BS: In support of our servicemen and women..

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 02:50 PM

artbrooks: Thank you for correcting the previous (intentionally) erronious statement about veterans' benefits. I know several servicemen who were waiting for the 2000 election results. If Gore had won they would have retired from the military. Clinton did major damage to the veteran's hospital system, and would have ended it competely if he had the power to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 04:46 PM

Uh, that should read "CONGRESS did major damage..." there, pd. And it was Republican controlled.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 06:11 PM

Why are there so many more horses asses than there are horses?
Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 06:12 PM

You remember correctly, Gareth, but also selectively. Otherwise you would have remembered that the Irish delegation signed the treaty because war was the only alternative. Lloyd George was obliged to narrow the options that far because he was then dependent on the Tory party to stay in office. The Tories at the time were still led by Bonar Law, who was by then more or less off his trolley.

Before you fire off your cheap shots, Gareth, you might pause and try to imagine what life has been like for Ard Mhacha and many thousands of others in a forgotten corner of the UK this past 34 years. And by the way, Northern Ireland, the six counties, the liberated north or whatever you want to call it is NOT in Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 06:44 PM

GUEST, pdq: sorry, but I must disagree. I worked for the VA throughout the Clinton administration, and the funding, quality of care and access to services all improved tremendously during that period.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Gareth
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 06:56 PM

And see you are reverting to your natural obnoxiousness Fionn. Get your facts right - If A M's posts are correct this situation has been going on for a lot longer than 34 years. So why pick that date, or is it selective quoting on your part ?

I suggest you refer to Marcus Lipton's Pamphlet " John Bulls other Island "

And if you think that that the six Counties is not part of Britain, then I suggest you take that up with the Majority of the Voting Population in the 6 counties.

Or have you forgotten what Democracy is ?

What medical refrences can you quote for the insanity of Bonar Law, or is it another instance of Bad Journalistic Practice ? Picking up rumours in Saloon Bars again ?

Gareth - Who at least makes his name and address available to other 'Catters

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 07:07 PM

artbrooks: Thanks for response. If I am wrong I will be the first to admit it. There are probably three levels to consider. The top, Clinton, said he wanted to end it the veterans hospital system completely. Again, he did not have the power to do so. Second is the national management system which is, and always has been, first rate. Third is the individual hospital, many of which suffered cutbacks and had to refuse service to a large number of people.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 07:27 PM

GUEST,pdq: I never heard that Mr. Clinton said anything about closing down the VA medical care system. In fact, the number of points of care expanded tremendously...about tripled...because his administration instituted the satellite clinic program. Many individual facilities did have mission changes, because what they were doing just wasn't effective. For example, having a cardiac surgery program at a hospital that did 2-3 a year didn't provide enough cases for the surgeons to keep in practice.

The thing that the Clinton administration did do that had a negative effect on wait times was to open up the system to all veterans, regardless of income or service-connected status. A large number of vets who could afford to go elsewhere, and have their care paid for by their health insurance, promptly signed up for the VA. The only explaination for this is the quality of care provided. I have good medical insurance, and I wouldn't go anywhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 29 Jul 03 - 08:27 PM

artbrooks: If our vets are getting the quality of care they were promised when they signed up, that has made my day. Thanks for letting us know.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: LadyJean
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 12:52 AM

I buy cookies from an African American lady, whose daughter is serving in Iraq. The United States Army is one of the best opportunities for people of color, which is why the young woman decided to make it her carreer.
I don't like the war. I DO like the cookie lady. (Anyone who supplies me with chocolate is my friend.) I hope her daughter returns to her family, safely. I think I'm being reasonable. I hope George W. Bush is photographed in a compromising situation with a heifer.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 03:28 AM

Fionn,

Gareth is correct in what he has said:

1. The Irish Free State, representing those Irishmen who wanted to be seperated from the rule of Westminster, were signatories of the Treaty of 1922.

2. The six counties that did not join, where, the majority of the population wished to remain within a United Kingdom of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, politically make Northern Ireland a part of the United Kingdom. The majority of its population still wish to remain so.

3. Hovering over those negotiating the treaty of 1922, was a threat not of war between the UK and the Irish Free State, but of a civil war in an Irish Free State that included the population of those six counties. Now mainland UK could have taken the view, "Hell we've been trying to get rid of this lot for the last fifty years, let 'em go and let 'em get on with it". They couldn't do that for two reasons, a civil war in Ireland would have devastated that island and the resulting outcome could have been damaging to both Britain and Ireland, the civil war would inevitably have drawn in the UK and others. So a compromise had to be found - everybody connected with the negotiations knew that, even de Valera.

I read AM's description of living under occupation - another question for you AM - During those years under occupation, who posed the greatest threat to your life, the "occupying forces" (which of course they are not, they are the armed forces of the United Kingdom and have every right to be stationed anywhere in the United Kingdom), or the paramilitaries (from either side, a bomb placed in a crowded bar, shop, or street is very indiscriminate in who it kills).

The paramilitaries - the unelected self-appointed "guardians", who have the gall in a democratic society, to state that they act on behalf of whatever section of the population. Fact is they don't, and never have done - take a look at the result of the "All Ireland" referendum which asked the views of the entire population on the use of arms in Irish politics. Something like 92% of the votes cast condemned the use of force and arms to resolve the issue of Irish unification - The Republican, or Nationalist, paramilitaries have no mandate whatsoever to speak for "the Irish people", they can threaten a return to an armed struggle, but they could never do it. They fully realise that, for they would be roundly condemned for it, and with the current attitude towards terrorism, the Republican/Nationalist cause's greatest traditional ally would prove to be its greatest enemy.

Note that there have been no candidates offered up for an example of a single paramilitary who has saved a life. From the ranks of those who, for the the last 34 years, have served in the Army, police force and emergency services - I could name many.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: ard mhacha
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 06:25 AM

My last reply to this thread was deleted, Again I will try and have another effort to post.

I don`t wish to have this Thread diverted to another sick county squabble, merely to say, read John McGuffins book The Guinea Pigs and Ulster by the Sunday Times Insight team. 1972.

The Times Insight team was lauded for exposing the corrupt Unionist set-up, Harold Evans [not P O` Neill] was the Editor. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 09:24 AM

Ah, Teribus the great defender of the realm (so long as he has the most guns)--pontificates thus:

"1. (he does so love to enumerate his points-ed) The Irish Free State, representing those Irishmen who wanted to be seperated from the rule of Westminster, were signatories of the Treaty of 1922."

This certainly gave me chuckle. Perhaps the great and powerful Teribus could accept that not ALL those who wished to be separated from the rule of Westminster, supported the Treaty of 1922. There was that pesky civil war thing over the signing of the treaty, and the robbing of the six counties by Britain (who needed the shipbuilders of the empire to stick with the union).

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 10:05 AM

GUEST 30 Jul 03 - 09:24 AM

As far as I can make out I am not defending anything - realm or otherwise.

Regarding point 1 of my previous post. You obviously chuckle easily.

There is no doubt at all that, "not ALL those who wished to be separated from the rule of Westminster, supported the Treaty of 1922."

Guest you mention, "that pesky civil war thing over the signing of the treaty", now that was a fairly low key thing compared to the "pesky civil war thing" that would have ensued if the pro-Union North had been forced into the free state.

Now your turn to make me laugh, "the robbing of the six counties by Britain (who needed the shipbuilders of the empire to stick with the union)". So Britain having just come through the Great War, with all the resultant merchant shipping losses, relied so heavily on Belfast shipbuilders. What about the massive shipbuilding capacity of mainland Britain, Guest?

Strikes me that the shipbuilders in Northern Ireland needed Britain at that time a damn sight more than Britain needed them - shipbuilding facilities in Aberdeen, Rosyth, Newcastle, Middlesborough, Hull, Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft, Chatham, Portsmouth, Southampton, Plymouth, Appledore, Liverpool, Birkenhead, Workington and the Clyde. Oh yes, Britain really needed the Harland & Wolf yard in Belfast. As part of the Irish Free State, civil war apart - How many orders for British ships would have been placed there? - Who else were they going to build ships for?

Your contentions are a nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 10:19 AM

Britain couldn't, at the time, afford to lose any of it's shipbuilding capacity, hence the betrayal of the treaty, and Britain's unilateral partitioning of the island of Ireland. To suggest that because Britain had other shipbuilding capacity, it didn't need the shipbuilding capacity it had in Ireland, defies the historical record of events at that time in Ireland and England.

And the argument that civil war between unionists and nationalists would have been worse than the civil war between nationalists, is pure speculation which could never be proved. But it does make for a convenient excuse, used by British apologists and realm defenders like yourself, there Teribus, for Britain's unilateral partitioning of the island. That same British partitioning tactic was used throughout the Anglo and American empires throughout the 20th c. to ill effect everywhere it was done.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Gervase
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 10:53 AM

34 years refers to the time since British troops were sent to Northern Ireland following a plea from Gerry Fitt to protect the Roman Catholic minority, who were suffering from an almost apartheid-style discrimination at the hands of the majority Protestant population. Growing up a Catholic in Northern Ireland was to be largely condemned to second-class citizenship (I have a large chunk of my very Catholic family in Northern Ireland, so I do know what I'm talking about).
As to why things went sour - that's another can of worms altogether, tied up with political naivete on the part of both Republicans and the British Government, duplicity and downright power mania. Bloody Sunday certainly didn't help matters either.
From my reading of his postings, Fionn is rather better versed in Ulster politics than most here - and certainly more qualified to comment than any other English or Welsh posters in this thread. I also happen to agree with his tongue-in-cheek take on divine intercession! If that makes me sick, well, I'm sick and proud to be. Better a healthy cynicism than a saccharine mawkishness that attempts to sweeten the unpalatable.

And to return to the original subject; praying for peace - as a secular humanist I find the concept of prayer rather pointless, but I do hope and wish for peace, and for the stupidity and mendacity of the Bush and Blair administrations to be recognished by the electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 11:09 AM

Well, that didn't work! Sorry about that.

Very well said, Gervase. I would hope that both those who are religiously inclined and the secular humanists, will pray (if that is their thing) and work for the stupidity and mendacity of the Bush and Blair administrations to be recognished by the electorate, and be rejected by them.

I would also hope that those who claim to be religious, do the truly charitable thing, and pray for all those who are brutalized by war, and to include those who work so hard to prevent and/or bring war and it's suffering to a speedy end, and not just for their own servicemen and women.

Selective piety and self-righeous, begrudging religiosity benefits no one.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 11:13 AM

With all do respect to the many Irish, Green or Orange, who have suffered or passed on due to the actions of others, please keep you fight at home. This thread is for people who have positive things to say about the American (and some British) servicemen who are risking their lives at the request of their leaders. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 12:35 PM

Teribus- When you say "'occupying forces' (which of course they are not, they are the armed forces of the United Kingdom and have every right to be stationed anywhere in the United Kingdom)", do you really mean that any land declared to be territory of a given nation cannot be occupied by that nation? If so, that legitimizes the British occupation of India, the innumerable occupations of Africa by European nations, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and in fact the Nazi occupations of France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc. I don't think that this was really your meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 01:16 PM

OK GUEST 30 Jul 03 - 10:19 AM

Let's take a look at the historical record of events at that time in Ireland and England:

"Britain couldn't, at the time, afford to lose any of it's shipbuilding capacity" - Wrong after an extremely short lived boom immediately after the war, there was a major recession. No ships because there was no money to build them, therefore why do they need the capacity.

Now lets look at, "the betrayal of the treaty,". I take it that the treaty you are talking about was the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1922. Giffiths and Collins were sent, by de Valera to negotiate as plenipotentiaries (i.e. they had the right to act on behalf of the Irish Government without having to refer back to that Government). Having given those men that power, de Valera should have been bound by what was negotiated, otherwise, he should have gone and done the job himself. The terms that were negotiated, were better than any previous Irish Home Rule proposals that had beeen accepted by previous Irish leaders.

When the acceptance of the Treaty was debated and put to the vote (I believe the voting was 64 to 57 in favour) de Valera resigned and the civil war started, between those supporting the Free State Party and de Valera's Republicans. The Free State side won. If the Treaty was betrayed by anyone it was betrayed by de Valera, who in a private conversation later in life declared, his opposition to the Treaty to have been the biggest mistake he had ever made in his life (Not my opinion documented Wikipedia).

As to "Britain's unilateral partitioning of the island of Ireland". The Anglo-Irish Treaty was just that, for it included the whole of Ireland, but provided for Partion if the North decided against it. The Boundaries were to be decided by a Boundary Commission, chaired by a South African Judge and made up of representatives from UK, Irish Free State and the North. The Treaty was signed and ratified in 1922, but due to the civil war in Southern Ireland the Boundary Commission could not start work until 1924-25. The agreement reached was signed by Baldwin, Cosgrove and Craig - So where does unilateral come into that?

"the argument that civil war between unionists and nationalists would have been worse than the civil war between nationalists, is pure speculation which could never be proved." Very true, with whether or not it would have been worse or not, is speculation, well founded as the scale of the conflict would have been greater. But please don't try to deny that the prospect of such a civil war, wasn't taken into account by those negotiating the Treaty. At that time, only Collins had a premonition that in signing the treaty, he was in effect signing his own death warrant - the civil war between the Republicans and Free Staters was by no means a predictable foregone conclusion.

As to the British partitioning tactic. Let's see:
Canada - No
Austalia - No
New Zealand - No
South Africa - No
Southern Rhodesia - No, became Zimbabwe
Northern Rhodesia - No, became Zambia
Nyasaland - No, became Malawi
Tanganyka - No, British Mandated Territory
Zanzibar - No, British Mandated Territory on independence united with Tanganyka to form Tanzania
Kenya - No
Uganda - No
British and French Somalia - No as they united on independence
Burundi - No
Namibia - No, British Mandated Territory
Nigeria - No
Ghana - No
Malaya - No
Borneo - No
Cyprus - No, Britain threatened to partition it as a means of ending EOKA's campaign.
India - No, Partition was at the instance of Jinnah, the acknowledged leader of India's muslim population. The British, Gandhi and Nehru were all against it. First call for a seperate Pakistan voiced by Dr. Allama Iqbal in 1930, repeated by Jinnah in 1940. Talks to resolve the issue between Gandhi and Jinnah in 1944 were unsuccessful. In 1945 the British Labour Government prepare India for Independence conceeding that partition is inevitable. India partitioned to form India, East Pakistan, West Pakistan, Burma (Myanmar).

Palestine - No, British Mandated territory. Britain proposed it 20% Jewish, homeland, 80% Palestinian. The Jewish settlers accepted this - the Palestinians didn't - Pity really.

I haven't gone through all the islands as the answer there is no as well. So Guest - that sure was a well applied and oft-times used tactic wasn't it.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 09:53 PM

I'm sorry for my part in steering the thread on to a track well worn in other threads. I preferred the religion v superstition banter.

I go along with most of Teribus's last post above. But he was wrong in an earlier post to deny that the Irish delegation signed under threat of war. This threat was explicit all along (see Frank Pakenham's book on the treaty, Peace by Ordeal). In my view L-G was genuinely desperate to avoid war, but was compromised by his dependence on the Tories. Dev's decision to oppose both the treaty and the parliamentary vote on it cost many thousands of lives, and probably set back by decades the cause of a united Ireland.

I'm also with Teribus on the argument that the H&W shipyard was never a factor. What certainly was a factor was the huge, and then recent, Irish losses in WW1; in particular Belfast losses at the Somme. L-G and Churchill, both members of the British negotiating team, felt honourbound to stand by those in Ireland who wanted to stay British.

This is not to say they were right. But by the time Craig had abused the opportunity, to create "a protestant parliament for a protestant people" (with which chilling phrase he reduced 40-odd per cent of the six-counties to non-people), Ireland had been kicked into touch at Westminster.

Teribus grandly referred to a "United Kingdom of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland." As I think he knows, the sovereign entity was, and is, the United Kingdom of Great Britain (which includes Wales) and Northern Ireland. The name of the nation should make it abundantly clear for Gareth's benefit that Northern Ireland is not part of Britain.

The best book on the work of the boundary commission remains Puckoon by Spike Milligan.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 30 Jul 03 - 11:18 PM

Please respect the people who would like a non-political discussion and start a new thread. Irish are the largest "minority" in the U.S. at about 75 million people. You will have no trouble getting people to complain about something. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Jim McLean
Date: 31 Jul 03 - 12:22 PM

Fionn's point, Teribus, is important. You confused Britain with the UK. Any UK passport holder knows that the inside page states '.. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen ireland. The Northern Irish are members of the UK but not British although I wouldn't tell Ian Paisley that, at least not to his face!
The rest of the above thread really just proves that prayers do no good as there seems to be nobody listening .. except he/she who does the praying and I think that is the reason why people pray, it makes them feel good so why not. Personally, when I was called up to join the British army in 1956 to fight in Suez, in a war concocted between, Britain, France and Israel, I chose not to and was sent to prison, in Glasgow's infamous Barlinie gaol. I think I met a better class of person.
Yours in peace,
Jim Mclean

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 31 Jul 03 - 12:49 PM

Teribus-All of the divisions you mentioned in Africa were purely administrative divisions, with no bearing on local political structures. The partitioning occured at the beginning of colonization, but that doesn't make it any less of a partition. Also, as I asked before, do you really think that if a country claims a given territory, that any military forces present there are not occupiers?

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Gareth
Date: 31 Jul 03 - 03:07 PM

Fionn - Surprisingly I agree with your objective comments (last post)

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Aug 03 - 01:38 AM

Jim,

Please correct me if I am wrong:

".... The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen ireland. The Northern Irish are members of the UK but not British"

Act of Union 1707 - created the United Kingdom of Scotland and England. One parliament, under one crown. A Union Flag was designed consisting of the crosses of St.George and St.Andrew.

Act of Union 1801 - created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Note the change, what is being described in the title is the geographic entity - i.e. two islands, with one Parliament and one crown. A new Union Flag was designed adapting the old to include the cross of St.Patrick.

Anglo-Irish Treaty 1922 - Southern Ireland breaks away from the Union. The title of the Monarch is changed, now to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The cross of St.Patrick remains on the national standard.

I believe those living in Northern Ireland are entitled to carry British passports. Northern Ireland is as much a part of the United Kingdom as Scotland and Wales. Our little cluster of islands, dotted off mainland Europe are collectively referred to in geographic terms as the Britsh Isles - not the British Isles and Ireland - I believe that was done by the Romans, but I'm not sure, I believe they named the Isles, Brittanica Maximus and Hibernia - but as I say not sure about it, and don't have time at present to look it up - others will know, of that I am sure.

Forum Lurker I believe I answered your question in my PM.

As to the partitioning tactic mentioned by GUEST 30 Jul 03 - 10:19 AM. We were discussing the partition of Ireland and Guest says:

"But it does make for a convenient excuse, ..... for Britain's unilateral partitioning of the island. That same British partitioning tactic was used throughout the Anglo and American empires throughout the 20th c. to ill effect everywhere it was done."

In the context of our discussion, Guest is certainly talking about partiton of countries on gaining independence. Expansion of the British Empire during the 20th century was restricted to administration of former German colonies in Africa (Namibia, Tanganyka and Zanzibar). In addition Britain was given responsibility for Mandated Territories by the League of Nations. Partition on or immediately before independence was not, and never has been, a "British tactic" as stated by Guest.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 01 Aug 03 - 12:52 PM

Teribus-True, the intent of partitioning the African territories was administrative, rather than punitive, and I hadn't received your PM at the time of my last post.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Jim McLean
Date: 02 Aug 03 - 07:32 AM

Teribus, the devil's in the detail. There is no question but that Northern Ireland is a separate entity to that of Great Britain and as such their 'citizens' are United Kindgom 'citizens'.The Encyclopaedia Britannica states that '...The United Kingdom (known popularly, if not quite accurately as Britain) ...'.
I notice you use the term Anglo quite often in your postings to mean Britain or British, but what does Anglo mean in, for example, the Anglo Scottish Union of 1707? What is an Anglo-Irish football match, if not between England and Ireland? So why does The Anglo Irish Agreement suddenly mean an agreement between the UK government and Ireland? There are plenty misnomers around which have profound political meaning ..Anglo = England = UK.
There's also the question of Royal titles since the Union of the Crowns .... but enough for now.
Cheers,
Jim McLean

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Frankham
Date: 02 Aug 03 - 10:13 AM

Beccy,

I am not a militarist. But I know people who are in the military. One man I know was a candidate for the Green Berets. His contention is this,
that Rumsfeld policy was and is a prescription for military disaster.
The fact that American troops are being picked off in a guerilla war certainly shows the incompetence of the Administration's policies.
I pray that American troops will be returned home. I pray for better leadership in the White House so that our young men and women will not be subjected to danger by political incompetence.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Jun 04 - 06:42 PM

Early this afternoon I took twenty-one (21) boxes of paperbacks over to the local National Guard armory. They'll accompany the troops -- all local folk -- to Ft. Bliss and then go with them to Iraq.

These books were donated by the community, including Idaho State University faculty and students. They were checked over by local veterans' organizations (American Legion, DAV, VVA, VFW, etc.) to make sure they were in good shape. The Library served as the collector.

In addition, this public library is forgiving the fines of anyone who has served in a combat zone since January 1, 2003, their spouse, and their children. The children of anyone KIA will be fine-free until they turn 18.

Pocatello, Idaho supports their daughters, sons, husbands, wives, fathers, brothers, mothers who might be in harm's way. Not everyone here -- by a LOOOOOOOOOONG shot -- is in favor of either the war or Bush. They ARE in favor of their neighbors.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: LadyJean
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 01:38 AM

Praying is an excellent thing. But if you would like to do more for the young men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, go to Michael Moore's web page. He has a whole listing of organizations that are set up to help service people and their families.
Most of these people went into the service to get money for college, or extra money to pay the bills, or training in a specific field.
When I was a kid, someone put a sign up sheet on the school bulletin board asking for radios to send to soldiers in Vietnam. I had a little transistor I never used, so I signed up. As I as doing so, a passing classmate punched me in the eye. She played goalie on the hockey team, so it was a good punch.
Most of those kids were draftees, who didn't have any real choice, except jail.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 10:18 AM

I am a grunt. A groundpounder. A dogface. GI Joe, Tommy Atkins, whatever you want to call me. I am your soldier, no matter how I serve, and I've been around since Ugmug's people fought with their neighbors.

I've been at Waterloo, Agincourt, Khe Sanh, Dien Bien Phu, Normandy, Vimy Ridge, the Meuse, Austerlitz, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Betio, Port Arthur, Pork Chop Hill, Marathon, Valmy, Pultowa, Blenheim, Quebec, Saratoga, Maldon Bridge, Hastings, King's Mountain, Missisinewa, Vicksburg, Gettysburg, Cold Harbor, and a million more battles large and small.

I was both the winner and the loser, for I fought on both sides.

I fight on my feet, but I've been taken into battle by ship, truck, airplane, glider, rowboat, horse, submarine, armored vehicle, wagon, helicopter, and even by taxi. Most of the time I've walked.

My fight is often very personal. I've fought with rifles, rocket launchers, knives, clubs, swords, bayonets, hand grenades, flamethrowers, explosives, pistols, spears, halberds, stones, chemicals, and many other weapons. Often I've fought with my hands. And I've often died.

I've crouched in holes full of mud and worse and stood up in full view. I've fought from behind parapets, fascines, corpses, sandbags, dead horses, castle walls, barbed wire, chemine de frise, burning vehicles, trees, rocks, and any place I could find cover and concealment. I have walked into battle over the bodies of both my foes and my friends.

I have fought, and fought with, every nation and people on Earth, without exception.

There is nothing that can replace me. Nothing.

I am your son, your daughter, your father, your mother, cousin, husband, lover, wife, grandchild -- I am yourself.

You send me to fight. Perhaps through your elected representatives, but it is you that send me. And it is you that must support me when I fight and, perhaps even more, when I come back to you, changed utterly.

I am your soldier.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: GUEST,another cowardly guest poster
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 12:29 PM

Shouldn't we pray for our torturers in Abu Griab? I think we should -don't forget they're soldiers too. I wonder if the torturers ,sorry specialists ,pray themselves .From the pictures I've seen of them ,they all seem like good upstanding Americans so I'm sure they will all be familiar with the power of prayer. But ,if any of them ever feel at a loss, here is a short prayer I have written especially for them .They may care to offer it up should they find themselves in need of solace whilst they go about their onerous duties. It is a call for spiritual as well as moral renewal:
O Lord, give us the strength to break the limbs of these terrorists and enemy combatants as is surely thy will. Send thy love to comfort us thy specialist servants as we do thy work so that we will not be troubled by the screams of agony around us.And ,when our work in this far mission is done ,O lord, deliver us safely to our homes and to our loved ones that we may obtain college educations and put our children through high school. God Bless America. Amen

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 09:05 PM

Sorry, Repaire, but I don't send you or anyone else.

Not in MY name.

But that does NOT mean I wish you or any individual soldiers ill.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 10:13 PM

So vote against those who sent them, if you can. I will.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 10:29 PM

Rapaire, did you think none of us would recognize that you had copied and pasted that militarist screed, and put your name on it here?

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Jun 04 - 12:09 AM

Really, ANON.GUEST? The first paragraph doesn't come up on a Google search. Where did you find it?

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: JennyO
Date: 26 Jun 04 - 01:21 AM

Whether or not it was copied and pasted is beside the point. I think it is quite valid, and belongs on this thread.

I am very much anti-war - I've marched in peace marches and sung anti-war songs in my choir, but at the same time, I recognize that it is the politicians who send our soldiers off to fight - they are doing an unpleasant and dangerous job because they have to, and most have the best of intentions. Admittedly there are a few who enjoy the idea of warmongering, but they are in the minority.

I think they deserve our support and good thoughts simply because they are other human beings in need of it.

Jenny

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 Jun 04 - 02:14 AM

well said jenny. nothing is simple, nothing is black and white. I oppose the war, but see it as the poitician's responsibility. the people at the front line are the ones who see and experience more than anyone else the realities of what is happening in any war. despite that they keep fighting because they believe that is the right thing to do. they are heroes or fodder, depending on how someone theorises, but more than anything they need support.

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: GUEST,Frankham
Date: 26 Jun 04 - 11:50 AM

My prayers go out to all of the servicemen and women as well as those innocent Iraqi women, children and men who were murdered by them. The Iraqi war is a internation tragedy of gigantic proportions

I now believe that the best support we can give them is to allow them to return home and stop using Wall Street stock market expressions like "stop loss" to enslave them to furthur duty.

The policy is misguided from the inception. There can be no democracy in Iraq as long as it is occupied by an external military force. Nor will the new Iraqi government put in place by an external goverment succeed with the people of Iraq. The "insurgents" are increasing their ranks by Iraqi citizens who don't want the US there.

Our best hope for our young men and women is to bring them home as soon as possible. You can't bring democracy to a country who is looking down the barrel of a gun.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 04 - 12:26 PM

Well said, Frank; but do not lose sight of the number of those barrels being weilded byu internal opponents.

Democracy is not in the minds of those who wield guns. By their very nature what is in their minds is elimination of disagreement by force.

A

Subject: RE: BS: In support of our servicemen and women..
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jun 04 - 03:21 PM

1. I wrote it. I did not cut and paste it.

2. I wrote it to remind everyone that those in the service are sent by those people WE put there -- WE being what happens in an election, whether it's decided by a direct vote, the Electoral College, or the Supreme Court. The folks in DC or London or wherever represent US, the people in the country.

3. If you don't like the people who represent you, if you don't like what they're doing, I will refer you to this copy-and-paste:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Yes, it's part of a larger work. Try not to lose sight of what it says.

4. I will support, now and in the future, with my actions and my vote, the the best of my ability, those who have been sent in harms way. This in no way means that I approve of their leaders.

5. I don't think for a minute that what happened at Abu Ghraib wasn't condoned, implicitly or explicitly, by those at the top of the chain of command. Nor do I think that those at the bottom of the chain are guiltless, as the US Army has said since at least 1948 that every soldier has not only the right, but the duty, to questions illegal orders. In this case, I think that the rot spread downwards. Moreover, "a helluva lot of troops over in Iraq are disgusted about the thing" -- and that's not an opinion, but a quote from an email I received from a cousin over there.