What do you think of Patch Adams?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Panda Bear said:
You see? You're trying to establish a moral equivalence between a reasonable disagreement between "strategery" for fighting terrorism and lunatics who literally want to drag their societies back to the good old days of the seventh century.
When the towers came down, we were incensed because it was a barbaric act against our country. We wanted blood.

When a bomb destroys your school, or soldiers rape your sister and murder your family, or a squad of angry troops decimate your village, you are incensed and you want blood.

We have aircraft and crack fighting teams. They have pi$$ed off villagers with semtex wrapped around their bellies.

You can ignore "moral equivalence" all that you want. If you can't see things through the eyes of the enemy, it will be a very long war.

All this discussion about how the enemy are barbarians, and how they want to destroy their fellow countrymen and return their country to stonehenge.... ah, so much reminds me of Vietnam. Lots of people were hawks for that one too.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Panda Bear said:
Peace is not a sound political option but the result of some kind of leverage against your enemy, either military or economic, which makes him decide that fighting isn't worth it. This includes utterly destroying either his capacity or his will to fight or both.
Yes, peace through superior firepower and all that. I remember the Reagan years too. That was how we were going to bring down the Iron Curtain. Of course, it was actually done from within.

You can destroy the enemy's will to fight by changing the conditions that give him that will. The Soviet people found that democracy looked a whole lot better than communism. And it didn't cost us a bullet.
 
Panda Bear said:
Basically, you advocate "peace at any cost."
God, no. I don't know who would think that. I just don't hold your opinion of "screw peace."

You want war? You'll get plenty of it for many, many years. Because of our recent actions, we are rapidly becoming a country without allies. Because of the war we're waging, we're creating 10 potential terrorists for every one we take down. We'll be seeing the violence as a result of our current actions for a generation or two to come.

You really want war? Well, you win. We'll get plenty of it for a long time to come. Congrats...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
And that's why I don't like Patch Adams. I'm out of here...
 
Wow..I think that was some serious post count increase ;)
 
MossPoh said:
Wow..I think that was some serious post count increase ;)
yeah, that's not usually like me. I'm just very much against this war. And I'm far from alone.

Anyway, anyone who's for the war at this late stage with all the information at hand will undoubtedly always be, so I'll get off the soapbox. I'm done. Apologies for all the posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
notdeadyet said:
Guess Bush's dad shouldn't have sold him so much weaponry then.

Yeah, it's all the Bush family's fault :rolleyes:

By that logic we should crucify Clinton for the impending North Korea issues as well.

Our problems in the middle east really started with us backing Israel in '48 (which was the right thing to do).

Please - look at the bigger picture instead of focusing on the Bush family.
 
megboo said:
Yeah, it's all the Bush family's fault :rolleyes:

By that logic we should crucify Clinton for the impending North Korea issues as well.

Our problems in the middle east really started with us backing Israel in '48 (which was the right thing to do).

Please - look at the bigger picture instead of focusing on the Bush family.
Quick question. Why was backing Israel the right thing to do? I just ask that because I don't actually know well enough the whole story to be able to argue either way. From what I've seen, they Israelies were long gone from Palestine (like 1000 years) and the palesinians were "invaded", and if the US considers Israel a state, why didn't we just make a state somewhere in the US or something? Or take some of canada????!?!?! I am more interested in the logic than actually arguing anything on this case, because if there is legit reason for israel to be where it is, I think what panda says holds more weight, but if Israel can be seen as the original agressor, suddenly the "enemy" is just the one trying to take back his home.

I know this kind of "land siezing" has gone on since the beginning of human kind. Its just back then they knew the repercussions of screwing over a nation so badly, so they used the logical tactic of killing all the men and babies, taking the women as slaves, and salting their fields... BAM, no repercussions 40 years down the line...
 
megboo said:
Yeah, it's all the Bush family's fault :rolleyes:

By that logic we should crucify Clinton for the impending North Korea issues as well.

Our problems in the middle east really started with us backing Israel in '48 (which was the right thing to do).

Please - look at the bigger picture instead of focusing on the Bush family.

Our problems with the middle east really starts back about around 3000 years ago.....Right now the stuff with Hezbollah, hisbollah or however you want to spell it is a complete mess because of who they are backed by. Them and palestine are kind of buds because hey hate israel but other than that they are completely against each other...It is really just stupidly complicated who is allies with who....there are actually quite a few muslim countries that are FOR what israel is doing against hezbollah...Iran isn't one of them...of course. There really is NO single government that one can blame for the crap that goes on there and I wish military action would help there....I really just want to tell israel to have at it but the fact is it has turned into the super ultra mega version of the 30 year war there with the shiite and sunnis....which both never really seemed to like the kurds either. They are just going to slaughter each other until everyone is dead or they get tired of it and kind of seperate and stay away from eachother until they can tolerate the others....I really wish it were a matter of simple military action that the world could unite and end it and throw in a nice pretty little democracy but it is a mess there. I mean even who the US supports is a little sketch at best......Unless we somehow confiscate every version of Qur'an and edit every version that could lead violent radicals (might as well throw in all religious texts while were at it....gotta be fair) I don't see this problem really changing...So my answer to the question is let the middle east have some kind of march madness tournament where two countries fight till the death..winner progresses to next round..whoever is left gets to impose whatever they want. I say the end result will be israel versus iran...not sure what the spread would be though. Although saudi could pulla surprising upset. Israel comes from an easier region so that can help them out...
 
chewsnuffles said:
Quick question. Why was backing Israel the right thing to do?

In this case, although not always it is the right thing to back israel against hezbollah....they are just all out bad people and will not be satisfied till they take that entire region. even if they get the heights they want so badly they will continue for more.......their goal is not just israel although the fact they are fighting jews helps with their propaganda....once done they'd aim to pretty much capture the entire area (very unlikley but it is what they want) that includes palestine.
 
chewsnuffles said:
Quick question. Why was backing Israel the right thing to do? I just ask that because I don't actually know well enough the whole story to be able to argue either way. From what I've seen, they Israelies were long gone from Palestine (like 1000 years) and the palesinians were "invaded", and if the US considers Israel a state, why didn't we just make a state somewhere in the US or something? Or take some of canada????!?!?! I am more interested in the logic than actually arguing anything on this case, because if there is legit reason for israel to be where it is, I think what panda says holds more weight, but if Israel can be seen as the original agressor, suddenly the "enemy" is just the one trying to take back his home.

I know this kind of "land siezing" has gone on since the beginning of human kind. Its just back then they knew the repercussions of screwing over a nation so badly, so they used the logical tactic of killing all the men and babies, taking the women as slaves, and salting their fields... BAM, no repercussions 40 years down the line...


Here are a couple of websites that give a good explanation of how the Israeli state came about. Some depict the Israeli history from the 19th century onward, some go back to the BC era. They explain better than I can type since I'm pretty tired tonight.

http://www.levitt.com/misc/israel_history.html
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/
http://www.masada2000.org/

Please keep in mind this is from the Israeli viewpoint, but if you look at the timeline in the second link no one can refute history.
 
megboo said:
Here are a couple of websites that give a good explanation of how the Israeli state came about. Some depict the Israeli history from the 19th century onward, some go back to the BC era. They explain better than I can type since I'm pretty tired tonight.

http://www.levitt.com/misc/israel_history.html
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/
http://www.masada2000.org/

Please keep in mind this is from the Israeli viewpoint, but if you look at the timeline in the second link no one can refute history.
Thanks, those are good sites and I see the whole picture a little better now.
I gotta say alot of what was said here was pretty well thought out, and panda makes some good points as well.
I still think that the whole "black vs. white, good vs. evil" labeling though is definately not doing a good job of looking at all the posabilities of what could be done. I also aknowledge that it is hard to "negotiate" with someone like Hezbola who, as you said, are just plain crazy about killing people...
I still don't think though that the amount of bombing being carried out on lebanon is serving its purpose though. Destroying a nation's inferstructure often is the worst course of action possible, because it causes a depression directly after the war where all funds have to go to reconstruction, IF it even happens. Look at Iraq where even with all the US funds they still don't have everything working like it was under sadam pre-war.
When there are all those unemployed, hopeless people, even if you did "bomb" all of Hezbola the first time (like that is possible, but we can assume), they will spring back up in 10 years when the fighters kids grow up... thats why I say these tactics aren't really what anyone wants...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
MossPoh said:
In this case, although not always it is the right thing to back israel against hezbollah....they are just all out bad people and will not be satisfied till they take that entire region. even if they get the heights they want so badly they will continue for more.......their goal is not just israel although the fact they are fighting jews helps with their propaganda....once done they'd aim to pretty much capture the entire area (very unlikley but it is what they want) that includes palestine.

I'm not so sure. Our media is putting tons of pro-Israeli spin on this whole conflict. In reality, Hezzbollah is not as large of a threat as they are made out to be, and the damage done to Israel has been minimal. They've lost around 20 people so far. Contrarily, look at what has happened to Lebanon. Hundreds of civilians have been killed and cities are being destroyed. Is it justified? If you ask me, Isreal is excersizing a lesson they learned from us, with the right spin you can justify going to war against anyone, heck, you can even make yourself out to look like the victim.

As for the war, I gotta say I'm with notdeadyet on this one. You can't make peace by fighting. Granted, every now and again I do think war is justified. WWII is a good example, sometimes we have to use violence to restore piece. But preemptive strikes against people who may have WMD's or might have been tangentially linked to 911...forcing Western ideals on a people who actively resist them, no matter how good your intentions, is both foolish and wrong...and is not what America is or should be about. This type of war is not, as Panda said, somehow justified by history. Maybe peace is about hand wringing and posturing, but that takes more courage than war, and then at least if war then occurs, as a last resort, the fallout will be manageable and result in real progress. In the long run I fear we have actually slowed progress in the middle east, because now we have created a new breed of resistance.
 
notdeadyet said:
Yes, peace through superior firepower and all that. I remember the Reagan years too. That was how we were going to bring down the Iron Curtain. Of course, it was actually done from within.

You can destroy the enemy's will to fight by changing the conditions that give him that will. The Soviet people found that democracy looked a whole lot better than communism. And it didn't cost us a bullet.

Your understanding of history, especially of post-war history, is so defficient that I wouldn't know where to begin.
 
Zoom-Zoom said:
...Maybe peace is about hand wringing and posturing, but that takes more courage than war...

Complete and utter horse****. My old platoon sergeant back when I was a Marine had won the silver star for attacking and killing six Viet Cong with nothing but his e-tool (a small shovel) after he ran out of ammo. That's courage.

A bunch of wanna-be hippies in a drum circles or spoiled leftist children of equally spoiled baby-boomers posturing and caterwauling, essentially sucking up to an enemy that would execute them as infidels if given the chance, is just pathetic.
 
Panda Bear said:
Complete and utter horse****. My old platoon sergeant back when I was a Marine had won the silver star for attacking and killing six Viet Cong with nothing but his e-tool (a small shovel) after he ran out of ammo. That's courage.
You're not reading very closely, Panda. Zoom-zoom was saying that the decision for nonviolence and peace takes more courage than the decision to go to war. The beating on the chest and rattling of the saber doesn't fit here.

No one is saying that the troops aren't brave. But the decision to go to war (never made by warriors but by politicians) for the sake of pleasing an emotional voter block is easy.

Holding off on war until you have good intel (unlike Iraq), international support (unlike Iraq) and an exit strategy (unlike Iraq) takes courage. You're risking losing votes by an impatient public.

But we rushed things to please the public. Iraq was not going anywhere. And a lot more dead U.S. troops is the price. Hope the politicos are happy on this one, and I'm not limiting the blame to the republicans. Democrats were just as culpable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Panda Bear said:
A bunch of wanna-be hippies in a drum circles or spoiled leftist children of equally spoiled baby-boomers posturing and caterwauling, essentially sucking up to an enemy that would execute them as infidels if given the chance, is just pathetic.
Once again, this sounds like a quote from the mouth of any hawk during the Vietnam War. But don't sweat it, lots of folks thought that one was a great idea too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Oh by the way, Panda, a majority of Americans think the war in Iraq was a mistake. So painting those against it as "leftist" and "hippie" is a little niave and stereotypical. Going by most yardsticks, this country is more conservative than liberal, so lots of conservatives appear to be against the war in Iraq. A lot of veterans, too.
 
notdeadyet said:
Once again, this sounds like a quote from the mouth of any hawk during the Vietnam War. But don't sweat it, lots of folks thought that one was a great idea too.

Are you kidding? It was a good idea to go there, however the political pussyfooting is what got us in trouble.

(Edit: I mean the Iraq war here. My internet went down for a few minutes before I could fix it) If we could just handle it like it happened in WWII we wouldn't be crying over the loss of our soldiers (which isn't much by war comparisons, BTW, and soldiers know their duty - there's no draft!). There are more people killed inside the US every year by homicide than have died in the Iraq war total.

Bottom line - Saddam had no regard for UN laws and sanctions, was warned of repurcussions, and didn't care. He was given LOTS of time to hide WMDs and when we were *finally* allowed to go in - suprise, suprise - they weren't there. However, we do know he used chemical weapons to kill his own people - chemical weapons that ARE WMDS.

With the advent of nuclear and biologic weapons, and what has happened to our own country and threats from other countries, I am all for preemptive strike. It never ceases to amaze me how liberals actually *wish* for American annihilation rather than protecting what we already have, even after 9/11. Maybe if our major cities were nuclear waste then they would stop to think that life *was* better of without Saddam, Osama, and other fundamentalist TERRORIST groups.

Instead liberals are worried about making everyone like us and keeping "peace" when "peace" is not a word in a terrorist's vocabulary. Just the fact that I, as a woman, can tell my husband to do something and he'll do it, not have my head covered, and want to be in a position of career authority, and wear a bikini, is enough to make a fundamentalist terrorist want to behead me.

Why do Americans think the war is a mistake? Because the stupid media sensationalizes the deaths of the soldiers (which, BTW, are the terrorists' faults. THEY pulled the trigger), and fail to show the good we are doing: hospitals, schools, government, women in careers again, etc. If a journalist wants to show a dead soldier, fine, but they should also show the progress being made there. Most of America doesn't realize how oppressed Iraqis were and the actual good happening now. I had a long talk with the Iraqi translator pictured pulling Saddam out of the spiderhole several months ago. Yep, you got it. THAT guy. He's married to a friend in my hometown and I have run across him and his wife at some weddings this year. He's in Iraq again now, but he tries his best to get people to understand that the media is in it for the ratings, and most Iraqis are extremely grateful for our help.

You can be against the war and opt for peace and all that, but try to realize that sometimes there *are* no conspiracies, and that life *is* better off without someone trying or wanting to kill you for just being you.

The decision to go to war is an infinitely harder choice. There's the weight of sending men and women to be encountered by other men (and/or women) who want to kill them, and it happens. There's the weight of spending money that never makes people happy. There's the weight of being hated. This was not decided on a whim. It would have been far easier to do nothing, and what kind of message would that send? It would tell the terrorists - hey come on and do it again!

Make love, not war is the staple hippie slogan. So, the activists and voices against the war using that message are going to get branded as leftists and hippies. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Tell that to the soldier who's fighting for his beliefs (and yours too BTW) while "Americans" back home are calling him a murderer and pretty much empathizing with the enemy.
 
megboo said:
Are you kidding? It was a good idea to go there, however the political pussyfooting is what got us in trouble. If we could just handle it like it happened in WWII we wouldn't be crying over the loss of our soldiers (which isn't much by war comparisons, BTW, and soldiers know their duty - there's no draft!). There are more people killed inside the US every year by homicide than have died in the Iraq war total.

Bottom line - Saddam had no regard for UN laws and sanctions, was warned of repurcussions, and didn't care. He was given LOTS of time to hide WMDs and when we were *finally* allowed to go in - suprise, suprise - they weren't there. However, we do know he used chemical weapons to kill his own people - chemical weapons that ARE WMDS.

With the advent of nuclear and biologic weapons, and what has happened to our own country and threats from other countries, I am all for preemptive strike. It never ceases to amaze me how liberals actually *wish* for American annihilation rather than protecting what we already have, even after 9/11. Maybe if our major cities were nuclear waste then they would stop to think that life *was* better of without Saddam, Osama, and other fundamentalist TERRORIST groups.

Instead liberals are worried about making everyone like us and keeping "peace" when "peace" is not a word in a terrorist's vocabulary. Just the fact that I, as a woman, can tell my husband to do something and he'll do it, not have my head covered, and want to be in a position of career authority, and wear a bikini, is enough to make a fundamentalist terrorist want to behead me.

Why do Americans think the war is a mistake? Because the stupid media sensationalizes the deaths of the soldiers (which, BTW, are the terrorists' faults. THEY pulled the trigger), and fail to show the good we are doing: hospitals, schools, government, women in careers again, etc. If a journalist wants to show a dead soldier, fine, but they should also show the progress being made there. Most of America doesn't realize how oppressed Iraqis were and the actual good happening now. I had a long talk with the Iraqi translator pictured pulling Saddam out of the spiderhole several months ago. Yep, you got it. THAT guy. He's married to a friend in my hometown and I have run across him and his wife at some weddings this year. He's in Iraq again now, but he tries his best to get people to understand that the media is in it for the ratings, and most Iraqis are extremely grateful for our help.

You can be against the war and opt for peace and all that, but try to realize that sometimes there *are* no conspiracies, and that life *is* better off without someone trying or wanting to kill you for just being you.

The decision to go to war is an infinitely harder choice. There's the weight of sending men and women to be encountered by other men (and/or women) who want to kill them, and it happens. There's the weight of spending money that never makes people happy. There's the weight of being hated. This was not decided on a whim. It would have been far easier to do nothing, and what kind of message would that send? It would tell the terrorists - hey come on and do it again!

Make love, not war is the staple hippie slogan. So, the activists and voices against the war using that message are going to get branded as leftists and hippies. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Tell that to the soldier who's fighting for his beliefs (and yours too BTW) while "Americans" back home are calling him a murderer and pretty much empathizing with the enemy.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
 
Panda Bear said:
Complete and utter horse****. My old platoon sergeant back when I was a Marine had won the silver star for attacking and killing six Viet Cong with nothing but his e-tool (a small shovel) after he ran out of ammo. That's courage.

A bunch of wanna-be hippies in a drum circles or spoiled leftist children of equally spoiled baby-boomers posturing and caterwauling, essentially sucking up to an enemy that would execute them as infidels if given the chance, is just pathetic.

I am sure my knowledge of history will be insulted here...

I still am having trouble with this idea of war and violence as always the more courageous option. I am sorry Panda, but not believing in individual wars in Vietnam or Iraq asolutely does not automatically make a person a spoiled, scared weeny unable to stand up for what they believe in.

I think it's valid to look at specific situations to decide your opinions about an individual war. To me, believing in every single war that has ever taken place, as you seem to do, shows just as little thought and backbone as believing that no war is ever justified.

If I can admit that at some times in human history war has been necessary (certainly it has), can you acknowledge that sometimes, the bigger, better, BRAVER person is the one who is brave enough to stare down his attackers, knowing their hatred for him, knowing their desire and ability to harm him and say, "you may hate me, you may push and provoke me, you may hurt me, you may kill me, but I will never lower myself to that level"?

I offer examples such as such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Mahatma Gandhi, the Lone Rebel at Tiananmen Square, Cesar Chavez, Lech Walesa, and Henry David Thoreau. These people never threw a punch, never fired a gun. But they stared down empires, challenged powerful governments, changed their nations, and changed history. They knew their lives were on the line, and in some cases ended because they believed the status quo was simply wrong, and they stood up for their beliefs in the face of a much stronger foe.

I hope that you can admit that those people displayed courage. If not, it's not worth talking anymore because we literally will not agree on a thing and never will.

If you are thinking, fine, those people are great, but virtually none of the whiny hippies crying about war will ever reach that level of courage, this is a more valid and interesting point, and one that, if pressed, I suppose I'd have to agree with. But I also submit to you that the very few of the people in support of the war, shrieking out like lunatics "yeah let's go kill the hajjis!" will ever enter this or any war, will never be under attack, will never fire a gun into human flesh. They display absolutely no more or no less courage than those sitting in a "drum circle," "caterwauling."

Please answer this question honestly: Do you think that the American military is infallible? Very few things are, if any. Even hard-line Catholics do not take the doctrine of papal infallibility to mean that the pope does not make mistakes or is without sin. If, somewhere down the line, somehow, a situation arises in which you happen to disagree with something the American military is doing, would you have the courage to say, "hang on a second, this is not right"? YES this absolutely DOES take courage. To me, not believing in every single war doesn't indicate fear. Taking the party line indicates fear. Refusing to question authority indicates fear.
 
Zoom-Zoom said:
I'm not so sure. Our media is putting tons of pro-Israeli spin on this whole conflict. In reality, Hezzbollah is not as large of a threat as they are made out to be, and the damage done to Israel has been minimal. They've lost around 20 people so far. Contrarily, look at what has happened to Lebanon. Hundreds of civilians have been killed and cities are being destroyed. Is it justified? If you ask me, Isreal is excersizing a lesson they learned from us, with the right spin you can justify going to war against anyone, heck, you can even make yourself out to look like the victim.

As for the war, I gotta say I'm with notdeadyet on this one. You can't make peace by fighting. Granted, every now and again I do think war is justified. WWII is a good example, sometimes we have to use violence to restore piece. But preemptive strikes against people who may have WMD's or might have been tangentially linked to 911...forcing Western ideals on a people who actively resist them, no matter how good your intentions, is both foolish and wrong...and is not what America is or should be about. This type of war is not, as Panda said, somehow justified by history. Maybe peace is about hand wringing and posturing, but that takes more courage than war, and then at least if war then occurs, as a last resort, the fallout will be manageable and result in real progress. In the long run I fear we have actually slowed progress in the middle east, because now we have created a new breed of resistance.


I haven't been getting my news from US sources....in fact I haven't even watched US news or read a us newspaper since February. My general sources are of German origin ....which just like all news I understand is a bit biased but it is leaps and bounds better than the US stuff....and then a friend from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (for the how the groups interact with each other...their news is more propaganda than ours as for most of this war stuff). lol I stated that it is doubtful that they would ever accomplish what they want...but they are sponsored by several governments. These aren't the days of warfare where guys line up in bright colored outfits and fired straight at each other...unfortuently civilian fatalities are just going to happen. It is extremley difficult to fight an enemy that wears the same clothes and hides with one of a hundred family members or other relations....One can always spin these topics to whatever way they need...this situation is one where the international community really just wants Hezbollah to, in the words of W, stop this "****".....My group hug is still up for grabs everyone.....anyone? anyone? anyone? No? Ok...i'll go back to my corner.

Megaboo I am not denying any of your stuff but do you honestly encounter people that call the soldiers murderers and stuff? I have lots of people against the war but none seem against the soldiers. I guess I am just confused with what our government is doing in general....we go straight into iraq under the vague assumption of wmd and weapons of mass destruction...if they said it was just to get sudam out then I probably would've been a bit more ok with it actually. But there seem to be so many other situations that are equally terrible if not worse that we just don't want to get involved in. Heck....there is a douchebag in south america, north korea and iran that are all extremeley problematic. One most likley has at least one nuclear warhead, one is with all odds working towards one and much further in the process than iraq was suspected to be. South american guy is essentially buying favoritism from the world with oil and little favors in case we try to do something against him.....but with these we go with the peace route...they are a bloody mess too. Seems like we have an option of peace and war both of which lead to eventual bloodshed as well an extreme financial hit for a US economy that already relies on the faith of the US dollar on the international community....which although unlikley could have some serious stuff happen in itself (according to a couple financial analyst at least).

Kind of on topic..One of my favorite standups i heard on t.v. was a person saying that they should have all female bomber pilots or whatever drop leaflets saying (or something along these lines) "This bomb has been dropped on to you by Jen. She enjoys drinking, smoking and premarital sex. Have a wonderful day"
 
megboo said:
life *is* better off without someone trying or wanting to kill you for just being you.


... Tell that to the soldier who's fighting for his beliefs (and yours too BTW) while "Americans" back home are calling him a murderer and pretty much empathizing with the enemy.

Do not question how American I am. I love my country, because we are able to question these things. If we are not able to question, then we are no longer different from every country in the world and there is nothing left to love.

As an American who loves my country, why should I allow it to be represented around the world by murderers? Yes, murderers. No, not all troops are murderers. Virtually none are. But they are out there, and they are what the world sees. Even the Pentagon is having to come to terms with Haditha and others. You can't brush everything off.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206686,00.html

(I am sorry for posting from fox news, with the most flagrantly open and unapologetic leftist bias in the entire liberal media... :rolleyes: )

It absolutely is better to live without people wanting to kill you for being you. I agree, and I bet they do too...

But there are bigger tragedies than death - one is becoming a person, or nation, that you never in a million years thought you'd become.

I'm reminded of Golda Meir's statement to the Palestinians, we can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours.
 
megboo said:
If we could just handle it like it happened in WWII we wouldn't be crying over the loss of our soldiers.
That's the crux of the problem. Handle "what" like WWII? Our military has had free reign in Iraq and this is the best we could do.

During the first Gulf War I understood the frustration of the military. They wanted to go into Iraq and take out Saddam but couldn't. But in Iraq now, the military has a green light. Saddam is gone. The U.S. has set up a new country and government without the influence of any other government or the UN.

Any failure in Iraq is ours and ours alone. We can't blame any other organization nor the military having its hands tied.

megboo said:
There are more people killed inside the US every year by homicide than have died in the Iraq war total.
Yes, I'm against homicide too.
 
MossPoh said:
Megaboo I am not denying any of your stuff but do you honestly encounter people that call the soldiers murderers and stuff? I have lots of people against the war but none seem against the soldiers. I guess I am just confused with what our government is doing in general....we go straight into iraq under the vague assumption of wmd and weapons of mass destruction...if they said it was just to get sudam out then I probably would've been a bit more ok with it actually. But there seem to be so many other situations that are equally terrible if not worse that we just don't want to get involved in. Heck....there is a douchebag in south america, north korea and iran that are all extremeley problematic. One most likley has at least one nuclear warhead, one is with all odds working towards one and much further in the process than iraq was suspected to be. South american guy is essentially buying favoritism from the world with oil and little favors in case we try to do something against him.....but with these we go with the peace route...they are a bloody mess too. Seems like we have an option of peace and war both of which lead to eventual bloodshed as well an extreme financial hit for a US economy that already relies on the faith of the US dollar on the international community....which although unlikley could have some serious stuff happen in itself (according to a couple financial analyst at least).

Cindy Sheehan and her cronies. Plus my wacko aunt who thinks Cindy is awesome.
 
notdeadyet said:
That's the crux of the problem. Handle "what" like WWII? Our military has had free reign in Iraq and this is the best we could do.

During the first Gulf War I understood the frustration of the military. They wanted to go into Iraq and take out Saddam but couldn't. But in Iraq now, the military has a green light. Saddam is gone. The U.S. has set up a new country and government without the influence of any other government or the UN.

Any failure in Iraq is ours and ours alone. We can't blame any other organization nor the military having its hands tied.


Yes, I'm against homicide too.

How have we failed iraq?
 
jocg27 said:
Do not question how American I am. I love my country, because we are able to question these things. If we are not able to question, then we are no longer different from every country in the world and there is nothing left to love.

As an American who loves my country, why should I allow it to be represented around the world by murderers? Yes, murderers. No, not all troops are murderers. Virtually none are. But they are out there, and they are what the world sees. Even the Pentagon is having to come to terms with Haditha and others. You can't brush everything off.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206686,00.html

(I am sorry for posting from fox news, with the most flagrantly open and unapologetic leftist bias in the entire liberal media... :rolleyes: )

It absolutely is better to live without people wanting to kill you for being you. I agree, and I bet they do too...

But there are bigger tragedies than death - one is becoming a person, or nation, that you never in a million years thought you'd become.

I'm reminded of Golda Meir's statement to the Palestinians, we can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours.

As long as self-proclaimed liberals sympathize with our enemies, I *will* question patriotism. Free speech goes both ways.

I find fox news to be a little more accurate in reporting what goes on.

And *they* came at us first, and openly proclaim the rewards of killing the *infidels*
 
megboo said:
Saddam had no regard for UN laws and sanctions, was warned of repurcussions, and didn't care.
The U.S. had no regard for the UN or their warnings and we didn't care. I love the irony of your using Saddam ignoring UN warnings as a reason to invade when we did so against the wishes of the UN.

megboo said:
He was given LOTS of time to hide WMDs and when we were *finally* allowed to go in - suprise, suprise - they weren't there. However, we do know he used chemical weapons to kill his own people - chemical weapons that ARE WMDS.
'Boo, I ain't even going there. Even Bush has admitted that the WMD issue was a case of bad intell. Even he isn't claiming it anymore.

By the way, are we planning on invading every country with WMD? When do we have Iran, Pakistan and North Korea lined up? Let's not pretend that that was ever our primary reason. If it was, there are dozens of countries we should allegedly be invading right now and I don't think anyone proposes that.

megboo said:
Why do Americans think the war is a mistake? Because the stupid media
You sure don't give your country much credit. Americans are grown ups. They can make up their own mind. The "stupid media" was completely hawkish on the war for the first year or two.

megboo said:
This was not decided on a whim. It would have been far easier to do nothing, and what kind of message would that send? It would tell the terrorists - hey come on and do it again!
Jeeze, Megboo, again, Bush has backed off from the claim that we went to Iraq due to their links to terrorism. His goal is now to spread democracy.

You're completely entitled to be supportive of the Iraq war. But even the president admits that they were not linked to 9/11. Where are you getting this stuff from?
 
megboo said:
Cindy Sheehan and her cronies. Plus my wacko aunt who thinks Cindy is awesome.
Back that up (Cindy Sheehan, not your wacko aunt). I'm not claiming that you're lying, but can you point out to where Cindy Sheehan called American troops murderers?

I'm not a huge supporter of hers, but I am suprised by this.
 
megboo said:
How have we failed iraq?
Do you consider Iraq to be anything resembling a safe and stable democracy? Do you see any indications that it is on that path?

I actually find the question puzzling.
 
megboo said:
And *they* came at us first, and openly proclaim the rewards of killing the *infidels*
This is starting to border on racism.

By they are you referring to Muslims or Arabs??? You aren't talking about Iraqi's anyway, since they had nothing to do with 9/11.

Any killing of U.S. citizens by Iraqi's came after we invaded. This is not them coming at us first.

I don't mind a healthy debate, but I'll sign off if this is devolving into reducing any Muslim or Arab into "terrorist"...
 
notdeadyet said:
The U.S. had no regard for the UN or their warnings and we didn't care. I love the irony of your using Saddam ignoring UN warnings as a reason to invade when we did so against the wishes of the UN.

please elaborate so I know where you're coming from.

notdeadyet said:
'Boo, I ain't even going there. Even Bush has admitted that the WMD issue was a case of bad intell. Even he isn't claiming it anymore.

My userid is megboo, not 'boo. You're not a close enough friend to use a term of endearment without being patronizing - so cool it. Could you also direct me to where the president is saying there were no WMDs?

notdeadyet said:
By the way, are we planning on invading every country with WMD? When do we have Iran, Pakistan and North Korea lined up? Let's not pretend that that was ever our primary reason. If it was, there are dozens of countries we should allegedly be invading right now and I don't think anyone proposes that.

Right after 9/11 Bush's speech did indicate that we *would* go after any and all terrorist threats to the US. Unfortunately those that were behind us, quickly dropped off because they are worried about how they look to everyone else rather than actually do it. "War on Terror" I believe it's called.


notdeadyet said:
You sure don't give your country much credit. Americans are grown ups. They can make up their own mind. The "stupid media" was completely hawkish on the war for the first year or two.

If you give grown-ups the *actual* data and then let them make up their minds, then yeah. But too often I hear people quoting what they just heard on the news as if it's sent down from God himself, when in fact it's opinion.

notdeadyet said:
Jeeze, Megboo, again, Bush has backed off from the claim that we went to Iraq due to their links to terrorism. His goal is now to spread democracy.

No kidding! Democracy, what an idea! I was referring to the initial decision to go into Iraq.

notdeadyet said:
You're completely entitled to be supportive of the Iraq war. But even the president admits that they were not linked to 9/11. Where are you getting this stuff from?

It's called thinking for myself. You should try it someday.
 
megboo said:
My userid is megboo, not 'boo. You're not a close enough friend to use a term of endearment without being patronizing - so cool it. Could you also direct me to where the president is saying there were no WMDs?
My apologies if I sounded condescending. That wasn't my intent.

I don't have time to search for a bunch of links of the administration admitting that Iraq didn't have WMD's, but here are a few. These are just papers I have in bookmarks. I'm sure you can find more material if you're interested.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1307529,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/09/iraq/main562312.shtml
 
notdeadyet said:
Back that up (Cindy Sheehan, not your wacko aunt). I'm not claiming that you're lying, but can you point out to where Cindy Sheehan called American troops murderers?

I'm not a huge supporter of hers, but I am suprised by this.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/sheehan/sheehan37.html

An essay of hers where she states that the war has turned the troops into murderers. She used Haditha as an example, but has also generalized to all troops.

Geez my internet is slow.
 
notdeadyet said:
Do you consider Iraq to be anything resembling a safe and stable democracy? Do you see any indications that it is on that path?

I actually find the question puzzling.

It will take a while to get it to safe and stable, like our own country back in the day. But, with the establishment of elections and actual elected officials, building of schools, hospitals, and adding technology they are on their way.
 
notdeadyet said:
This is starting to border on racism.

By they are you referring to Muslims or Arabs??? You aren't talking about Iraqi's anyway, since they had nothing to do with 9/11.

Any killing of U.S. citizens by Iraqi's came after we invaded. This is not them coming at us first.

I don't mind a healthy debate, but I'll sign off if this is devolving into reducing any Muslim or Arab into "terrorist"...

I used they in asterisks because the poster I was replying to initially called them "they"

I, too was trying to point out the use of "they" was not cool.
 
jocg27 said:
Do not question how American I am. I love my country, because we are able to question these things. If we are not able to question, then we are no longer different from every country in the world and there is nothing left to love.

As an American who loves my country, why should I allow it to be represented around the world by murderers? Yes, murderers. No, not all troops are murderers. Virtually none are. But they are out there, and they are what the world sees. Even the Pentagon is having to come to terms with Haditha and others. You can't brush everything off.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206686,00.html

(I am sorry for posting from fox news, with the most flagrantly open and unapologetic leftist bias in the entire liberal media... :rolleyes: )

It absolutely is better to live without people wanting to kill you for being you. I agree, and I bet they do too...

But there are bigger tragedies than death - one is becoming a person, or nation, that you never in a million years thought you'd become.

I'm reminded of Golda Meir's statement to the Palestinians, we can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours.


I may have read that to include all murderers, even terrorists. If that was not the intent, my bad. But this is why I put they in asterisk.
 
jocg27 said:
...can you acknowledge that sometimes, the bigger, better, BRAVER person is the one who is brave enough to stare down his attackers, knowing their hatred for him, knowing their desire and ability to harm him and say, "you may hate me, you may push and provoke me, you may hurt me, you may kill me, but I will never lower myself to that level"...

It takes absolutely no courage whatsoever to be anti-war, anti-israeli, or anti-American in any modern Western liberal democracy. This is the default position of the intelligentsia. It's not as if you are running any risks. The Jews will not issue a Fatwah against you if you publish antisemitic cartoons and the government is not exactly rounding up dissidents to ship to a gulag in Wyoming.

In fact, being anti-war in the West is about as gutless a position as you can possibly take. Your typical peace fetishist is nothing like Martin Luther King or the largely mythical version of Ghandi, both of who actually risked something for their beliefs. All you have to do is preen and pontificate, assert your moral superiority because you're not willing to bloody your hands defending the West and liberal democratic ideals.

You are delusional. Killing a terrorist does not lower you to his level. That's just your inexplicable faith in moral relativism showing itself. The correct response of the West when confronted by a dark ages ideology such as "Islamonazism" (as some call it) is to laugh in it's face and and beat it down with both superior firepower and superior ideology. Surely even you are not so politically correct to believe a repressive religious caliphate is equivalent to a free liberal democracy?
 
megboo said:
It will take a while to get it to safe and stable, like our own country back in the day.
<sigh> This would be an apt comparison if our country became independent because we were invaded by a foreign army who set up our political system for us. You can not compare the two.
 
Panda Bear said:
In fact, being anti-war in the West is about as gutless a position as you can possibly take. Your typical peace fetishist is nothing like Martin Luther King or the largely mythical version of Ghandi, both of who actually risked something for their beliefs.
By your definition, being pro-war and not currently in the military is also gutless. In fact, even more so, as your stance actively puts others at risk.

Panda Bear said:
The correct response of the West when confronted by a dark ages ideology such as "Islamonazism" (as some call it) is to laugh in it's face and and beat it down with both superior firepower and superior ideology.
Yes, yes, yes, enforcing our own moral superiority through force. I get it. It's at the bedrock of the slaughter of the native americans and enslavement of the blacks. We have to keep these savages in their places. I just personally disagree. But hey, to each their own.
 
jocg27 said:
Please answer this question honestly: Do you think that the American military is infallible? Very few things are, if any. Even hard-line Catholics do not take the doctrine of papal infallibility to mean that the pope does not make mistakes or is without sin. If, somewhere down the line, somehow, a situation arises in which you happen to disagree with something the American military is doing, would you have the courage to say, "hang on a second, this is not right"? YES this absolutely DOES take courage. To me, not believing in every single war doesn't indicate fear. Taking the party line indicates fear. Refusing to question authority indicates fear.

But that's the whole point. No person, country, or institution is perfect. The problem is that you are holding your country and it's military to impossible standards while giving the enemy a complete pass. It is true, after all, that we occasionally bomb the wrong target or that some of our soldiers commit atrocities. But these things are abberations which are unsual because of their relative rarity. The enemy, in this case the islamofascists, as a matter of policy intentionally target civilians, use children as human shields, and situate thier facilites among civilians precisely and cynically because they know that you, with apologies, are a useful idiot who will mew and caterwaul at the realities of war.

In other words, you are trying to strike a moral equivalence between basically decent but imperfect societies like Israel and the United States with a ruthless terrorist organization like Hezbollah that laughs at your indecisiveness and hopes to use it as a weapon against you.

I've seen the same thing during the Cold War when, despite the evidence of the Berlin wall, the so-called Gulag Archepeligo, and a thousand other demonstrations of to the contrary, the left persisted (and still persists) in the fiction that there was no real difference philosophically between the West and the Soviet Bloc.

You can't hep' yourself. It's how you were indoctrinated.
 
notdeadyet said:
By your definition, being pro-war and not currently in the military is also gutless. In fact, even more so, as your stance actively puts others at risk.


Yes, yes, yes, enforcing our own moral superiority through force. I get it. It's at the bedrock of the slaughter of the native americans and enslavement of the blacks. We have to keep these savages in their places. I just personally disagree. But hey, to each their own.

Nope. You can at least offer moral support to those doing the fighting by at least taking their side once in a while. And I would never accuse anyone who didn't serve in the military of being "gutless." I have never been one to use my military service to beat other people down a la Senator Kerry.

Western values are superior to the backwards ambitions of the islamofascists. What the indians have to do with this escapes me. The fact that you would even consider a religious theocracy based on seventh century ideas to be the moral equivalent of a modern (but imperfect, I get it) liberal democracy belies a stunning lack of confidence in the values that you pretend to champion.

In other words, if there's no difference, then what does it matter? Might as well live in a dictatorship as a democracy and not get all worked up about it.

While it is only proper to consider all cultures as equal and worthwhile on initial study, it is all right to decide after careful consideration that some cultures are deplorable. It is never right to shoot a women in the head in a soccer stadium for the crime of adultery. Human sacrifice is always wrong. Decent societies do not lionize those who deliberately kill women and children. It's not friggin' rocket science.
 
Panda Bear said:
I've seen the same thing during the Cold War when, despite the evidence of the Berlin wall, the so-called Gulag Archepeligo, and a thousand other demonstrations of to the contrary, the left persisted (and still persists) in the fiction that there was no real difference philosophically between the West and the Soviet Bloc.
Panda, you may propose to speak for the side of the neocons, but you have a pretty weak grasp on the left. I think the left recognizes the fact that the west and former soviet block are very different cultures. If anything, it's the right that has problems with the distinction that not everywhere thinks like we do. This is a particular problem of the conservatives, which is why we are trying to internationally make everyone like us.

Panda Bear said:
You can't hep' yourself. It's how you were indoctrinated.
I'm hoping that even you will find the humor in an ex-marine pro-war anti-peace conservative telling others of how they've been "indoctrinated".
 
Panda Bear said:
Nope. You can at least offer moral support to those doing the fighting by at least taking their side once in a while.
How does that take courage? I'm confused.

Panda Bear said:
Western values are superior to the backwards ambitions of the islamofascists. What the indians have to do with this escapes me.
No worries. It's called "White Man's Burden", a late 19th century belief that we the whites had a moral obligation to help shine light on the ways of the ignorant. It was used to justify the destruction of native american culture, the enslavement of blacks and general colonialism.

I don't know if it's because you think that whites have the answers, or Christians or Americans, but the responsibility of the world power to make others like it is an extension of Kipling's ideas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Panda Bear said:
The fact that you would even consider a religious theocracy based on seventh century ideas to be the moral equivalent of a modern (but imperfect, I get it) liberal democracy belies a stunning lack of confidence in the values that you pretend to champion.
The more you use the term "moral equivalent" the more I get a twiggy feeling. It reminds me of "family values" and how that is used to justify pretty much anytime a group wants to impose its philosophy by force on others.

No one is equating different political systems but you. I haven't heard the notion of invading on the basis of a "lesser" ideology outside of history class. Even Bush pretends its about more than that.
 
Panda Bear said:
While it is only proper to consider all cultures as equal and worthwhile on initial study, it is all right to decide after careful consideration that some cultures are deplorable.
No argument there. Where we disagree is that because I feel a culture is deplorable does not give me the right to change it.

I think what makes me very concerned about your whole argument is that I see a lot of it amongst right wing extremists.

For example, this is the argument used to kill abortion clinics physicians. "I feel that abortion is deplorable, therefore I must kill he who performs them". I'm not saying that's how you feel, but it's your logic that's employed when those folks reach that conclusion.

You have every right to find a culture deplorable. But that does not mean you have the right to change that culture until it fits your own. Even with the worlds biggest military.
 
Top