BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Marion
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 02:05 PM

Here's a suggestion... and I intend this respectfully, knowing that many people genuinely believe that this war will contribute to world peace in the long run...

Some of us see this war as a necessary evil, and some of us see it as just plain evil, but I think that we're all disturbed by the suffering of innocents that is resulting. Many anti-war folks are working for humanitarian relief for injured/orphaned/displaced people, but our energies are divided between protest and aid. Those of you support this war don't need to protest, so you could spend more of your energy on aid.

Why not respond to this crisis by creating a fundraising project for the Red Cross or UNICEF or World Vision etc.?

Marion

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 11:28 AM

troll she's in Hollywood, near Ft. Lauderdale. Is that near Gainesville? I haven't spoken to her in a while - gonna call her tonight. Not sure what she thinks of all this, but I'm sure hoping she's safe ... I know she's in more danger than I am in Canada. I only hope you are ALL safe ...

" Support our troops by bringing them home alive and well."

Hrothgar, TIA - that can't be repeated often enough, imo.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: TIA
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 11:14 AM

If this war is so legitimate from the UN's point of view, where the hell are they? And, why was the U.S. so afraid to have the Security Council speaks its collective official mind? Quote all the previous resolutions you want to... you can't pretend that we are advancing the will of the UN by defying the UN. I have never seen so much contorted reasoning to justify a war with a shifting purpose-of-the-day.

And back to the original purpose of this thread..."Counter Demonstration to support the Troops" COUNTER to what? I haven't seen a single sign disparaging our troops or the Constituion of the United States of America. I am patriotic, and I so love the country I was born and raised in, that I see it as my patriotic duty to publicly oppose the military coup that the Executive Branch has pulled off (with the help of the cowardly silence of the rest of the federal government). I am marching for the American way. This war ain't it!

Support our troops by bringing them home alive and well.

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Troll
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 10:56 AM

daylia, where in Florida is she? I'm in Gainesville. Been here since '67.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 10:42 AM

troll I'm glad we agree about the troops. And I agree that it is important to provide all the information we can. I know that the President's legal advisors have undoubtedly found ways to "legitimize" this war - that is their job, after all. Is that the source of your information re the UNSC resolutions?

There's sure to be debate about it for a long time to come. And as we debate, people are still suffering and dying and the Earth is still being ravaged with the weapons of war. What a stupid, pathetic waste.

Sheesh and I wanted to stay off this thread too ... it was Don's wonderful stories and information that brought me back though.

Thanks again, Don for your comments about Canada. My sister has lived in Florida for about 25 years now, and she loves it there. She sure values her Canadian citizenship though - she visits quite regularly, and always sees the doctor while she's here!

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Troll
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 09:45 AM

I agree about the troops. I believe, however, that it is incumbent upon each of us to provide al the information we can, especially in an area as highly charged as this one is. That is why I posted the segment on the resolutions; so everyone could see that there is some basis in thought for believing that the war is, in fact, legal.
It is, naturally, open to intertrptation and I am well aware that there are those who believe that no war is ever justified, no matter what the reason but I won't get into that.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 09:05 AM

troll, let's agree on this okay? That we want the troops be brought home safely and the sooner the better. Even if you were to convince me that this war is "legal", that still wouldn't make it right or desirable to my way of thinking. So what's the point?

As Little Hawk said on the Roses and Thistles thread yesterday, we know where everyone stands on this by now, so what's the point of flogging a dead horse?

Or a big bad - even braized! - billy goat gruff.

Peace

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Troll
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 05:23 AM

Daylia, I've posted this on two other treads but here it is again.
Resolution 678 was passed on November 29, 2990, soon after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Resolution 678
"Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait .. to use all necessary means to uphold and
implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and
security in the area."

Resolution 687, passed after the liberation of Kuwait, requires disarmament of Saddam Hussein and reaffirms
resolution 678. Since resolution 687 reaffirms 678, and since 678 allows Member States to use "all necessary
means" to implement "subsequent relevant resolutions", it follows that resolution 678 allows the United States (a
Member State) to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein.

Resolution 1441, yet another resolution requiring Saddam to disarm, also reaffirms resolutions 678 and 687. So ..
same logic applies."

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Hrothgar
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 02:20 AM

The best way to support the troops is to bring them home.

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: InOBU
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 06:30 PM

Well, the big day for the pro war folks happened today in New York. About 1,000 as opposed to 100,000 + against the war on Sat. As to ad hominum attacks, on of the demonstrators pro war, said, the reason they were coming out on Sunday was that they work unlike the degenerates who are against the war... degenerates like the pope, well... anyway, the press reported that what they lacked in numbers they made up for in intensity... take that to the poles? I think not.
Well fair play to them
Peace
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 05:50 PM

Don, thank you very much for the information/link re "argumentum ad hominem". A useful guide indeed in navigating debates ... ah, there's so much to learn!

And I'm glad we seem to have parallel dreams! I'm confident that dreams DO manifest, even the grandest dreams, when enough of us choose to make them real. It's just very unfortunate that it's the dreams of certain of our "world leaders" - ie. the creators of the "New American Century" manifesto - that are manifesting right now ...

Ireland, re the "tu quoque" argument - no, it's not quite the same, because I do not "freely choose" to pay taxes (ie. I'm breaking the law if I don't), whereas I do "freely choose" my career - and most thankfully so!

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Ireland
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 05:07 PM

"ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches."

Would that be the same as giving out about,
"Your soldiers freely chose their brainwashing, their present role as high-tech, gov't-salaried murderers of innocent people and illegal invaders of a sovereign nation", and paying tax which pays for their military?

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 03:23 PM

Daylia, as you have undoubtedly noted, there are several here who, if you were to quote an article—from the Guardian—that said, "Scientists have determined that the Law of Gravity is still in force," would immediately dash out of the house, lay down on the lawn, and grasp the grass very firmly for fear they will drift up into the sky. The argumentum ad hominem (attack the source of an uncomfortable argument rather than the argument itself) is a time-honored way of muddying the waters and dismissing obvious facts.

I've been to Canada umpteen times over the years and I love it. My older sister, her husband, and family live in Kingston, Ontario, and my son is currently living and working in Ottawa. Whenever someone objects to my criticism of our government by saying, "Well, if you don't like it here, why don't you just leave!" I start thinking about it quite seriously. The thought also occurs to me each time my wife's and my health insurance premiums go up again!

If the leaders of the United States, the richest, most powerful country in the world, were to set aside their perpetual pandering to the pashas of profit and indulge for a moment in a occasional smidgen of benevolence, this could be an entirely different country. And if they would lay aside their childish games of "king of the hill," it could be an entirely different world.

Ah . . . but I dream. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 11:01 AM

PS this thread has drifted WAY beyond the pale horizon, so to speak, and is becoming a real long sucker too. So I am going to refrain from making any further comments here. Just to let you know I'm not ignoring you. If anyone still wants to discuss anything I've said, I'll (probably) respond to you via PMs.

Peace

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 10:47 AM

Braized Bangaladeshi billy goat? Sounds different indeed! Gotta get me to New York - maybe when all this blows over. Hopefully soon!

So you're a cave troll, not a bridge troll, troll? Thanks for letting me know. It's easier to understand people (and trolls) when you know a little about them. Then they're not just a 'cyber-entity' anymore. That's why I quoted WC Deacon here - in the hopes that knowing a little about my 'national character' would shed a bit of light onto where my views are coming from. I thought that was wise considering the controversial nature of this discussion. Boasting was honestly the last thing on my mind - it's too bad you took it that way.

Canadians in general have absolutely no interest in starting wars. We are blessed with ample natural resources that more than fill our needs, with lots left over to trade with the rest of the world. Historically we've solved our conflicts through patient diplomacy and compromise. We are not born and raised to think that war is just a normal, everyday thing. Which is probably why most of us have 'pacifist' views.

Canada has always been a voice for moderation and peace, and yes, we (and I) do support the UNSC. That's one of the reasons why our Prime Minister decided last week that we will not be part of the coalition against Iraq.

The "facts" I quoted from the Guardian, ie. "The prohibition of the use of force is a foundational rule of international law. Only two exceptions are permitted: the use of force in self-defence, or with the express authorisation of the UN security council exercising its powers under chapter VII of the UN charter." and "Security council resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of force. Any attack on Iraq would consequently be illegal." ARE facts, to the best of my knowledge, or I wouldn't have quoted them.

I don't see that the 'slant' of the newspaper changes them any. That's like saying if I read that "2+2=4" in Marx's Communist Manisfesto, or in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, the political 'slant' of the source renders the math invalid. Somehow, that just doesn't compute.

What is the source of your information re the Security Council resolutions in your 2:09 post, troll? I am interested to know, not just trying to argue.

We do have one of the finest health care systems on the globe - not perfect by any means, but leading-edge and free for all citizens. And of course we pay for it with our taxes. We buy doctors and hospitals, not bombs and armies. We figure the doctors are more important to the health and well-being of our population. The Americans I've met are extremely interested in availing themselves of our health care. I've known a few who've moved here for that express purpose. Canada continues to take measures to prevent abuses of our social services.

And just for the record, neither the US or Great Britain have ever been called upon to "protect" us - protect us from whom? Themselves? Canada threatens no-one, and welcomes just about everyone. The US is the only nation who has ever invaded us, and we handled that just fine in the War of 1812. Remember? That's when we burned down your White House and sent you running home with your tails between your legs. (Oops, now I AM boasting. Sorry - couldn't resist).

It's a different era now of course, but some things do remain the same.
If anyone "threatens" us, it is the US. The US has long had an eye on our lumber and our fresh water, and has tried many times to force us to give them up at a loss - just as they are doing right now with Iraq and her oil reserves. We've managed to protect our resources just fine so far.

And if anyone "protects" us, it is ourselves. In her short history as a nation, Canada has made vital contributions to many, if not all, international conflicts, notably WWI and WWII.   Our purpose was to "protect" the interests of Europe and America, at great sacrifice to ourselves. That's also part of "who we are". We stand on guard for you, too. Unfortunately, most Americans know next to nothing about us. I was hoping to fill in the gaps a little.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: InOBU
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 07:47 AM

I for one can attest that troll is indeed NOT a bridge troll. He also has a refined pallet, and as to eating billy goats... next time you come to New York, I found some REALLY good billy goats to eat at some Bangaladeshi restauraunts in Jackson Hieghts, so we can test that contention.
Cheers
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Bullfrog Jones
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 06:30 AM

Sorry, I made that posting after reading only the first page. I now realize that Beccy has taken her ball and gone home!


BJ

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Bullfrog Jones
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 06:18 AM

Seems to be, Beccy, that Larry and Don are addressing one of your concerns i.e. supporting the troops, by wanting them brought back (a) alive and (b) to a society that doesn't discard them once their usefulness is over. You just don't seem to want to hear it.

BJ

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Penny S.
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 04:14 AM

Here's a link for UK peace supporters who might want to support their troops. Perhaps someone can find one for the US?

UK Forces charity

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Troll
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 02:54 AM

I thought that you were one of those who believed in the UN. Apparently the resolutions passed by the UNSC have no meaning or validity for you. Too bad. Those seem to be the rules that we all are playing under right now. Where your "facts" are reported makes a great deal of difference since the political slant of the reporting medium dictates the interpretation of those "facts".
If you weren't boasting, why mention Canadas "no wars" record. As far as I can see, it illustrated no point in the rest of the thread.
The reason you can have all those nice free things is that the US is there to protect you if need be. And your national health isn't "free". You pay for it with your taxes and, from what I understand, it isn't all that great. But it'sdegree of excellence is something for you to decide, not me. I don't live in Canada.
And regarding those billy goats, I don't live under a bridge. I live in a cave.
Oh, and it's "troll" with a lower case "t".

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: *daylia*
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 11:15 PM

The simple facts I quoted from the article above regarding the prohibition of the use of force as a foundational principle of international law speak for themselves, Troll. Whether they were quoted in the Guardian, the Mudcat Mouthpiece or the Tibetan Book of the Dead is irrelevant.

And I wasn't "boasting" when I quoted WC Deacon above. I was merely stating another, well, fact. It's unfortunate you don't like these facts.

But you are right about one thing - we do not have nearly as many guns and bombs and military machines in this country as you do in yours. We have things like free doctors and health care clinics instead. And that's a fact too!

How bout trackin down those big bad billy goats gruff, Troll? Maybe they'd be more to your liking ...

;)   daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Troll
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 10:02 PM

Daylia, the Guardian is well known for its leftist views so naturally it would decide that the war was illegal. Especially since it is America and George Bush who are prosecuting it. The Presidents legal advisors reportedly looked into the possibility that the war would violate the law. Their conclusion was that it did not. Perhaps you know better but somehow I doubt it.
As for your boast,"There has never been a war of Canadian origin, nor for a Canadian cause.", so what? You've always had the US and Great Britain to protect you and being so close to the US, an enemy would be foolish indeed to attack you. As for wars no of Canadian cause or origin, who the hell could you attack? You haven't the army, navy or industrial base to sustain a war. Your little brag is like the guy who doesn't own a car and says that no car thief has ever dared to try to rob him.
If the world is not to have Saddams all over the place somebody has to take the responsibility for seeing to it. The UN has already proved that it will not. If you don't like the idea of the US being the ones to do the job, perhaps you could convince Canada to take over. Or is your little record more important?
Artbrooks, you are absolutely correct about the Scuds. I was going by an earlier report that was later amended. My error and thanks for pointing it out.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: John Hardly
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 09:00 PM

Fort Wayne Indiana had a "Support the troops" rally today. 15,000 attended.

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: *daylia*
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 07:16 PM

Yeah Bobert, I see the connection. Reminds me quite a bit of the "frontier justice" tactics in the wild wild west a century or so ago ...

There's no doubt that at least some of the Iraqi people themselves will be relieved to have rid of Saddam. This email from Rania Kashdi, a 19yr old Iraqi exile to the anti-war demonstrators proves that most poignantly.

But the precedent being set by the attack on Iraq, ie. that it's acceptable for the US to "enforcing American principles and American interests", using the tactics of "frontier justice", whenever and upon whomever they please, without challenge or sanction, is a dangerous one indeed. Saddam's power and sphere of influence pales beside that of the mighty post-Cold War US. There's just no comparison.

Saddam threatened his own people and anyone in his immediate vicinity who defied him. The current US administration, and it's manifesto for a "New American Century" threatens the whole globe.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Gareth
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 06:49 PM

Weeell I don't know exactlly what Saddam said to Blix, but I'd say that the Iraqui missiles (SP) fired at Quwait (SP) seem to give the finger to cooperation and declaration of cooperation. But returning to Beccys original theme

Kipling had a suitable comment :-
"

Tommy

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
    O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
    But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
    The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
    O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
    For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
    But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
    The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
    O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
    Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
    But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
    The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
    O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
    While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
    But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
    There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
    O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
    For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
    But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
    An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
    An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!"

Gareth

Footnote - Tommy Atkins is the UK equivelent of "Sad Sack" or "GI Joe"

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 06:41 PM

daylia:

You seeing any concievable connection between an invasion of Iraq, that we are now seeing evidence that may have been planned years ago and the Bush administration's adament refusal to sign up in support of the World Court?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: *daylia*
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 06:35 PM

Troll according to
this Guardian analysis, the invasion of Iraq is illegal:

"Thursday March 13, 2003

Is war illegal without a second UN resolution?

The prohibition of the use of force is a foundational rule of international law. Only two exceptions are permitted: the use of force in self-defence, or with the express authorisation of the UN security council exercising its powers under chapter VII of the UN charter.

Iraq has not attacked the US, the UK or their allies, nor is there any evidence that it is about to do so. Force may only be used in self-defence in response to an actual or (according to some commentators) an imminent armed attack. Therefore any arguments based on self-defence fail. What the US national security strategy has advocated are pre-emptive attacks on countries which may threaten the US. The use of armed force in such circumstances is contrary to international law.

What about UN resolution 1441?

Security council resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of force. Any attack on Iraq would consequently be illegal."


Have the fundamental principles of international law changed since last week then?

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 06:15 PM

Yeah, troll, what you said. I would very much like to *see* the evidenece. If you will recall the first of the PR barrage was when Condi Rice asked the question: "When are you going to believe that Saddam has nuclear weapons? When the mushroom cloud is over you?"

We later learn, well after the PR ploy has had its deisired effect in whipping up the masses, that this assertion came from two unsubstanciated sources. The posession of aluminum tubes and a document indicating that Iraq had tried to secure high grad uranium. These two pieces of *evidence* were the basis for the statement. Powell reveled this to the UN.

Okay, then the i9nspectors look at the aluminum tube and declare them usless in developing a nuclear weapon. But then the other shoe dropped when it was discovered and reported in all the major newspapers that the document had been doctored. And doctored rather poorly, at that.

Yeah, so this pretty much took the N out of NBC.

Does create a credibiliity problem for the Bush administraion...

Now, that N is gone, the administration still wants us to believe in the BC part, though they have provided, once again, no evidence, The Iraqis took the inspectors to a site in the dessert and dug up an area where they said they had buried the BC's but then the Bush administration said prove it.

I could accuse you, troll, of doing just about anything I wanted and if you didn't do it, how would you go about proving it? Hmmmm?

Now we get around to Hans Blix's last report which went unknowticed because Bush had allready pulled the trigger where Mr. Blix said that the Iraqis were being very cooperative and that much progress was being made.

Bush didn't want to hear this at all.

This war isn't about WMD.

If you have any interest in what it is about you can follow Richard Perle's life over the last decade with his involvement with right winged militaristic think tanks such as the "Project for a New American Century", "The Hudson Institute" and the "Institute for Stategic Sudies", a,ong others. This plan has been very much in place for many, many years just waiting for the right set of circumstances.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Ireland
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 04:39 PM

What I'm saying is that the military are made up of people like you and me, they are subject to all fears and emotions we all have, just because they choose to take a stance totally opposite does not make them bad people.

Nortons very brave daughter has admitted her fears,that's what makes me respect people like her, she is afraid and still does her duty, and I take offence when people denigrate the sacrifice people lie her make.

I also respect the Iraqi soldier, they face a greater challenge, they are up against the might of the best military in the world,they are doing their duty and that has to be respected also.

Having said that I share most of Dons views on the war,it should never have started, it is not the soldiers fault that the government use them as the first resort to problems rather than the last.

They are not f---ers, murders or accomplices to murder,that is what I reacted to and I am concerned that not many have voiced their objections to such slurs.

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 04:32 PM

Don, thank you, very much.

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 03:03 PM

A bit of thread drift, if you will forgive me:—

I can't recall when and where I met Buzz Ross. It was in the early Sixties and I was singing somewhere almost every weekend. I became familiar with Buzz's face in the audience before ever I knew his name. He became a guitar student of mine, and over a period of time we became close friends. Buzz had to drop out of high school before he finish, and he was attending Edison Technical School (precursor of Seattle Central Community College) to get his GED while he supported himself by working graveyard shift at an all-night gas station.

During the Sixties, Buzz, Diane, Marcia, Loren, Loren's sister Luanne, and I all palled around together. Every time I sang someplace, they were in the audience. We partied together, got together during the week at the Pizza Haven in the University District for coffee-klatsches, and almost every night before Buzz went to work at the gas station, he and I would drop into the famous/infamous Blue Moon Tavern or, if the Moon was too crowded and noisy, Al's Tavern or Bly's "Bounty" for a couple of beers. Loren, Marcia, and I wound up working at Boeing in the late Sixties while Buzz continued to work at the gas station and contemplated what he was going to do in terms of a career.

The Vietnam War was going full-blast, and Buzz knew he would soon be drafted. So he took the initiative. If he volunteered, he could pretty much chose his branch of service rather than having to go wherever they put him. He decided that flying helicopters had a lot of career potential. So when he went into the service he entered training as a helicopter pilot.

Just before he was due to go overseas, he and Marcia got married, and a nicer, more well-suited couple than Buzz and Marcia would be hard to imagine.

Marcia and I worked in the same division at Boeing: Production Illustration department at the 747 plant in Everett, Washington. About three weeks before Christmas, Marcia told me she had received a letter from Buzz. He was in Vietnam, and had been assigned to fly med-evac helicopters. He was happy with this, because he would be a non-combatant, trying to save people rather than trying to kill them.

Two weeks later, Marcia received notice. Buzz had been evacuating a number of wounded. As they took off from the battle area, the 'copter was fired upon and sustained damage. Despite that, Buzz managed to horse it back to base and bring it in for a landing. But because of the damage, the 'copter was difficult to control and they landed hard. One of the rotor blades chopped through the cockpit and stuck Buzz in the head. The wounded had been evacuated safely. But Buzz died the following day.

And two weeks after that, at a New Years Eve party, at one point in the evening Marcia and I sat in a corner, held each other, and wept.

That, I think, is why I responded in particular to the helicopter crash in Iraq.

I become very angry with those who think that war is any kind of solution. My opposition to war, especially a war that has not been forced on us, is not just philosophical. I can say with strong, personal conviction that it's a tragic, needless waste. One of the reasons why I am so opposed to wars in general, and particularly a meedless war that my own country initiates, is that war does these sorts of things to people. When a person dies in war, it isn't just that one person. It isn't just a battlefield statistic. It's a life with all of its potential cut short. And it's all those people at home, too. Friends and relations. War is a sign of abject failure. It sanctions and embraces the very worst in human nature.

You didn't know my particular story, Ireland, so no offense taken. Considering the tone of some posts, I can see where you might have misinterpreted my remark.

Peace,

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Troll
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 02:09 PM

Daylia, perhaps you should consider the following.
I posted this on another thread but I think it bears repeating.
Resolution 678 was passed on November 29, 2990, soon after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Resolution 678
"Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait .. to use all necessary means to uphold and
implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and
security in the area."

Resolution 687, passed after the liberation of Kuwait, requires disarmament of Saddam Hussein and reaffirms
resolution 678. Since resolution 687 reaffirms 678, and since 678 allows Member States to use "all necessary
means" to implement "subsequent relevant resolutions", it follows that resolution 678 allows the United States (a
Member State) to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein.

Resolution 1441, yet another resolution requiring Saddam to disarm, also reaffirms resolutions 678 and 687. So ..
same logic applies."
Larry, I wasn't being morally indignant. I think you must have misunderstood my post. My point was that Saddam has consistantly lied about everything from day one. He claimed that he had no Scuds capable of the range exihibited by those fired at Kuwait the other night.
Bobert seems to believe that Saddam has no NBC capability, regardless of the reports given to us by numerous defectors and despite the fact that tons of anthrax, which were discovered after the Gulf War, have never been documented as having been destroyed. Shells have been found containing the residue of mustard gas and we know that Saddam gassed the Kurds.
Bobert, I assume that the only thing that will convince you that Saddam has NBC capability will be for him to drop a nuke in downtown Tel Aviv, and I can't understand why that should be so. Is your dislike for our government in general and George Bush in particular so great that you must have eyewitness proof before you will accept that Saddam is a danger, not only to the US but to the peace and stability of the world?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 01:30 PM

Art penned:
"Beccy, the problem I've seen so far is that the demonstrations in my area (Albuquerque) are either "support the troops/we love Bush/if you don't doboth you are a Saddam-loving traitor" or "oppose the war/we hate Bush/legalize marijuana/anyone in the military is a war-loving murderer". I'd love to see, and would join, a demonstration for "oppose the war/support the troops/we love our country". Otherwise, I will stay home and object in my own quiet way".

Oh, THANK YOU Art Brooks!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, indeedy...well spoke. Far too often those who are the loudest are the exremists (extreme right and extreme left), and the majority of us are usually someplace in the middle.

Moderates of the world, unite!

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: *daylia*
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 12:30 PM

Ireland, to the best of my knowledge what I said is true, and I stand by it. The invasion of Iraq is illegal according to the standards of international law. The troops participating in it are therefore willing accomplices in that criminal act. To the best of my knowledge, none of them were drafted - all freely chose their current roles. I know very well the 'brainwashing' that military training entails - I've had personal experience with it in my own family and I see it in action every day on the news. Perhaps the words "murderers" and "vicious" are a bit "colorful", but they do illustrate my point quite effectively.

Seems like you're just itching for a fight, Ireland. I, however, come from a relatively peaceful nation, and my attitudes undoubtedly reflect that. "There has never been a war of Canadian origin, nor for a Canadian cause."(WC Deacon, Can. writer).

If you can't see my point, that's okay - you don't have to. If you feel better about yourself and your position by calling me an asshole, fill your boots. That doesn't bother me. If you don't like the idea of global disarmament, or think it's ridiculous, you're entitled to your opinions just as we all are.

I can only hope that the human species eventually outgrows those attitudes - and I have every confidence that we will, in our own good time. Rock-bottom will probably have to be hit first though - maybe that will be the one good thing this war produces.

Anyway, here in my peaceful little neck of the woods the frogs are chirpin and the birds are singin and the beauty of Nature is callin - so I'm most gratefully off to enjoy this long-awaited spring day now! Yahoooooooo ...

Peace

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Ireland
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 11:07 AM

I'm not American Daylia, I live in N.Ireland and if you read my post you would see I referring to Lepus, as I used his/her name at the beginning of the sentence in that paragraph.

Your post has not directly answered my questions, but lets try it this way. Would you advocate, as you put it," If my country was under attack I'm sure I wouldn't need to personally call in the army - they'd be there already" that the military should lay down their arms and go home. Rather than take another persons life to save yours?

On second thoughts Daylia,maybe the asshole label fits, after I
re-read this from you.

"Your soldiers freely chose their brainwashing, their present role as high-tech, gov't-salaried murderers of innocent people and illegal invaders of a sovereign nation. They are therefore willing accomplices, not victims, in the vicious criminal act currently underway in Iraq."

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: *daylia*
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 09:57 AM

Ireland I see no point in calling anyone an "arsehole", and I'm not calling your claims "crappy" because they are different than mine. How could they not be? You're an ex-serviceman, I'm someone who would have to be at death's door before I'd consider violence of any sort. That doesn't mean I think you're an "arsehole"!

My father served in the Canadian forces for 30 years, and I don't think he's an arsehole! He was in Korea before I was born, and one of my earliest memories is saying goodbye to him at the train station in Barrie when he left for Egypt in the mid-sixties. Too young to really comprehend 'death', I was frightened and confused by my mother's tears.

And I remember the gnawing fear that he would have to go to Vietnam a few years later - and the relief that came when Nixon was finally "removed" from power and that misguided military exercise was over. My hope is that the same will happen with Bush, right now.

My heart aches for all the young people in uniform suffering and dying for the US administration's schemes right now.   I know that they must trust their commanders, must believe they are doing the right thing (if and when they apply critical thinking to their situation). But so far, there's been absolutely no indication that Saddam is harbouring the WMDs Bush sold this war on, and every indication that the rag-tag Iraqi army presents little threat to anyone. How long will they keep believing in their mission to "liberate" the Iraqis? Only time will tell. And in the meantime, I'm reminded of the words "Forgive them for they know not what they do."

I do pay for military "protection", whether I choose to or not, every time I pay taxes, which is every day of my life. If my country was under attack I'm sure I wouldn't need to personally call in the army - they'd be there already, at least to help pick up the pieces. I wouldn't have much choice but to accept that, would I?

The only nation I can think of who might have enough of a beef with Canada, or enough "need" to control our natural resources to attack us would be the US anyway. I used to think that was a very unlikely scenario, but given the present situation and what it reveals about your President's respect for the sovereignty of it's neighbours, I'm not so sure.

My son tells me they are banning the playing of the national anthems at the hockey games from now on. Too many people were booing the Americans when their anthem was sung before the game in Montreal last night, and it was feared violence would break out. Not a very hopeful sign for the peace and security of North America. I do hope this conflict is over quickly ...

Hope that answered your questions, Ireland, and all the best to you and yours.

Peace

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 09:38 AM

According to US military reports, as passed along by CNN and MSNBC, the missiles that have been shot are a combination of Al-Samoud 2s (which the Iraqis were in the process of destroying when the war began) and a shorter ranged weapon. There have been no verified reports yet of SCUDs being fired.

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Ireland
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 08:16 AM

Now that's what the war was sold, for those who bought!

I didn't and most of the world didn't!

I do not buy it either,I do take offence at people pouring scorn on the military,they have no option,if the military was a democracy we would be in trouble. Are people going to say they did not feel a little bit more secure when the troops patrolled the streets after the Sept 11 attack?

We have to look on the military as a tool at the disposal of the government, not attack the individual components of the tool, by all means as StevetheOrc says slag off the politicos and there ilk who started this but leave the kids alone.

It is bad enough for the loved ones of those who have died, I believe they honestly thought they were serving their country, by doing what they were ordered to do, and that takes courage.

Don I apologise if I offended you, Lupes would that go against your opinion of the military, albeit I'm ex army, but I still apologise. The armed forces are not the arseholes some make them out to be, and I will not apologise for answering such crappy claims.

Daylia any chance of answering my questions, or is it not as straight forward as you would like to think.

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 07:49 AM

troll:

The US has said all along that Iraq had SCUD missles. I never thought they were an issue since the US has sold this war in the premise of the following three scarey weapons: nuclear, chemical and biological. Not SCUD's. Think NBC here if that makes it easier to keep the reasons'de jour in mind. Nuclear (N).... Biological (B) and Chemical (C).... NBC.

Now that's what the war was sold, for those who bought!

I didn't and most of the world didn't!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: InOBU
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 07:40 AM

Re Turkey... where are Oliver and Hardy to say, "It is another fine mess you've gotten us into!"

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: InOBU
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 07:36 AM

Dear Troll:
I am no fan of Sadam Husain, but REALLY! You are offended because a government lied about its military capability? A pal of mine in law school uncovered and sued the US governement over our nerve gas production that we are not supposed to have. We just murdered six suspects in Yemin, something not provided for under cour constitution or international law... wait I misspoke, it is found under our constitution, it is a high crime and misdeminor for which the president should be impeached... so the moral indignation is a bit much. We just invaded a nation who has made no military incursions against us, or any neighbor recently, and we are shocked that they make a token effort fighting back? AND Please don't say we are doing it for the Kurds, who we just opened the way to be conquored by the Turks (a peaceful and chearful bunch of people)
Cheers
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:34 PM

Beautifully put, as well, Penny. It is good to give such thoughts an "airing" for too many people never think of what have been lost, along with the physical bodies, as you point out.

StevetheOrc, well said. I agree.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Troll
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:21 PM

Bobert, please explain the Scuds that have been fired into Kuwait in the last 24 hours. Iraq was not supposed to have any. Saddam said so.
The reason the resistance has been sporadic is that the elite units of Saddams army are in and around Baghdad, not down in the south around Basra. And of course the Iraqi army is grossly overmatched. What the hell do you think this is, a western where the good guy goes out to meet the bad guy all alone because it wouldn't be fair otherwise? Saddam only has 50,000 men under arms so that's all we'll send?
Get Real.
as far as the old accusation that we'll find WMDs even if we have to plant the evidence, there are tons of anthrax that were found after the Gulf War. Even Blix admitted that they have found absolutely no evidence that it was destroyed. What does Saddam need to do, blow up your house before you wil accept the fact that he is a danger to the world?
Or are you so blinded by your personal animus toward George Bush that you will refuse to believe any evidence that might show that his decision was based on valid assumptions?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:38 PM

No, Ireland, it was not any kind of "gloat."

I am opposed to this war, but as you may well comprehend by reading my posts, I do have a great deal of concern for the members of our Armed Forces. I object strenuously to their being put in harm's way for no good cause, but the idea that I am gloating over their deaths is. . . . Well, I won't take offense because you don't know me. I'll just explain that it was not a gloat, it was in the nature of a weary sigh.

What a needless waste!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: michaelr
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 07:45 PM

Sorry Doug -- I had you confused with another Mudcatter, whose pictures show him in a Civil War uniform.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 06:50 PM

Bobert, I hope that you're right (for a change...*BG*) and the US Congress has the cohones to use the word "impeach" if it turns out that there never were any WMDs.

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 06:46 PM

I don't think Don meant it as a gloat, Ireland. I think he meant it to point out that with all the scarey stuff that the Bush admibnistration has used to sell the war, we are now seeing that Iraq's military is indeed very, very weak. Just as lots of us have been saying. All this scare of Weapons of Mass Destruction and here more American and Brits have been killed in a single helicopter accident. Meanwhile, anyone looking at the television today must have some comprehension that a lot of Iraqis have died and a lot more will.

This is not a war at all because war implies fighting. There is little fight to it. This is a showcasing of US might. Iraq's military is grossly overmatched. The most difficult part of this thing will be the "policing" of Baghdad where pockets of resistence will be difficult to root out.

But, contrary to the fact the the US will come up with some WMD evidence (even if they have to fabricate it) it sure looks very much as the PR to sell this *thing*, was just that...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Ireland
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 05:07 PM

So far, we're killing more of our own than the Iraqis are. . . .

Is this some kind of gloat?

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 05:03 PM

This link didn't work last time, but here is the URL for last year's VA report to Congress on Gilf War health care issues: http://www.va.gov/OCA/testimony/24ja02FM_usa.htm. Also, go to www.va.gov/search/ and search for "gulf war" to get a wide variety of studies, reports, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 04:58 PM

Last I heard, there were two Marines killed in a fire-fights. Earlier, twelve were killed, eight British and four Americans, when their CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter crashed nine miles south of the Iraqi border town of Umm Qasr. No enemy fire was reported in that incident. So far, we're killing more of our own than the Iraqis are. . . .

Don Firth