“Juggernaut” means an unstoppable, destroying force, the name a corrupt version of Jagganath, and named after the image of an Indian deity who was pulled on a very large and heavy cart that was reported to have occasionally killed its devotees:
It was also the name of a poorly conceived Allioed War weapon during WWII. See our thread on weird weapons of WWII.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=332138&page=2
…
Terrorists can be from any country, any religion, it is the hate that makes them terrorists. The current constitution will not be the finished constitution. Changes will be made for more freedom as time passes. Without a constitution there is no chance for freedom.
In other words, the facts of the terrorist attack of 9/11 are completely irrelevant to the Iraq war.
Given that governments in the region are not prone to grant more freedom over time, why is it a given that Iraq will become more democratic later?
Wrong. Saddam had always given money to support terrorists. He and his party terrorized the Iraq people constantly. He gassed them to death, he cut their tongues out, and numerous other horrible tortures and murders.
True, we thought he had WMDs, but we couldn’t find them. Still don’t mean he didn’t have them. I can’t tell you all the reasons we attacked him. But we and the UN gave him many chances to shape up. He ignored them. It really doesn’t matter now how we got there, it matters that we finish the job. Give the Iraq people the freedom they deserve, and withdraw which will surely happen in good time.
If we pull out now, there will be wholesale slaughter as there was in Nam. The terrorists will not love us any more and we will be fighting them somewhere else, maybe in our country in a short time.
If someone refuses to fight due to religious reasons, conscientious objector, I can respect that. The most decorated hero of WWI was a conscientious objector.
But this is an all volunteer army over there, no one made them go, no one insisted they enlist. They are adults and anti-war radicals make their job just that much harder by siding with the enemy calling for a pull-out of the troops. I don’t understand the mentality of the anti-war radicals, what do they really want. Are they afraid? Is money involved? Are they financed by the enemy? I just can’t understand people selling their country out like this. Perhaps they should try living somewhere else.
http://www.villagesoup.com/commletters/letters.cfm?TopicID=5587
In other words, freedom to you means freedom to agree with you and that people who hold other opinions are not entitled to them. I can’t understand why you want to send your countrymen over to be slaughtered. Why don’t YOU live somewhere else?
This may seem like a hijack, but I’m addressing the actual OP. I happened to be listening to a talk radio show on a Cincinnati AM station on Saturday afternoon. I’m not sure if it was the same host the OP refers to, because it was on a different day, but the sentiment of the host was the same. He was adamant that one must agree with the war to support the troops. I commented to my wife that, while we disagreed with our youngest son’s decision to live in an apartment 40 miles from us while he attends college, instead of living with us, we nonetheless have done everything we can to help him implement his decision, including co-signing his lease. Within minutes, a caller came on using essentially the same analogy to illustrate that support and agreement are not the same. The host was impervious to this argument. We changed stations.
It seems obvious to me that one can support the president, the troops, or anyone else without agreeing with their actions.
Indeed. Terrorists who’ve taken innocent lives in the U.S., including the lives of children have come from the Midwest and other places. (Where was Eric Rudolph from?) There’s also the slight matter of the White Separatist groups we harbor in this country. Anyone for invading Idaho or Kansas?
lekatt, my baby brother was at risk of being recalled for this war. Five members of my church, including the son of a friend of mine, are serving in Iraq even as I type. The son of a coworker recently returned from serving over there. I do NOT think they should be required to risk their lives for a war which we were led into by lies and which appears to serve our president’s hubris most. If you support our presence in Iraq so much, I understand recruiters would be thrilled to talk to you.
As for protest being un-American, this country was founded by people who protested against the government to the point that, when they realized the government would refuse to agree to their requests, they founded a new nation. To me, protesting the government doesn’t get any more American.
CJ
I feel in some ways that my hands are tied.
Many of the troops now in Iraq enlisted after 9/11, in a wonderful demonstration of support for their country at a time of crisis. Others enlisted because they recognize that the strength of this country comes from the contributions of patriotic and willing citizens. This President and the military were handed one of the greatest gifts that they could have been given: the resolve of men and women who would put their lives on the line for their country. Their (GWB/DOD) only task was to be responsible in their use of this gift.
If they had only pursued the Taliban in Afghanistan, and not started the war in Iraq, then I would say that they had lived up to their responsibilities. I am a liberal Democrat, but I was fully in support of this action, and would have applauded the resolution of this with the capture of bin Laden. Instead, Bush squandered whatever global goodwill he had (“spendin’ that capital”) by pursuing an agenda he had since the time he took office. And so troops were dispatched to Iraq for reasons that I still can’t understand other than a personal vendetta. I have nothing but contempt for Saddam Hussein, but there is nothing that can be attributed to Hussein’s regime that cannot be found to a greater extent in other more malevolent dictators. Look at the atrocities that take place on a daily basis while we debate whether or not to call it “genocide”.
And so now I feel conflicted; one the one hand I want to put one of those magnetic ribbons on my car to show that I am support of the sacrifices that every one of our troops face every day. And yet, I feel that if I do put that ribbon on my car, I will be perceived as being supportive of Bush, a man who I feel is the worst President of the last 50 years.
So, no, to me (moral) support of the troops is *not * support of the war, and I am angered by those who put it in those terms.
As Garrison Keillor said when someone shouted “Go Army!” at a recent show: “No, they’ve already gone. You should be shouting ‘Come back, Army!’”
It’s also an X-Men villain, and the name of a “Hooters”-like restaurant on ‘The Simpsons’. (OK, it was actually "Juggernauts, I think)
I guess I could swap “people killed” stories with you. I lost an uncle in WWII, classmates in Korea (I was in the Navy Reserves, 8 years) and friends in Nam.
Unfortunately that is what war is all about. If you will read my posts carefully you will understand I am not against protesters, per say, I am against those who in protesting give aid and comfort to the enemy cause. That’s what these anti-war protesters are doing and hurting our own troops. If you haven’t understood yet, Bush is not going to just pull out of Iraq, never, so the protesters are prolonging the conflict because the enemy thinks they might be able to wait us out.
You can write your Congressmen and Representatives, and even the President. You can get petitions signed and turn them in, you can vote in people that will help you with your cause. There is a whole lot of things to do besides siding in public with the enemy so they can broadcast it to their fighters to build morale.
No one has told me where the money for the anti-war protesters is coming from. Why don’t they come forward and be honest about it.
I probably won’t answer any more posts, those who have something to gain will continue not caring.
But what of those petitioners and petition signers? Surely they give as much aid and comfort to those dastardly islamofascists as the protestors. Don’t the also give the enemy reason to believe the war is opposed at
… home and that continued resistance (or terrorist activity if you prefer) will be to their benefit?
Ah, yeah.
“Abdul! Let’s get out there and kill some more American invaders!”
“Oh, what’s the use? They’re just going to steamroll over us anyway. Why get myself killed earlier?”
“Oh, come on! Do it for Allah! Do it for your national pride!”
“I don’t care about that any more.”
“Do it for the anti-war protesters in America!”
“Oh, now you’re talking! Where’s my explosive vest?”
:rolleyes:
The idea that anti-war protesters – merely by protesting – are “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” is as stupid as attending a USC-UCLA football game and being told that failing to cheer one side is implicitly cheering the other.
They think that they can wait us out because they can. We are only motivated by greed, arrogance and fear of embarrassment; they are motivated by rage, revenge and religious fanaticism. I can’t imagine our determination will outlast theirs; we’ve taken far fewer casualties and our determination is flagging, while theirs is growing.
The only thing causing harm to our troops is that they are somewhere they should not be, killing people they should not kill. Write a letter telling Bush to bring them home if you are that worried about them.
Protesting the war is not siding with the enemy, not to mention not everybody agrees who the enemy is. I am far more afraid of Bush and the Republicans than I am of the entire Iraqi population combined. Why ? One has the power to harm me, the other does not.
And if the resistance wants to boost it’s morale, they can just go kill some infidel invaders; they don’t need to watch a bunch of foreigners they don’t care about waving signs.
I don’t know and I don’t care. They are in the right, and even if the money rose from the Pits of Hell directly from the Devil’s hand - they would still be in the right.
And by doing so, you implicitly admit your position is indefensible.
So you aren’t against my protesting as long as no one knows that I am doing so? :rolleyes:
This is indefensible. You want to stop freedom of speech in this country so that we may spread democracy to other countries? :rolleyes:
I’m well aware of what a juggernaut is. I was asking what a jagernaut is.
If the plain fact of military conflict is sufficient to render criticism and dissent unpatriotic, then any scoundrel could place himself beyond reproach simply by starting a war.
DIssent born of sincere conviction is not merely a privilege, it is a duty. And if this freedom of opinion offers a vulnerability peculiar to free societies, then so be it. Democracy ain’t for sissies.
I’ve been unable to walk or stand for any length of time for over the summer, so I can assure you, I haven’t been able to participate in any anti-war protests recently, and, if I had been, I have higher priorities. I also don’t expect my congressmen and representatives to be responsive, especially one senator with whom I’ve had experience.
As for the protestors, the ones I’ve seen are ordinary people who think it’s worth their time to make their opposition public. While I haven’t attended any anti-war protests, I have, in the past, participated in other protests because they were about causes I believed in to the point where it was worth dedicating my time to them. I’ve helped organize a march to raise money to support world hunger; I’ve also wound up on television with a guitar around my neck singing a protest song supporting tenants’ rights. The latter organization had no funding other than its members’ pockets, as I recall and, since most of us were tenants, we didn’t have much. The former is a large-scale operation supported by churches and individuals. I suspect that, like these two groups, anti-war protests are supported by people who believe in them, which is a lot more than I can say for the typical PAC.
I will also point out that the premise of the OP is, if you support the troups, you support the war. That simply doesn’t apply to me.
CJ
lekatt, do you acknowledge that it is possible for the U.S. to go to war for a bad reason? (I.e., one that doesn’t adequately justify the loss of life and other costs).
If the answer is yes, and it is possible that a U.S. President and Congress might someday send U.S. troops to die for a cause that wasn’t worth it, do you really think that patriotic Americans shouldn’t point out that those politicians bad judgement has resulted in thousands of Americans being killed and maimed? Do you think we ought to give those politicians a free pass as long as there are troops in the combat zone?
Or, are you just saying that you think the justification for this particular war was good enough that we shouldn’t be criticizing the politicians? If that’s the case, why should those of us who disagree with that assessment be accused of “not supporting the troops” if we don’t hold our tounges?
And I realize you’re probably going to reiterate you’re not opposed to all criticism and protest. But statements like “they show contempt for this country, its president, and its solders by telling them they are fighting for nothing” seem to suggest that you don’t think anyone should ever be able to say “The fact that we’re fighting this war is a mistake.” You can’t envision any time that statement would be true, or you just think we shouldn’t say it?