Inciting to hijack, one count. I’m surprised at you, Tomn.
I call for a cite on the “sloppy methodology” remark. What I’ve read indicates that a search for original sources proved fruitless: no newspaper articles about actual incidents but only reactions to hearsay. You claim to have the facts at hand. Bring 'em.
“…I have heard several of these stories.”? I’ve heard stories of people being kidnapped by aliens and subjected to probes up their Nixon. Don’t make it so.
No it is not, you are just acknowledging that you are hijacking the thread, Deal with the OP.
We are creating more of the enemy by remaining there.
That is the light of a straw man argument, if you define that only some in the extreme left do that, fine. (some on the extreme right do spit on soldiers that oppose the war) But saying that “others have proven that it is a lie that everyone [on the left] supports our troops.” is not correct: no one here made the statament that everyone on the left support our troops, unlikely that Der Trihs would have said that anyhow, therefore it is a straw man argument. And I have to say that the majority that I have encountered that oppose the war, do not think like Der Trihs.
I am also surprised at Tomndebb, IIRC the most reliable testimonial from the SDMB came from old Triscademus, but it was to describe how right-wingers that were upset that he was a soldier protesting the Vietnam War spit on him!
I support the troops, too. That’s why I oppose the war, and that’s why I oppose George Bush. One war protestor does more to support the troops than a hundred thousand magnetic car ribbons. I am firmly convinced that there is nothing in the world that you could do that would more support the troops than bringing down the Bush administration. I’m not acting out of partisan politics, here, but out of a concern for this country and its citizens that is every bit as strong as your own. It would be nice if you would acknowledge that, at least once. It feels quite a bit like you aren’t listening to anyone else in this thread.
And what if there is no way to do that? Do we keep quiet, and let an intolerable situation persist, because we cannot find a perfect solution?
For those of you who may not have seen it, here is the full text of Colonel Wilkerson’s blasting of “the Cheney cabal”.
Some juicy quotes:
So, given the bolded part, I’d say he’s neither got huge balls nor is he delusional. He’s just too weak willed, too weakminded, too just plain stupid to be President, and too stupid to know it.
Compare what Bush and his supporters say (Stay the course, God is on our side) to what his own church says about this situation
That is a freaky and scary parallel to what Kwiatkoski (Lt Col, retired) said years ago. All about the “Iraq desk” in the Pentagon, the infusion or invasion of the Pentagon by neocons, and the deliberate manufacture of "evidence " for war. It also meshes well with the CIA, the Downing Street Memo, and all the OTHER documents that the Bush supporters willfully and consciously and deliberately ignore.
In war, people die. Unfortunate. True. By until the war is over, the idea is to have as few of them die—particulalry those on your own side—as possible. Isn’t it possible, especially if the facts are on your side, to make the decision to bring troops home without pissing on the decision to go to war. Isn’t it possible that it may be wise to go to war AND wise to withdraw at a certain time? What I am saying is that if you believe that the war should end, that you owe it to our troops to couch it in those terms. After their home and we can have a less emoptyional discussion we can then evaluate the reasons, our leaders, etc.
You and I walk into a bar. You get into a beef with some guy over who has the next pool game. As you get chest to chest with this guy his buddy comes up and stands right next to him, implying that if you fight one you’re fighting both. I see this and come stand next to my friend, Miller, letting those other two guys know that you have support, too. But then twenty guys get up and come to their friends’ aid. At this poiont, I don’t know about you, I’m all for trying to talk things out. Violence no longer seems such a good way settle things, regardless of how “right” we thought we were.
That was my point with the hypothetical. The united and overwhelming force we can present, the less fighting seems to be a reasonable course of action for the smaller force.
I don’t think this argument is valid. If it were, any President that sends troops into battle would be the one least supportive of the troops.
What strawman? I’m a little confused by this paragraph. Can you explaiin further? I will say that until Der Trihs revealed the sentiments he did, I was operating under the assumption that everyone supported the troops. I doubted it’s varacity, but I was giving all the benefit of the doubt.
I find it encouraging that at least one person who opposes the war has taken issue with Der Trihs. The fact that more people haven’t both surprises and saddens me. Are there more of him than I thought?
From my long post that **magellian01 ** and other administration defenders are purposely ignoring:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm
I forgot to remark on that: here is the demonstration that Democrats actually now how to keep secrets even if their party will be hurt; Republicans, as the Plame case shows, just can not keep a secret or manipulate it if it will benefit them. Party before country.
I don’t think there is a lot like Der Trihs, but I already posted why your insinuation here is a straw man, and there you go again with the continuation of this hijack. Deal with the issue at hand.
A more accurate version would involve the bigger crowd waving weapons, they’ve just murdered your father, and some in the background are raping your 12 year old sister. Oh, and they include the police chief and mayor, so you can’t go for help and expect any. Do you back down and try reason, or do you try to hurt and kill as many as possible before they kill you ?
It’s a obvious reference to the fact that Bush and friends keep betraying the troops.
Gigo, we’ve all provided cites that support our views. I feel like I’m being ignored here too. I think it’s time to put up or shut up. magellan01, do you have any reliable cites to support what you are saying? Do you have anything at all besides beer hall analogies?
Bush has big balls. Happy?
Your opinion is noted.
To quote what I wrote:
It says that the idea that “everyone” supports the troops is a lie. Even you seem to agree that Der Trihs proves this point.
It says that “there are those on the left who don’t just oppose the war or The President, but the young men and women who are serving their country.” You say that “if you define that only some in the extreme left do that, fine.” Please show me where those two statements are in conflict.
Thank you for fulfilling my request. Please continue.
Who are these “we”? I think american people abuse of the “we”. Were you consulted about the war? Did you vote in favor of it? Did you even vote in favor of a candidate supporting it?
War is an outstandish decision to take in a democracy. It changes overnight hundred of thousands of people in state-sponsored murderers and cannonflesh. That the one decision I deny the government the legitimacy to make in my behalf. That’s why I’m a conscientious objector. Nobody, absolutely nobody, has any right to tell me for what cause I should kill or be killed. I never sent nor will ever send anybody to a war. I owe these people nothing, except if I personnally support the cause they’re fighting for.
My conscience. Nothing else and nobody else.
It is not. Either they should be there and should be supported, or they shouldn’t be there at the first place and shouldn’t receive support.
I didn’t make any statement about this particular war. I’m extremely reluctant about making this kind of statement.
It’s not the most right thing. The lower you’re in the food chain, the smaller your personnal responsability. But not having a large share of responsability doesn’t mean that you deserve support. It might even mean that you have to be shot at, as sad as it might be. Aren’t they themselves shooting at people who don’t deserve it, either? Why would it be more “right” to support an american solidier than an Iraki one? If any, the Iraki probably deserves more sympathy because he didn’t even have the choice to enlist or not at the first place.
Once again, war is an outstandish decision and situation. Sharing the same citizenship becomes irrelevant in such a situation, and only who’s fighting for “good” side (assuming someone actually is) matters in the same way being from the same neighborhood or not becomes irrelevant in a case of homicide. Only who killed whom and did he have a legitimate cause to do so (like self-defense) is.
Definitely. They should pay. A leader who lied in order to wage a war should receive the harshest punishment available. A leader who was just mistaken should immdiatly resign or be impeached. War is not usual business. There’s absolutely no acceptable room for deceit or mistake.
This still doesn’t mean that the people who were sent to fight should receive support if the cause is unjust. They deserve, once again, less support than the people who were sent to fight for the just cause (the “ennemy”, IOW). That’s a sad state of things, but aren’t the ennemy soldiers in the same situation.? Why wouldn’t they deserve support?
Absolutely not. Many of my great-uncles fought and some died for a stupid cause. One fought and died for a just one. My grandfather was a “traitor”, and my father both voluntereed for a just war and latter became a traitor, and ended up in an Very Bad Place ™ as a result. They deserved support not because they were following a french flag, or pissed on said flag, but because they made the right choice (or just randomly happened to find themselves on the good side).
There is such a thing as a just war. A lot of people who fought in unjust or pointless ones deserves pity. But the only ones deserving support are the ones fighting and dying for a just cause.
And once again, I’m the only person I allow to decide on whether a war is just or not. I do not feel morally held by a decision made by anybody else on this issue. And certainly not by someone who happens to have been elected by 50.01% of my fellow citizens because he had a nicer tie.
Ultimately it is up to them. “I was following orders” isn’t always a valid defence. There has always been desertors, refuzniks, traitors, simply people who “didn’t fire a shot” or even people who choose not to enlist. Even more true for a professionnal army as opposed to draftees who had even less choice a the forst place. Obviously, having the choice between a firing squad and fighting in an unjust war largely diminishes one’s responsability, by comparison with the general ordering you to do so. But if you’re dropping bombs on some city, you can’t be absolved of all responsability. What are you doing in this plane at the first place? Were you put in it at gunpoint?
If you believe so, what support were you ready to offer to Iraki draftees at the beginning of the war? It wasn’t their business to decide, either,was it? What makes them less deserving of your support?
Neither Beamish nor Lembcke ever interviewed an actual human being, yet they published “findings” that were based on newspaper surveys. Perhaps that is not “sloppy” so much as “limited.” Nearly every testimony of a vet regarding having been spit upon is related in the context of a personal confrontation between two people, not in the context of mobs of protestors that would actually inspire a news story. (The testimonies regarding beatings by angered vets (both by the vets and their victims) have similarly been on the order of two or three individuals having a brief encounter that would not have made the news.*)
If the claim is that protestors never lined up at airports and spat volleys of phlegm at returning vets, then I would say that Beamish and Lembcke provided the evidence to support that limited claim. However, their reports do not support the wider claim adopted by various people that “spitting” never happened and I have yet to see a clarification by either of them regarding the difference between what they studied and what has since been reported. (I hold Lembcke in particular disdain on this point. Beamish simply made a study to discover whether an event had been reported; Lembcke used a similar study as the basis for a significant portion of a book on the topic in which he chose to never seek any other sources–I call that sloppy.)
*(I have never paid attention to general claims that returning vets were beating up people. On the other hand, I have noticed among several vets and protestors of my acquaintance brief references to violent responses to individual acts of scorn, either in the context of “I clocked some guy who insisted on getting in my face and calling me baby-killer at Joe’s bar” or in the context of “I made the mistake of getting in some guy’s face at Al’s Pub and he decked me.” I do not have hundreds of such anecdotes, perhaps a half dozen, but none were told in the manner of bragging and I have no reason to doubt that some conflict occurred, even if it was not as conclusive as the tellers would have made it.)
Here’s some real support for the troops.
Okay, if that’s possible, let’s see you do it. Pretend you’re an anti-war liberal, and sell bringing the troops home right now without mentioning that every single justification for going to war has been false, that the execution of the war has been criminally mismanaged since before our boots hit the ground over there, that the administration has regularly made decisions designed to enrich a select cadre of cronies at the expense of the lives of our men and women over there. After you take all that off the table, what is there left? And how do you counter the continuing lies from the other side about why we’re over there and what we’re doing, if pointing out the fact that these reasons are lies is somehow damaging or disloyal to our troops? What arguments are left? “War sucks?” That wasn’t enough to stop us going in the first place; I think we need something more substantial than that to bring a halt to this royal clusterfuck.
I don’t see one single way your analogy applies to the situation in Iraq, except for the implicit violence. How about, instead of crappy analogies, you answer my original question, using the actual situation in Iraq? If the insurgents know that not all Americans hate Iraqis and want to see them tortured, if they know that a significant portion of Americans want us out of Iraq altogether, do you think they will be more vicious and angry, or less? Do you think they will be more likely to commit terrorist acts against civilians, or less?
On the contrary, in that situation, fighting only seems to be the only way out, because there is no one on the other side who gives a shit about what happens to you.
What? That makes no sense, unless you assume that every president is as corrupt and incompetent as George Bush. This is, thankfully, empirically impossible. The Bush administration has made decision after decision that has put our troops in danger for no reason. There’s no reason not to supply our troops with body armor. There’s no reason to conquer the country without securing gigantic ammo dumps, giving effectively unlimtied arms and material to the insurgents. There’s no reason to disband the Iraqi army without disarming them, creating a huge force of unemployed, disaffected men with military training and tools to oppose us, while we lack sufficient manpower to close the borders and prevent terrorists from entering the country. There’s no reason to allow the rampant looting and destruction of the nation’s water and electricity plants, destroying the quality of life for every Iraqi and creating even more disaffected and angry natives who want a reason to hit back. Bush has fucked up every single aspect of this invasion: he is a menace to every American stationed in Iraq, not just because he sent them there, but because he lacks the abilities and the resolve to lead them properly.
I’m refering to your constant statements like, “But the point I was really trying to make is that we owe support to our men and women in uniform once they are in the field of battle. On this I am firm and unapologetic.” The clear implication being that your opponents do not support the troops. This is bullshit, and damned insulting, to boot.
I don’t have time to pick a fight with every single person on the board I disagree with. I’ve got my hand full dealing with you. You have a problem with Der Trihs, you deal with him.
Nope.
Seems like one more mistaken lesson from Vietnam.
The British had no serious protests against the Boer war until late in the conflict, yet the Boers campaigned until they were overwhelmed.
There were no visible protests in Germany between 1939 and 1945, yet the French, Dutch, and others continued to resist in the face of a “united” opponent.
When the U.S.S.R. went into Afghanistan, there were no protests at home for several years, yet the Afghanis continued to resist (and recruit outside help) throughout the long period prior to the first fledgling protests in Russia and its associated states.
There is simply no evidence that protests in the invading country actually have much effect on resistance. The claim that protests “strengthen” resistance appears to be merely one more way to suppress dissent.