PDA

View Full Version : "You can't support the troops if you don't support the war!" Part Two


Logical
05-24-2006, 02:32 PM
Lets be more specific this time, no easy answers.

I am going to add one set of answers that I will be suprised if anyone admits to but should be included.

For the faint of heart their is an observers option so you can be counted without giving your opinion.


Edit: Iowanian sorry for spelling your username wrong in the poll. If a mod could fix it I would appreciate it.

Nightwish
05-24-2006, 03:07 PM
Just to clarify one of the choices I voted for, I did vote for "It is possible to support the war without supporting the troops" (the Abu Ghraib example). By this, I don't mean that I believe it is possible to support the war without ever supporting the troops who are fighting it, as that is even more nonsensical than saying you can't support the troops without supporting the war. But when it comes to things like Abu Ghraib, it is certainly possible to not support the troops involved in that situation, without it necessarily eroding your support for the war or your support for the troops in general.

patteeu
05-24-2006, 03:10 PM
I picked option 2. I didn't understand option 3, but if it were explained to me I might pick it as well.

I'm not sure that this poll gets you any further than jAZ's did because it suffers from the same flaw (in reverse). A person could think that 99% of the people who say they oppose the war but support the troops are FOS, but as long as they recognize that 1% are capable of pulling the feat off, their honest answer should be to check option 2.

Logical
05-24-2006, 03:14 PM
Just to clarify one of the choices I voted for, I did vote for "It is possible to support the war without supporting the troops" (the Abu Ghraib example). By this, I don't mean that I believe it is possible to support the war without ever supporting the troops who are fighting it, as that is even more nonsensical than saying you can't support the troops without supporting the war. But when it comes to things like Abu Ghraib, it is certainly possible to not support the troops involved in that situation, without it necessarily eroding your support for the war or your support for the troops in general.

I had to find an example that did not include Germany, but honestly I thought about the German people who probably loved their country and supported the war due to that but did not support what the Nazis were conducting either the war (the brutality beyond the typically) and of course the holocaust (if they even knew the degree it was conducted to).

Iowanian
05-24-2006, 03:39 PM
It IS possible to be against the war, and still support the troops.

Thats not what Jaz's poll suggested, and its not what your title says either. I guess you've pigeon holed where I should vote.

And yes...Some of you douchebags can gfy.

banyon
05-24-2006, 03:44 PM
HC Chief is also Iowanian?

Nightwish
05-24-2006, 03:48 PM
It IS possible to be against the war, and still support the troops.

Thats not what Jaz's poll suggested, and its not what your title says either. I guess you've pigeon holed where I should vote.Huh? What exactly does it say, then? Seems to me it's pretty clear cut. It is in quotes only to refer to the fact that that verbatim statement has been made by you and others on the Planet in the past. In some cases, it has been limited to only one or two posters, saying that those particular posters cannot support the troops in their particular manner of opposing the war. At the time it was spoken to me by a certain unnamed poster, we weren't talking about any particular poster, we were talking about whether it was possible in general to oppose the war while supporting the troops. And the statement was specifically made that it is impossible to do both at the same time. It is to such generalities that both polls are obviously referring.

Logical
05-24-2006, 03:56 PM
It IS possible to be against the war, and still support the troops.

Thats not what Jaz's poll suggested, and its not what your title says either. I guess you've pigeon holed where I should vote.

And yes...Some of you douchebags can gfy.

You can support the troops without supporting the war

Why can't you vote that option? Did you actually read the poll options?

Iowanian
05-24-2006, 03:58 PM
"You can't support the troops if you don't support the war!"

I was talking about the thread Title, Jimbo.

I've never made that statement and challenge it to be found. I have however said that I don't think several here DO support the troops, namely Denise.

I haven't seen much "can't" talk, but rather many "DON'T".

Logical
05-24-2006, 03:58 PM
HC Chief is also Iowanian?Evidently and apparently Velvet Jones as well. Hey, I am better than Kotter at outting posters, I managed at least two with one poll.ROFL

patteeu
05-24-2006, 05:12 PM
Regarding the third option:

You can support the war without supporting the troops (because of specific actions i.e. Abu Gharib)

I would have voted for it if I had understood it. I think you can certainly support the war without supporting every action of the troops. I think it would be tough to support the war without supporting any of the troops or any of their actions, but there might be a way to construct the right scenario to get my vote on that one too.

Mr. Laz
05-24-2006, 05:20 PM
support the troops and supporting the war are two completely different issues.

the only time they are put together is for political reasons.

Logical
05-24-2006, 06:15 PM
LOL at Cochise. I was about to give him props then I noticed he voted for everything.ROFL

go bowe
05-24-2006, 07:05 PM
yeah, cochise sure seems to be a man of many opinions... ROFL ROFL ROFL

Logical
05-24-2006, 09:31 PM
yeah, cochise sure seems to be a man of many opinions... ROFL ROFL ROFL

In a related story we are up to four admitted Iowanians.

Cochise (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=2470), HC_Chief (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=71), Iowanian (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=2383), Velvet_Jones (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=2355)

:D

Cochise
05-24-2006, 09:35 PM
ROFL damnit you two! I was hoping someone would chastise me for being a mildness white house zombie before they saw what happened. :D

BucEyedPea
05-24-2006, 09:56 PM
Not to pull a Bill Clinton...but 'er what does "support" mean here.

I support the troops because I was against going into Iraq, because I don't like our men and women being used as cannon fodder.

You can't get much more supportive than that. :harumph:

Logical
05-25-2006, 12:48 AM
Not to pull a Bill Clinton...but 'er what does "support" mean here.

I support the troops because I was against going into Iraq, because I don't like our men and women being used as cannon fodder.

You can't get much more supportive than that. :harumph:My poll I guess my definition is what you want.

Support means you wish them well, you believe in them and want them to succeed.

patteeu
05-25-2006, 08:19 AM
My poll I guess my definition is what you want.

Support means you wish them well, you believe in them and want them to succeed.

I don't think it's that uncommon within the anti-Bush, anti-war crowd for people to have no ill will toward the troops personally (i.e. they don't wish them harm) but to hope that they fail in their mission.

Iowanian
05-25-2006, 09:01 AM
I'd be curious to see "HOW" the troops are "supported".

Jesus
05-25-2006, 09:03 AM
Damn, public polls....

Boozer
05-25-2006, 09:14 AM
I'd be curious to see "HOW" the troops are "supported".

Apparently, you buy a magnet bumper sticker and then argue on the Internet. In very rare circumstances, someone might have sent a care package a few years ago.

Iowanian
05-25-2006, 09:20 AM
What do you do Boozer?


I did buy a couple magnets after it began...from a group who was using the proceeds to send care packages. This was early on, when the basics were in demand...hand sanitizer, flea collars for sand mites, snack foods.

Brock
05-25-2006, 09:20 AM
Not to pull a Bill Clinton...but 'er what does "support" mean here.

I support the troops because I was against going into Iraq, because I don't like our men and women being used as cannon fodder.

You can't get much more supportive than that. :harumph:

actually, you can get much, much more supportive than that.

http://anysoldier.com/

Boozer
05-25-2006, 09:24 AM
What do you do Boozer?


I did buy a couple magnets after it began...from a group who was using the proceeds to send care packages. This was early on, when the basics were in demand...hand sanitizer, flea collars for sand mites, snack foods.

I fall into the "sent a couple of care packages years ago" category. That and pursuing a political agenda that maximizes benefits to soldiers and minimizes taking poor risks with their lives. ;)

patteeu
05-25-2006, 09:29 AM
Apparently, you buy a magnet bumper sticker and then argue on the Internet. In very rare circumstances, someone might have sent a care package a few years ago.

I wonder what percentage of people who say they support the troops but not the war even go that far.

Boozer
05-25-2006, 09:37 AM
I wonder what percentage of people who say they support the troops but not the war even go that far.

FWIW, I believe that sending supplies on your own is a drop in the bucket support-wise compared with using the political process to ensure that soldiers are not sent into battle under-equipped unless it's an absolute emergency.

Radar Chief
05-25-2006, 10:02 AM
FWIW, I believe that sending supplies on your own is a drop in the bucket support-wise

Maybe, but to the soldier that’s get’n a care package it makes a world of difference. Even if it’s just a letter, hearing from someone back in “civilization” helps considerably.

compared with using the political process to ensure that soldiers are not sent into battle under-equipped unless it's an absolute emergency.

Depending on your perspective, the military will always be “under-equipped”. There’s always some new gadget that would help perform said job more efficiently, less dangerously, that’s still in testing phase.
It’s a never-ending cycle of upgrading.

Logical
05-25-2006, 10:32 AM
I don't think it's that uncommon within the anti-Bush, anti-war crowd for people to have no ill will toward the troops personally (i.e. they don't wish them harm) but to hope that they fail in their mission.

There is difference in not believing they can succeed (for example the occupation) and wanting them to fail. I think very few really want them to fail (only the most radical).

patteeu
05-25-2006, 10:36 AM
FWIW, I believe that sending supplies on your own is a drop in the bucket support-wise compared with using the political process to ensure that soldiers are not sent into battle under-equipped unless it's an absolute emergency.

I think that's a drop in the bucket too. I think support in excess of a drop in the bucket is beyond the means of most people. The question is whether or not their drop goes in the generally supportive bucket or the generally non-supportive bucket.

patteeu
05-25-2006, 10:38 AM
There is difference in not believing they can succeed (for example the occupation) and wanting them to fail. I think very few really want them to fail (only the most radical).

I agree that there is a difference. I don't agree that there are very few who really want them to fail. Nightwish criticizes some of the support for the war he sees by saying it looks like some people think of war as an abstract game. I think the same is true of many who oppose the war.

Logical
05-25-2006, 10:40 AM
Damn, public polls....If you are omniscient you would know who voted anyway. Obviously Jesus is a poser.

Boozer
05-25-2006, 10:45 AM
I wonder what percentage of people who say they support the troops but not the war even go that far.

I'm guessing you'd agree that very few of the "support the war, support the troops" crowd have done anything more than put slogans on their cars, vote a certain way, and argue a certain way, correct?

patteeu
05-25-2006, 10:52 AM
I'm guessing you'd agree that very few of the "support the war, support the troops" crowd have done anything more than put slogans on their cars, vote a certain way, and argue a certain way, correct?

Of course.

Iowanian
05-25-2006, 10:53 AM
I support the troops...but I think its more important to "Support A Troop".

Yuck it up about the bumper stickers, and if that is all a person is doing it..it somewhat has earned the joke.

That soldier, if a foreign land who just had a 24hr shift in 130 degree blowing sandstorms, however might feel that a box of homeade cookies, a stick of beef or homeade deer jerky is a slice of heaven. A letter, picture colored by a kid, magazine or local paper can make a huge difference for someone having a bad day.

I know its a drop in the bucket in the big picture, but I'm hoping that the money and time I've put where my mouth is, since the war in Afganistan starter are a whole lot more than that to the people who get them.

Reminder for the record, several posters from this very site sent me boxes of stuff, ranging from CDs-computer games-caps and other items, that I personally sent to 2 platoons.

If all a person is doing is talking the talk and bashing the time those guys are putting in, under the guise of "I'm doing my part by protesting because they shouldn't be there in the first place" fails in my opinion. If you want to get them out of harms way...Great. work towards that goal, but in the mean time, there is ALOT you can do to make the lives a little better for those in harms way.

Talk is cheap from either side.

Radar Chief
05-25-2006, 11:03 AM
I support the troops...but I think its more important to "Support A Troop".

Yuck it up about the bumper stickers, and if that is all a person is doing it..it somewhat has earned the joke.

That soldier, if a foreign land who just had a 24hr shift in 130 degree blowing sandstorms, however might feel that a box of homeade cookies, a stick of beef or homeade deer jerky is a slice of heaven. A letter, picture colored by a kid, magazine or local paper can make a huge difference for someone having a bad day.

I know its a drop in the bucket in the big picture, but I'm hoping that the money and time I've put where my mouth is, since the war in Afganistan starter are a whole lot more than that to the people who get them.

Reminder for the record, several posters from this very site sent me boxes of stuff, ranging from CDs-computer games-caps and other items, that I personally sent to 2 platoons.

If all a person is doing is talking the talk and bashing the time those guys are putting in, under the guise of "I'm doing my part by protesting because they shouldn't be there in the first place" fails in my opinion. If you want to get them out of harms way...Great. work towards that goal, but in the mean time, there is ALOT you can do to make the lives a little better for those in harms way.

Talk is cheap from either side.

:clap: Good on’ya.
The simplest things in life are easy to take for granted when you have them.

Logical
05-25-2006, 11:04 AM
I think that's a drop in the bucket too. I think support in excess of a drop in the bucket is beyond the means of most people. The question is whether or not their drop goes in the generally supportive bucket or the generally non-supportive bucket.

I am curious what you believe goes in the category of non-supportive bucket, sending hate mail, death threats, sending aid to the enemy?

patteeu
05-25-2006, 11:23 AM
I am curious what you believe goes in the category of non-supportive bucket, sending hate mail, death threats, sending aid to the enemy?

Well, those would certainly qualify. Here are a few examples of what I was thinking about though:

Spending more time/effort to highlight military failures/embarassments than to highlight military accomplishments.
Using a broad definition of the word "torture" to label actions of our military as such instead of simply describing what they did accurately. Not giving the benefit of the doubt to our soldiers when one of them may or may not have gone over the line in their behavior (e.g. the guy who was caught on video shooting a wounded, unarmed Iraqi in Fallujah).

Logical
05-25-2006, 03:37 PM
Well, those would certainly qualify. Here are a few examples of what I was thinking about though: Spending more time/effort to highlight military failures/embarassments than to highlight military accomplishments. Using a broad definition of the word "torture" to label actions of our military as such instead of simply describing what they did accurately. Not giving the benefit of the doubt to our soldiers when one of them may or may not have gone over the line in their behavior (e.g. the guy who was caught on video shooting a wounded, unarmed Iraqi in Fallujah).I agree on the third bullet but not neccesarily the first one and definitely not the second. Torture is an individual belief issue and what one person defines as torture another won't. I don't think that one has anything to do with being non-supportive. If you believe it is torture, then it is wrong to support it. On the first bullet I think most people who do that are after the administration not the soldiers as long as they are not actually wishing for failure I have no issue with people highlighting the failures to show the stupidity of the administration. There are going to be plenty of Iowanians to counter it. It is just healthy exchange.

Iowanian
05-25-2006, 03:54 PM
Whats with your sudden need to hit my cage with a stick Jim, Is it the new moral fiber in your diet?

Logical
05-25-2006, 05:07 PM
Whats with your sudden need to hit my cage with a stick Jim, Is it the new moral fiber in your diet?
I am not sure of the specific you are talking about. If it is the poll answers the ones that included you were really for amusement factor not to poke a stick at you. Though you have poked some at me the last few months and we have gone back and forth in pretty much equal measure.

If the issue is not that then the only thing I can think of is your un-named usual suspects post. I just don't like the fact that you post over here infrequently and all the newer posters here might think I am part of your usual suspects grouping as stated doing the things you suggested when that clearly is not true. So I took the time to write a long post explaining that, did you read it or just Stevie's jabs at me because of it? By the way if that is it, the posts are in the other thread. I don't see I have actually taken anything but the good natured jabs in the poll at you in this thread.

You kept saying over and over there was an option for you, well clearly in this poll there is an option for you. No jab there.

As far as the douche thing goes you have called a large number of people over here a douche in recent months either in posts or in rep. I don't see why you would mind that one especially since the end of it is almost word for word taken from one of your posts in the other thread (well shortened for polling wording constraints but the best I could do)

Iowanian
05-25-2006, 08:09 PM
I've never been one to pull punches, and or hide behind an insinuation, and you know it Jim.

I can take a little ribbing, I could give a shit about your poll options, but I've seen my name come up pretty regularly in your posts lately.

I've seen you asking me to name names again, I'm sure looking for your name included. I think you can be an argumentative, egotistical and condecending jerk sometimes, but I challenge that I've EVER called you a douchebag. Please quote it, from either a post or a rep and I'll eat the crow.

I also would be curious when I've called Dave Lane a douche. The others, I believe....and still assume they deserved it from my view for the post that drew it out.

I've yet to see you address my question, about your "moral fiber" and the fact that you're not inclined to like to see Denise, Jaz, Laz, Irish,(shall I go on...is it necessary, we all know who I'm refering to)...yet you look the other way when people are lumped in "bushco" "RWNJ" et al.

Lets see how long it takes you to find the fact that once at your request, I provided a pretty long list of things about Bush that I don't like or agree with.

crickets.

Logical
05-25-2006, 08:20 PM
OK technically you did not use the word douche. I admit that, but you basically said the same thing with this rep.

09-10-2005 10:04 PMIowanian (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=2383)Suck Denise's dirty Balls

Logical
05-25-2006, 08:25 PM
I've never been one to pull punches, and or hide behind an insinuation, and you know it Jim.

I can take a little ribbing, I could give a shit about your poll options, but I've seen my name come up pretty regularly in your posts lately.

I've seen you asking me to name names again, I'm sure looking for your name included. I think you can be an argumentative, egotistical and condecending jerk sometimes, but I challenge that I've EVER called you a douchebag. Please quote it, from either a post or a rep and I'll eat the crow.

I also would be curious when I've called Dave Lane a douche. The others, I believe....and still assume they deserved it from my view for the post that drew it out.

I've yet to see you address my question, about your "moral fiber" and the fact that you're not inclined to like to see Denise, Jaz, Laz, Irish,(shall I go on...is it necessary, we all know who I'm refering to)...yet you look the other way when people are lumped in "bushco" "RWNJ" et al.

Lets see how long it takes you to find the fact that once at your request, I provided a pretty long list of things about Bush that I don't like or agree with.

crickets.

I don't know where you are getting the idea I am criticizing you for your creating the grouping, I am not. Nor would I for Laz, jAZ or the others who also do the same thing in reverse. Hell I do it with RRWNJ though I don't think anyone but Voldemortom on this BB currently fit that description all though some are pretty damn uptight. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your moral fiber question. I know you to be of strong moral fiber, no question about it. Was that what you were asking, whether I thought you were not of strong moral fiber. Perhaps I am just being dense today I am operating on a single hour of sleep (damn insomnia :mad: ) if so be patient and please reask the question in a different way.

Iowanian
05-25-2006, 09:06 PM
I'm done bickering about this stuff Jim.

I'll wish you health and a good night sleep and be done with it.

Logical
05-25-2006, 09:10 PM
I'm done bickering about this stuff Jim.

I'll wish you health and a good night sleep and be done with it.Thanks, I will reread your question about moral fiber and maybe it will register. If so I will do my best to answer it.

Iowanian
05-25-2006, 09:14 PM
My question wasn't so much about the moral fiber thing...

In short, you had said you didn't like seeing people lumped together, and have gone out of your way to defend the yings to my yang.

Don't worry about it...You've got better things to do and so do I. I'd be better for it if I pretended this forum didn't exist.

Logical
05-25-2006, 09:18 PM
Whats with your sudden need to hit my cage with a stick Jim, Is it the new moral fiber in your diet?


I first thought that part of the post was Iowanian smack so I only answered the first question. Evidently that was wrong and it is an independent question. If you are talking about what I said about apologizing to DEnise, I am having a hard time relating that to you. You have always smacked people around so unlike some others who dog DEnise I just see this as you being you it certainly does not bother me. I also admire your commitment to our troops though sadly I feel it is a commitment for a lost cause (that is not their fault). Perhaps you perceive that as negativity towards you.:shrug:

I maybe tend to mention you a lot because you are so clear in your positions and it makes it easy to make points. Seriously if I have offended you I apologize. I have always admired you and your strong commitment to the things you believe in and hope that will never change. Have good night, and if this still did not answer what you want answered please shoot me a PM and I will read it and think it through tomorrow.

Iowanian
05-25-2006, 09:25 PM
I'm not offended and I didn't intend to question your character...I've got a pretty tough cyber-chin. I dish the smack out, I should be able to take some crap back.

my intention isn't worth the effort at this point, and the truth is, the more I think about, it very well may have been Jaz that posed the question.

It comes down to this cliff note...I'm regularly lumped in as a 'bushbot' mostly due to my position on the war(unbending support for the guys over there, rain or shine)....and that has never been the case, and I've made posts addressing key issues....I thought someone else might bring that up...thats all.

Good night.

Logical
05-25-2006, 09:30 PM
In short, you had said you didn't like seeing people lumped together, and have gone out of your way to defend the yings to my yang.

I guess that is my fault, I would not mind being grouped with jAZ's usual suspect, because in truth I am sure on several issues I have always belonged there. I probably came on to strong.

Logical
05-25-2006, 09:34 PM
I'm not offended and I didn't intend to question your character...I've got a pretty tough cyber-chin. I dish the smack out, I should be able to take some crap back.

my intention isn't worth the effort at this point, and the truth is, the more I think about, it very well may have been Jaz that posed the question.

It comes down to this cliff note...I'm regularly lumped in as a 'bushbot' mostly due to my position on the war(unbending support for the guys over there, rain or shine)....and that has never been the case, and I've made posts addressing key issues....I thought someone else might bring that up...thats all.

Good night.OK well first thanks and I don't want to put you under the Bushbot label I hope I did not do that. I have even tried to avoid doing that with patteeu though of late he has really puzzled me. I definitely know you vary with the administration significantly on some issues. I will in the future try to point it out to others if they are labeling you that way.

jAZ
05-25-2006, 09:55 PM
It comes down to this cliff note...I'm regularly lumped in as a 'bushbot' mostly due to my position on the war(unbending support for the guys over there, rain or shine).....
I find this sentence very revealing. That your position on "the war" is one of "unbending support for (the troops)".

It really goes right to the heart of the question raised in both polls.

It would seem that you equate support for the troops as being in and of itself a position on the war itself.

It's as if you refuse to permit yourself to question the need, value, execution or existance of the war because doing so with then require bending your support for the troops.

Logical
05-25-2006, 10:00 PM
I find this sentence very revealing. That your position on "the war" is one of "unbending support for (the troops)".

It really goes right to the heart of the question raised in both polls.

It would seem that you equate support for the troops as being in and of itself a position on the war itself.

It's as if you refuse to permit yourself to question the need, value, execution or existance of the war because doing so with then require bending your support for the troops.jAZ remember when I felt your anti-war views meant you could not support the troops, like I was wrong on that, I think you may be extending his views on unbending support of the troops to Bush and the administration and that simply does not fit.

jettio
05-25-2006, 10:04 PM
'Support the troops" is a ghey azz tool of political manipulation that surfaced around the time of the 1st gulf war.

The military is supported by everyone's tax dollars, the soldiers and sailors that have to serve under Rumsfeld are an unfortunate group that can't do a damn thing about the fact that their current civilian leaders are dishonorable lying incompetent clowns.

The soldiers and sailors that do not realize that B*sh is a dishonorable idiot need our prayers.

The soldiers and sailors that do realize that B*sh is a dishonorable idiot need our prayers.

Nobody that uses the term "Support the troops" can explain that it means anything else other than they do not want to be guilty of the taboo behavior of not supporting the troops.

I was in the military during the first gulf war and supporting the troops did not mean anything other than uttering some nonsense to prove that you were not so stupid as to want to be a pariah.

Anyone that says that they "support the troops" achieves the moral equivalent of saying that they never have non-consensual sex with anyone younger than 8 years-old.

Logical
05-25-2006, 10:13 PM
'Support the troops" is a ghey azz tool of political manipulation that surfaced around the time of the 1st gulf war.

The military is supported by everyone's tax dollars, the soldiers and sailors that have to serve under Rumsfeld are an unfortunate group that can't do a damn thing about the fact that their current civilian leaders are dishonorable lying incompetent clowns.

The soldiers and sailors that do not realize that B*sh is a dishonorable idiot need our prayers.

The soldiers and sailors that do realize that B*sh is a dishonorable idiot need our prayers.

Nobody that uses the term "Support the troops" can explain that it means anything else other than they do not want to be guilty of the taboo behavior of not supporting the troops.

I was in the military during the first gulf war and supporting the troops did not mean anything other than uttering some nonsense to prove that you were not so stupid as to want to be a pariah.

Anyone that says that they "support the troops" achieves the moral equivalent of saying that they never have non-consensual sex with anyone younger than 8 years-old.

As usual pretty harshly stated but in this case probably true to a great degree.

jAZ
05-25-2006, 10:17 PM
jAZ remember when I felt your anti-war views meant you could not support the troops, like I was wrong on that, I think you may be extending his views on unbending support of the troops to Bush and the administration and that simply does not fit.
That's why I took care to say "it would seem" and "it's as if"... I wanted to leave room for Iowanian to speak to the points I raised.

And while I note your observations on this one and give weight to your position of objectivity in a way... I'm not sure how one who defines a position on the war by linking it exclusively to supporting the troops can not apply that personal judgement upon others.

It's not like Iowanian is one who has publicly demonstrated a tollerant, "I feel this way, but that's just limited to me" view of other posters. Maybe he does hold this sort of life view, but never expresses such publicly.

Nightwish
05-25-2006, 10:19 PM
I'm curious what exactly "counts" as supporting the troops, to those who are on the pro-war side, particularly those who are skeptical of claims from the anti-war side that they support the troops? Does a person have to send cards, money, care packages to support the troops? If they do the above, do they have to send them to more than just the friends and family they have serving over there (I'd wager not even many of the pro-war folks go that far)? Is an expression sufficient? Is it sufficient just to say a prayer at night? If so, do they have to pray for them every night for it to "count?" What if they only say a prayer on Sunday, or only when a new news report comes on about another soldier being killed? What if they do no more than hold a wish in their heart that our fighting men and women come home safely? Where do you draw the line so that you're able to say that so-and-so doesn't support the troops?

Logical
05-25-2006, 10:26 PM
jettio,

Just curious the lawyers I have known tend to be softspoken, indirect, but authoritative. You would seem based on internet observation not to be that way at all. Just curious what type of law do you practice?

listopencil
05-25-2006, 10:30 PM
'Support the troops" is a ghey azz tool of political manipulation that surfaced around the time of the 1st gulf war.




I guess you never heard of servicemen being called "babykillers" or being spit on. I can't say that I've heard of that going on for decades but it's not something I'll forget.

Loki
05-25-2006, 10:30 PM
jettio,

Just curious the lawyers I have known tend to be softspoken, indirect, but authoritative. You would seem based on internet observation not to be that way at all. Just curious what type of law do you practice?

my bets:
1.) personal injury
2.) divorce

:p

Loki
05-25-2006, 10:33 PM
'Support the troops" is a ghey azz tool of political manipulation that surfaced around the time of the 1st gulf war.

The military is supported by everyone's tax dollars, the soldiers and sailors that have to serve under Rumsfeld are an unfortunate group that can't do a damn thing about the fact that their current civilian leaders are dishonorable lying incompetent clowns.

The soldiers and sailors that do not realize that B*sh is a dishonorable idiot need our prayers.

The soldiers and sailors that do realize that B*sh is a dishonorable idiot need our prayers.

Nobody that uses the term "Support the troops" can explain that it means anything else other than they do not want to be guilty of the taboo behavior of not supporting the troops.

I was in the military during the first gulf war and supporting the troops did not mean anything other than uttering some nonsense to prove that you were not so stupid as to want to be a pariah.

Anyone that says that they "support the troops" achieves the moral equivalent of saying that they never have non-consensual sex with anyone younger than 8 years-old.

i take it you have several magnetic yellow ribbon "support the troops" bumper sticker on your SUV also?

:p

jAZ
05-25-2006, 10:42 PM
I guess you never heard of servicemen being called "babykillers" or being spit on. I can't say that I've heard of that going on for decades but it's not something I'll forget.
I think you are both right. The concept did (re)surface during the gulf war, given that the gulf war was the 1st large scale military action since Vietnam. I remember the discussion about how bad things had gotten at times during Vietnam. The consensus in 91 was that the difference between support for the troops in Vietnam and support for the troops in GW1 was night and day.

That you haven't heard (m)any stories of such behavior during this war as well, is that the anti-war crowd has learned a painful lesson from the past. They have found a way to seperate the troops from the leadership. We all recognize that those guys over there are simply doing their job and are not personally to blame for the war.

There are obviously many pro-war types today who have chosen to rewrite history and are no longer satisfied with removing the troops themselves from being at the center of the polical crossfire over the war. Now these pro-war types want to remove the polical leaders responsible for authorizing, executing and funding the war itslef (and the only people who can bring the war to an end) from being subjected to scrutiny.

It's this behavior on the part of the RW, the GOP, the GOP talking heads and those that pickup on these talking points and trumpet them here in the DC, that lend support to the "tool of political manipulation" comments.

Dave Lane
05-25-2006, 10:50 PM
I have to say I agree the whole concept of "I support the troops" is idiocy. I really don'r support the troops because I want them out of Iraq. I also want them to all come back in one piece but if they die well thats what they get paid for. To kill or be killed thats their job description.

I feel bad for a kid thats working at 7-11 and gets killed in a stick-up because thats not what he signed up for. With a soldier I feel its too bad but they knew the risk going in and it turned out bad for them.

So is that supporting (or not supporting) the troops? I don't know what is anyway but I'm ready to start tearing those stupid yellow ribbons of the SUVs around anyway.

Something I was actually thinking about today was this very topic. How do you support or not support the troops? Anyone?

Dave

jAZ
05-25-2006, 10:57 PM
How do you support ... the troops? Anyone?
It's quite simple, really.

By not placing them at the center of the political crossfire over the value of the war.

It's funny how during Vietnam it seemed that the first folks guilty of unfairly dragging the troops on the ground unfairly into a political dispute was the the anti-war crowd (by the 'baby killers' and spitting actions).

Now the first people to do this are the pro-war types. The anti-war types have learned the lesson of the past, and have worked to avoid placing the blame on the soldiers themselves. But that's not good enough, these folks don't even want to permit vocal and visible objection to the war when it's directed at the policy makers.

Nightwish
05-25-2006, 10:58 PM
Something I was actually thinking about today was this very topic. How do you support or not support the troops? Anyone?

Dave
While Ann was still over there, I sent care packages to her, and to some of the members of her unit. For awhile I was also sporting one of those yellow magnetic bumper stickers (okay, it wasn't yellow, it was one of the camo ones, but you know what I mean). It eventually got blown away when I forgot to bring it inside when I took the car through an automatic car wash. Lately about the only thing I've done was go up to several soldiers I saw at the airport waiting for their flight. When one of them told me they were deploying to Iraq, I shook several of their hands and wished them the best of luck. Other than that, I haven't done much of late.

jettio
05-25-2006, 11:36 PM
jettio,

Just curious the lawyers I have known tend to be softspoken, indirect, but authoritative. You would seem based on internet observation not to be that way at all. Just curious what type of law do you practice?

I have handled a lot of different kinds of matters/cases. I started in solo practice, and most of my work started from personal referrals from people that know me.

I do get some consumer fraud referrals from other lawyers, so that is becoming a specialty.

Radar Chief
05-26-2006, 08:44 AM
I have handled a lot of different kinds of matters/cases. I started in solo practice, and most of my work started from personal referrals from people that know me.

I do get some consumer fraud referrals from other lawyers, so that is becoming a specialty.

:hmmm: I'll keep that in mind. ;)

Iowanian
05-26-2006, 10:02 AM
Twist it however you want Jaz..Thats not what I said.

There are things I don't like or agree with, but once our guys
are in theater, the only thing I really give a shit about is anything
thats good for the US, and our troops in that area. I'm not going to
cry every time our guys break a few eggs, trying to make an omlet.

Everyone is not as obsessed with Bush as you are......



I find this sentence very revealing. That your position on "the war" is one of "unbending support for (the troops)".

It really goes right to the heart of the question raised in both polls.

It would seem that you equate support for the troops as being in and of itself a position on the war itself.

It's as if you refuse to permit yourself to question the need, value, execution or existance of the war because doing so with then require bending your support for the troops.

Iowanian
05-26-2006, 10:08 AM
I have to say I agree the whole concept of "I support the troops" is idiocy. I really don'r support the troops


Now There is a character moment.

jAZ
05-26-2006, 10:26 AM
There are things I don't like or agree with, but once our guys are in theater, the only thing I really give a shit about is anything thats good for the US, and our troops in that area. I'm not going to cry every time our guys break a few eggs, trying to make an omlet.
I'm really not twisting anything. Maybe you didn't quite mean it as you worded it, but I was definitely taking what you gave me. Your phrasing on this second attempt might have helped me understand what you are saying more clearly.

So let me ask this...

Does the fact that there are troops in battle have any impact on your willingness to question the need for or value of starting this war?

If that's taboo in your mind, then what about questioning the value of staying in combat (vs redeployment or total withdrawal)? Is that taboo?

What about investigating crimes committed (either by soldiers or civilian leadership) if you felt any were to have occurred? Is that taboo?

Does being in combat give soldiers or civilian leaders carte blanche to do whatever they feel they need to do?

I'm not saying you logically must believe these things are true, I'm just trying to lay out a series of progressive specific examples to help narrow down what's taboo and what's not in your mind.

Iowanian
05-26-2006, 11:03 AM
We've been over this a hundred times.

I supported the war, because Saddom was a first rate asshole, and had been shooting at US planes in the no fly zone for a decade. That, is an act of war. The only reason I required.

Your turn.....Would the world and people of Iraq be better off today, with Saddom Hussein still in power?

Once our troops are committed, I want them to win, with as few casualties to US forces as possible.

I feel that once the fight has started, the ONLY option is to finish it with the best possible outcome. Getting chickenshit now and pulling out too soon, eliminates the success so far, paid for with the blood and sweat of our troops....and their families at home.

In a war, bad things happen. Violent actions are required. If by "crime" you mean a marine shooting a wounded terrorist? I could give a shit. I'm not interested in listing everything on either side of the list. IF a serious crime is committed by an individual, they should be punished.

Cart Bllanche...no....however, I don't think Fighting Men, fighting a war should have to worry about CNN thinking they were too Violent in a battle. Being "too nice" is hamstringing our military Imo.

I see you scouring the net, looking for anything that could be considered "questionable" and trying to use it to suit your anti-administration interests, and I find that tiresome.


Investigate true crimes.....Leave the petty shit that is only being stirred up for politics alone.

chagrin
05-26-2006, 11:15 AM
We've been over this a hundred times.

I supported the war, because Saddom was a first rate asshole, and had been shooting at US planes in the no fly zone for a decade. That, is an act of war. The only reason I required.

Your turn.....Would the world and people of Iraq be better off today, with Saddom Hussein still in power?

Once our troops are committed, I want them to win, with as few casualties to US forces as possible.

I feel that once the fight has started, the ONLY option is to finish it with the best possible outcome. Getting chickenshit now and pulling out too soon, eliminates the success so far, paid for with the blood and sweat of our troops....and their families at home.

This is as simple as it gets people. Risk, sacrifice, blood have already been shed by our boys and girls - you don't stop now!

In a war, bad things happen. Violent actions are required. If by "crime" you mean a marine shooting a wounded terrorist? I could give a shit.

Why are people concerned about a a person who will heal and then come back to try and kill more Americans, etc?

Cart Bllanche...no....however, I don't think Fighting Men, fighting a war should have to worry about CNN thinking they were too Violent in a battle. Being "too nice" is hamstringing our military Imo.

Exactly, this is the reason we haven't already ended this, we haven't been agressive enough in going after the enemy.

I didn't mean to hijack your reply, I just had to say something

patteeu
05-26-2006, 11:19 AM
I agree on the third bullet but not neccesarily the first one and definitely not the second. Torture is an individual belief issue and what one person defines as torture another won't. I don't think that one has anything to do with being non-supportive. If you believe it is torture, then it is wrong to support it. On the first bullet I think most people who do that are after the administration not the soldiers as long as they are not actually wishing for failure I have no issue with people highlighting the failures to show the stupidity of the administration. There are going to be plenty of Iowanians to counter it. It is just healthy exchange.

A person might think shaking a guy by his lapels and screaming in his face is wrong, but if he calls it torture thereby blurring the distinctions between this kind of activity and something like stretching a guy on the rack until his joints come out of their sockets, then in my book that person is going out of his way to tarnish the reputation of our troops.

Iowanian
05-26-2006, 11:28 AM
There some here, who think intelligence officers should only be allowed to interview detainees on subjects and in the tone of voice and room temperature they prefer.

"Thank you for the Lemonade kind sir, Osama is at Jackson Street, 229"

jAZ
05-26-2006, 11:31 AM
We've been over this a hundred times.

I supported the war, because Saddom was a first rate asshole, and had been shooting at US planes in the no fly zone for a decade. That, is an act of war. The only reason I required.

Your turn.....Would the world and people of Iraq be better off today, with Saddom Hussein still in power?

Once our troops are committed, I want them to win, with as few casualties to US forces as possible.

I feel that once the fight has started, the ONLY option is to finish it with the best possible outcome. Getting chickenshit now and pulling out too soon, eliminates the success so far, paid for with the blood and sweat of our troops....and their families at home.

In a war, bad things happen. Violent actions are required. If by "crime" you mean a marine shooting a wounded terrorist? I could give a shit. I'm not interested in listing everything on either side of the list. IF a serious crime is committed by an individual, they should be punished.

Cart Bllanche...no....however, I don't think Fighting Men, fighting a war should have to worry about CNN thinking they were too Violent in a battle. Being "too nice" is hamstringing our military Imo.

I see you scouring the net, looking for anything that could be considered "questionable" and trying to use it to suit your anti-administration interests, and I find that tiresome.


Investigate true crimes.....Leave the petty shit that is only being stirred up for politics alone.
Ok, there's two entirely different and substantial conversations that you've inserted into this one (our opinions on starting the war and our opinions on continuing the war). I'm not going to address them here because we *have* been over *those* topics before. But I didn't raise those questions in the way you frame them in your response. At least I'm not trying to.

At this point, I'm not interested in your opinions on actaully staying in the war. I want your opinions on the role of the discourse itself and it's impact on the notion of supporting the troops... knowing that to have a discourse, a portion of those people involved will have opinions opposite those you've stated.

To simplify... this thread is about the question involving: support for troops = support for war.

Your initial post (in my mind) suggested that you believe that (at least for yourself) your position on the war is singularly defined by supporting the troops. That position left room for me to wonder a few things:

1) IYO, Is there room to question and criticize having ever started the war, or is that taboo?
2) IYO, Is there room to question and criticize continued stay in the war, or is that taboo?
3) IYO, Are your opinions on this limited to how you choose to conduct yourself (lest you would not feel you are properly supporting the troops)... or do you expect that these choises should be held by all (lest they no longer support the troops)?

It seems that I can take portions of your last post to have adequately addressed the remaining questions from my last post. But these three were the central question and still remain open in my mind.

Can you clarify?

jettio
05-26-2006, 11:55 AM
This is as simple as it gets people. Risk, sacrifice, blood have already been shed by our boys and girls - you don't stop now!



Why are people concerned about a a person who will heal and then come back to try and kill more Americans, etc?



Exactly, this is the reason we haven't already ended this, we haven't been agressive enough in going after the enemy.

I didn't mean to hijack your reply, I just had to say something

The reason for the lack of aggression in going after the enemy is that B*sh is afraid to pay the true cost of american lives that it would take to make Iraq a safe place.

Instead, a lack of honor and chivalry has air conditioned halliburton bases and green zones protecting the benevolent invaders, while the everyday Iraqis are left to fend for themselves.

Most every Iraqi with the means to leave the country has done so, because the highly trained middle class were subject to kidnapping and murder.

B*sh does not believe in the cause enough to pay the actual price of victory and he never has. The idiot misunderestimated the price at first, now he is just too gutless.

mlyonsd
05-26-2006, 12:03 PM
There some here, who think intelligence officers should only be allowed to interview detainees on subjects and in the tone of voice and room temperature they prefer.

"Thank you for the Lemonade kind sir, Osama is at Jackson Street, 229"

After WWII in Germany the US occupying forces would try trouble making Nazi insurgents and then line them up and shoot'em.

Whatever happened to the good old days?

Radar Chief
05-26-2006, 12:05 PM
The reason for the lack of aggression in going after the enemy is that B*sh is afraid to pay the true cost of american lives that it would take to make Iraq a safe place.

Instead, a lack of honor and chivalry has air conditioned halliburton bases and green zones protecting the benevolent invaders, while the everyday Iraqis are left to fend for themselves.

Most every Iraqi with the means to leave the country has done so, because the highly trained middle class were subject to kidnapping and murder.

B*sh does not believe in the cause enough to pay the actual price of victory and he never has. The idiot misunderestimated the price at first, now he is just too gutless.

Although I may not agree with how you’ve phrased it, go figure :rolleyes: , I don’t disagree with your assessment. With one acception.
The “price” that teh Debil isn’t will’n to pay isn’t in soldiers blood, since IMO it’d be less deadly to “let slip the dogs of war” than to leash them, but the price is actually political capital. He’s not will’n to face groups like Amnesty Internationals, or be accused of War Crimes for do’n what’s necessary end the job quickly, efficiently.
In that way we agree, he has been “chicken shit”.

Radar Chief
05-26-2006, 12:06 PM
And that meshes with my previous post, IMO.

After WWII in Germany the US occupying forces would try trouble making Nazi insurgents and then line them up and shoot'em.

Whatever happened to the good old days?

:thumb:

jettio
05-26-2006, 12:36 PM
Although I may not agree with how you’ve phrased it, go figure :rolleyes: , I don’t disagree with your assessment. With one acception.
The “price” that teh Debil isn’t will’n to pay isn’t in soldiers blood, since IMO it’d be less deadly to “let slip the dogs of war” than to leash them, but the price is actually political capital. He’s not will’n to face groups like Amnesty Internationals, or be accused of War Crimes for do’n what’s necessary end the job quickly, efficiently.
In that way we agree, he has been “chicken shit”.

There is not a lot of evidence that B*sh's actions are tailored to adhere to international opinion. If so, Iraq would now be disarmed and nullfied with a lot less money spent and lives lost.

Nightwish
05-26-2006, 12:55 PM
I supported the war, because Saddom was a first rate asshole, and had been shooting at US planes in the no fly zone for a decade. That, is an act of war. The only reason I required.Just one problem with that. The act of war was ours, not theirs. The first party to breach the cease-fire agreement was us. Clinton began ordering small-scale strikes into Iraqi territory pretty early on, using the no-fly zone as a staging area. Some of the strikes, as I recall, were at suspected weapons sites, others were just to reassert our dominance, flexing our muscles, as it were. Once we did that, the cease-fire became null and void. If the Iraqis decided to respond to that by taking up the practice of shooting at our war planes in the no-fly zone, that's fair game. I once found a page that was from a military website, documenting each missile strike from US forces against Iraq, when it occurred, and what it targeted. I can't find the page now, as I don't remember what the search parameters were that led to it in the first place, but it was worthy of note that there was not a single year from the end of the first gulf war to the beginning of this one that did not include at least one US-to-Iraq missile or air strike.

Radar Chief
05-26-2006, 12:58 PM
There is not a lot of evidence that B*sh's actions are tailored to adhere to international opinion. If so, Iraq would now be disarmed and nullfied with a lot less money spent and lives lost.

So you don’t think our soldiers have been hamstrung by’is policies? :shrug:
If so, I’ll disagree and point out al Sadre escape’n while we trained Iraqis to storm the mosque he was holed up in as evidence.

Frankie
05-26-2006, 01:26 PM
I haven't checked if this is a repost here:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,416816,00.html

Radar Chief
05-26-2006, 01:37 PM
I haven't checked if this is a repost here:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,416816,00.html


Although Murtha said that he had not read any investigative reports by the military on the incident, he stressed, "It's much worse than reported in Time magazine."

:rolleyes: :shake:

jettio
05-26-2006, 01:47 PM
So you don’t think our soldiers have been hamstrung by’is policies? :shrug:
If so, I’ll disagree and point out al Sadre escape’n while we trained Iraqis to storm the mosque he was holed up in as evidence.

I think there were political reasons for that decision.

At Tora Bora, the word was that the decision not to get Bin Laden with our special forces was fear of casualties.

I think that the overall restrictions on the US troops to do what they had to do to make the country secure are primarily due to fear of casualties.

Fear of casualties is also, ironically enough, the primary excuse and justification for instances of questionable actions by american soldiers.

patteeu
05-26-2006, 02:10 PM
Just one problem with that. The act of war was ours, not theirs. The first party to breach the cease-fire agreement was us. Clinton began ordering small-scale strikes into Iraqi territory pretty early on, using the no-fly zone as a staging area. Some of the strikes, as I recall, were at suspected weapons sites, others were just to reassert our dominance, flexing our muscles, as it were. Once we did that, the cease-fire became null and void. If the Iraqis decided to respond to that by taking up the practice of shooting at our war planes in the no-fly zone, that's fair game. I once found a page that was from a military website, documenting each missile strike from US forces against Iraq, when it occurred, and what it targeted. I can't find the page now, as I don't remember what the search parameters were that led to it in the first place, but it was worthy of note that there was not a single year from the end of the first gulf war to the beginning of this one that did not include at least one US-to-Iraq missile or air strike.

Link to support for the notion that the US breached the cease fire first?

Iowanian
05-26-2006, 02:28 PM
Nightwish....the US Was firing on Iraqi positions....Iraqi positions of SAM sites that put a radar on US Planes, and often shot at them.


Jaz...I'm not your dancing monkey, and I'm not going to follow your attempts to get me to say what you're wanting me to say. Obviously my answers aren't fitting your need.

Frankie
05-26-2006, 02:31 PM
:rolleyes: :shake:
Are you saying that is impossible?

jAZ
05-26-2006, 03:13 PM
Jaz...I'm not your dancing monkey, and I'm not going to follow your attempts to get me to say what you're wanting me to say. Obviously my answers aren't fitting your need.
No dancing required. Just adddressing my quesion directly rather than substituting answers for questions I'm not asking. I'm really trying to keep this as an open exchange. I really don't feel my question has been addressed yet.

Radar Chief
05-26-2006, 04:16 PM
Are you saying that is impossible?

Try reread’n what I quoted, Frankie.
It’s not that hard to figure out.

Logical
05-26-2006, 04:36 PM
I have to say I agree the whole concept of "I support the troops" is idiocy. I really don'r support the troops because I want them out of Iraq. I also want them to all come back in one piece but if they die well thats what they get paid for. To kill or be killed thats their job description.
...

DaveMan dude that is harsh. Are you sure you meant that? I hope you will take the time to think that statement through and restate it in a way that sounds like you at least have some compassion.

Logical
05-26-2006, 04:44 PM
Your turn.....Would the world and people of Iraq be better off today, with Saddom Hussein still in power?


I believe so yes, I know you were not asking me but I had to answer this question.

We have destabilized not only Iraq, where all statistics show the people are worse off than they were 10 years earlier, but the entire region. We have taken an area that was nothing more than a potential financial backer of terrorism and provided a new base camp for world terrorist to gather and recruit. Finally the impact of Iraq has destabilized the global oil market driving oil prices through the roof and pushing economies of all the major countries towards a global recession. Meanwhile we have more Iraqi's killing each other than Saddam was killing.

Logical
05-26-2006, 04:53 PM
A person might think shaking a guy by his lapels and screaming in his face is wrong, but if he calls it torture thereby blurring the distinctions between this kind of activity and something like stretching a guy on the rack until his joints come out of their sockets, then in my book that person is going out of his way to tarnish the reputation of our troops.

I would merely point out that it is not possible to define the line for everyone of what is and is not torture. I think (at least I hope) we can agree that people should be against torture and speak out against it. In a free society that means different people will speak out at different levels. While I might not think shaking a guy by his lapels and screaming in his face is torture others might. There is no question that in our judicial system if that were to be witnessed by someone and reported when a policeaman was doing it to get a confession it would get the case thrown out, so it must be being defined as coercion. Is not coercion what is to be accomplished with torture?

Logical
05-26-2006, 05:27 PM
The reason for the lack of aggression in going after the enemy is that B*sh is afraid to pay the true cost of american lives that it would take to make Iraq a safe place.

...

B*sh does not believe in the cause enough to pay the actual price of victory and he never has. The idiot misunderestimated the price at first, now he is just too gutless.Personally I think you are giving Bush credit for something that Cheney and Rumsfeld control. Bush is just the figurehead that allow them to control the Executive branch of government.

listopencil
05-26-2006, 06:52 PM
Something I was actually thinking about today was this very topic. How do you support or not support the troops? Anyone?

Dave


You can do a lot of things. Buy a sailor a drink when you run across one in a bar. Send Hallmark cards with your signature and a nice note. Just a generic,"Thank you for risking your life." would do nicely. I believe you can send them to the Red Cross and they will make sure they are given out, especially to guys and girls who aren't getting them. You can make up care packages with American staples that overseas soldiers might not get. If you have little kids then they can draw pictures for them. You can purchase phone cards and donate them. You can take pictures of your family during Fourth Of July celebrations or going to a Memorial Day parade or around the Christmas tree/Menorah and send them off with a note that says,"We're thinking of you guys!" just to remind them of why they joined up in the first place. Think of what you would do if someone you loved had to go away for a long time and do a difficult and dangerous job. What would you send? These are our brothers, sisters and children over there. Use your heart and send a little TLC.

jAZ
05-26-2006, 07:04 PM
You can do a lot of things. Buy a sailor a drink when you run across one in a bar. Send Hallmark cards with your signature and a nice note. Just a generic,"Thank you for risking your life." would do nicely. I believe you can send them to the Red Cross and they will make sure they are given out, especially to guys and girls who aren't getting them. You can make up care packages with American staples that overseas soldiers might not get. If you have little kids then they can draw pictures for them. You can purchase phone cards and donate them. You can take pictures of your family during Fourth Of July celebrations or going to a Memorial Day parade or around the Christmas tree/Menorah and send them off with a note that says,"We're thinking of you guys!" just to remind them of why they joined up in the first place.
Can you do one or more of these things and simultaneously reject the case for war, and publicly call for investigations into the behavior of the civillian leads who have sent these kids to war... and still get credit for "support(ing)... the troops"?

CHIEF4EVER
05-26-2006, 08:36 PM
I believe so yes, I know you were not asking me but I had to answer this question.

We have destabilized not only Iraq, where all statistics show the people are worse off than they were 10 years earlier, but the entire region. We have taken an area that was nothing more than a potential financial backer of terrorism and provided a new base camp for world terrorist to gather and recruit. Finally the impact of Iraq has destabilized the global oil market driving oil prices through the roof and pushing economies of all the major countries towards a global recession. Meanwhile we have more Iraqi's killing each other than Saddam was killing.

Got any links for those statements?

Logical
05-26-2006, 08:44 PM
Got any links for those statements?I take it you don't watch the news and the special programs on Iraq.

CHIEF4EVER
05-26-2006, 09:02 PM
I take it you don't watch the news and the special programs on Iraq.

I'll take that as a NO answer to my question. :p

Logical
05-26-2006, 09:18 PM
I'll take that as a NO answer to my question. :pYeah where is DanT when you need him. That guy is like a walking encyclopedia of Internet links to fascinating statistics.

listopencil
05-26-2006, 09:30 PM
Can you do one or more of these things and simultaneously reject the case for war, and publicly call for investigations into the behavior of the civillian leads who have sent these kids to war... and still get credit for "support(ing)... the troops"?

It depends on how you do those things. If you do them in the same asinine destructive manner that is pawned off as rational dissent in this forum then no, you're not supporting anyone.

Frankie
05-27-2006, 01:02 AM
Got any links for those statements?
Asking for a link for things that are increasingly obvious is like asking for a TV set in a honeymoon suite.

The truth is out there but one has better things to do than to constantly keep track of every article or news that we read. Logical's post was provided without any attempt for hard numbers. It was simply a realistic observation that is almost impossible to deny. As such, no link is required.

Ugly Duck
05-27-2006, 01:37 AM
My choice wasn't on the poll:

"To support the troops you must oppose the war"

CHIEF4EVER
05-27-2006, 07:21 AM
Asking for a link for things that are increasingly obvious is like asking for a TV set in a honeymoon suite.

The truth is out there but one has better things to do than to constantly keep track of every article or news that we read. Logical's post was provided without any attempt for hard numbers. It was simply a realistic observation that is almost impossible to deny. As such, no link is required.

WRONG. Ridiculous statements unsupported by fact are called HYPERBOLE.

patteeu
05-27-2006, 09:40 AM
I believe so yes, I know you were not asking me but I had to answer this question.

We have destabilized not only Iraq, where all statistics show the people are worse off than they were 10 years earlier, but the entire region.

All statistics? What about Iraqi public opinion polls that show that the Iraqi people believe they are better off now than they were under Saddam and that they are overwhelmingly optimistic about the future?

A large scale opinion survey in Iraq, sponsored by several foreign media networks, found that 70 percent of Iraqis thought they were doing well, and 56 percent believed life was better than before the war. Some 70 percent were optimistic about the future.

source (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004319.asp)


We have taken an area that was nothing more than a potential financial backer of terrorism and provided a new base camp for world terrorist to gather and recruit.

... and die.

Finally the impact of Iraq has destabilized the global oil market driving oil prices through the roof and pushing economies of all the major countries towards a global recession. Meanwhile we have more Iraqi's killing each other than Saddam was killing.

As for global recession, our economy is moving in the opposite direction. 5.3% growth last quarter.

patteeu
05-27-2006, 09:48 AM
I would merely point out that it is not possible to define the line for everyone of what is and is not torture. I think (at least I hope) we can agree that people should be against torture and speak out against it. In a free society that means different people will speak out at different levels. While I might not think shaking a guy by his lapels and screaming in his face is torture others might. There is no question that in our judicial system if that were to be witnessed by someone and reported when a policeaman was doing it to get a confession it would get the case thrown out, so it must be being defined as coercion. Is not coercion what is to be accomplished with torture?

That's not the point. The point is that by describing even the most tame types of coercion as "torture" a person is lumping that type of coercion in with much more egregious types. My complaint is similar to that which I would make when people overuse comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis or when they resort to calling someone who wants to do away with affirmative action a racist.

I don't have a problem with people who want to argue that shaking a guy by his lapels is wrong, but they shouldn't do it by exaggerating the behavior and mislabeling it as torture.

patteeu
05-27-2006, 09:51 AM
Can you do one or more of these things and simultaneously reject the case for war, and publicly call for investigations into the behavior of the civillian leads who have sent these kids to war... and still get credit for "support(ing)... the troops"?

Can you get over feeling like a victim here? Your poll clearly showed that almost no one around here thinks or ever thought it was impossible to support the troops if you don't support the war. That particular horse is long dead.

Frankie
05-27-2006, 10:32 AM
WRONG. Ridiculous statements unsupported by fact are called HYPERBOLE.
Sometimes facts are all around us. If we are willing to open our eyes. But there lies the rub.

CHIEF4EVER
05-27-2006, 10:59 AM
Sometimes facts are all around us. If we are willing to open our eyes. But there lies the rub.

Yes. Facts are all around us. If someone isn't too lazy or biased to look them up. And therein lies the rub, the vast majority of Liberals fall into both of those categories and thus resort to hyperbole.

Ugly Duck
05-27-2006, 11:17 AM
I don't have a problem with people who want to argue that shaking a guy by his lapels is wrong, but they shouldn't do it by exaggerating the behavior and mislabeling it as torture.From the Physicians for Human Rights website:

Dr. Kirschner is an expert in both medical evidence of torture and child abuse.

He stated that shaking can produce severe brain damage by actually tearing nerve fibers within the brain. The amount of force necessary to do this is extreme and clearly constitutes torture under international definitions of the term. Furthermore, it is impossible to define a safe quantum of force, all systematic violent shaking is dangerous.

In reference to G.S.S. guidelines which allegedly allow shaking by grabbing the clothing and do not permit shaking by grasping the shoulders, Dr. Kirschner said in his affidavit that "there is absolutely no reason to believe that one method of shaking is 'safer' than another. Any shaking that is of such magnitude to cause pain will be sufficient to cause possible brain or spinal cord injury."

http://www.phrusa.org/research/torture/torhar.html

patteeu
05-27-2006, 12:38 PM
From the Physicians for Human Rights website:

Dr. Kirschner is an expert in both medical evidence of torture and child abuse.

He stated that shaking can produce severe brain damage by actually tearing nerve fibers within the brain. The amount of force necessary to do this is extreme and clearly constitutes torture under international definitions of the term. Furthermore, it is impossible to define a safe quantum of force, all systematic violent shaking is dangerous.

In reference to G.S.S. guidelines which allegedly allow shaking by grabbing the clothing and do not permit shaking by grasping the shoulders, Dr. Kirschner said in his affidavit that "there is absolutely no reason to believe that one method of shaking is 'safer' than another. Any shaking that is of such magnitude to cause pain will be sufficient to cause possible brain or spinal cord injury."

http://www.phrusa.org/research/torture/torhar.html

Yep, that's just the kind of exaggeration I'm talking about.

Furthermore, I understand that some international definitions of the term "torture" are quite broad, but I'm against that as well.

Nightwish
05-27-2006, 02:08 PM
the vast majority of Liberals fall into both of those categories and thus resort to hyperbole.
Thank you for providing us with such a good example of hyperbole! You're not a liberal, are ya? Actually, you gave us a double dose, as you accomplished hyperbole and irony in one fell swoop! Good job!

CHIEF4EVER
05-27-2006, 03:00 PM
Thank you for providing us with such a good example of hyperbole! You're not a liberal, are ya? Actually, you gave us a double dose, as you accomplished hyperbole and irony in one fell swoop! Good job!

:rolleyes:

DanT
05-27-2006, 04:20 PM
...
We have destabilized not only Iraq, where all statistics show the people are worse off than they were 10 years earlier, but the entire region.
...


10 years ago in Iraq was a very nasty time. That was before the Oil-for-Food program began providing humanitarian relief to the people of Iraq.
Source: The Politics of Dead Children. Have sanctions against Iraq murdered millions? Published in Reason magazine, March 2002 (http://reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml)

The widely respected Richard Garfield puts the infant mortality rate in Iraq in 1996 at somewhere around 80-90 per 1,000 live births. http://www.casi.org.uk/info/garfield/dr-garfield.html#Implications%20of%20Mortality%20Estimates

Richard Garfield's estimates are considered somewhat conservative
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/sanctions.html. He, by the way, was one of the coauthors of that famous Lancet article from late 2004 that put the number of excess violent deaths in Iraq in the period from March, 2003, to September, 2004, at around 100,000. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LAN410A.html

As far as I know, the estimates of the Infant Mortality rate in Iraq for 2006 are less than 80 per 1,000 live births. For example, the CIA World Factbook reports an estimate in the high 40's (per 1,000 live births):
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

And Save the Children estimates it as about 60 per 1,000 live births, according to the Radio Free Europe news story:
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/05/4a3a9c3f-5a45-4287-99e3-3f6866bb2bfd.html

Logical
05-27-2006, 04:32 PM
...
I don't have a problem with people who want to argue that shaking a guy by his lapels is wrong, but they shouldn't do it by exaggerating the behavior and mislabeling it as torture.
Why do you in this free society get to make that decision for others?

Logical
05-27-2006, 04:34 PM
DanT,

As usual a nice set of data, however it only appears to be one measure, what about facilities such as power, clean running water, ability to traverse the cities and countryside safely, business operating at a level that people can work etc?

DanT
05-27-2006, 04:58 PM
DanT,

As usual a nice set of data, however it only appears to be one measure, what about facilities such as power, clean running water, ability to traverse the cities and countryside safely, business operating at a level that people can work etc?


The Brookings Institution's latest Iraq Index reports that electricity production and the availability of potable water are lower today than they were before the 2003 war. I don't know how things were in 1996, however. From what I understand, the quality of life in Iraq was better in Iraq 7 years before January, 1996, as well as 7 years after.

The Iraq Index has a variety of other measures that you'll find interesting.
http://www.brookings.edu/iraqindex

BucEyedPea
05-27-2006, 08:02 PM
You forgot the fleeing middle-class, those most needed to rebuild the country.
Many were educated outside Iraq too.

And then there are the Assyrian Christians who have fled, because they HAD religious freedom in Iraq but fear due to the fundamentalist no freedom.
Gays are being murdered. Two secularists were playing tennis with shorts on and shot.

SH even had a Roman Catholic in his govt. Think he as an ambassador. He was on Fox news one night.

Adept Havelock
05-27-2006, 10:31 PM
You forgot the fleeing middle-class, those most needed to rebuild the country.
Many were educated outside Iraq too.

True. After the sectarian violence, one of the biggest obstacles to reconstruction is probably the "brain drain". I don't see that trend reversing itself anytime soon in the face of the growth of fundamentalism.

Ugly Duck
05-28-2006, 12:19 AM
Yep, that's just the kind of exaggeration I'm talking about.?? Shaking is recognized as torture because it sloshes the brain around inside the skull, busting nerves and blood vessels. Brains are soft, bone is hard, when you slam brains against bone, brain tissue gets creamed. Doesn't leave visible bruises, but causes brain damage or death. Just because you only see the damage during autopsy doesn't mean there was no injury. Why would someone believe that busting brain vessels during interrogation is not torture? What would you call it?

Logical
05-28-2006, 01:06 AM
?? Shaking is recognized as torture because it sloshes the brain around inside the skull, busting nerves and blood vessels. Brains are soft, bone is hard, when you slam brains against bone, brain tissue gets creamed. Doesn't leave visible bruises, but causes brain damage or death. Just because you only see the damage during autopsy doesn't mean there was no injury. Why would someone believe that busting brain vessels during interrogation is not torture? What would you call it?I have learned that when patteeu is defending something he believes in he throws his rational self into a closet somewhere. Don't expect him to change his mind on this one. Though you have made a brilliant argument with the example he chose.

patteeu
05-28-2006, 09:10 AM
DanT,

As usual a nice set of data, however it only appears to be one measure, what about facilities such as power, clean running water, ability to traverse the cities and countryside safely, business operating at a level that people can work etc?

How many measures would it take for your "all statistics show the [Iraqi] people are worse off [now]" statement to be wrong?

patteeu
05-28-2006, 09:13 AM
Why do you in this free society get to make that decision for others?

In a free society, I can say what I think should and should not be done, right? I can't even imagine what made you think that question was worth asking.

patteeu
05-28-2006, 09:26 AM
?? Shaking is recognized as torture because it sloshes the brain around inside the skull, busting nerves and blood vessels. Brains are soft, bone is hard, when you slam brains against bone, brain tissue gets creamed. Doesn't leave visible bruises, but causes brain damage or death. Just because you only see the damage during autopsy doesn't mean there was no injury. Why would someone believe that busting brain vessels during interrogation is not torture? What would you call it?

If you throw a baseball to someone and it hits them hard enough in the chest, it can kill them, but we don't routinely call throwing a baseball, "murder." Given the right state of mind, it might be "assault" and given the right consequences in addition to the right state of mind, it might be "murder," but absent those defining characteristics, it's just "throwing a baseball."

The English language is robust enough to distinguish between simple shaking and shaking that is intended to and indeed does result in severe physical damage.

patteeu
05-28-2006, 09:30 AM
I have learned that when patteeu is defending something he believes in he throws his rational self into a closet somewhere. Don't expect him to change his mind on this one. Though you have made a brilliant argument with the example he chose.

:LOL:

Ugly Duck
05-28-2006, 09:55 AM
The English language is robust enough to distinguish between simple shaking and shaking that is intended to and indeed does result in severe physical damage.It appears that you are agreeing with me.... but I have a feeling that you are not. Our language is robust enough to distinguish between simple shaking and intententionally banging someone's brain against his skull during interrogation. Robust enough to define it as torture. Even the Israeli government defines it as torture and made a law against the practice in 1999.

patteeu
05-28-2006, 10:56 AM
It appears that you are agreeing with me.... but I have a feeling that you are not. Our language is robust enough to distinguish between simple shaking and intententionally banging someone's brain against his skull during interrogation. Robust enough to define it as torture. Even the Israeli government defines it as torture and made a law against the practice in 1999.

It appears to me that you would have us call all shaking by the lapels, "torture," instead of just those incidents intended to cause severe physical damage. If that's what you are saying, then you are right that I don't agree with you.

Ugly Duck
05-28-2006, 01:06 PM
It appears to me that you would have us call all shaking by the lapels, "torture," instead of just those incidents intended to cause severe physical damage. If that's what you are saying, then you are right that I don't agree with you.Boy, this is really getting confusing. I thought causing severe physical damage during interrogation was torture. Lemme look it up....

tor·ture (n): Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.

I dunno, dude.... I'm still lost. When interrogators perform the "violent shaking" treatment of a prisoner, the purpose is to bang his brain against the inside of his skull until he gives up information. That fits the definition of "torture" above. Why else would they be rattling the guyz noggin?

CHIEF4EVER
05-28-2006, 01:30 PM
Boy, this is really getting confusing. I thought causing severe physical damage during interrogation was torture. Lemme look it up....

tor·ture (n): Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.

I dunno, dude.... I'm still lost. When interrogators perform the "violent shaking" treatment of a prisoner, the purpose is to bang his brain against the inside of his skull until he gives up information. That fits the definition of "torture" above. Why else would they be rattling the guyz noggin?

Faider fans get their pea brains rattled against the inside of their craniums all the time but it doesn't seem to cause any lasting damage or excessive pain. :p :p :p :p

Logical
05-28-2006, 08:15 PM
In a free society, I can say what I think should and should not be done, right? I can't even imagine what made you think that question was worth asking.Decent point, but you are questioning others motives, I am questioning yours.

patteeu
05-29-2006, 09:31 AM
Boy, this is really getting confusing. I thought causing severe physical damage during interrogation was torture. Lemme look it up....

tor·ture (n): Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.

Causing severe physical damage during interrogation IS torture (unless it's an accident, of course). That's why we should distinguish between coercive techniques that are intended to cause severe physical pain/damage and those that are merely intended to cause mental stress, IMO.

I dunno, dude.... I'm still lost. When interrogators perform the "violent shaking" treatment of a prisoner, the purpose is to bang his brain against the inside of his skull until he gives up information. That fits the definition of "torture" above. Why else would they be rattling the guyz noggin?

To intimidate him. To cause fear. You clearly don't understand coercive interrogations. Maybe that's part of the problem. New proposed rule: people who don't understand what's going on shouldn't bother to condemn it in hyperbolic terms. :p

patteeu
05-29-2006, 09:35 AM
Decent point, but you are questioning others motives, I am questioning yours.

Maybe questioning is too soft a word. ;) I'm accusing those who do it on purpose of actually having impure motives and I'm cautioning those who haven't given it any thought about the negative impact they may have with their careless use of the term "torture."

In what way are you questioning my motives?

Logical
05-29-2006, 03:41 PM
Maybe questioning is too soft a word. ;) I'm accusing those who do it on purpose of actually having impure motives and I'm cautioning those who haven't given it any thought about the negative impact they may have with their careless use of the term "torture."

In what way are you questioning my motives?I see no reason for you to accuse/question their motives. I wonder why you feel the need?

patteeu
05-29-2006, 04:45 PM
I see no reason for you to accuse/question their motives. I wonder why you feel the need?

I really don't care that much about motives, to be honest. When Timothy McVeigh blew up the OK City fed building, I think it's OK to condemn his actions even if he believed he was acting patriotically (which he did). His motivations don't make that much difference to me.