"support the troops" -- like most of the phrases conjured by the Bush administration -- is meant to short-circuit the brain and turn the listener into a version of Homer Simpson slobbering over a donut -- except in this case, the donut is wrapped in a flag.

And like other Orwellian techniques of the Bushies, this one has been assimilated into the language of the Dems, et al.

====

Too bad idealistic, dedicated, patriotic men and women volunteered to join the military at a time when the President had no problem using them as cannon fodder for POLITICAL and ECONOMIC purposes.

You have to feel sorry for them -- and I expect that when they return to America -- and wake up to what's been done to them -- the SHIT IS GONNA HIT THE FAN.

"Iraq Vets" might end up being the most radical, cynical demographic in America.



====




"I support the war, but I'm against the troops." -- Bill Hicks

It's already started: there were quite a few disaffected soldiers at the anti-war protest on the Mall this weekend, including officers, and groups identifying themselves as families of troops in Iraq, all of them very unhappy with our dear Fearless Leader - who took himself off out of harm's way, BTW, so he could continue to maintain the fiction in his mind that the public supports him. Cheney, of course, has been staying well out of public view (except for interviews) hunkered down in one of his numerous secret bunkers. I am sincerely convinced after watching his last few interviews where he insists that "great progress" has been made, that he's utterly psychotic, mad, & out of his mind, all in the very classical psychiatric senses. The man's a maniac.

I am fighting off a strong desire to put on my olde *name* and rip a screaming screed into the aether, but I will refrain.

Let me just add this one point, for clarification's sake.

Adam says in the article: "(Off-topic but interesting: since our military code says no US soldier is obliged to execute an inappropriate order from a superior, a case can be made that being ordered to go kill Iraqis is not all that moral, which means the innocence of our troops is open to debate. Then again, a better case might be made that our troops are being duped.)"

It's unlawful, not inappropriate. Big difference.

Asking a soldier to torture is an unlawful order, but to accomplish normal operational duties in accordance with an assignment, is indeed lawful, even when "inappropriate". The soldier still has a human's choice, but he is bound by oath to obey any lawful order.

Big difference than what was implied in the article.

troll loves gonzo's style but I don't want to loose sight of the tao

Gonzo,

Just let her rip. Any style will do, just so long as you drive the stake point home...

Ok, so you don't support the troops or our Commander in Chief. So what do you support besides negativity and hatred? You say that the soldiers may or have become disillusioned about the war but you certainly have not spoken with the majority.

Soldiers I talk with KNOW they have made and are making a difference in this war, so perhaps you should broaden your horizons. The biggest dissapointment to them is hearing you naysayers put them down and don't do anything positive to help anyone. Other countries need our help and YES they do appreciate us being there to do our best to assist them.

What are you doing to help anyone? It appears as I read your article that you are very good at one thing - promoting hatred of our military. More and more Americans are growing very tired of hearing and reading such pathetic liberal views as yours.

Our soldiers are proud Americans who are NOT afraid to serve their country. Least you forget - our land was attacked on 9-11. If we sit idly by, smoke our weed, and pretend that all is 'perfect" with this world then we will see how you react when it is your home being invaded. Oh I bet then you would support a soldier if he had to give up his life for you - cause yours is worth something - right? Is that why you think all our troops should stay in the USA, so that they can protect lazy naysayers?

The price of freedom is visible. Why don't you try visiting a few VA hospitals and talk to our wounded soldiers. Why don't you try to explore and find ways to help make their lives easier.

Consider writing supportive letters to our soldiers, sending care packages, as well as sending needed items to the VA hospitals. Be a true American who understand patriotism and serving!You don't have to like war or approve of it- just spread some lovingkindness and empathy to our troops. Our soldiers have sacrificed much, they are making a difference, and they deserve our true support. So again I suggest you broaden your horizons and get out and meet some real Americans. Support our troops!

Cindy says: "Least you forget - our land was attacked on 9-11."

And makes other points, many of which are valid. However the bit I've quoted shows a flaw in thinking, and one that is quite common to many.

Linking Iraq to 9/11.

NO Iraqi's were on the planes, and none were involved in the planning or execution of 9/11.

That was done by al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan, and run by mostly Saudis. Most of the highjackers were Saudis, and so is bin Laden.

The price of freedom is indeed blood and treasure, these are spent in the name of the citizens, as of yet NO good reason for the defense of the citizen's freedoms has been put forward to justify the losses in Iraq at this time, in either blood, limbs or treasure.

To be certain, I support the troops themselves, they have NO choice over where they are sent, and they are fufilling their oaths. Yet there is plenty to discuss and debate about the rationale of ordering the Iraq invasion BEFORE the issues in Afghanistan have been dealt with . (where's Osama?)

And still a quite viable discussion about what to do in Iraq, since everything is quite fucked there, and costing us lives and limbs, not to mention about $10 million an hour that could much better have been spent in other ways.

As for folks right to bitch and say what they want about anything...

the Tao of D'oh.

And still a quite viable discussion about what to do in Iraq

Since we've shown we're unwilling to break eggs, let's quit trying to cook that Iraq omelet.

BRING THE TROOPS HOME, and let the Iraqis settle it amongst themselves.

Who is this Cindy person who believes that 9/11 was not an inside job?

Cindy, I have some Florida swampland I am selling cheap....

The metaphor is not quite accurate, Clavos...

We have broken all the eggs, and killed off most of the chickens that lay them. Iraq is now in worse shape than when the U.S. invaded, and because of that, the entire region is destabilized, and much "face" has been given to the psycho who was elected president of Iran mostly due to his opposition towards " U.S. imperialism" and in direct populist response to the "axis of evil" speech.

We broke it, we bought it. The question remains how best to repair what was broken, and how best to protect U.S. interests, as well as the interests of the region as a whole.

Response to your comment D'oh :"That was done by al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan" I am very aware of who was behind the 9-11 attack and yes we do have troops in Afghanistan - who we should be supporting! Did I refer to Iraq when I referenced to 9-11? NO!

As for the other post - moonraven which says -"Cindy, I have some Florida swampland I am selling cheap....". hmmmm sorry but if you bought it - don't think I am stupid enough to fall for it. It's yours - keep it. Truly - don't you think that was sort of a silly remark - what does that have to do with this subject?

Lay aside the hate and lets all try to be human beings in this world that has enough hatred already.

Sorry you all feel so afraid of a newbie sharing her opinion. That is what freedom of speech is about and I know some wonderful veterans who have gave their lives to ensure that continues. I am an open minded person who is not afraid of learning and hearing all sides. And I will not offer any apologies for saying" Support Our Troops".

Point well taken that what happened on 9/11 is different than the war we fight in Iraq. I agree with that. Afghanistan should be tore up right about now in our search to bring Osama and the Taliban to justice. It makes me wonder what type of games are being played behind the scenes in that arena. We'll probably never know or at least not for the next 20 years or so.

The Iraq issue and supporting our troops is such a difficult subject. Were the reasons that we went in there in the first place justified? Probably not, now that we know that it was misinformation. However, if the sole reason we went into Iraq in the first place was because Saddam was trying to exterminate an entire race of people then I say - right on. Hitler - Saddam - Saddam - Hitler - same difference. We took care of Hitler. Same thing with Saddam. The problem that is faced now is that whether or not we were justified in going in under bogus reasons in the first place has no bearing on what is happening now. We don't have any choice but to finish it and see it through. Should we have forced our style of government on a society that is thousands of years old and probably could care less about democracy except for the fact that it will help rebuild their country as long as we are around, that's debatable, too.

Do I want my husband to go back to Iraq to fight for something that I don't think will ever get resolved? No. I am scared for him. But, whether or not we "feel" we should be there is besides the point. Our men and women are there and do not have a choice in the matter. They go there, try to do the best they can to stay alive and get back home to their families - usually counting the months until their contract with the military is up and trying to figure out a way to keep from going back via schooling, transfers to other units, etc.

So, supporting our troops is the point. They have an obligation to follow orders whether or not they believe in all the hype and rhetoric. The least we can do is "support" them with encouragement and prayers for their safe return.

P.S. The troops are performing great humanitarian feats in order to make life better for the Iraqi people because they do care about them - when was the last time that was reported on mainstream media? It won't be - the ratings would be good enough.

For Cindy in #11 - take a breath, and read what I typed again. My point in quoting and referencing what you wrote was merely to demonstrate how some emotionally link Iraq to a whole bunch of things that have nothing to do with Iraq.

That really was it.

Hope that helps.

I meant - would NOT be good enough.

I think you have been looking at the situation all wrong. I'm not necessarily an expert on politics and/or war, and i don't necessarily agree with some of Bush's "war time" policies, but when you say you don't support our troops it's almost the same as saying that you want them to be killed. Whether or not you support the war or Bush's intentions in Iraq you should always support our troops or you become no better than the "Radicals" who try to kill them.

So now let me ask you, is it the troops or is it the war that you dont support?

Pretty good article Adam.

This is the crux of our problem.

We are in a War (in Iraq) that was and is FLAT OUT WRONG.

We have created chaos the world over.

We can't just pack up and leave the mess for someone else to clean up.

While the majority doesn't support the war, but everyone would want to support a soldier in his duties, what can we do?

I SAY:

The only noble thing for the American people to do is to IMPEACH BUSH and CHENEY.

Admit we were wrong about Iraq.

Sit down with the World and figure out how we can improve it and how we can get out.

Then 100% of the American People can truly SUPPORT OUR TROOPS and get behind the effort to bring peace, stability and then GET THE FUCK OUT.

"Support the troops, oppose the policy."

See the Iraq Veterans Against the War and the Veterans Against the Iraq War web sites.

Re #6 by Cindy;

"What are you doing to help anyone?...If we sit idly by, smoke our weed, and pretend that all is 'perfect" with this world then we will see how you react when it is your home being invaded."

Unless you're in uniform writing from Iraq, Cindy, your words are nothing more than empty rhetoric.

Regardless of what anyone's political views are some need to remember that our military folks signed a contract for a job and/or career. They are the brave few who are willing to risk life and limb for their country and lest not we forget, their fellow man. It seems that some people have forgotten this. They serve, protect and try to make our WORLD a better place to live. I, for one, Support Our Troops. I know many others who do also. You would not believe the thanks we get from soldiers just by writing them a simple letter and saying that we care and appreciate them. Let's not forget that they are fellow Americans with jobs like the rest of us, with one exception, they are bound to their job by law. Once that contract is signed they are bound by the military to do the job they signed up for.

I for one am thankful for our troops. I also am glad that war is not being fought in our homeland. I am thankful that our troops are helping a less fortunate country than ours. I am thankful that we have a free country and a Commander in Chief who will quietly visit wounded troops and get on his knees and pray for them without the media present. He doesn't want to toot his own horn. Whatever my political views or whether I agree with everything that is going on is irrelevent. The point we should all be looking at is the fact that we have men and women brave enough to fight for freedom. Too many Americans have become so wrapped up in their own lifes that they forget there are those out there who will give all, if necessary, to protect and serve their fellow man. I am humbled at that fact. I am humbled whenever I receive a letter back from a soldier. I write many soldiers a day. I send care packages. I Support Our Troops! God Bless Our Troops! Pray for our troops. That will get you more satisfaction than bashing them.

The media will show you what ever shocks you and the bad things that are happening. Too bad they won't show the good that our troops are doing. I see these things, the good things. I am married to an Army Master Sergeant, (retired), and have the ability to go onto websites that show wonderful pictures of what good our soldiers do. And lastly, soldiers are not making a huge living in the military. They are not getting rich SERVING in our military. They had a calling and they are doing their best to fulfill what they promised to do under oath. Bash me if you wish, but this is my opinion.

MCH -

So, Cindy is no allowed an opinion if she is not in Iraq serving...interesting.

Well, by that same logic, then people who do not have children should not be able to comment on education, health or any other of a myriad of issues that affect children. People who have not reached the age of 65 should not have any opinion or say in what happens in nursing homes. People who are not doctors or nurses should not have the right to comment on issues relating to health care.

I guess that means that Nancy Pelosi can't comment on supporting the troops or the war either, because she hasn't served. Hillary Clinton? Nope. Gee, maybe they should just shut up about it then.

MCH - "Unless you're in uniform writing from Iraq, Cindy, your words are nothing more than empty rhetoric". Sorry you are wrong!

Folks please know that I am serving in the best way I can to help support our troops, so my words are not in rhetoric. Each week I write encouraging letters of support to atleast 8-10 soldiers who are serving overseas - and send care packages to them of things they may be in need of or just send a fun package to help lift morale. I take the time when writing and emailing to ask them if there is anything they need or want - expecting nothing in return. I also write weekly letters to many of our wounded soldiers who have returned back to US hospitals. There is no pay of $$$ involved for me but the blessings are galore.

I help to take care of a friend who has severe illness from serving in the Vietnam war. He was also shown no respect for serving and put up with this naysaying. He also does not agree with this post.It is easy to be a protester - hard to be one who really serves your country! I truly believe our soldiers and veterans deserve our respect and our support.

Though I am not blood kin to these soldiers whom I encourage, I still believe we have a kindred spirit. It takes little effort to spread lovingkindness, if your heart if open. Please do not think that I am wealthy or one of those Miss Do-Gooders. My belief simply is that to help others is a wonderful thing and that if more Americans would focus on helping others, America would be better for it.

I am disabled myself, so I am not speaking out of line when I say - Support our troops and our veterans - because I do. Now I will waste no more time in responding to your responses. I now feel led to move on to more useful things that I need to be doing.

Namaste.

While many in the GOP and those that consider themselves right leaning have come think that the time to end this war i snow because nothing good will come of it.... you leftists continue to sound like a broken record.

While I agree with you Adam that we should not send any more troops and I have no problem with you bashing Bush.. in fact I will join you in doing so if he insists on sending more troops........I do object to the fact that you and your ilk seem to place all of the world's problems at the feet of George Bush while never condemning the actions of radical muslim terrorists.

Was it Bush's fault when the subway in London was bombing? Was the Spain train bombing Bush's fault? Was Bush responsible for the muslims rioting in France? Did Bush murder Theo Van Gogh? Was Bush responsible for the Bali night club bombing?

I don't think I've heard your foaming at the mouth Bush bashers even once come down on radical islam as you have on Bush.

Instead we get this from Martin.

"We have created chaos the world over."

As if there wasn't already chaos in the middle east and strife created by Muslims in nations why they have immigrated to.

Bush's idiocy aside...what say you guys about the problems that radical islam poses to today's world? Is it not an extreme threat to people of the world in all western nations? Is the propor, well thought out use of the American military force not justified in combatting radical islam? Are you guys capable of escaping from your "Bush is the problem" siezures for a moment to address any of these questions?

Arch, it IS his fault when it comes to everything Iraq. But you do raise other, very valid points.

Here's hoping folks can spot the difference.

Ironic that when this discussion comes up, someone always points out how our troops are doing great HUMANITARIAN work in Iraq.

...that's fine and all, but...

THAT'S NOT THEIR JOB.

We're thru the looking glass when we "support the troops" -- while at the same time, sticking them in the middle of a CIVIL WAR -- while playing "army of occupation" -- and expecting them to play police, direct traffic, keep the lights on, build schools, hospitals, etc.

Their job is to kill people who actively attack and/or threaten the US.

Which means they probably belong in:

Afghanistan
Pakistan
& Saudi Arabia

Seriously, you wanna "support the troops"? Make sure yer politicians don't send them off on some socio-political-economic FOOL'S ERRAND.

Have a nice day!

"Bush's idiocy aside..."

The messenger can't be separated from the message in this case. You conservatives that now what to distance yourself from the IDIOT, while you still believe in his "message" prove yourselves to be even more idiotic in my opinion.

"what say you guys about the problems that radical islam poses to today's world?"

I say it's a threat that can be combated more easily with the help of moderate Islamist that were at one time united with the WEST right after 9/11 than it is by your idiotic leader BUSHCO.

"Is it not an extreme threat to people of the world in all western nations?"

Why only Western Nations? It should be a threat to the entire world and it was at one time, but idiots like Bush and his followers like you, have played into the hands of the likes of OBL and made it an us versus them and therefore we have no WORLD coalition.

"Is the propor, well thought out use of the American military force not justified in combatting radical islam?"

Yes but I haven't seen the well thought out use of the American military.


"Are you guys capable of escaping from your "Bush is the problem" siezures for a moment to address any of these questions?"

I answered that and since you too are now jumping on the band-wagon along with anyone with a half a pea brain, of recognizing the "idiocy" of Bush, why don't you realize that this idiocy can not be separated from the decisions he's made.

Doesn't make that you a bigger idiot?

''
Why only Western Nations? It should be a threat to the entire world and it was at one time, but idiots like Bush and his followers like you, have played into the hands of the likes of OBL and made it an us versus them and therefore we have no WORLD coalition."

Moderate islamist? Played into their hands? Sounds like you're the friggin idiot.

First of all. Fuck moderate muslims! If they can't bring themselves to condemn and rat out the nutbag terrorists who have hijacked their religion and are killing innocent civilians then they are just as bad.

I'm a Chrisitan but you can bet your sweet ass that if I have knowledge of some radical fundmentalist Christian that has harmed innocent civilians I'm going to be the first one dropping a dime on his ass.

Until so called moderate muslims decide that they want to join the rest of us in condemning and actively seeking to prevent more terrorism they are accomplices.

Second............The ones that play into the hands of OBL are the pacifist fucking liberals who want to "talk" and "reason" with these nutbags and let the "UN do their job'" and oh no we shouldn't torture anyone." They don't want to have a conversation they want to kill us. The ONLY solution is is to kill them first. Anyone who has a fucking problem with that can shut the fuck up and let the people who know what needs ot be done do what they have to do . Fucking useless pacifist pussies1

I agree with you about the over use of the term "support our troops" but I think that you might be part of the problem. You only want to support the troops when they are doing what you want. That's ridiculous. If you aren't for the war, I respect that. I find your disrespect for soldiers disturbing. Do you think that all soldiers are Republicans? Bush fans?
I am a soldier, and I think that people like you caused the fiasco in Vietnam, and are intent on doing the same in Iraq.
Don't give me the argument that we never should have gone to Iraq in the first place, either. We ARE in Iraq, and we need to win...

Bulldog 23A, Vietnam took 58,000 US lives and was a defeat. How many dead US soldiers do you think it will take to win in Iraq? And if you become one of the dead, what did you die for?

Bulldog: "...I think that people like you caused the fiasco in Vietnam..."

Read some history on the subject.

Actually, people like Bush caused the fiasco in Vietnam, ie. politicians using the US Military for political -- as opposed to 'defense' -- goals. The Domino-Theory was the WMD of Nam, and in both cases, they turned out to be fairy tales.

People like Adam Ash [and Shark] protested Viet nam to the point where the rest of the nation FINALLY caught up and demanded that their President stop sending cannon fodder into a lost, non-American cause.

YOU SOLDIERS should be really pissed; you trained to protect the U.S., kill people, and blow shit up -- and thanks to Bush, Neo-cons, Oil Execs, Halliburton et al, yer just pawns in a geo-political FACE-SAVING EXERCISE.

You've been asked to shed blood, not to defend this nation, but to defend Bush's Legacy.

THAT'S A CRIME.

People like Adam Ash [and Shark] protested Viet nam to the point where the rest of the nation FINALLY caught up and demanded that their President stop sending cannon fodder into a lost, non-Americawho on cause.


That's great Shark but what about the people on the far far left who spit on the soldiers and called them baby killers when they came home from Vietnam? What about the people who are still doing it today. At this weekends antiwar rally in DC an Iraq war vet who lost his leg was spit on and called a baby killer by several of the antiwar protestors? I'm just curious as to what you and Adam think about that. What do you think about all the far leftists who try to ban military recruiting in every public venue in America....who think that all military people are violent, knuckle dragging neanderthals?

The fact is that there are many logical reasonable people in this country who are opposed to the war in Iraq for good reasons. However the "antiwar movement" seems to be made up of the most vile far left anti American scum out there. these are the people in the marxist tshirts passing out their communist literature and bashing everything about this nation from sunup to sundown at their rallies. They don't give a shit about the troops as their spitting on them proves but rather use the troops as a pawn in their argument for a communist society.

Then I get people like MCH and Adam saying that if I say I support the troops it's hollow. Well even if that is true to some degree at least I can say that I have never spit on a member of our military. I've never called them baby killers. I don't ridicule the troops every chance I get and look down my nose at them like those in the "antiwar movement."

So Shark, MCH, Adam...what do you have to say about those in the "antiwar movement" that do these things. Are you guys sure you don't fall into this camp?

Archie, there are extremists in all movements, including your own and, indeed, sometimes yourself. Just cos some of the anti-war brigade go over the top that doesn't make the arguments against the war invalid.

While no one should condone the actions of people who abuse returned soldiers, I guess the one good thing about living in a democracy is that people CAN go out and protest against the war if they don't like it. It is, simply, part of the democratic process, like it or lump it.

It's worth remembering that Bush and Blair and my own Prime Minister, John Howard (who hopefully won't be the Prime Minister much longer) cited such institutions as the freedom of speech and democracy we all enjoy as the main reasons for continuing this war.

Con - soldiers are responsible for their choices and behavior just like the rest of us

as for your question

fools who spit on soldiers deserve the social bell book and candle ceremony if not busted jaws

those who call them baby killers are exercising a right - albeit in crude fashion

Cindy - several of us on here ARE soldiers or veterans; we served. We also talk to people either just coming back or just leaving (again) and damn few are happy about it, & neither are their families. You once met Bush, & apparently fell for his 'aw-shucks' fake Texas Redneck act; the more fool you, because I can guarantee you he wouldn't hesitate to cut your throat (or more accurately, have the NSA do it) if he thought for one nanosecond it would salvage his 'legacy' or his presidency. As one of the hoi polloi he swore to protect, you're no more to him & Cheney but dirt beneath their feet, to be used or expended as they think fit.

I utterly support our troops. Which is why I utterly oppose the war, and Bush & Cheney (may God damn their souls to eternal hell) & their allies, Halliburton, the oil hegemony, & the rest of the super-rich oligarchy which regards us all as fodder. I don't want one more drop of precious American blood spilled for a pack of traitorous pols & greedy CEOs, or for a nation of barbarous halfwits so blinded by a savage religion they relish slaughtering each other in ever more inventive ways. I do support the troops; I have friends & family there - which is more than Bush, Cheney, or any single one of the supine maggots on Capitol Hill can say. And I want every one of those troops home, safe, now. Fuck Bush. Fuck the Iraqis. I want our people HOME. I don't want another penny of US money going to those ragheads overseas when there are Americans who are homeless, hungry, uneducated, jobless; when there are American cities - like New Orleans - which are in ruins. Fuck Iraq. Let it sink into the sands & take all its people with it. D'oh says 'we broke it, we bought it'; well, I say we've paid for it over & over again, and we're now paid in full and then some. The rest of the breakage is the Iraqi's own fault - not ours - & we have NO further responsibility to or for them. They're grown people; let them sink or swim. They'll either slaughter each other or realize they're going extinct & make efforts to control themselves.

A pity we can't send Bush & Cheney over there & turn them loose for the amusement of the Iraqis; I wonder how long they'd last?

Actually, people like Bush caused the fiasco in Vietnam, ie. politicians using the US Military for political -- as opposed to 'defense' -- goals. The Domino-Theory was the WMD of Nam, and in both cases, they turned out to be fairy tales.

True. And for the most part, they were Democrats, with JFK and LBJ taking the prize for Involvers in Chief.

those who call them baby killers are exercising a right - albeit in crude fashion

And the soldiers should exercise their training to kick the living shit out of anyone who does.

Some of us did, back in the sixties.

Re #20;

"Well, by that same logic, then people who do not have children should not be able to comment on education, health or any other of a myriad of issues that affect children. People who have not reached the age of 65 should not have any opinion or say in what happens in nursing homes. People who are not doctors or nurses should not have the right to comment on issues relating to health care."
- L

The fact that you compare education, health care and nursing homes with being killed in combat revals just how out of touch with the horrors of war you really are.

I suppose next you'll be relating combat deaths to traffic fatalities, ala Dave Nalle and RJ Elliott.

troll 33:

those who call them baby killers are exercising a right - albeit in crude fashion

I'm no lawyer (too scrupulous), but wouldn't that actually be slander or libel? If so, it's NOT a right; crude or otherwise. (Nor is kicking their ass, I know)

Clavos - soldiers and you have no right to beat them for expressing their dissent...that's assault in many states

btw - anyone who chooses to drop munitions from a plane or fire them from an artillery piece or even a thumper runs a strong risk of killing children...it comes with the territory

to chose to participate in actions like 'shock and awe' and then become upset when others point out its immorality seems like 'protesting too much' to me

overcompensate much - ?

the accusation of slander would depend on the intent of the accused and the truth of the matter

Clavos - soldiers and you have no right to beat them for expressing their dissent...that's assault in many states

Deliberately didn't say anything about "rights".

And yes, it is assault, even here in FL.

to chose to participate in actions like 'shock and awe'

Um, except for enlisting in the first place, they're NOT "choosing", nor were we in Vietnam.

And, when they enlisted they weren't necessarily "choosing" to go to Iraq, were they?

Once enlisted, a soldier has a duty to follow lawful orders. You may think they're being given unlawful orders, but that has not been established legally.

btw - anyone who chooses to drop munitions from a plane or fire them from an artillery piece or even a thumper runs a strong risk of killing children...it comes with the territory

True, but again, they're NOT "choosing". IMO it doesn't warrant the epithet of "baby killer", which implies intent.

Insulting the troops for doing their job is neither fair nor does it serve the protesters' cause.

And, assault or not, it DOES run the risk of getting their butts kicked, which would be richly deserved.

Clavos - I think we'll just have to disagree about soldering and free choice - imo he who pulls the trigger is ultimately responsible for the destruction the bullet causes not the generals and politicians

teach the children not to let anyone tell them who to shoot - that's a personal decision

we have the duty to stop aggressive war - it's all a matter of individual choices

OK, troll. But as a matter of law, individual soldiers do not have a choice, according to the UCMJ, unless they are given an unlawful order.

we have the duty to stop aggressive war

That's easy: Disband the military.

ok - I hereby declare the military disbanded

Nancy provides a perfect example of the hypocrisy in question when she says:

"I utterly support our troops. Which is why I utterly oppose the war"

Because the troops support the war. It's their job. Without war we wouldn't need a military, we wouldn't need troops and their profession would cease to exist. Don't make the mistake of thinking our soldiers are poor victims in all of this. They didn't join the peace corps, they joined the military. They don't complain about fighting, they complain about policies like 'catch and release' which stop them from prosecuting the war the way they would like to.

The military hierarchy promoted this war as much as anyone, because they need occasional wars to justify their existence, provide a cadre of veterans and give them an excuse to acquire updated equipment and to justify expansion of their budget.

So if you 'support the troops', you support this war and war in general, because that is what the troops are for.

Dave

Believe it or not, troll, I actually believe we SHOULD do that (not entirely-I think we should keep enough to guard our borders and assist with national emergencies-the NG).

And I think we should stay out of the ME, Africa, and the Far East, as well as Europe. We've been carrying the burden for too long, and all it's gotten us is opprobrium from virtually all the rest of the world, with only a handful of exceptions.

I say fuck 'em-let them fight amongst themselves, if they want to, and we'll stay home.

At the very least, we''l save a lot of American lives and beaucoup money.

I'm not surprised at all Clavos - I have many ex-military friends who feel the same way

100% what you said, Clavos. Since when do WE have to do it all? Who made us God?

Finally, something like the crux of it: Joining an army is immoral.

I don't support the trpoops because I don't support troops.

So, troll and Nancy,

On that one issue, you both support the Libertarian viewpoint...

So Henry, when the Red Army lands in California, how do you plan to protect yourself?

The sad truth is that although I agree that a standing army is undesriable and leads to a desire to use it, we do need to have some means of defending ourselves. We can't just pay off all our enemies.

"And I think we should stay out of the ME, Africa, and the Far East, as well as Europe."

Don't stop there. Stay out of Central America and South America too.

"We can't just pay off all our enemies."

Why not just stop making enemies?

"So Henry, when the Red Army lands in California, how do you plan to protect yourself?"

But won't you protect us, Vox Populi, since you believe in putting your money where your mouth is by serving...?

Not sure what the Libertarian position is, Clav, ol' Dude, but I certainly don't stand w/BushCo. I think we should stop sticking our noses (& our troops) in where they don't belong & let people determine their own governments. Hells bells, when foreigners just make campaign donations, we go berserk over Outsiders Trying To Influence US Elections, etc. etc. We'd never tolerate anybody trying to come in and overthrow our government, even if it were BushCo. WE might overthrow it, but someone else - never. So then why do we feel entitled to do it to everyone else? We're not. Nobody died and appointed us God. It's one reason why we're hated & distrusted throughout the world. We don't/can't even do good works any more without the administration attaching secret strings to it. I've read somewhere that even the Peace Corps now is regarded widely as an arm of the CIA, for chrissakes. What tears me is that I'm afraid too many people can't, don't, or won't separate Americans in general from the maniacs at the top, & don't realize that most of us now do NOT support Bush, Cheney, & their goal of world domination thru brute force.

In Arch's #30 and from other comments, a lot of folks are expressing their dismay at anti-war protesters and how they are treating vets.

Fair enough, there are some on the "left" who have behaved like shitheads in the matter, most reasonable people can agree.

Can we also agree that the "right" echo chamber's treatment of some vets has also been heinous?

Examples - Max Clealand, McCain, Kerry?

How is what was done to them materially different and will those of you decrying the treatment of vets also disavow what some on the right have said about vets who express differing opinions than theirs?

Think about it, and the hypocrisy involved.

D'oh,

Speaking just for myself, I've never said anything negative about either Cleland or McCain.

I agree that those who have made defamatory (as opposed to simply critical) remarks against either of them are just as bad as those on the left who have called troops from either Vietnam or Iraq (or really any war, for that matter) baby killers, which group would include Kerry.

For the record, I don't recall Kerry specifically using the epithet "baby killers," but what he DID say was equally heinous, particularly since he was not talking about his personal observations, but was merely passing on anecdotal hearsay of questionable origin, gleaned at the winter soldier conference.

archie: "At this weekends antiwar rally in DC an Iraq war vet who lost his leg was spit on and called a baby killer by several of the antiwar protestors."

really? i can't really see that. got a link? (no right-wing blogs, please.)

Typical Rush/Rove tactic:

antiwar movement" seems to be made up of the most vile far left anti American scum out there. these are the people in the marxist tshirts passing out their communist literature and bashing everything about this nation from sunup to sundown at their rallies. They don't give a shit about the troops as their spitting on them proves but rather use the troops as a pawn in their argument for a communist society.

I find such statements about the anti-war folks here in the U.S. quite interesting. Recent polls have more than 60% of the public against the Iraq fiasco.

I didn't know there were that many hippies!

archie, blar, blar, blar: "...a pawn in their argument for a communist society."

heh. archie is so scared of the communists. communism is dead! has been for a long time! communists are not the enemy! that's like staring at a dead cockroach and worrying about it eating your leg! get over it!

yes, yes... the anti-war protestors are just communist infiltrators! jesus christ. because war is the oppostite of communism! and communists never get involved in war! remember that 50-year standoff we just had with the ussr? wasn't war, was it!? haha! communists are pacifists!

what is it about communism, that dead, rotting, failed ideology, that gets up the right wing's skirt? why do they fear it so?

do you still wet the bed as well? that monster in your closet--is it wearing red?!

Cheney's the one leading that charge to beat a dead horse (communism); Arch & co. are just following their insane leader.

BTW, I'm in the forefront of opinion, it seems: I've been maintaining Cheney is nuts for at least a few weeks now; in today's WP an "official" Editorialist is also surmising he's gone to la-la land. You heard it here first.

Bush is a dry drunk
Cheney is a dry homophob

Nancy: "I utterly support our troops. Which is why I utterly oppose the war"

VoxPop demonstrating hypocrisy: "...a perfect example of the hypocrisy... Because the troops support the war. It's their job. Without war we wouldn't need a military, we wouldn't need troops and their profession would cease to exist. Don't make the mistake of thinking our soldiers are poor victims in all of this. They didn't join the peace corps, they joined the military."

Here's hypocrisy, babe: Saying the job of the military is to kill people and blow shit up in defense of America [real threats, not made-up threats, btw] -- and then saying you "support" them in Iraq WHEN THEIR BASIC JOB is to act like the friggin' Peace Corps with weapons.

In case you haven't noticed, our "military" endeavor has dropped over $400 BILLION so the "military" can build roads, hospitals, schools, pump oil, make sure the electricity works, and act as policemen and traffic cops.

That's IMMORAL. And it's hypocritical.

To QUOTE/Paraphrase what VoxPop said about me in another post:

"Given what I've seen from you here, you should be hanging your head in shame for saying you "support" the troops -- while asking them to play Cosmic Nanny to a Civil War. Why would anyone be proud to support a military unit doomed to failure and placed in Harm's Way playing "nation builders" looking for "hearts and minds"? It sickens me to see you celebrating our troops while tasking them with things they shouldn't be doing. Your attitude and the attitude of people like you are directly responsible for our failure in Iraq. You're a sociopath."

George S. "Blood & Guts" Shark

=====

PS: Over 20,000 Americans specifically support SHARK and his attitude toward the "war" in Iraq. I can prove it with a crayon and some toilet paper. [Questionable Link to be provided if yall humiliate me for a while.]

Just for the record: I actually am a sociopath, but I'm also a "people person".

Note: after numerous email requests from D'oh and Troll, resident Bullshit Detectors, I have been forced to provide the LINK which objectively, empirically, and scientifically proves my earlier assertion re. the 20,000 Americans who support me.

Thanks for asking.

Difficult to refute such evidence SHARK, and far be it from me to argue with the likes of the authority you present.

So, a link for SHARK...worth the load time for ya Shark, imo.

the Tao of D'oh

see Vox...that's all I ask - a simple attribution

D'oh,

Thanks for the offer -- but my modem is a soup can tied with a string. It wouldn't be worth the download time if they were showin' Jesus Hisself healin' Jessica Simpson of a vaginal wart in Panavision.

I find such statements about the anti-war folks here in the U.S. quite interesting. Recent polls have more than 60% of the public against the Iraq fiasco.

There's a huge difference between the 60% who oppose the war as it's currently being fought and are dissatisfied with the situation in Iraq, and the 10-20% who are diehard, crazed leftists who hate Bush irrationally and oppose the war primarily because they want to see America humiliated.

Dave

I'm just having a gay old time here as the fanatical appeasenik scum start wetting themselves at the realization that despite their best efforts it looks like the terrorist insurgency in iraq is falling apart.

"crazed leftists who hate Bush irrationally and oppose the war primarily because they want to see America humiliated."

Talk about big differences Dave!

"60% who oppose the war as it's currently being fought"

Nuke em all eh?


What's the mission?
WMD's?
Regime change?
War on terrorism?

Fuck if I know, Martin. Nor do I really care. I'm just motivated by a raging desire to see people like you exposed for the destructive, inhumane and illiberal extremists you are.

Dave

Dave - nothing future tense about it...the US is humiliated

and Lumpy - that's classic dumb...please source your claim

It seems as if some people have misconstrued my words.

I did not say all those who oppose the war are far left commies. In fact in my earlier post I said that there are a lot of reasonable people who oppose the war with logical rational arguments.

What I did say is that the vast majority of the people who attend antiwar rallies are in fact far left and are incapable of saying anything good about this nation at all. You guys can disagree with me but you all know I'm right. What does your typical antiwar protest look like? A bunch of angry leftists passing out communist/socialist literature and yelling at the top of their lungs about the evils of capitalism and the United States of America. They are professional protestors whose thought processes are incapable of anything beyond a short catchphrase like "war for oil" or "bush is hitler" that they can yell as they march down the street. Ask them a serious question and all you get is screaming nonsense.

As Nalle pointed out there is a huge difference between the majority of our population that opposes the war and the maybe 5% that are diehard foaming at the mouth, bush hating, anti-american spitting on the troops and calling them baby killers, commie, scumbag far left wing riff raff.

To be fair as some have pointed out there are also whackos on the right and the one that comes immediately to mind is Fred Phelps and his followers who have protested at the funerals of dead soldiers because some of the soldiers who have died have been gay. This guy is just as bad the far left antiwar moonbats.

Arch,

I'll agree with you in that I too felt that there were far too many "leftists" wacko's when I was marching on Washington, but the majority were just like me. Just didn't support the war.

I guess if it weren't for the "wacko's" then maybe the mainstream would sit endlessly on the sidelines and do nothing.

So God Bless em!

Well Martin I am a Republican who is no longer in favor of continuing this war as I don't see any good that can come of it. I am also embarassed that George Bush is the head of my party. He's an idiot that can't read the writing on the wall even when everyone is screaming "look at the f-ing wall you idiot."

That being said... I would never get in bed with the left wing scum that consider themselves the "anti war movement" I dare say most of them don't even care about the troops. My estimation of them is that most of them are mentally unbalanced and claiming to be "antiwar peace activists" who point out all the bad things about America makes them feel better about themselves. They are in fact very disturbed and insecure individuals who need the "antiwar movement" to give their pathetic lives meaning. The movement gives them a feeling of superiority to others and bolsters their fragile psyches.

The ones that marches are harmless but their slightly more normal cousins.. the ones that make up the ACLU and other such organizations are extremely dangerous as it is their goal to eradicate everything traditional and respectable about this nation against the will of the people through the courts.

Well glad to see that you have abandonded the idiocy of your leader, but I still think you need to look at the overall record and agenda of your party as well, instead of just pointing out the lunacy of the fringe left in the democratic party.

I mean, ya'll did elect not once, but twice.
And as he said, fool me once shame on me, fool me twice......WE WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN -- Who?

Source my claim? Do none of u read or watch the news? See the latest reports from the CFR on al qaeda morale or any of the news stories on the flight of terrorists out of baghdad and out of the country and getting shot down like dogs as they flee.

So, I'm just wondering...if Bush were to bomb another country, cause another civil war, change another regime, get another 600,000 civilians killed (I know, I know, you dont care about them), because they were "harboring terrorists"; if Bush were to provoke war with say...Iran which he is getting really close to doing (might be the reason for the 20,000 troops he's requesting)...would you support it or not? Would any of you have a problem starting war with another middle eastern country?

"For the record, I don't recall Kerry specifically using the epithet "baby killers," but what he DID say was equally heinous, particularly since he was not talking about his personal observations, but was merely passing on anecdotal hearsay of questionable origin, gleaned at the winter soldier conference."
- Clavos

Did he ever mention William Calley?

you mean this article Lumpy

or this one

and the only google reference I can find for 'flight of terrorists' is some site called 'the conservative voice'

give me a hand with a link

MCH #80,

Not in the Congressional testimony to which I referred earlier, no.

But he did that same year in an interview on Meet The Press in April, 1971.

Here's an audio recording of it.

AD, we're already at war with Iran in Iraq. The Iraq war was ALWAYS about Iran.

Dave

Go re-read your Qu'ran & Hadith, Adalumufa: according to The Prophet, you just earned yourself a place in Hell. Idiot; you don't even know the tenets of your own Prophet you claim to follow?

The war was always with Iran, Dave? Why didn't BushCo just say so? Why dissemble? Was Saddam easier to invade? Was the plan to just use Iraq as a staging ground to attack Iran? Maybe if BushCo had been honest this misbegotten invasion would never have occured, as most Americans fervently wish now that they know more.

Clearly demonstrates the fallacy of concealing and lying to get your way, especially to start a war. "Oh what a tangled web we weave..."

Hey Lumy: I couldn't find anything at CFR about insurgents fleeing Iraq. Can you be more precise? Citation please?

"The Iraq war was ALWAYS about Iran." - Dave

To the Governments of Iran and Iraq:

1. Begin negotiations to settle the Shatt al-Arab border delineation dispute and sign a peace treaty to formally end the war.

2. Agree upon and implement mutual steps to enhance border control, including

(a) sharing intelligence on the movement of insurgent groups and the flow of funds;

(b) cessation of support for or harbouring of groups engaged in violence against either side, including the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MKO) and KDP-Iran and Ansar al-Islam.

3. Promote cross-border trade and investment as well as cultural exchanges.

To the Government of Iran:

4. Increase border control forces, including through closer cooperation with Iraqi forces.

5. Cease providing shelter and assistance to fighters associated with Ansar al-Islam and other groups carrying out violent attacks in Iraq.

To the Government of Iraq and Iraqi Political Parties:

6. Avoid inflammatory and unsubstantiated accusations concerning Iran's behaviour.

7. Take steps to prevent the MKO from engaging in violent activities in Iran and, together with Coalition forces, confine it to its compound in central Iraq (camp Ashraf), and cease any support to KDP-Iran.

8. Focus on border control as the capacity of its security forces builds.

To the International Community:

9. Assist Iraq in rebuilding its intelligence and customs control capabilities, including by providing the necessary equipment.

10. Avoid inflammatory and unsubstantiated allegations concerning Iran's behaviour in Iraq.

To the Government of the United States:

11. Further support EU efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear question, preferably by joining in negotiations and offering genuine incentives of its own so that a balanced package of incentives and disincentives can be offered to Tehran.

Amman/Brussels, 21 March 2005

Arch

First of all. Fuck moderate muslims! If they can't bring themselves to condemn and rat out the nutbag terrorists who have hijacked their religion and are killing innocent civilians then they are just as bad.

So you think that you should be judged the same as Skin Heads because you haven't stopped them???

Same thing right?

Muslims are peolple just like you.

I fully suppoet our troops.

I do not suppoet a president that treats them like shit.

To the above commenters who say we need to support our troops because they are following lawful orders, this is NOT true. When anyone takes the military oath they say the following:"I, {insert name here}, do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. (Note that the last sentence is not required to be said if the speaker has a personal or moral objection)"
They are NOT taking an oath to follow orders, they are taking an oath to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. Our Constitution binds us to the treaties we have signed. We are signatory to the Nuremburg Principles. This war in Iraq is an ILLEGAL war per the Nuremburg Principles (look them up if you don't believe what I am stating) Therefor, to follow ANY order given in the implementation of an illegal war is a WAR CTIME. At the end of the Nuremburg trials, our own Supreme Court Chief Justice who presided over those trials said, "That by which we judge today, we shall be judged tomorrow" During those trials, following orders was found NOT to be an excuse. Am I EVER going to say I support the troops? NEVER. Because to say this would be to say I support their actions in a war crime. As for those in the military speaking out against the war while still serving, what a CROCK! It would be the same as a rapist decrying rape while still committing it. Every single man and woman in uniform has the LEGAL and MORAL obligation to refuse to deploy. THOSE troops I will support 100%, but as for the rest of them, they are the willing tools of the plundering of a nation based on a pack of lies. Thank you Adam for writing this and being moral enough to put your pen where your morals lie