending the money and lives of our countrymen so frivolously on a cause that never directly concerned us, and in a manner directly counterproductive to the stated objectives.

Anyhows, you need a Government to perpetuate the really big evils, without one all you've got is the small ones, and without a Government stepping in to protect those who exploit, harm and prey upon others, that generally self-resolves fairly quickly.

Finn likes his black and white, but it ain't never that simple once human beings are involved in it.

-Frem

PS - Righteous ?
"and I knew less about our history."
I sincerely hope I've been of some use on that front, much as I ramble on about it, lol.

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:37 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hey BigNo
All I did was take Finn's own numbers - his own words ... show me how I misrepresented anything he said. Please.

I believe the 53% number was Signy spin not Finn on who you are trying to pin.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So, what do YOU have to say about the actual topic. Anything at all ???

How does Frem feel about Firefighters? They knowingly risk their lives as a part of their jobs. Death is an inherent risk to them every time they enter a burning building. Should they not merit a certain response if killed in the line of duty? Does Frem have sympathy for their loss or does he have a bone to pick with them as well? How about an aid worker killed while trying to give aid in a warzone?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Man, I'm going to have to watch my fingers - it's awfully easy to type 'bingo'.
There was a farmer, had a dog, and Bingo was his name-O! B-I-N-G-O, B-I-N-G-O, B-I-N-G-O, and Bingo was his name-O!

Good old Farmer and his trusty dog Bingo. I bet the Farmer also has a few chickens. One of which happens to be smaller than all then rest. Let's call her Chicken Little.

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:55 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I believe the 53% number was Signy spin not Finn on who you are trying to pin."

Oh really - did Signy post that ? I didn't catch up - just did a little (basic) arithmetic. You do know how to do simple arithmetic. Sure you do. But, you still haven't shown me my number was wrong. More to the point, you haven't shown me how it's off topic.

I have no idea how Frem feels about Firefighters. Why don't you ask him ?

"Good old Farmer and his trusty dog Bingo." Is that you ??? Bingo I mean. That's so weird you'd call yourself that. Why would you call yourself that especially when no one here did it first.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 4:08 PM

BDN, it's real simple - if you deliberately and of your own free will, partake in public service of any kind that puts your life at serious risk, imma respect you for it, but damned if I am going to be horrified when that catches up with you.

One of my old, old army buds was in Explosives Ordinance Disposal (EOD), which is the job of blowing or defusing munitions which did not go off properly so the area can be safed for troop or civilian movements - which is not a job you are likely to die in bed doing, I knew that when he was teaching me some of it, and he knew it quite well, in fact he hoped to "not linger" and catch it in such a fashion that they could bury him in a thimble, going out with a bang, literally.

Not so very long ago, it DID catch up with him, and he got it in just the way he desired, trying to clear out a field for the locals so they could plant food crops.

How can you call it a horrible tragedy when someone goes eyes-wide-open willingly into the risk ?

He knew it was gonna happen, just not when, and Dave was a right cool dude for doin such a job, and I sprang for many a round because of it, but it's not a tragedy - they chose to risk and give their lifes to a cause they believed was right, and to pretend it's a shocking and horrible thing is to demean it.

And I won't do that to em.

-F

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 4:10 PM

So then Finn's psychic guesses about you were false then, thought so.

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 6:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But, you still haven't shown me my number was wrong.

I did.

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 6:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
So then Finn's psychic guesses about you were false then, thought so.

Actually, Frem sounds exactly like what I'm talking about.

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:01 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You're saying Frem sounds like a coffee-house liberal ???

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The number came from.... if 75% of anti-war people are "coffee house liberals".... and (by poll) 70% of the people across the USA are anti-war then 75% * 70% = 53% "coffee-house liberals".

But I'm confused because now it sounds what Finn meant by "anti war" is globally anti-war. Against all wars, not just this one.

So Finn, what did you mean by "anti-war"?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:49 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Well, he clearly said coffee-house liberals were anti-war. Not anti- this -war, anti-war without any caveats or restrictions. Maybe that's not what he meant to say.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No, I don’t think so. I don’t consider a position that disagrees with only one war to be “anti-war.” If someone was a proponent of every other war in history, but happened to disagree with this one, you would say this person is anti-war? That doesn’t make any sense to me and it certainly does describe this person’s general perception of war.

Finn, I've been in discussions about the Iraq war with quite a few people, you are the only one who doesn't seem to get that in a discussion about the Iraq war "anti-war" means "anti-Iraq war", also you are the only one who seems to think that a persons views on war in general have any bearing on a discussion of the Iraq war.

As an example I offer myself, in discussions of the Iraq war I describe myself as anti-war, no one has ever been surprised when, after describing myself as anti-war in the context of a discussion on the Iraq war, I have voiced support for the war in Afghanistan. Everyone else I've talked to has understood that "anti-war", when used while discussing a particular war, does not necessarily equate to anti-war in general.

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

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Dave was a right cool dude for doin such a job, and I sprang for many a round because of it, but it's not a tragedy - they chose to risk and give their lives to a cause they believed was right, and to pretend it's a shocking and horrible thing is to demean it.

And I won't do that to em.

Frem....you are just an awesome dude, really. In my world you would be our President.

Seriously, Chrisisall

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

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So Finn, what did you mean by "anti-war"?

Haven't I already explained this.

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Finn, I've been in discussions about the Iraq war with quite a few people, you are the only one who doesn't seem to get that in a discussion about the Iraq war "anti-war" means "anti-Iraq war", also you are the only one who seems to think that a persons views on war in general have any bearing on a discussion of the Iraq war.

I'm quite aware that many people use the term antiwar to mean anti-this-war, but I’m not. Not sure why that’s so hard to understand.

In fact, at the time that I coined the term "coffee shop liberal" there was no such thing as the Iraq war to be against. At least not this particular Iraq war.

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

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:38 PM