Support the Troops

[ironhorseman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Ok,
I give.
The Army is supposed to go blow up their market place, you know, the one that has been there for 15 centuries, so McDonalds can built another set of Golden Arches.
Lets bulldoze the mosques, so evanagical christians can set up bible schools.

Oh, by the way, did your room mate bother to tell you he most likley lived in a segerated township?

No, and how would you know it is a segregated township?

QUOTE:
Totally cool for him to be christian, as long as he did so in a black church, in a black township.
I noticed National Geographic, and the Readers Digest both forgot to highlight that little piece of information on South Africa, you know, aparthied?
Talk about head in the sand politics influenced by apathy.
Where were the Americans, and the American way of life, when millions were displaced, and thousands slaughtered, burned and shot while being forced to flee their homes and villages?
We, and the rest of the world, sent the in Red Cross.

Right, America is willing to help other countries, but other countries never help or repay America. America feeds the world and the thanks we get are 4 airplanes hijakced, flown into our buildings and 3,000 civilians dead.

QUOTE:
YeHaw, bet that helped the millions of displaced, starving people, who were being killed because they belonged to the wrong tribe.

You noted that you have taken a course in criminal law.

Not criminal law - CRMINAL JUSTICE. Law is an entirely different field. However, I am fully knoweldgable on the 4th Amendment, Search and Seizure, which you refer to below.

QUOTE: Great.
So, if a judge issues a search warrent,(we tell the UN we think he might have WMDs, and the UN sends in inspectors) and the police go looking for whats specified in the warrent, (Un inspectors go looking for wepons of mass destruction) and the police dont find what is specified in the warrent(UN inspectors state no weapons or capabilities to make them were found) are the police justified in kicking in the homeowners door, and stomping his butt just because they think he might, at a future date, get what was specified in the warrent?(Saddam might, at some point in time, accquire some of the capabilities to produce WMDs, so we declare war and invade his country)

In other words, kick butt first, based on supposition and guesses, look for hard evidence later?

QUOTE: God, I hope you never become a cop if thats how you feel.
You pointed it out yourself.
Due process of the law.

WRONG: the 4th Amendment does not apply to military action or war. And we also allow bail/bondsman to go kick down doors and haul in people with outstanding warrants and they don't have to follow any rules. If they go in the wrong house and get the wrong person there is no penalty.

Just for your sake Ed I am seeking a job in law enforcement. I'd be a better cop than a lot of other cops. Down there in Texas, for instance, in one town the cops were arresting blacks and hispanics and beating them up for no reason. It was for rookie initiation. Later is was found out that every citizen was a target for initiation, the minorities were picked on by chance because there were more of them and hence the odds were greater at getting picked on. Minority officers were also abusing other minority citizens as well as whites.

In the southern states like Louisana, Mississippi, and Florida young black males are targets for traffic stops. They have forfeiture laws down there that say a cop can confiscate you money or property and you can't it back. It becomes propetry of the state and the police department. Cops routinely pull people over because they might want their hot rod car, or motorboat, or they might have a large amount of cash. All they have to do is charge them with a crime, property if forfeited, charges are drop, person aressted don't get his/her property back.

Take also for instance the cops holding school kids at gunpoint in a Virgina school, or cops that beat people to death in Ohio, or the joke of a D.A. in L.A. and the Micheal Jackson fiasco they're going through.

QUOTE: Lets see, upholding the law, and enforcing the law are two different functions.
Cops uphold the law, courts establish and enforce it.
So, when the world court, the UN, said no, dont think we sould do this, we, the worlds cops, said screw you, lets go anyway, and kicked in the door, stomped the homeowners butt, then discovere there wasnt anything inside that justified even knocking on the door, much less executing the warrent.

The U.N. is a joke. They can't even uphold their own laws. This whole idea of "international law" is rediculous. You're still comparing the 4th Amendment to a war situation. The weapons were there, where did they go? When will they be used?

QUOTE: Wheres IA when you need them.

I worked for The Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas, for six years, most of that time in the Child Support Division, Enforcement/ Establishment section.
Part of that job involved corraling up folks for court ordered DNA testing to prove or establish paternity.
Evey single DNA sample in the private company DNA lab we used, was open to all law enforcement agencies, at their request, per state policy.
The FBI has access, as do any Federal and State law enforcement agency, down to the local PD.

Currently, there are several universities and research firms attempting to map the entire human genome, some funded through federal grants, others through private funds.
Yes, when finished, it will be one of the greatest medical achivements of all time.
It can also, in the wrong hands, be the greatest attack on humanity ever.
The national DNA program and a ID program based on it, is not fiction, and its a lot closer than you think, dont doubt for a minute that Rumsfield, or that Nazi heading the FBI wouldnt hesitate to ask for it, if they though it would fly or they could sell it as part of national defense and the war on terrorism.
The entire DNA data base of the lab we used is a part of that program, as are most of the DNA data bases at labs that hold state or federal contracts.

You're still misleading. It's a national CRIMINAL database that is being created, not every individual residing in the US. What I referred to as fiction in an earlier post is still fiction the way you're portraying it.

QUOTE: I never said GW was a bad man, just a incompentent president.
He jumped before the intelligence was confirmed, and has come up short.
He made a calculated gamble, and lost.

He's not a bad man and he's not an incompetent man. If that's an opinion then that's an opinion.

QUOTE: I, for one, think that before we declare war, we should have hard, provable, concrete evidence, incoruptable and illrefutable.
Cold, hard facts, not suppositions and educated guesses.

We had the cold hard facts. We were going to go in to stop him from building those weapons and get the ones he had. The informants from Saddam's regime are now changing their stories so I don't know if anything they say can be believed now. But there was more evidence than just informants. Bristish and U.S. intelligence also had sattelite surveilace and other methods as well. Didn't you watch Colin Powell's report to the U.N. in early 2003 before the war?

QUOTE: And no, I am not a black and white kinda guy.
I do see a lot of grey, in areas both political and economic, and in football games.

However, in the case of my country declaring war on a country that didnt fire the first shot, and that war being based on maybes and could bes and might haves, then the issue of black and white, for me at least, becomes most important.

No one's fired a shot. They flew planes into our buildings. Saddam, bin Ladin, the Taliban, they were all in on it and who knows who else.

QUOTE: When you invade another country, you best be positive right out of the gate that your reason in doing so is right, not only from your point of view, but from the rest of the world's too.

We had him back in 91, but he was politicaly useful to a bunch of folks then, so we left him there in power, even sold him some of the weapons he used on his own people later.

The word hypocrisy applies here.

If he was a threat last year, he was a threat in 91 too.

So, only when it becomes politicaly useful to bolster the world cop image, do we suddenly decide he has become bad enough to attack and despose?

If thats the case, we should have invaded Germany in 38, and Japan in 40.

For that matter, the IRA has guns and bombs, and they have participated in petty terrorism here, so lets invade Ireland.
But then again, from a economic standpoint, invading Ireland kinda sucks, they dont have anything we need, except a few leftover Delorens.

As for exporting the American culture, that is the domain of the private companies, not a matter of national military policy.

If Coke wants to sell the Saudis soda, great.
If McDonalds want to sell Iraqis hamburgers and fries, great.
If the President, through the Pentagon, wants to force apple pie down their throats, thats not cool.
Private enterprise should, and can, export Americana, the US Goverment, by means of military force, shouldnt.
Any when someone has been hungry for a few weeks, and an American GI walks up with a box of Micky Dees fries and a big mac, then ole Ronald make the best food in the entire universe.
When your that hungry, you could care less where the food comes from, even if the guy handing you the food is the reason your hungry in the first place.


Japan did adopt a constitution similar to ours, of course, the fact that we wrote it, and happened to be occuping their country at the time might have had something to do with that.
Read the terms of their surrender, provisions for it are included in it.
After two A bombs, they would have signed pretty much anything we wanted.

And yes, the Marshal plan helped rebuilt Europe too, but then, we were the folks with the money, men and the guns and a few A bombs on the side, so...

Funny thing about history books, the guys who win the wars usually get to write the story.
Classic example is the Alamo myth.

American history books tend to portray Santa Anna as the evil, blood thirsty bumbling general bent on stealing the Texicans land, and he massacared the gallant defenders of Texas liberity at the Alamo.

Fact was, he was the Emperor, and the legal land owner, in addition to being an accomplished military leader, on his way to evict the tennant settlers who broke a legal, binding contract, and revolted against their lawful ruler and landlord.

England was the legal land owner of the origional 13 colonies. We had no right under any law to rebel. But we did, and now we're 50 states across an entire continent. Only 1/3 of the Americans were for independence, 1/3 for the King, and 1/3 "neutral."The Texans were rebelling against Santa Ana the same way the colonist rebelled against Britain. Only this time it was a majority of Texas residents that were in favor of independence. Maybe it was American natives and not Mexican natives, but then Mexico shouldn't have allowed them to immigrate.

So actually we've been "illegally" "occupying" Texas since the 1830s. Just like the ***. The entire United States is an "illegal occupation" of a Briti***erritory.

The history books that portray Santa Ana as "an evil, blood thirsty bumbling general bent on stealing the Texicans land, and he massacared the gallant defenders of Texas liberity at the Alamo" are long gone. Many decades ago there were books and movies like that that portrayed all Mexicans as dirty and evil but for a while now that is not the case. All the history books I've ever read in school or at the library are pretty much cut dried. They tell events and the key points of each. They spend very little time on anything. In a modern text book you can read about the Texas revolution in about 4 pages or less and it takes about 2 minutes because 1/2 those pages are pictures, maps, graphs, charts, supplement boxes, etc. Be more wary of movies where fact is replaced for story-line and entertainment.

QUOTE:
The defenders at the Alamo, who are often portrayed in extrodinary heroic context, did by sheer luck, courage and grit, managed to slow Santa Anna down enough for Sam Houston the re group his forces, which had been so ill trained and un prepared as to be useless.

Luck again helped Houston, Santa Anna happened to camp at San Jacinto, awaiting re supply ships from Galveston Bay, when Houston and his army struck a surprise attack, simply by walking up through the head high salt marsh grass, and surprising the Mexican army at dawn.

Yet, according to the history books currently approved for use in Texas schools, Sam Houston chased Santa Anna down at San Jacinto, and the defenders at the Alamo sacrificed them selves for Houston.
The books also state Santa Anna had donned a uniform of a lesser rank, in a attempt to hide who he was, when the diary of his aide shows that he, Santa Anna's aid, had placed his uniform jacket over Santa Anna, because the general didnt have time to gather up his own when they fled.
Santa Anna had broken his ankle, and his aide was trying to keep him warm.
Oddly enough, Sam Houston himself was wounded in the leg, and was being held up by his own aides when Santa Anna was captured.

How old is this textbook and who published it?

QUOTE: Did the Alamo defenders see themselves as maryters, gallant defenders of Texas liberity?
Maybe, but they died because Houston didnt have a army to send in to help, and by the time Travis realized that fact, it was too late to leave.

Every movie shows, and every text book states that Travis and Bowie died fighting to the end, yet Travis died in the early stages of the fight, on the first day, in the first advance of the Mexican army.

Bowie died ill in bed, he spent almost the entire time there, he was so sick he was carried into the Alamo on stretcher to begin with.

Santa Anna did allow the majority of those who wished to leave the right to do so, before the battle began,and escorted them away, releasing them several miles distant.
Wives, servants and slaves were allowed to go, and keep this in mind, in Mexico, slavery was illegal, in Texas, common.
There were suvivors too, although popular myth claims the entire populace were killed.
Several wives chose to stay, and were spared, all know combatants were not, they had been pre warned that no quarter was to be given, those that chose to stay knew this.

Point is, what are we going to write in the history books about this war?
I cant find a acceptable way to justify invading any other country based only on the possability that they might possess some weapons, of like kind which we happen to possess a few ourselves, simply because at some point in the future, they might, if they have them, use them.

What your telling me is preempetive attacks on countires that might, at some point in the future, pose a threat to us, or we feel are not really nice guys, is a good foreign policy?

So some religious fanatics commit a act of terror, granted, a devastating and horridly cowardly act, and your willing to skip going directly after their leader, because we cant find him, and instead, you declare war on, and attack their next door neighbor, possibly sowing the seeds of another world war, and throwing gas on a already hot fire, which, like most religious fires, if left alone, would burn itself out, or stay contained in its own crazy little part of the world.

At the same time, you willing to put the screws to the citizens of your own country, either out of fear, or ignorance, in the empty belief you can now , some how, keep the bad guys out from here on?

But as long as your willing to keep adding gas...and lighting fires at home...

Simply put, yup, we kicked butt, but were just stupid enough to do it in the wrong country, for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time.

But, we won, sorta of, so we get to write the history book.
Lets here your myth of Iraq, and be sure to use John Wayne in there somewhere.
Remember, when your the loser, its called propaganda, when your the winner, its called history.

Ed[banghead]

As a history teacher once said: not all propaganda is bad. We treat propaganda as if it were all bad. In class called World War II Film we saw an American propaganda film. The intent was to build up morale on the home front and how to deal with war and what citizens could and should do to help. We were asked to review the film and write up the report. I critiqued it's technical and pointed out it's intent and purpose and wrote my opinion on the film over all, but I didn't criticize it for it's propaganda. Almost the entire rest of the class, according to the teacher, had written negative reviews of this film bad-mouthing it's propagada technique, which led him to say not all propaganda is bad.

But I don't see the propaganda of this war. On the contrary all I see is negative propaganda. The American media must work for Al-Jazera and Al-Queda, all they report is one disaster after another in Iraq. They don't report the tremendous progress being made over there or the high state of morale our troops our in. To the media it's all doom and gloom.

Modern history books are fair and balanced. School text books are cut-dry plain text. Very little content in a big heavy book. There's no or very little deep thought. They don't delve too deep into too many things. You'll have to get the books that specialize in a particular historical event and hope that ONE AUTHOR is not being biased.

With the state of our negative propaganda the way it is today we could have some books written to portray Saddam as an innocent, unassuming victim. But for the most part history will be accurate and right.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Scottydog

Ironhorseman, I have printed out your postings to study them and I will get back to you on some things. But for right now Bush's being in the National Guard, well let's look at a few things. The Vietnam war was at it's height, President Johnson made a deliberate decision that no National Guard unit would be used there as there were plenty of draftees. Consequently, at that time there were three ways of getting out of the draft
[1] Flee to Canada
[2] Claim conscientious objector status and do jail time
[3] Join the National Guard if you could get in
Dubya had powerful friends who jumped him to the top of a long waiting list to get into the Texas Guard. Oh yeah, he was well prepared to defend the borders of Texas, I think, but not overseas.

Actually there is a fourth way.... Health exemption (as heard on NPR 2/15/2004)
Jack Kemp was released due to a bad knee - than played for the Buffalo Bills
Rush Limbaugh was released due to a boyle on his butt

[ironhorseman]

Now, to explain why I think you can't support the troops without supporting the mission:

What is this anti-war phenomenon? Where does it come from? One source may come from the media. TV and movies. The public has been constantly exposed to war movies that make war out to horrible and despicable. War IS hell. But war is also inevitable. As long as there will be humans there will be war. By not going to war those soldiers don’t get killed, for now. But what are the consequences? How many more civilians have to die in attacks until we convince everybody to put a stop to the aggressors? What is the point of having soldiers and an army if they are not going to be used what they were trained for, if all that is going to be done is prevent them from getting into harms way? Is it alright then for civilians to die but not soldiers?

Another source of the anti-war movement is the Vietnam War. Not only were people against the war, there were people against the soldiers. The soldiers, most of them drafted, not volunteers, were spat upon and taunted upon their return to America. Whether or not that war was right or wrong, it was still wrong to blame the soldiers. Their post-combat psychological well-being was increasingly disturbed by these actions, leaving some to break out in fits of rage and attack civilians in public under delusions they were back in the jungle fighting the Viet Cong.

Now the new phenomenon has emerged as “Support the Troops… (but not the war).” It’s understandable that we don’t want to have soldiers go through another post-Vietnam persecution. Now the blame has shifted to the government. But the reason it doesn’t make sense to support the troops and not war is the that’s what the soldiers do. That is their job. The soldier volunteered for the military. They go into combat not because they were simply ordered to, but because they are good soldiers. They willingly sign up for second and third tours of duty into the hostile territory. The news media only reports the death of soldiers and the bombings, they don’t report that the soldiers are in good spirits, that the soldiers have made progress in restoring order, and that they’ve rebuilt schools, hospitals, restored the electricity and water.

What would a soldier think if he heard someone from back home say “we’re all for you, but we don’t like what you’re doing, we don’t approve of this war.” If one doesn’t support the war how does one fully support the troops? What would be suitable then? To have all the soldiers lay down their arms and say “we’re not fighting, we’re not taking another order. We’re not going, throw us in the brig if you must, but we’re not fighting this war”? If they did that then they’d lose all respect, all respect from the country, the government, the citizens, and their own self-respect.

You see, if you only support the troops and not the mission, your support is only half complete. In essence you are saying to the soldier “we are pulling for you, we hope you come home safely, that’s all that matters, but really don’t care much for the cause or reason that you are there.” If you don’t support the mission you can’t support the success of the mission. If the mission does not succeed, then no one comes back home alive, and all is lost. We must support the mission in order for the soldiers, our soldiers, to be successful and to have fulfilled their duties with honor and that those who have been killed and will be killed, their deaths will not have been in vain. If we give up now, if we pull out now, and the mission does not succeed and if the mission is a failure then the deaths will have been in vain. We’re in Iraq now, we’re committed to the mission now, there’s no going back, we must stay until the mission is a success, until Iraq is free from terrorist and al-Queda and the weapons of mass destruction are found.

The words of Abraham Lincoln spoken about the Civil War can be applied word for word on today's war on terrorims:

“Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We, of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of our selves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial, through which we pass, will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation. We, even we here, hold the power and bear the responsibility.”

History is happening here and now and we must face. There is no denying it. There is no turning way. No matter how important or unimportant we think we are we all have the responsiblity to act.

“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise to the occasion. As our case is new so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country.”

What happened in the past is over. Our good ol' times of the 1990s are over. Our government played around then and we're paying for it now. The war on terror is differnent than any other war we have taken on.

“It is the eternal struggle between two principles, right and wrong, throughout the world. It is the same spirit that says you toil and work and earn bread, and I’ll eat it! No matter in what shape it comes whether it comes from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation by the fruits of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race. It is the same tyrannical principle.”

Right and wrong. Fight against tryanny. A government that allows slavery is no differnt than a government or a dictator that tortures and kills it's civilians and benefits from their hard labor.

“…That from these honored dead, we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we, here, highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, and that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government - of the people, by the people, for the people - shall not perish from the Earth.”

No death will be in vain. Those who die before us we will take up that cause for which they were fighting for. If we don't, then their death's become meaningless. It is dishonorable, insulting, and offensive that there are people saying that all the soldiers who have died in Iraq died in vain. Their view is the commander in chief sent their sons and daughters there to die for no reason other than a private cowboy war. That’s the most disgusting thing I’ve ever heard. Their deaths were not in vain. They’re making the world a safer place. The U.S. has freed the Iraqi people from a ruthless tyrant that they did not want. This war has intimidated other countries to rethink their policies. Syria and Libya are now coming clean by volunteering their abandonment of their weapons and terrorism sponsorship. They know what can happen. The icon of the Arab world has been easily toppled and it can happen to them. These nations are dangerous and now they’ve seen the consequences of being a rouge nation. The U.N. is worthless. The U.S. business. These were bad countries. The U.S. is not inflicting culture or laws on their way of life or government, the U.S. is fed up with having it’s embassies bombed and it’s civilians killed by these nations that sponsor terrorist.

I still say the war was justified. I still say it's all part of the war on terror. We are not using the military to cram American culture down our throat and we are not militarily "occupying" Iraq, not in the way the *** did, not in any way. The weapons were there, but Saddam didn't cooperate. You talk about an illegal war and I'll talk about an illegal dictator who violated countless U.N. resolutions (which everyone ignores) because he knows, as well as the U.S. knows, that the U.N. is a joke anyway.

If you want to read my detailed essay on the words of Lincoln and how I related them this war you can do so at http://www.angelfire.com/film/trains0/history.html
because I'm not going to post all the pages here on the forums. It's just too long. You'll just have to go there and read it for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Ironhorseman.
It is rediculous to say you can't support the troops without supporting the mission, of course you can. The troops are people are like me with 2 sons in the service. The troops are like my next door neighbor with a daughter in the service, The troops are like my friend across the street but 2 who has 2 sons and a daughter in the service. Come to our street and see all the yellow ribbons around damned nearly every tree. The troops are like Dan Harmon, a friend on this forum, who is a navy flier. The troops are like every man in this country who has worn a uniform and sent a child to the service. Do you know why we are the troops? Because we are the ones our children in uniform depend on to speak out for them when they can't. You think we have done such a noble cause in rescuing the Iraqi people from such a horrible tyrant, then why are our people still dieing over there? Why aren't the ordinary Iraqis telling us every move the terrorist make?

[Anonymous]

It is very simple, they may hate a tyrant but they hate a invader worse. I have never meant that service in the National Guard was less than honorable. In today's world, the Guard is liable to find itself in harms way in a heartbeat but not so in dubya's day. When Johnson decided to excempt the Guard for active duty, it became a haven for rich men's sons to escape facing enemy bullets but maintain a semblence of military service so they would not be lumped with those who went to Canada. They were still draft dodgers. You can't blame them, Vietnam was a miserable and stupid war America should never have sent her sons to, just like Iraq. Now our armed forces are all volunteer even the reserves and the National Guard and all have to pay the piper when some idiot calls the tune.

[Anonymous]

I don't know if you have any children yet, but if you do and if they are in the service, I hope the day never comes when you answer your front door bell to find 2 marines and a chaplain, or 2 soldiers and a chaplain, or 2 sailors and a chaplain, or 2 airman and a chaplain, or 2 coastguardmen and a chaplain to tell you your son or daughter has died in East Bumfluff because your President has decided to invade that country to avenge a threat to his dad. I have to stop now because I am getting very pissed.

[edblysard]

Your circlular logic is astounding.
In one post, you lable the "media" as liberal, biased and misleading, then, later in the same post, quote CNN as a impecable source of news, and recommend we watch a made for TV documentery on the Discovery channel.

Then you refer to the UN sanctions as a joke, but then used the exact same sanctions as justification for invading another country.

So, which are they, jokes or justification?

You stated that the people of Afganistan, Iraq, Iran are all the same, yet later, expressed indignant at your version of racisim down south.

"Their all in it together"...yeah, just run your fanny over there and thell them that.

So, because the wardrobe of choice over there is a turban and a robe, instead of jeans and tee shirts, its ok to lump all the people of that region together as a "them"?
All them ragheads are the same, right?
All them sandrats gotta be terrorist, right?
After all, they are all the same, right?

You followed that superbly racist "them" statement by directing us to read your works on Linclon, who was dealing and concerned with an American civil war, and American racisim, as a way to justify the invasion, in modern times, of a foreign country.

Utterly and completly astounding.

David Duke could have used you as a spin doctor.

Rationalization taken to the level of a art form!

You sound just like my 17 year old daughter, who loves to use other people's bad actions or mistakes to justify her own.

"if they hadnt done that, I wouldnt have had to ...."(fill in the blank with just about any stupid stunt or silly excuse a17 year old uses)

Real plain and real simple.

Yes, we are the worlds policemen, I whole heartedly agree.

And, as the worlds policemen, we are watched by everyone else.

We are the leaders of the free world, both in military might, and economic power.

We consume their goods, and still feed the rest of the world.

So, as the worlds policemen, we should lead by example...

Nothing we do in the public arena should dim the light Lady Liberity holds so high, and which promises so much.

And right now, to the rest of the world, we look like the bad guys.

Simply put, there are not, and have not been any WMDs in Iraq for years.

If there was, the current administration would have plastered photographs of them on billboards nation wide to cover their fannys.

The are not there now, were not there before we invaded.

We publicly claimed they were there, and used that as a excuse to invade, regardless of other reasons, real or imagined.

And publicly, we have had to state that we were wrong, there is no WMDs in Iraq.

Show me a working nucelar weapon found in Iraq in the last five years.

Show me a 55 gallon drum of a usuable Bio weapon found in Iraq in the last five years.

Show me recent photos of the facilities to produce either one, taken in the last two years.

Do that, please...

But dont take my country to war based solely on the fear of what might happen, or suppositions about something that could be built, in a few years.

Dont create widows and orpahans, killing Amreica's finest young men and women, by jumping at shadows, because you are afraid of something that dosnt yet exsist.

You still dont seem to realize how utterly and completly this changes the worlds view of America, her people, and her goverment.

We didnt, and never can, win the "war on terror", especially when we act as terrible as the terrorist, and invent such nonsencial phrases as "the war on terror" to justify revenge, especially when we sought such revenge on the wrong people, in the wrong country, for acts they didnt commit.

To hide the fact that this is revenge for 9/11 makes us out as to be as cowardly as the terrorist.

You want revenge for 9/11?

Then get Bin Laden, and destroy and conquer the country that currently allows him the freedom he and his religious fanatics denied the victims in the Towers and the Pentagon.
Attack the enemy, not his next door neighbor.

Want to make an example to the rest of the world that, that when you jack with America, on American soil, we jack right back?

Then do what we, as Americans, have been taught to do, the right thing, for the right reasons.

In regards to your former room mate...

Besides India, Germany, Russia, England and Mexico, I have been there too, visiting my niece, who was in South Africa, tracking whale migration for the Texas A&M marine mammal study.
Her and her husband are now the managers of the Raptor Education and Rehibilitation program for the State of Alabama.

Yeah, another classic red neck state like Texas.

You know, all us southerners are the same, uneducated, racist red necks, who dont know nuthing except how to make moonshine, right?

I was guessing about your roomate, but from what I saw there, it is still segerated, no matter what the Discovery Channel and National Geographic shows say.

It most likely will be gone in one more generation.

They are making tremendous progress, by undoing generations of fear and misconceptions about each others cultures and what they want South Africa to become.

We Americans could learn a lesson or two from them.

Of course, us southern folks are too dull and dumb to grasp the Captain America, mill worked falls into a vat of molten steel and emerges as...comicbook version of the rest of the worlds politics.

We are just dumb enough to want to make America, and what she stands for, real.

Ed

[dharmon]

Okay....

Hopefully, this will be the last post and this thread will slowly start working it's way down. I certainly hope's it mine at least.

First....Pops has paid they price for this country that no parent should ever have to. Everyone of his children has served as has he. As far as I'm concerned he gets a lifetime pass to say whatever he wants about the government any time he wants.....he has already anted up more than most.....if any of y'all beg to differ, please contact me and I'll help set you straight....... any takers.........I didn't think so.

Okay now...support of the mission...no you don't have to support the mission to support the troops......okay...I am the troops....I'm not there now, but I have been there, whereever there has been before....I have done missions that I didn't "support" personally. They didn't ask me for my opinion and I didn't tell them...I followed the orders and that's that. Period. I venture to guess if you polled 100 service people they would probably tell you the same......they do what they're told and leave the politics to you the voters and the folks we collectively put in place to make policy........WE WORK FOR YOU. If you don't like it, vote out the folks in and get new ones. The JCS doesn't sit around and go...hmm who should we invade today? I haven't been to a war yet that I was invited to. So support the troops...I'll tell you what the trops want....governments that don't send them off to war for no reason and they want a little respect when they get back........unlike we did for the Vietnam guys.....they don't need a parade..casue it's a lot of work, they don't want pity, or charity or free meals...just a little freakin respect for a job that not very many AMERICANS are willing to do....and it's not just the war stuff....it's the day in day out stuff...Everyone says they'd go fight the bad guys...but what about the rest of the time.......Pops spent his time in subs fighting a lonely, cold, thankless war without firing a shot, playing cowboys and cossacks with the folks that wanted to bury us...... yeah support the troops....you don't have to support the mission

Now as far as constitutions and who works for who......I put that out there..you don't believe me...type constitution + military in Google and military + title 10. Pretty cut and dried....and dry it is......have fun reading......then get back to me... I know who I work for ...do you?

Police depts and abuse....show me a real PD that's been around 100 years without an incident, and I'll show you someone good at burying details....Police aren't bad whether there in Canada, Podunk, Texas or BFD, Indiana....like all humans there are good and bad ones and they work everywhere. You say Houston police are bad and I'll tell you a story about some cops that caught the guys breaking into our house.

I'll leave you with a little story about what supporting the troops means.....or doesn't.........here in CA they've got alot of Navy and Marines. Two major bases are on Coronado island here in SD. Big sign ..."Coronado supports the troops".....right below...cop with radar gun hitting all the troops going to work........then as most of the folks packed up their carrriers and went to war.....Coronado decided to cut costs by eliminating school bus service to the bases.....only....and went on a campaign, even on the news to explain that the Navy should pay for bus service because we don't pay property taxes....well....if a navy family rents a house, they pay property taxes via the landlord....right, and the the US government subsidizes schools for every dependent child enrolled.....whether their parents live in gov't quarters on base, rent or own. So effectively we pay twice. When military families affected threatened to refuse to sign the paperwork allowing the subsidy, the schools threatened to expell thier kids. So how's that for supporting the troops.......

What do you think the troops want? You to support thier mission or to let them get on with business becasue they know their kids are getting to school and stuff at home is good.......think about that!

Out.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironhorseman

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

Here We go, And heres what i have to say, and i took this from Ed

Show me the Weapons of mass Distructioin, and I will Gladly change my point of view, What i don't want is some Doanld Rumesfeld Shilly-shally Dilly-dally answer uhh...weell...WMd's...hmmm..oh look a shiny dog.

Or george W Bush and his inability to admit he was wrong, because he is so G** D*** Bull headed, You can only hope you will never be as bull headed as him

I tell you Ironhorseman, there propoganda has sunk into your brain... They've engulfed you.

Please for everything Holy and human,Tell me you don't really believe what you were saying, and that was just a crap cut and paste job.

Because i cant stand Idiotic people, Anyone who thinks Benjamin Franklin invented the light bulb, isn't even worthy enough to be on the ballot. (YES SIR! GW thought Franklin invented the lightbulb, thew one over your head) That to me is so stupid, I could have told you 6 minutes after being born that Thomas Edison invented the light bulb...

I can't eblieve he said that, I think he is almost at the point where he is Intellectually inept!

May God have pitty on his soul.

Nope, propaganda has not engulfed. Remeber, you are the one in Canada. I've heard they filter the news up there.

Bush did the right thing. Iraq, Afghanistan, they're all the same. They both once supported terrorism.

I don't know where you got that part about Bu***hinking Franklin invented the light bulb. So what? At least we have a decent, honest, and truth-telling president in office for a change. If he honestly thought Ben Franklin invented the light bulb then he honestly thought that. He'll not try and invent some lie as to why he said that but admit he'd made a mistake (if he really did say that). He probably knows it was Edison he just made a mistake.

But make no mistake: Saddam needed to be removed and you'll find that the people of Iraq were grateful for that.

Sorry about the above

But no, Canada doesn't Edit the news, CNN does for a fact, because during the process of the war, there were a lot of no casualties, for some odd Reaosn, Now don't get me wrong, no casuaties is an excellent thing.. BUT CBC was reporting a very differnt story, A story of Troublesome, all of the problems which were going on, in depth deatils, matter of Fact if D. Rumesfeld knew CBC was reporting like this, hed throw a fit..

I could answer Questions reporters were asking from newspapers like The new york times, or USA today, based on what i had seen on A Canadian network... If only you could get CBc or CTV in the states...

Now you'll not like this part, but in Canada, we have a network known as AL Jazeer. the Arabic Network which broadcasts Acvtaul pictures of teh war, Now if you'll recall, and maybe this is your first time hearing this, The USDa had a missle that went "astray" and hit the Al-Jazeer news broadcasting Satelite.. Now why... no one can qy=uite figure out

although every Canadin well tell you, it was the grim truth they were broadcasting

And they opperate in Canada!

I don't know or have seen Al-Jazeer USA...

[Anonymous]

Dammit Dan, thanks. But I don't know if I expressed myself well enough so that Dan felt he had to come to my rescue. Just let me say this, any country, and I mean any country, feel they want to take a dig at us, will find me and my family ready to take them on. We are prepared to defend our shores to the last, but not for wars on any country that did not attack or show any sign of attacking us.

[ironhorseman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Your circlular logic is astounding.
In one post, you lable the "media" as liberal, biased and misleading, then, later in the same post, quote CNN as a impecable source of news, and recommend we watch a made for TV documentery on the Discovery channel.

Then you refer to the UN sanctions as a joke, but then used the exact same sanctions as justification for invading another country.

So, which are they, jokes or justification?

You stated that the people of Afganistan, Iraq, Iran are all the same, yet later, expressed indignant at your version of racisim down south.

"Their all in it together"...yeah, just run your fanny over there and thell them that.

So, because the wardrobe of choice over there is a turban and a robe, instead of jeans and tee shirts, its ok to lump all the people of that region together as a "them"?
All them ragheads are the same, right?
All them sandrats gotta be terrorist, right?
After all, they are all the same, right?

You followed that superbly racist "them" statement by directing us to read your works on Linclon, who was dealing and concerned with an American civil war, and American racisim, as a way to justify the invasion, in modern times, of a foreign country.

Utterly and completly astounding.

David Duke could have used you as a spin doctor.

Rationalization taken to the level of a art form!

You sound just like my 17 year old daughter, who loves to use other people's bad actions or mistakes to justify her own.

"if they hadnt done that, I wouldnt have had to ...."(fill in the blank with just about any stupid stunt or silly excuse a17 year old uses)

Real plain and real simple.

Yes, we are the worlds policemen, I whole heartedly agree.

And, as the worlds policemen, we are watched by everyone else.

We are the leaders of the free world, both in military might, and economic power.

We consume their goods, and still feed the rest of the world.

So, as the worlds policemen, we should lead by example...

Nothing we do in the public arena should dim the light Lady Liberity holds so high, and which promises so much.

And right now, to the rest of the world, we look like the bad guys.

Simply put, there are not, and have not been any WMDs in Iraq for years.

If there was, the current administration would have plastered photographs of them on billboards nation wide to cover their fannys.

The are not there now, were not there before we invaded.

We publicly claimed they were there, and used that as a excuse to invade, regardless of other reasons, real or imagined.

And publicly, we have had to state that we were wrong, there is no WMDs in Iraq.

Show me a working nucelar weapon found in Iraq in the last five years.

Show me a 55 gallon drum of a usuable Bio weapon found in Iraq in the last five years.

Show me recent photos of the facilities to produce either one, taken in the last two years.

Do that, please...

But dont take my country to war based solely on the fear of what might happen, or suppositions about something that could be built, in a few years.

Dont create widows and orpahans, killing Amreica's finest young men and women, by jumping at shadows, because you are afraid of something that dosnt yet exsist.

You still dont seem to realize how utterly and completly this changes the worlds view of America, her people, and her goverment.

We didnt, and never can, win the "war on terror", especially when we act as terrible as the terrorist, and invent such nonsencial phrases as "the war on terror" to justify revenge, especially when we sought such revenge on the wrong people, in the wrong country, for acts they didnt commit.

To hide the fact that this is revenge for 9/11 makes us out as to be as cowardly as the terrorist.

You want revenge for 9/11?

Then get Bin Laden, and destroy and conquer the country that currently allows him the freedom he and his religious fanatics denied the victims in the Towers and the Pentagon.
Attack the enemy, not his next door neighbor.

Want to make an example to the rest of the world that, that when you jack with America, on American soil, we jack right back?

Then do what we, as Americans, have been taught to do, the right thing, for the right reasons.

In regards to your former room mate...

Besides India, Germany, Russia, England and Mexico, I have been there too, visiting my niece, who was in South Africa, tracking whale migration for the Texas A&M marine mammal study.
Her and her husband are now the managers of the Raptor Education and Rehibilitation program for the State of Alabama.

Yeah, another classic red neck state like Texas.

You know, all us southerners are the same, uneducated, racist red necks, who dont know nuthing except how to make moonshine, right?

I was guessing about your roomate, but from what I saw there, it is still segerated, no matter what the Discovery Channel and National Geographic shows say.

It most likely will be gone in one more generation.

They are making tremendous progress, by undoing generations of fear and misconceptions about each others cultures and what they want South Africa to become.

We Americans could learn a lesson or two from them.

Of course, us southern folks are too dull and dumb to grasp the Captain America, mill worked falls into a vat of molten steel and emerges as...comicbook version of the rest of the worlds politics.

We are just dumb enough to want to make America, and what she stands for, real.

Ed

Ed, your comprehesion is astounding.

You think I'm contradicting myself but I'm not. I merely pointed out the contradictions. The U.N. passes resolutions over Saddam's violations yet can't enforce them. YOU'RE the one that said the U.N. should have been the ones to deal with Saddam. Just because the U.S. does what the U.N. should have done makes us the bad guys now?

Also I did not call CNN impecable. They put together a good documentary but that was in 1991. I pointed out how they've changed in the years since. They're not even an American based company.

No, I did not state the people of Afghanistan and Iraq are all the same, I've never mentioned Iran. I said it was all the same terrorist. Saddam and bin Ladin and the Taliban were all in it together. Who knows who else? The government does, they havne't told us because that would compromise security right now. Maybe in the future after war on terrorism is over.

Abraham Lincoln was responding to the southern states seceeding and the events at hand. The last straw for having the civil war was the states rebellion and the firing on Ft. Sumpter. Why did the states seceed? It wasn't because the government was trying to abolish slavery it was about the govenment not giving equal representation of slave states in Congress or in number of slave vs free states. The point that you missed is this is history and we can't escape it. We have to act. We have to go to war. We're not warring with Islam or Muslims or Arabs, we're warring with terrorist. I was not being racist on any comments I've made at any point on this thread.

And using other's bad acitions to justify my own? OK, so Saddam's weapons program, which is a bad action, is not a legitimate justification to act against him? Oh, wait until he attacks us, then we'll react. Well, if he had attacked us, which would be a bad action, then reacting to this would be a poor excuse because it would then justify a war?

You want me to show you the weapons Saddam had. PROVE to me he didn't have them.

You say "We publicly claimed they were there, and used that as a excuse to invade, regardless of other reasons, real or imagined." Yeah, based on intelligence, surveillance, informants. There wasn't a doubt then. Maybe there's a doubt now, but the government didn't lie. It was very clear why we went to war. The story as not changed, the reasons have not changed. Even though the Iraqi people were freed from tyranny that was not the primary objective and not the reason for going to war.

How many more times do we have to be attacked on our soil and have our civilians killed? Why should we wait for it to happen? We can an will win the war on terror. Going to Iraq was all part of it. Syria and Libya are having second thoughts about their weapons programs. How many times do I have to restate this?

But if want to be a "dumb southerner" like you called yourself then that's alright by me. You think we could learn a lesson from South Africa? How come they've had overwhelming prejudices this long? America has led the way in elminating prejudices. Racism in America is kept alive by private individuals, not sponsored by governments or businesses anymore.

You wanted to know why we went to war and I told you. Whether or not you think it's right or wrong it's still the reason and I can't change your opinion on it. You've also got several facts wrong throughout this thread and I've set the record straight. I've provided as many examples and explanations as I can think of.

But you think we went to war on a supposition. OK, that's the way you see it, even though I don't see it that way. I don't see where Colin Powell said "Suppose Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. In a hypothetical situation where, when, and how can he use them and against who or who will he sell them to?" I'll ask again: did you see Colin Powell's meeting at the U.N. back in January or February 2003? I was at work at the time, my supervisor watched but wouldn't tell wouldn't talk about. I had to rely on newspapers and other TV news to see what he had to say. Suppose I find a transcript? Would that settle this debate once and for all? Where can I get a transcript?

[ironhorseman]

This looks like the transcript:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html

[dharmon]

Could we perhaps change the name of this thread? It stopped being about the troops awhile ago.

[Anonymous]

I'm not touching This thread anymore with a 12 Foot pole!!

This is getting repetative,

Iornhorseman, If you want to beleiev in what you want to believe in thats Fine, thats your loss, thats your perogative.

I'm not going to try and make you see my way anymore.

Beleieve in what you want.. fine, great, dandy, excellent.

We all support the troops, and thats as much as you need to know.

Period, end of sentance, end of discussion.

[Anonymous]

GODBLESS ARE TROOPS