Hail the US troops, change membername in YELLOW RIBBON. Or get banned.

The BBQ Pit
321

What if they’re not?

And anyway, so what if they are? By extension, should a member get banned if they speak out on behalf of al-Qaeda? Should a member get banned if they express support for Saddam Hussein? After all, support for these organizations does imply support for their practices.

Such support would be repugnant, of course–but not in a banworthy fashion. People with hideous political beliefs are allowed around here all the time, and that’s a good thing.

But even if you want to ban people for their political beliefs in certain cases, your post above is, as Aldebaran has pointed out, a canard: many of the resistance are just fighting to remove what they see as an oppressive regime, aren’t fighting on behalf of Hussein or bin Laden. They just want Iraqis to be able to decide their own fates, and they genuinely believe the US isn’t going to allow them to do that.

Are they wrong? I can’t say. Are they wrong to pick up guns? I believe they are. But then, I believe that any US soldier in Iraq has got the strongest possible moral duty to drop her weapons and refuse to fight any more, either.

Daniel

322

I can’t help but wonder if our dear conservative minority would’ve had the same attitude to the war, had it been wagered by a Democrat president. I have a strong feeling that the attitude would’ve been that the US should keep to itself, and not get involved trying to bring democracy to a “backwards” part of the world…

Why, maybe that would be the case:

Link
Link
Link
Link
Link

[QUOTE=By Stanley Meisler
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON (1995)]
Accepting the argument by Secretary of State Warren Christopher that the issue is now “an acid test of American leadership” in the world, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and other congressional Republicans on Thursday reluctantly endorsed President Clinton’s planned deployment of 20,000 troops to enforce the peace agreement in Bosnia.cite
[/QUOTE]

323

Well, gee, Shodan, how about we set up a standard disclaimer, just for you! Everytime we broach any sort of criticism, we will start out with “Of course, I really, really don’t like the Hussein regime, and we are glad that he’s gone but!…” Or better still, why don’t you just assume that we are all quite sane, thank you very much, and really don’t feel the need to belabor the stunningly obvious.

And you wonder why they don’t love us. You do, you really do, you just can’t figure out why those ignorant, benighted slobs aren’t simply gushing with gratitude to have us come in and sort things out for them. In case its escaped your attention, true democracies are few and far between in the whole friggin’ world. Except, perhaps, for our true blue buddy Pakistan, which stands in the very front ranks of military dictatorships when it comes to committment to democracy and freedom. And Uzbekistan, now there is a veritable showcase…

There’s probably no rule about hoping somebody gets banned. So I suppose I could as well. I won’t, of course, not being an asshole.

324

Yep and Bush ran on ‘no nation building’ but I can’t imagine any reason, any event since then that could have possibly changed their mine. Nope coming up blank. Must be hypocrits.

325

…and you would be quite wrong! This conservative, and most of the others I know, have been quite scornful of the wimpy way Democrat presidents try to deal with situations calling for the use of the military. Johnson fought a pulled-punches war in Vietnam, one we could easily have won had it not been for his fear of pissing off China. It’s like getting into a fight with someone and not wanting to hit them too hard for fear they’ll really get mad. Carter was perhaps the biggest wimp of them all, and was so concerned that we not use more force than the absolute minimal amount that might get the job done, that he sent an undermanned and under-equipped helicopter mission to try to rescue our hostages and would up with a disaster on his hands. And then we have Clinton throwing a few ineffectual missles at Bin Laden and bypassing opportunities to grab or kill him when he had the chance because his advisors deemed such action politically inexpedient.

I would have had a hell of a lot more respect for all these guys had they done what Bush is doing, and fighting a fight in order to win it instead of just for appearances’ sake or to try to get by without pissing anybody off.

326

Yeah. Because, you know, all those Iraqis who took part in 9/11, right?

327

Yeah becuase thats exactly what I said.

A major attack on the U.S. just might change some isolationists minds doncha think?

328

Maybe I’d buy that as a cause if we’d actually gone after another country that had ties to the 9/11 hijackers. Like, say, Saudi Arabia. But instead we swept through Afghanistan (justified) and swept out again right into a country that had nothing to do with anything that happened that day. And now we’re in the middle of Hell because of it, with no exit strategy.

329

Starv:

Well, we are definitely not doing that, by gum! We have certainly made it clear that we ain’t worried about pissing people off, nosiree! We are the tough guys. We get attacked by Morocco, and we feel like invading Belgium to retaliate, we’re just gonna go right ahead and do it!

We don’t care, we don’t have to care, we’re the Americans!

And by the way, thanks for the Golden Oldie, the ol’ “we would have won in Viet Nam, but those wimpy liberals wouldn’t let us!” canard. Haven’t seen that particular line of bull pucky, kinda miss it.

But just as you say, GeeDubya is a firm and forceful leader. So was Custer.

330

Then call them hypocrites for that line of reasoning. But to say look how some Republicans didn’t want to go to war and now they do while ignoring a logical reason why they would change their mind is stupid.

331

You didn’t check the links, did you?

Um, and … hm… Yeah, that’s right, bombing Iraq (cite), but that was of course just wagging the dog, so that doesn’t count… and deploying troops to former Yugoslavia… to… ahem… secure peace, democracy and ousting a dictator guilty of genocide…hmmm that sounds really familiar… since they’ve been the arguments of the conservatives when the box with WMDs was found to be empty… only back then, the GOP opposed it…

The war in Iraq has shit all to do with 9/11, other than as a pretext. It gave the Bush admin. an excuse to drop the isolationist tendencies, but it wasn’t the reason. Had Gore been in office, the same conservatives who now denounce Alde for his rage, would have been stark raving mad at Gore for being in Iraq instead of Afghanstin or Saudi-Arabia.

In my book, morality is an absolute and doesn’t change depending on who is setting the policy. Either something is right and just or it isn’t, and it doesn’t matter who is saying it. Anything else is realpolitik. I would’ve had a lot more respect for Bush, had he said: “Once we’re finished cleaning up Afghanistan and settling things with the Saudis, we’re gonna go over to Saddam and take care of him. He’s not playing by the rules set down by treaties, he’s murdering his own people and we dohave an interest in seeing that the resources of the country can be helped to ballance the power the Saudis sway over the region. To help us, we have a group of Iraqi exiles, as advisors. Besides, we have a moral obligation since my dad left Saddam in power.”

332

Gaspode: Nope, I didn’t read the links. Busted. (In my defense though, my time here is often limited and fragmented because of the needs of others in the household to use the computer.)

jayjay, luci, Gaspode: Your entire premise throughout the recent discussion is false. We didn’t, and no one ever said we did, invade Iraq because they flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Gaspode: You posed the belief that conservatives would have objected to any military action taken by Democrats. I refuted it, at least as far as I’m concerned. You ignore this opinion and turn right around and assert still that we would have. Why pose the question if you’re going to supply your own answer?

333

Fair enough, SA. I apologize. I do not think there is a conservative hive mind here, but the comment from treis

and

got mixed in with my reply to you.

So he did bring 9/11 into the mix. I’m not sure about his political leanings, though.

334

What’s this from Richard Myers then?

335

Damn right. Willful misunderstanding, outragous hyperbole, arguing with everyone (including those who agree with him) even if it means inventing arguments, stereotyping citizens of the United States - all typical Aldebaran SOP. And people still wonder why he’s so disliked?

336

Sure, ban them.

In a word, horseshit.

If they were genuinely interested in “Iraqis deciding their own fate”, pretty much by definition they would support the removal of Saddam, who prevented them from anything of the kind. And they would not be acting to kill and terrorize their fellow Iraqis to prevent them from staging and participating in elections in Iraq.

A slip of the tongue, I imagine - notice the correction from “the same insurgents” to “the same type of insurgents”. Terrorists, in other words, are terrorists.

Given that someone claiming to be bin Laden spoke recently appointing Zarqawi as his chief lieutenant in Iraq, I think these kinds of connections are fairly clear and well-established by this time. Terrorists hate us. Some of the terrorists crash planes into the WTC, some invade Kuwait, some stage bombings in Madrid to try to force the Spanish out of Iraq, and some work to disrupt free elections in Iraq. What they have in common is that they are all terrorists, and all enemies of freedom. And therefore all enemies of the US in particular and the West in general. Anywhere that secular government and respect for human rights and the rule of law predominate.

Regards,
Shodan

337

What ridiculous hypocritical crap.
I said nothing else then
" reading posts like xxxx made me feel like xxx".

So what?

When US soldiers come here and state they are
a) In Iraq
b) going to Iraq

What are they going to do there? Throw tomatoes at the Iraqis who don’t like it all that much to have them acting like they own the country?.

They are going there/are there to kill if ordered to kill, or even to kill simply because they feel “threatened”. They are shooting at Iraqis, they are tortruring Iraqis, they are rounding up Iraqis, they break into their homes, they kill wounded men, the murder a wounded young boy and call it “mercy killing” as if they talk about an animal, they** act as if they OWN the damn country.**

Now a question for you, fool:

How can you know that I am never there, hence exposed to all the violence of these very soldiers stating on this very message board that they are in Iraq or are leaving for Iraq? How can you know that nobody of my family is ever there?

All the above is voicing and posting a direct threat to me. ME as in **member of this message board. **

An other question for you:
I have friends who wereborn there.
It is their country.
I know a little girl that was killed there.
Can you tell me she was not killed by any of the soldiers who post here?

I see members advocating invasions of other nations in my region, “nuking” my region, killing all Muslims.

You know what, fool?
That is also posting a direct threat to me. ME, as member of this message board.

If I see soldiers posting here, people here cheering them, calling them “heros” and supporting them attacking Iraqis, calling the civilians killed “collateral DAMAGE” or even EGGS, defending "mercy killing of an Iraqy boy as if thery talk about an animal.
In all that I am reading what they say about that little girl I knew.
I am also reading what they would say about me when I would be killed by your damn Heros.

You know what?
Fuck you and all the other damn hypocrite pigs posting here.

338

Nah.

339

They don’t need to go far to be instigated.
Reading, collecting and distributing the sickening arrogant, self rightheous racist hypocritical posts on US message boards is as far as they need to go to have an abundance of useful propaganda material.

Salaam. A

340

Aldebaran, a sincere question for you:

Ever since my daughter was born 24 years ago, little girls have been my favorite people in the world. I adore them and I can certainly see why you would be infuriated to learn that a little girl you had been close to had been killed. I would be, too.

However, on a broader scale, are you not pleased to think that for every Iraqi death occurring today it is likely that ten, fifteen or twenty would have occurred under Hussein? Are you not pleased that, overall, many, many, fewer Iraqis are dying daily than under Hussein? And are you not pleased that once Iraqis are able to assume control of their own destiny and run their country themselves, it is virtually certain Iraqis won’t be dying as a result of their government at anywhere near the rate they would have under Hussein, or even worse, one of his sons?

I am not having a problem at all with your being incensed that innocent Iraqis are dying during the war in Iraq. But I’m very puzzled as to why you don’t seem to be pleased that overall many fewer innocent Iraqis are dying now, and even fewer will die in the future, than would have been the case had the U.S. action not occurred. In other words, is it better for a great many more innocent Iraqis to die at the hands of other Iraqis than it is for a great many fewer to die at the hands of Westerners? I know you probably don’t normally think of the situation in these terms, but when you do what would your answer be?

Respectfully,
SA