Are anti-war protestors hurting our nation and our troops?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

We didnt take out Hitler because he was killing his own citizens, we took him out because he was taking over Europe.

But we should have. If the world did something about Hitler first, we wouldn't have had WWII.

Looking back hindsight is 20/20, but imagine if we had did away with Hitler before he became so powerful.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

I didnt imply that they were more or less important, I did imply that their situation was worse. So if we are going to war for that reason, then it only makes sense that we help those who need it most.

We didnt take out Hitler because he was killing his own citizens, we took him out because he was taking over Europe.

What makes them need it most? Why are their deaths more important than the hundreds of thousands that died under the Hussain Regime?

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by JaJae

But we should have. If the world did something about Hitler first, we wouldn't have had WWII.

Looking back hindsight is 20/20, but imagine if we had did away with Hitler before he became so powerful.

The world would be a much different place. So why didnt/dont go into Darfur?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

The world would be a much different place. So why didnt/dont go into Darfur?

I think we should go in quite frankly its ridiculous whats going on over there. I think sept 11th change international relations accross the world and its no longer ok to sit idle when this kind of shit is happening. The world and the US need to step up ot the plate and stabalize the area. However, its not going to be easy. There will probably be car bombings, terrorist acts etc and whoever is in power will be blamed for them, when in reality those bearing the blame are the terrorist themselves.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I think we should go in quite frankly its ridiculous whats going on over there. I think sept 11th change international relations accross the world and its no longer ok to sit idle when this kind of shit is happening. The world and the US need to step up ot the plate and stabalize the area. However, its not going to be easy. There will probably be car bombings, terrorist acts etc and whoever is in power will be blamed for them, when in reality those bearing the blame are the terrorist themselves.

Well it just says to me that the whole "human rights issue" in Iraq is bullshit, but since all other justifications have fallen away, its all thats left. And since that seems to be the only real justification left, it pales in comparison to Darfur and what is happening there. Which leaves me to believe that it was a personal vendetta that took us into Iraq and had nothing to do with getting those who attacked our homeland. Therefore I do not believe that anti-war protestors are hurting our nation or our troops. We fight for a good cause, and we fight well. When the cause becomes ambiguous and the reasons are questionable, and unjustified, then the fight is now just a job and not a cause. That is what hurts our nation and our troops.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Which leaves me to believe that it was a personal vendetta that took us into Iraq and had nothing to do with getting those who attacked our homeland.

Peronsal vandetta? That seems odd considering the host of intelligence agencies, inside and outside of our own that said that Iraq was actively PURSUING WMD's. So given the fact that we were just attacked due to years of inaction suggest that we shouldn't repeat that same mistake. We should indeed act on the intelligence that we have, we did, it was a mistake, so given that I think the antiwar protestors are ridiculous and looking at things with their one sided views and not taking into account any of the macro factors leading up to the situation.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

The world would be a much different place. So why didnt/dont go into Darfur?

I think we learned our lesson from Iraq... It would be nice if we went in, but it would be a huge undertaking.

We'd have to set up a government, install a leader, etc etc. All the while being attacked through guerilla warfare.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Peronsal vandetta? That seems odd considering the host of intelligence agencies, inside and outside of our own that said that Iraq was actively PURSUING WMD's. So given the fact that we were just attacked due to years of inaction suggest that we shouldn't repeat that same mistake. We should indeed act on the intelligence that we have, we did, it was a mistake, so given that I think the antiwar protestors are ridiculous and looking at things with their one sided views and not taking into account any of the macro factors leading up to the situation.

Yes personal vendetta, plans to attack Iraq were on the table before 9/11. There were also a host of intelligence information that said there was no real proof of actively PURSUING WMD's, and there was no real proof that he still had WMD's. Again if we send Americans into war we better have a damn good reason to do so, such as Afghanistan. To stand behind the war in Iraq even once we realize it was a baseless, to me is, ridiculous. To think that Americans are not going to protest says to me that there is an expectation that Americans should be silent little sheep and follow the leadership right or wrong. That is not the America I know and love.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Yes personal vendetta, plans to attack Iraq were on the table before 9/11.

There's plans to attack Canada too. There's strategies to attack every major nation in the world... especially ones that we've recently invaded, ones that have tried to assassinate our presidential leaders, ones that intelligence is saying they're actively persuing WMDs, and ones that are going against numerous UN Resolutions.

If we had invaded Cuba would you also say "Personal vendetta, we had plans to invade Cuba long before we ever went in."

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by JaJae

There's plans to attack Canada too. There's strategies to attack every major nation in the world... especially ones that we've recently invaded, ones that have tried to assassinate our presidential leaders, ones that intelligence is saying they're actively persuing WMDs, and ones that are going against numerous UN Resolutions.

If we had invaded Cuba would you also say "Personal vendetta, we had plans to invade Cuba long before we ever went in."

But we did attack Iraq. Why is that okay with you?

[Nonphixion]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Great analogy

I think that's basically what it comes down to; who wants to fight for a country that doesn't even support them? Of course everyone is going to say 'I support the troops'; it would be completely ridiculous to say otherwise (well, a few have come out and said it; ie LA Times article). But do they really mean it? What does it mean to 'support the troops'?

I think the best thing to look at is the way the vietnam soldiers were treated when they came home. When one tries to determine why vietnam vets are always so crazy (aside from the normal effects of war on the mind) the only thing I can really think of is how they were basically spat upon by our country when they came back. For those soldiers to be over there fighting for their lives, and supposedly fighting for our country, and yet the whole country is completely unappreciative of it...I can't imagine it does anything but act negatively towards the military.

No, it's a horrible analogy. Football doesn't involve the loss of life, it doesn't kill our brothers and children. Football doesn't tear the limbs off of our aunts and uncles. Football is a fun game for your entertainment, not a "war for civilization"

Vietnam soldiers were spat upon because of public opinion, when the word of atrocities reached the American news outlets many felt they deserved to be spat upon. Raping pre-teen girls, tossing (two soldiers swinging by arms and legs) old men and children off of cliffs to their deaths ... for fun. Then they were spat upon.

We went into Iraq on a pack of lies, and we continue to stay there because of neocon zeal. I do not support the troops, and I do not support the war because "Operation Enduring Freedom" and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" are failing in their purposes and on top of that inflaming the problem.

Green Zone Follies

Baghdad, 28 Sept 06: “I have been out of this area for a month, along with a number of others, on a PR project. Coming back here is like going back to Hell for breakfast. The insurgents occasionally drop mortar rounds inside the sacred Green Zone, killing people including diplomatic personnel and once, two colonels out for a squash game. No one can do anything about it so we keep it quiet. This whole project, bringing democracy and joy to poor rag head heathens has fallen completely apart. Morale in Iraq does not exist and self-mutilations, suicides and serious mental problems are so commonplace that no one even notices any more.The field equipment, trucks, howitzers, spotter aircraft, tanks and armored vehicles are all either in the shops or waiting in line. The sand here destroys everything eventually and Rumsfeld never bothers to replace anything. The food and medical services are very good but that’s about all. We spy on the GIs to be sure they aren’t sending out ‘negative’ messages to home and the various religious Iraqi people are slaughtering themselves, and us, at an accelerated rate. The Iraqi death tolls are enormous and our own are very bad and kept very quiet. Now, they tell me, Cheney wants the entire National Guard activated and shipped over here along with every reservist or discharged GI with former combat service. They have the orders drawn up there and we have copies. Engineers have been putting up miles of new barracks and the supply services are tipped to expect ‘significant very large shipments’ of food, clothes, shoes, helmets and so on. A quarter of a million men are supposed to be reactivated and sent over here before Christmas. A general officer said, in my office, that they were just waiting until after the elections in November. Bush and Cheney want a general draft but that won’t wash so instead, everyone and anyone that can move; comes over. Basically, the resistance has beaten us but of course no one can ever talk about that. They call it ‘defeatism’ and one can get into trouble for it. Soldiers who bitch get transferred to the west where the lifespan of a GI is somewhat limited.”

TBRNews.org

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

But we did attack Iraq. Why is that okay with you?

Because when we invaded Iraq it seemed like the right thing to do.

Darfur never tried to assassinate our president. Darfur wasn't suspected to be actively making WMDs during the aftermath of 9/11. Darfur wasn't pissing on the UN. Darfur isn't a threat to our allies in the region. No nation in the world said Darfur was planning on attacking us, yet numerous countries told Bush that Saddam had something in plan for the US.

When you peice together the loose strings of data we had, it seemed like the responsible thing to do after 9/11. I know you're not referring to Darfur, I'm just using it as an example here to show what made Saddam stand out.

Am I ok with the situation Iraq has become or the way it was handled? Short response: Hell No.

But I support Bush and Congress on their initial vote and action of taking the threat that was Saddam seriously enough to do something about it. Darfur is in a bloody civil war not bothering anyone but themselves. No neighboring countries are involved. No WMD threats are involved. No terroristic threats going out to the world. It's a contained problem of poor people who have no economic standing or value to the world. Saddam wasn't. As horrible as it sounds, that's the reality and that's why the UN hasn't done anything about Darfur, but was willing to do something about Iraq during Desert Storm and originally w/ W.

When it comes down to it the UN doesn't give a shit about what it was set up to do. The only way Darfur is going to be settled is if someone says Fuck You to the UN and does it themselves. And that country won't receive the criticism America received for going into Iraq.

[Nonphixion]

Originally Posted by JaJae

So by dissenting the war are you helping America in some way?

Yes, you are fighting and standing up for truth. Rather than sitting down and letting yourself be led by fear -- a "If you're not with us you're with them, and you hate America" propoganda campaign. Dissent is to recognize what is wrong with democracy today and try to protect it, rather than letting a President with ever-escalating power simply chop away at The Constitution.

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

The problem is the administration sold this as a WMD effort and mentioned nothing of the human rights issues until their first reason fell apart. "We are there and doing good things."

What makes Darfur residents more important than Iraq residents?

What good things? What good things are we doing there?

My friend, your views spew ignorance. We are losing, we have inflamed a civil war, legalized torture in our own country -- and then perpetuated it on the streets of Baghdad. Our violence breeds more violence simply by proximity. In Iraq you are tortured for simply being of another creed.

You are kidnapped, bound by ropes or twist-ties, your body is greusomely bored into with electric drills, then you are ultimately executed. This nightmare civil war scenario is repeated 40 times daily in Baghdad alone.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

Yes, you are fighting and standing up for truth. Rather than sitting down and letting yourself be led by fear -- a "If you're not with us you're with them, and you hate America" propoganda campaign. Dissent is to recognize what is wrong with democracy today and try to protect it, rather than letting a President with ever-escalating power simply chop away at The Constitution.

I've heard a lot of things from anti-war protestors. Most if it could hardly be considered truth. Fighting propaganda? Fighting propaganda w/ more propaganda doesn't mean you're helping America.

Again, I don't hold the you're with us or you hate America opinion. All I'm saying is that with any military operation dissent at home plays a role in victory and the effectiveness of our servicemen abroad. Having half the nation dissent what they are doing over there it's helping them. It's hurting the war effort and thus hurting our soldiers.

Again, as the original post implies... I'm not getting this point of view from myself. I'm taking this from people who were attacking Republicans and conservatives for dissenting the manner in which Clinton handled Somalia.

It's more of a Devil's advocate to make people realize that it's a two way street. If you're going to dissent, at least understand why Republicans dissented Clinton's piss poor management of his military obligations.

[KatKanPlay]

Because when we invaded Iraq it seemed like the right thing to do.

I never saw it as the right thing to do. Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Seemed isnt good enough not for war, not for death and mutilation of American soldiers.

Darfur never tried to assassinate our president. Darfur wasn't suspected to be actively making WMDs during the aftermath of 9/11. Darfur wasn't pissing on the UN. Darfur isn't a threat to our allies in the region. No nation in the world said Darfur was planning on attacking us, yet numerous countries told Bush that Saddam had something in plan for the US.

The assissination thing doesnt hold water 12 years later. It does however it a personal vendetta becomes the motive. The human beings of Darfur are suffering horrible atrocities, so if we declare war on one country for this why not there? I dont think Alimamed Chalibi qualifies as numerous countres. Numerous countries urged Bush NOT to invade Iraq.

Darfur is in a bloody civil war not bothering anyone but themselves. No neighboring countries are involved. No WMD threats are involved. No terroristic threats going out to the world. It's a contained problem of poor people who have no economic standing or value to the world. Saddam wasn't.

Replace Darfur with Iraq remove the civil war you have pretty much the same conidition, yet now that all other excuses for the invasion have been shot down, we now fall on the humanitarian aspect. Of course your right about one thing,,,, Darfur has no oil and they didnt attempt to kill the current presidents father.

The world had Saddam in a glass box, he wasnt going anywhere and he couldnt do anything. I can completely understand that you were in support of the war in the beginning, given the informationwe were spoonfed at the time. But now that we know the information was false or greatly exaggerated, and done so purposely by the administration, it boggles my mine that you still support them.. It further boggles my mind that you are willing give American lives and billions of dollars to continue on the same course.
Sounds like a totally partisan stand rather than a stand for what is right.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

TBRNews.org

where did you find that, what a total load of bullshit

[kinggovernor]

I am still laughing over that link

[tbone]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Peronsal vandetta? That seems odd considering the host of intelligence agencies, inside and outside of our own that said that Iraq was actively PURSUING WMD's. So given the fact that we were just attacked due to years of inaction suggest that we shouldn't repeat that same mistake. We should indeed act on the intelligence that we have, we did, it was a mistake, so given that I think the antiwar protestors are ridiculous and looking at things with their one sided views and not taking into account any of the macro factors leading up to the situation.

Then why was Iraq placed ahead in the invasion order than North Korea and Iran who admit to having nuclear technology and N. Korea has even proved it with a test. Iraq, according to our faulty intelligence, was inquiring to obtain nuclear technology. N. Korea has it and Iran is building it. Iran also admits to housing terrorist organizations, something that was never in Iraq until after we invaded.