Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: Back your country up

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    251
    Support your troops, bring them home not in body bags.

    I am anti-war (if it isn't obvious). I don't support our actions. But, I do understand the necessity of military hierarchy. Hierarchy is what makes generals culpable for war crimes and not grunts, so long as the grunts are acting under orders. It isn't the troops fault that they are overseas, it is Bush's. I want them home, safe and sound, playing with their kids, going to school, etc. I don't want them exposed to our own depleted uranium shells.

    Bush won't bring the troops home unless he gets his way. If things get ugly, war will wage on until he is out of office. He can't pull out, if he does he will comprimise our position. Think of being on trial, if you admit to sometime while testifying you are able to be tried for it. If we back down he says that he was wrong and that our actions are illegal. It will take either Iraqi surrender, US victory, or a new administration to end the bloodshed.

    This isn't football, it isn't a matter of supporting your team. If this is truly about Freedom, then it is about voicing your opinions and demanding answers to the questions that are asked. If you listen to what the european newspapers are reporting you get a different picture of this war than we do, I am not saying that they are necessarily more objective that what we are getting, I am just saying that basing your beliefs and judgments without both sides of the argument is just taking it on faith, and no matter how you look at it Bush is not a divine authority.

    Dhej
    The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of dusk. -Hegel

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    Personal I think part of what’s great about America is that no mater what the conservatives say; we don’t have to be mindless sheep. I view it as my patriotic duty to *not* back the president when I think he’s doing something stupid, too *always* question my government, and too voice my discontent.

    On a side note, any one who thinks this war will be over with the capture of Baghdad or Saddam doesn’t fallow history much. This war will last until the last US troop leaves the area, it will be a long term low grad conflict until we are out, very much like Granada or Libya, or Afghanistan was for the Russians.

  3. #13
    Protester have the right to protest, even with the war going on. One must remember, this is not just an issue of war for those against the war, but an issue of many things.

    But let me make a comment on the few extreme anti-war protesters with their crazy protesting style:
    Those tiny few do not represent that majority of anti-war protesters and believers. To believe other wise is simply ridiculous. There have been pro-war people who have beaten up on anyone who is from the middle east, are we suppose to believe those people represent the whole pro-war group? Certainly not, those extreme pro-war people and their hateful ways are but a tiny few and do not in any way represent the whole.

    I'm also against the war, but that (by no means) implies that I am against America or our troops.

    I love this country and the people who get trained to defend it (though some of them only put in one weekend a month or two weeks a year). I also understand that not everyone in the military want to fight this war either, as my friend in the Marines so perfectly put it "We don't get to choose our battles". Also few care whether we support the war or not. Like my friend Sabbith in the Army said in a letter, "When you're in a shoot out with the other side, you don't give a rats ass what anybody thinks."

    But this war isn't about our freedom, which is being with held from us partially by the current president with the Patriotic Act (which is uncomfortably simlilar to Hilter's Enabling Act). We had a war on terrorism going, but that quickly shifted to a more visible target (i.e. Saddam).

    I acknowledge that Saddam is an evil man and should be put down, but should it really take the might of the US military to get him and a few others in Iraq? Blindly bombing civilians just doesn't appeal to me. One life lost during war, or a million, that's just too many in my opinion.

    Some people actually think that by getting rid of Saddam we will end terrorism. That's just ridiculous. Terrorism is a world wide thing (just as Alkida is a world wide terrorist organization). There will always be someone else to take the place of a fallen terrorist. We need the help of nearly all the countries in this world to bust down on Alkida (since they are found it almost every country), but we have severed ties and opted for an unfounded war on one man.

    Bush said we had to fight the war because they have "weapons of mass distruction" which we have yet to prove. I know about the scud missles (they do have a right to defend them selves), but they are not the "weapons of mass destruction" Bush has been crying about. Not the "nuc'ler" or biological, or gas weapons that Bush claims they have. Those (nuclear, biological, gases) are real "weapons of mass destruction" because (as you know) these weapons Bush has spoken about cause damage on an enormously massive scale (i.e. mass destruction), not isolated damage in the case of scud missles, in case you were wondering.

    As my friend Meggers said, "Sure, the Iraq army is not suppose to have those missles you mentioned (because of UN rules) , but we have sneered and ignored the UN rules more than once when it comes to weapons and other issues. "

    America is the world's hypocrite, but I love you anyways USA.

    Yesterday they found barrels of gases, but not the "deadly" type they had hoped for. Our military is scrambbling to find anything, if not, we're gonna look like fools.

    Also, are we to deal with all the wrong doers in this world? I'm sorry, but we are not the world's police. True, this man is not in any way peaceful, but there are many more who are like/or worse than he. Are we going to deal with them too? Why Saddam, out of so many who are a bigger threat? And why do we get to decide who dies?

    I just have too many unanswered questions that inturn cause me to question those running this country.

    But hey, I hope the troops come back home safe and soon; and I hope they stop getting killed by friendly fire and accidents.

    Also, there is a reason why the news no longer covers the anti-war movement, there are about 6 conglomerants that own a majority of the channels on TV, bill boards, and the Radio Stations in the country. They found being patriotic beings ratings. So they lessened the showings of anti-war protests and spondered, them selves, gatherings for pro war rallies. Which they in terned covered on their net works.

    There has been some upset over this monopoly over mass media, and there are currently FCC hearings going on about it, but you won't hear about it. Why? These Conglomerants are not going to have the stations they own report on them.

    The only form of mass media these big businesses don't have a grip on yet are the news papers, periodicals, books, and magazines. You can find articles about the FCC hearings in the New York Times, USA Today, Los Angeles Time, and any other top notch news papers and zines.

    Forgive us anti-war people for thinking beyond the war, and for questioning Bush, but we wouldn't if we didn't have reason to do so.

    That's just my opinion, what ever yours is, I respect it.

    Take care all

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    193
    Let's say
    Freedom of Iraqi People and Bush cannot stand it so he decided to go to war to free Iraqi people from dictator
    Ha, How much of double standard bush can have. In 1949-50 China Invaded the Tibet and no one ever said a word about it specially USA. Why? Because we do a lot of business with China.
    If Bush ever cared about freedom of people he would release all of secret documents about JFK assasination, Rosewell, Area 51 and which he is keeping it away from his own people and which part of Liberty of Information he doesn't understand? In short this war is not for Iraqi people or their freedom, this is all about OIL and just OIL. Who ever control the middle east and their oil control the world economy and dominate the world , not by invading countries, but by invading economy. Oil is the blood of any economic body which runs the nations, who ever controls the oils controls the world economy and can easily become the only superpower in the entire world. So my fellow AO members don't even get me started on Bush and his policies and his double standard. Research about US policies towards the world and then think that what are we doing today is it right or wrong?

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    Originally posted here by \/IP3R
    Let's say
    Freedom of Iraqi People and Bush cannot stand it so he decided to go to war to free Iraqi people from dictator
    Ha, How much of double standard bush can have. In 1949-50 China Invaded the Tibet and no one ever said a word about it specially USA. Why? Because we do a lot of business with China.
    If Bush ever cared about freedom of people he would release all of secret documents about JFK assasination, Rosewell, Area 51 and which he is keeping it away from his own people and which part of Liberty of Information he doesn't understand? In short this war is not for Iraqi people or their freedom, this is all about OIL and just OIL.....
    Its not the Oil...now that southern Asia is open there is a lot more non OPEC oil available. and I have seen what is next for power generation, neat stuff. This is about power, bush is banking on the you don’t change horses in the middle of a race theory we will go from one war to the next until election time this is just one long bloody reelection campaign.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    193
    And when the election time will come he will get re-elected by the Supreme Court of US *AGAIN* and not by the People of the US or did some one say he will loose the election? I did hear that he is not going to win this time. Even a baboon can win a election against him this time. Hehehe what an idiot. Invaded the Iraq, circled the Baghdad and I am still looking for any evidence of weapons of mass destruction or any chemical weapon and not the pestisite killers or a toilet cleaner.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    So he didn't find any weapons in Iraq. This is why he’s going to invade Syria before we have a chance to really ask questions, and if Syria end quickly next will be Iran or N. Korea ect. ect. If you don't think he can get reelected during a war you are underestimating the masses of stupid Americans and our ability to overlook anything in the name of patriotism and nationalism. I won’t be voting for him but my vote doesn’t count for much. My state went to Gore last time.

    On a side note the Supreme Court didn't win him the election, good old fashion southern corruption and Nader won bush the election.

  8. #18
    actually he won by eletorial college, just like EVERY president before him. the supreme court mearly said gore did not have any grounds to challenge it. please learn abot the govt before you start spouting.

    as for viper, i have 2 rules i follow when debating, try not to argue with ppl from cali, and never talk to ppl from berkly/ucla. they dont live in the real world. they dont think inside the box. and they dont care about the truth, only their version of it. the left has always been more zealous than the right, untill the backlash hits.

    sadly enough, 8 years online, and out of the dozens of ppl from berkly i have argued with, only 2 have ever proven me wrong.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night.
    Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    Originally posted here by Worm Wood
    actually he won by eletorial college, just like EVERY president before him. the supreme court mearly said gore did not have any grounds to challenge it. please learn abot the govt before you start spouting.

    Learn your history. Andrew Jackson was put into place by congress after the electoral college was deadlocked (I believe this happened with a few others but the only one I'm sure about is Jackson). I hate it when ignorant people make blanket statements, its just too easy to disprove it takes all the fun out of debating.

    Also learn how the electoral college works, the court case boiled down to who got their delegates into the college...who ever's delegates gets in is who wins, so yes the supreme court did decide the election by default. (Again good old boy southern corruption helped)

    Originally posted here by Worm Wood

    as for viper, i have 2 rules i follow when debating, try not to argue with ppl from cali, and never talk to ppl from berkly/ucla. they dont live in the real world. they dont think inside the box. and they dont care about the truth, only their version of it. the left has always been more zealous than the right, untill the backlash hits.

    sadly enough, 8 years online, and out of the dozens of ppl from berkly i have argued with, only 2 have ever proven me wrong.
    On another note contrary to popular belief Cali is one of the most right wing places you could ever go (the only reason Grey Davis is Gov is because he’s a right leaning dem and the last rep canadite was a noticeably evil man) Remember this is the state that gave us Ragen and will soon have Schwartzinager as governor two of the most wacky right people around. Either you are a right wing zealot or have never been to the south, with groups like the KKK, and the religious right proving the right can be just as insane as the left. Although with comments about "The backlash" I'm guessing you have read the "Turner Diaries" putting you squarely in the category of insane right wing zealot.

  10. #20
    ummm ok ill bite, can u provide a link the the exception?
    ummm the delegates get there by election dont they? and once again where does southern corruption comes in? can u at least provide an example? i wont bother asking for a crediable link.


    as for my california statement, i never said what cali was, left or right, just that i dont argue with them due to the fact that they dont live in the same world as everyone else.
    the leftist was meant to be aimed at berkly area. they do seem to be the loudest. and i actully rank as a moderate conservative, and i live in texas. so i am as far south as u can get.
    and backlash is a fact, it happens on both side, not just the right or left. one side gains a distinctive advantage, and something happens that causes resntment and the other sides gains power from the back lash that follows. and a movement is born that swings the balance of power slowly at first, but by the time we have equalibrium, there is to much momentum to stop, and it continues to swing untill the populace gets dissatisied with it and beagins to rebel, and the pattern repeats. normaly the backlash in america is minumal due to the fact the ppl have a say in govt. in other countries it can be bloody. currently i think we are starting to move past the equlibrium into the left.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night.
    Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •