We are not pro-war

[Memnoch1207]

The people who are supporting the troops in iraq are not pro-war. There is confusion by people when we say "Yes, what we are doing in iraq is right", and the anti-war people think we are saying "Yes, kill them all, we love war!"

There is a difference in being pro-military or pro-troop support, than there is being pro-war. Only a sadistic **** would be pro-war..There isn't (at least I would hope) anyone who likes war, no one wants to see people die. What we are saying is we agree with the actions being taken to remove saddam from power, and we support our troops who are over there fighting this war. Everyone would have been happy if Saddam had gone into exile, and we didn't have to go to war, but the simple fact is he wouldn't and he won't leave until he is forced to (with action).

Saddam said in an interview "There is no dignity in capitualtion."

for those of you whose vocabulary isn't that broad the definition of capitulation is: "the act of surrendering or yielding"

so by those words he is saying he will not surrender or give up or step down. He's basically saying "You want me out, come move me out." and the only way to do that is by force.

In my opinion you cannot be anti-war and still support our troops fighting in iraq. You can be ani-war and hope people don't get killed, but to say that you support the troops is a contradiction.

Here's why:
The troops are the instrument of war, you cannot support the troops without also supporting the war. Without the troops there wouldn't be a war. That's like supporting the players on a baseball team, but not supporting the team itself. Without the players there wouldn't be a team.

that's my 2 cents.

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
"Yes, kill them all"

Hey, that's what I'm saying. Don't generalize! If your going to destroy a country, do it right, don't let any one walk out of there alive. If you try to save people all you are doing is saving a bunch of people who are really really piessed at you for blowing up their country. Then you give these people billions of dollars to rebuild. They rebuild, buy more weapons, and you have to go in after another 12 years and bomb them all over again. You wouldda thought we'd have figured that out by now. Dammit Bush either sheit or get off the pot.

[nishantp]

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Hey, that's what I'm saying. Don't generalize! If your going to destroy a country, do it right, don't let any one walk out of there alive. If you try to save people all you are doing is saving a bunch of people who are really really piessed at you for blowing up their country. Then you give these people billions of dollars to rebuild. They rebuild, buy more weapons, and you have to go in after another 12 years and bomb them all over again. You wouldda thought we'd have figured that out by now. Dammit Bush either sheit or get off the pot. Easy pal. No need to get defensive. I realize that the so called "pro-war" people are of the mindset that war is the only solution to this situation. So if anyone ever tells you that they think you're a bloody murdered, tell them they're a bloody murderer for supporting Saddam Hussein and should shut they're hole.:p

[MasterBlaster]

Nah I'm not gettin defensive. I have pretty wacked out views on life and don't like being lumped in with the "normal people". Was military force the only way to disarm Iraq? Who gives a rats arse now. Arguing that now is like jumping out of an airplane and thinking "Hmm.. mabe I shoulda put on a parachute first." I do however strongly agree that if you ar going to fight a war. Fook the civilians. Kill every last man woman child dog cat gerbil or any other thing that breathes there. Leaving a bunch of orphans and widows only leads to one thing. Widows raising children to hate the people who made her a widow. ie. a sheit load more suicide bombers. Either kill every last one of them or leave them all alone. It's a waste of time. we'll just have to fight them agin in 12 more years now.

[nishantp]

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Nah I'm not gettin defensive. I have pretty wacked out views on life and don't like being lumped in with the "normal people". Was military force the only way to disarm Iraq? Who gives a rats arse now. Arguing that now is like jumping out of an airplane and thinking "Hmm.. mabe I shoulda put on a parachute first." I do however strongly agree that if you ar going to fight a war. Fook the civilians. Kill every last man woman child dog cat gerbil or any other thing that breathes there. Leaving a bunch of orphans and widows only leads to one thing. Widows raising children to hate the people who made her a widow. ie. a sheit load more suicide bombers. Either kill every last one of them or leave them all alone. It's a waste of time. we'll just have to fight them agin in 12 more years now. I have a hard time beleiving that you really think that. They are people. Like you and me. The vast majority hate the Saddam, even if they dont trust the US. So if the US gets rid of him, and puts in a govt that is democratic and that doesn't get to kill people at will, maybe the mother of those kids will be able to tell them that the west isnt all bad.

Thats assuming its done properly. After 25 years, it's going to take a while for the people there to understand a democracy.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
In my opinion you cannot be anti-war and still support our troops fighting in iraq. You can be ani-war and hope people don't get killed, but to say that you support the troops is a contradiction.

Here's why:
The troops are the instrument of war, you cannot support the troops without also supporting the war. Without the troops there wouldn't be a war. That's like supporting the players on a baseball team, but not supporting the team itself. Without the players there wouldn't be a team.

That's not true.
I am against the war, but I would support any troops over there.
The reason being that they don't have any say in what they're doing.
The must follow the orders of the politicians - simple as that.

The fighting people are that exactly - they're people.
The anti-war people do not not support the troops - we just don't want war.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by nishantp
The vast majority hate the Saddam, even if they dont trust the US. So if the US gets rid of him, and puts in a govt that is democratic and that doesn't get to kill people at will, maybe the mother of those kids will be able to tell them that the west isnt all bad.

Yeah they hate Saddam, but they could just as easily hate an invading force just as much.
This could end up with generations being brought up to hate the west.

[Memnoch1207]

That's not true.
I am against the war, but I would support any troops over there.
The reason being that they don't have any say in what they're doing.
The must follow the orders of the politicians - simple as that.

The fighting people are that exactly - they're people.
The anti-war people do not not support the troops - we just don't want war.


It is true, and yes, they do have a say in whether or not they want to be over there...It's called being a "Conscientious Objector", but seeing as you are from Ireland and have no idea on how the U.S. miltary works, nor have you ever served in the U.S. military...then I would say you don't know what you're talking about. As I said you can be against the war, and hope the troops don't die, but you can't be against the war and for the troops and their actions. It is a contradiction in itself. One could look at it as being a conflict of interest.

[plenderj]

I never said I was for their actions.
I'm completely against their actions, but hope that they don't die and come home alive.
That's supporting the troops.

And this Conscientious Objector concept.
Lets say I'm a private in the army and I'm told we're shipping out to a country.
And lets say I refuse. That wouldn't really work would it :rolleyes:


Anyway, I do have an awful lot of relatives in America, some of whom have served in the armed forces.
My dad's uncle for example is in the USMC.
I'm not saying that I don't have any knowledge of how the US army works except past what I've read and seen in movies and television, but I personally have a lot of family ties with americans.

Next time someone says im anti-american im going to kneecap them.
That's not aimed at you by the way, I just thought of it now and decided to stick it in here :D

[Memnoch1207]

I never said I was for their actions.
I'm completely against their actions, but hope that they don't die and come home alive.
That's supporting the troops.

And this Conscientious Objector concept.
Lets say I'm a private in the army and I'm told we're shipping out to a country.
And lets say I refuse. That wouldn't really work would it


My point exactly, if you do truly support the troops then you support, why they are there, what they are trying to achieve, and the actions being taken by them to achieve their objectives.

You are concerned about their lives, as are we all, but the difference being, I support what they are doing, I agree with it, like it or not this was the only option we had, thanks to saddam, he refused to go into exile, he refused to step down...He has stated in several interviews "There is not dignity in capitulation"...He's not going to surrender without a fight, and a fight is what he is getting. The whole world may not be behind the war, but they do want saddam to comply, which he hasn't done.

Yes, a private, Sgt. Col. can say I refuse to go to Iraq and fight...it's their right to say I don't agree with this, and will not risk my life for a cause i do not support..Now, what happens to them I don't know? Maybe they stay behind and mop floors all day, or maybe they go to jail...But they do have a say in whether or not they want to be there. I would also suspect that if they took volunteers for the war, there would be more troops over there than there are now.

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Yes, a private, Sgt. Col. can say I refuse to go to Iraq and fight...it's their right to say I don't agree with this, and will not risk my life for a cause i do not support..Now, what happens to them I don't know? Maybe they stay behind and mop floors all day, or maybe they go to jail...But they do have a say in whether or not they want to be there. I would also suspect that if they took volunteers for the war, there would be more troops over there than there are now.

They finish the rest of their enlistment in a military prison and are dishonorably discharged after that.

I'm not trying to sound like a war mongering blood thirsty basterd. I realize I might. The west has just lit the fuse on a powder keg called Islam. If you think after we oust Saddam every thing is going to be Peachy and muslims in the middle east are going to say "Gee wiz those Americans and Europeans are relly swell guys for bombing the sheit outta us" then you are living in a dream world. In another 12 years after they learn how to use democracy(american breed) to make themselvs filthy rich they'll be coming after you and me and our children. And to tell you the truth, they have every right to and I would do the same if the situation were reversed. It is naive to sheit on an entire race/religon for a thousand years and not expect any retribution.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
You are concerned about their lives...

Well if your definition of 'support for the troops' is hoping they don't die, and are for what they're doing, then no I don't support the troops - but I would contest the definition of support.

[Memnoch1207]

Okay, here are the definitions of support per Websters Dictionary

1) to promote the interests or cause of
2) to uphold or defend as valid or right
3) to keep (something) going

so by these definitions you in fact do not "Support" the troops.

[Shaggy Hiker]

By that definition, he does support them. Read definition 1 again. It does not say "Promote the interests AND cause of", but instead says "Promote the interests OR cause of". The interests of every soldier I have ever heard of has been essentially to keep their buddies alive. Even if they enlisted for a different reason, I have only heard them mention other reasons as secondary. If that is their interest, then it PlenderJ does indeed support the troops.

Oh, and MasterBlaster, we aren't bombing the "sheit" out of them, we are bombing the Shiite out of them. I don't think it will work, and I do think we are lighting a powder keg.

[kedaman]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
The people who are supporting the troops in iraq are not pro-war. There is confusion by people when we say "Yes, what we are doing in iraq is right", and the anti-war people think we are saying "Yes, kill them all, we love war!"

There is a difference in being pro-military or pro-troop support, than there is being pro-war. Only a sadistic **** would be pro-war..There isn't (at least I would hope) anyone who likes war, no one wants to see people die. What we are saying is we agree with the actions being taken to remove saddam from power, and we support our troops who are over there fighting this war. Everyone would have been happy if Saddam had gone into exile, and we didn't have to go to war, but the simple fact is he wouldn't and he won't leave until he is forced to (with action).

Saddam said in an interview "There is no dignity in capitualtion."

for those of you whose vocabulary isn't that broad the definition of capitulation is: "the act of surrendering or yielding"

so by those words he is saying he will not surrender or give up or step down. He's basically saying "You want me out, come move me out." and the only way to do that is by force.

In my opinion you cannot be anti-war and still support our troops fighting in iraq. You can be ani-war and hope people don't get killed, but to say that you support the troops is a contradiction.

Here's why:
The troops are the instrument of war, you cannot support the troops without also supporting the war. Without the troops there wouldn't be a war. That's like supporting the players on a baseball team, but not supporting the team itself. Without the players there wouldn't be a team.

that's my 2 cents.
I don't think anybody is trying to misconcept or generalise you in any way. Pro-war is context bound, as its a tool for the situation, we're rather interested in the event.

sadistic **** have the same problem as you though, they are not aware of the consequences.

Anti-war people can well support war as much as pro-war people can prevent it, anti- and pro- are just opinions, you can kill a man without wanting him to die.

Funny you mention the act of surrendering in you signature too, perhaps a time for insight?

[kedaman]

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Nah I'm not gettin defensive. I have pretty wacked out views on life and don't like being lumped in with the "normal people". Was military force the only way to disarm Iraq? Who gives a rats arse now. Arguing that now is like jumping out of an airplane and thinking "Hmm.. mabe I shoulda put on a parachute first." I do however strongly agree that if you ar going to fight a war. Fook the civilians. Kill every last man woman child dog cat gerbil or any other thing that breathes there. Leaving a bunch of orphans and widows only leads to one thing. Widows raising children to hate the people who made her a widow. ie. a sheit load more suicide bombers. Either kill every last one of them or leave them all alone. It's a waste of time. we'll just have to fight them agin in 12 more years now.
That would indeed stop terrorism from that country, in fact, wouldn't it be great if you just wiped out all other countries?

[Memnoch1207]

sadistic **** have the same problem as you though, they are not aware of the consequences.

I am aware of the consequences...I was in the first gulf war. I walked by the burnt out iraqi tanks and saw their multilated bodies laying around all over the place...I heard the horror stories of what happened to the Kuwaiti's when the iraqi army invaded. I saw the faces of the people there. I know what those soldiers are feeling. I know how hard it is to operate in 100 degree weather while dressed in MOPP 4. I know about the sandstorms, when the gritty dust and sand burns your eyes, and turns to mud in your mouth. I am very aware of the consequences of war...But sometimes the only way to reach peace is through war.

[TheAlchemist]

hey guys,
I feel for the young people dying in the war in iraq, both Iraqi and American. These guys are dying for no good reason and for this i have some very nasty things to say about bush.
I believe in people power, if the iraqi people really didn't want saddam they would have ousted him a long time ago. just look at what has happened in so many other 'dictatorships' around the world.
what give bush the right to cry foul and say "Geneva convention'. he went agianst the UN so saddam has every right to defend his country in any way possible.
im not saying saddam is an angel, im just saying listen to the french: They know what they are talking about!

here are a few Einstien quotes to think about:

Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding.


e who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilisation should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable an ignoreable war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

[kedaman]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
I am aware of the consequences...I was in the first gulf war. I walked by the burnt out iraqi tanks and saw their multilated bodies laying around all over the place...I heard the horror stories of what happened to the Kuwaiti's when the iraqi army invaded. I saw the faces of the people there. I know what those soldiers are feeling. I know how hard it is to operate in 100 degree weather while dressed in MOPP 4. I know about the sandstorms, when the gritty dust and sand burns your eyes, and turns to mud in your mouth. I am very aware of the consequences of war...But sometimes the only way to reach peace is through war.
Thats not what I meant by consequences. When you stand there in the battlefield, you might be in the worst conditions ever in your life, but still you keep going, as if under the control of a higher force your actions are all justified by a higher good. All this is just a memory in the future, while the actual consequences holds the path of your future.

All wars are fought for one reason only, with only one consequence. The reason is called self interest and the consequence is called survival, going to war is the event where you are least aware of this, its when your instincts take over.