| Author | Message | ||
     Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 497 Registered: 5-2004  |
Maplefan, In Sportsnut's defense, there have been accusations by another poster here that you can't be supportive of the war effort if you are not willing to volunteer to go yourself. I believe he was responding to that general belief, not a specific accusation here. I could be wrong,though. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7011 Registered: 5-2001 |
Sports, An old saying is that war is where old men send young men off to die. Nowadays it is young men and women, but the overall meaning doesn't change. Thanks to outsourcing there is now a chance for outspoken supporters of the war to essentially put there life where their mouth is. Few take this option. A lot of middle age men during WWII served in WWI. During Vietnam a lot of the same had served in WWII. Thanks to the volunteer army, many of the most vociferous supporters of Iraq, including most of the Hawks in Washington, never served. Many of those in their fifties and sixties made a concerted effort to avoid service. The arguement is often made that we have a volunteer military and the men and women choose to serve. This is only partially true. There are a number of people who have choosen "the profession of arms". However, many if not most, of the younger people in the military are there for financial reasons, mostly to get money to continue their education. To me this is a contradiction in terms. | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 1648 Registered: 10-2001 |
Rastro (as usual) you got my point. Maplefan you didn't. Montagnard - you may believe that we started the war just for the sake of starting one, as your analagy states. I don't think we did that. We may have been misguided in our thinking but that is a far cry from the inference that you made. | ||
| llama Citizen Username: Llama Post Number: 652 Registered: 5-2001  |
I think that if people feel the need to free oppressed Iraqi's in their oil soaked land that they should enlist and get over there. Otherwise we have no legitimate business there. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 588 Registered: 7-2004 |
"there have been accusations by another poster here that you can't be supportive of the war effort if you are not willing to volunteer to go yourself..." It's not just people who are supportive of the war effort. It's people who DAY IN AND DAY OUT have nothing at all positive to say about people who question the war, insist everything is going swimmingly over there, and stand behind their man Bush to the point of being belligerent and openly hostile to opposing views, referring to them as unpatriotic and dumb at every opportunity. These people should find a way to put their money where their mouth is. Instead, they sit around in their comfy jammies, ordering furniture and making sure their hi-def cable output runs 20 percent clearer. Since support of this war effort seems to dominate their thinking, I wonder why they have nothing to contribute. It makes them either cowards (for not putting themselves in harm's way for a cause they believe is a matter of life and death) or it makes them hypocritical blowhards... | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 160 Registered: 8-2003 |
The war against Iraq is illegal, unjustified and immoral. PERIOD. Freedom is not on the march in Iraq, as Bush would have some of us believe. A civil war that is already taking hundreds of lives will only get bloodier. The American plans for "bringing democracy" to Iraq will be considerd a failed effort by hawks in the administration (and on MOL) if the Shias take over power and that is a very distinct possiblity, come January. | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 1287 Registered: 12-2001 |
From dailykos - interesting post about efforts to recruit doctors. There are a lot of people missing parts who will be coming back soon. As a follow up to Markos' post yesterday about the New England Journal of Medicine article on the war in Iraq...and the tremendous number of grievously injured soldiers who are surviving what in previous conflicts would have been fatal wounds: A friend of mine who is a medical resident received a recruitment letter from the Army yesterday. It's an elegant, card-like letter than opens to a tight photo of a pair of combat boots and the text: If you're experiencing sudden bouts of patriotism, followed by recurring pride, we have an opening for you. The text of the letter goes on to say.... Imagine having a patient base that spans the globe...working in some of the world's most advanced facilities..and earning up to $50,000 to pay back outstanding loans. We realize that your residency is one of the busiest periods of your professional life. It could also be an ideal time to make a difference in the lives of our U.S. Soldiers. In turn, the Army Reserve will provide you with an unrivaled experience that will challenge your creativity and help you develop skills that will add a significant new dimension to your residency. As a Resident in the Army Reserve, you'll join one of the most respected health care networks in the world. You'll attend conferences and seminars with leaders in your field, and you may have the opportunity to practice your speciality in place like Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany and Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. You'll participate in humanitarian missions, providing medical care to victims of natural disasters or conflicts abroad. Or you may be deployed to provide medical support to Americas' Soldiers in a variety of overseas locations. | ||
| Straw's world Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4142 Registered: 10-2001 |
"The war against Iraq is illegal, unjustified and immoral. PERIOD." wrong. thanks for playing though | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 1288 Registered: 12-2001 |
Here are some terrible wound photos from NEJM. No pleasant. No real need to look, either. I'm not brandishing this as an argument, because I don't approve of that ("waving the bloody shirt" they used to call it, right?) It is a jolt to see how real this is as we go about our mundane lives having our canned debates. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/24/2476 | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 160 Registered: 5-2001 |
Michael Janay, I assume you didn't mean to equate Saddam Hussein with the US Army, but that's just what you did. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2901 Registered: 8-2003 |
must_must -- what civil war are you talking about? Are the Kurds taking action against the Shiites? Last I read, the political coalition put together by the Sistani crowd included Kurds, Turkmen and Shia. Sunnis are understandably paranoid and upset that they won't be the recipients of Saddam's largesse, but even there a sizeable portion of Sunnis want in on this election if they were allowed to do so by their anti-elections brethren. This thing is going to work. And it will work better and sooner than Haiti, Kosovo or Bosnia will. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 590 Registered: 7-2004 |
"This thing is going to work." Gosh, thanks, cjc. I had my doubts before I read this, but now I'm convinced... | ||
| Valentine Michael Smith Citizen Username: Umbert Post Number: 47 Registered: 3-2004  |
Janay, it's true you did. Good work and thanks. No no, I am sure history will look back on bush as a humanitarian who brought peace and stability to the middle east and not as war criminal. He really is so brave and courageous for doing what he thinks is right, for doing god's work. Thank you Mr. President! It's really too bad I couldn't find a sarcastic font. Sly the Investor- No, war isn't pretty and I'm not an idiot. Of course I don't expect a bloodless war, I expect no war. Not to say there aren't justified wars, some are, but this isn't one of them. Maplefan- Your family member sounds like a real hero. War is terrible thing that makes many kinds of men, from heroes to war criminals. Vietnam had both. I am sure that in every army in every war there were soldiers who committed atrocities and ones that behaved heroically. So is the nature of war. If the war is justified by the terrible things Sadam did, why did the administration have to lie to justify the war? If they had to lie, is it justified? If it's not justified, isn't bush a war criminal? I have another question, what exactly does "support the troops" mean anyway? it seems to have become a fairly empty statement. How bout, "Don't blame the troops". I like that one better. I think everyone wants them home safe and soon. Is that supporting the troops? I mean, who doesn't want that? Who is it exactly that is NOT supporting the troops? Is there some big "Screw the troops" campaign that I am missing out on? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2903 Registered: 8-2003 |
Fortunately, you're not the one that needs to be convinced, RL. And your pessimism isn't determinative either. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7016 Registered: 5-2001 |
Kurds are not religiously monolithic. They come in both Sunni and S'hia varities. They also have two internal political parties who have decided to take a united front for now. I don't know if these parties are divided along religious lines or not. According to today's NY Times the S'hia slate for the upcoming elections is broken almost equally between religious and secular parties. The religious party leaders tend to have strong ties with Iran. After the election I don't think anybody knows where the secular parties end up on the Iran issue. Everything will depend on Sistani, what he really belives and how he will influence the new government. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1380 Registered: 1-2003  |
I don't see how I equaed Saddam with the US army. I really don't. I showed pictures of Saddam's brutality and used them as support for the administrations policy of regime change in Iraq. That in turn led to war. These appeasenicks are against war and LOVE to post pictures of the "atrocities" done by the US. Even though the US is extremely careful not to harm innocents. Sometimes it happens and it is sad, but it doesn't mean the mission is wrong. On the contrary, the restraint that the US forces show in order not to harm civilians, mosques, or whatever shows our compassion and moral clarity. Its easy to oppose the war and just say that Saddam was brutal and evil, but when you actually see the brutality... brutality that is no longer a part of the Iraqis lives, I can't see how you can't support the war. Accidental collateral damage is far different from brutality reigned down from the dictator on to his own people. The Iraqis are having free elections for gods sake. I am sure history will look back on Bush as a humanitarian who brought peace and stability to the middle east and not as war criminal. Me too. Its already happening. Look at Afghanistan. The "war criminal" canard is truly laughable. It shows your ignorance. If the war is justified by the terrible things Sadam did, why did the administration have to lie to justify the war? They didn't lie, and the war IS justified on many many grounds. No, war isn't pretty and I'm not an idiot. Well, you're half right. "Don't blame the troops". I like that one better. Blame them for what? Doing their job? Promoting freedom throughout the world? Bringing democracy to a people that have never experienced it? Accomplishing their mission? Stomping out terrorists? No, I think I like to "blame" the troops for those things. I think everyone wants them home safe and soon. Is that supporting the troops? No, it isn't. Supporting the troops means supporting the job they are doing and doing everything you can do to assure that they accomplish their mission in the shortest amount of time with the lowest amount of casualties. Wanting the troops home before the mission is over (in this case a free, safe, and democratic Iraq) is the opposite of supporting the troops. Decrying that their mission is wrong, based on nothing but your hatred of war, is NOT supporting the troops. Calling their Commander in Chief a war criminal for no other reason than it makes you feel good is not supporting the troops. Accusing them of atrocities before you have the facts is not supporting the troops. Showing pictures of collateral damage and blaiming the troops for these terrible injuries is not supporting the troops. Who is it exactly that is NOT supporting the troops? Lets see, on MOL theres YOU, Robert Livingston, Must Must, and plenty of others. Is there some big "Screw the troops" campaign that I am missing out on? No, you're obviously not missing out on anything. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 504 Registered: 5-2004 |
MJ, you're equating agreeing with the mission with supporting the troops, and that's simply not fair. It's is quite possible to be very much against what the Administration sent them in to Iraq to do, and still be supportive of the people doing their job over there. In fact there are soldiers over there in that exact situation, though I would never say it's anywhere near a majority. Hypothetically, if I have a cousin in Iraq, and I don't agree with the war, but I send him care packages, support the USO, campaign for better benefits for vets and guardsmen, and still do what I can to try to get the troops out of Iraq, are you really saying I'm not supporting them? That's not to say that simply saying "Bring our Troops Home!!!" is supportive. It's not, and it's counterprodictive if that's all you're doing. But it's very possible to support the troops, and not support the administration's position. | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 1291 Registered: 12-2001 |
"No, it isn't. Supporting the troops means supporting the job they are doing and doing everything you can do to assure that they accomplish their mission in the shortest amount of time with the lowest amount of casualties. Wanting the troops home before the mission is over (in this case a free, safe, and democratic Iraq) is the opposite of supporting the troops. Decrying that their mission is wrong, based on nothing but your hatred of war, is NOT supporting the troops. Calling their Commander in Chief a war criminal for no other reason than it makes you feel good is not supporting the troops. Accusing them of atrocities before you have the facts is not supporting the troops. Showing pictures of collateral damage and blaiming the troops for these terrible injuries is not supporting the troops." I think you have an inflated sense of how important/harmful posting on this board is. It's like fantasy gaming - he's not really hurting and you're not really helping within this space. But if something REAL is to be done - charity work, blood drive, charity boxing match between the two of you, enlisting - either one of you could emerge as "the supportingest". | ||
| Maplefan Citizen Username: Maplefan Post Number: 13 Registered: 6-2004 |
Thank you for referencing Sportnuts commentary, Rastro. I'm not avid reader or contributor to this site, so it's difficult to keep up with past postings. Still, I think I got his point. In my response, I said you can (and should) have your own opinion, but it would be a mistake to not listen carefully to those with firsthand experiences. With that, I'm sure you (and even Mr. Sportsnut) would agree. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1381 Registered: 1-2003 |
Themp, I agree, but it is cathartic. |
