BS: We're not against the soldiers.

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,Cretinous Yahoo
Date: 11 Dec 04 - 11:22 AM

Doug, it is quite clear how one can support the troops and be against their mission. Open your eyes and get the blinders off! We invaded the wrong country! They don't want us there! Those of them that have an IQ over 60 don't want to be there. (Except the officers, that's how they get promoted! I love my country, but, I hate what it is doing over there.I support the troops by screaming "Screw Iraq, bring them home".

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 04 - 10:41 PM

Believe its resurgance is also part of the No Child's Left Behind/Right Behind bogus "education" bill that the BuShites put over on the American voters- just like sending all student's names to the Defense Dept.

These clowns have been planning this fascist crap for some time- and the voters love 'em for it.

God Help America.

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Dec 04 - 08:23 PM

This information: High School Version. The "High School Version" is officially called "Form 18/19." It's a paper-based ASVAB commonly given to juniors and seniors in high school through a cooperative program between the Department of Defense and the Department of Education. The test is offered at more than 13,000 high schools and post secondary schools in the United States. The primary purpose of this test is not for enlistment in the military (although the test scores can be used for military enlistment). The primary purpose of this test is to help school counselors and students discover where a student's basic aptitude lies. Approximately 900,000 students take Form 18/19 ASVAB each year.

From this site.

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Dec 04 - 07:05 PM

Found this:

"The PSAT will be given on October 13 for all Sophomores and any Juniors. The cost for juniors is $11.00, but you may get to take the test free. Ask guidance. Seniors and interested Juniors may take the ASFAB test which can help show higher career interest areas and help with future planning. The ASFAB test is free.

"If members of the class of 2006 take the current SAT, they will have to schedule the test as early as December 2004 or January 2005. The College Board does not recommend that students take the SAT so early in their junior year. Students taking the test then risk doing less than their best because they will not have covered as much English and math as students testing later in the year. Most students wait until the spring of their junior year to take the test. That makes good sense.

"Many colleges and universities will accept scores from the current SAT from members of the class of 2006, but other colleges will not. Members of the class of 2006 who choose to take the current test should be sure to check the requirements at each school to which they plan to apply."

The ASFAB test

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,worried mom
Date: 10 Dec 04 - 06:37 PM

does anyone know why the high schools are giving our 16 yr. old 10th.graders the ASFAB test?? I just heard my boy was given this test in one of his classes.

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 05:49 PM

Ahhhhhh, has anyone brought up the striking fact that if one looks down the list of prominent Dems that are vets and compares that list with their Repub, flag wavin' "support-the-troppers" one sees a pattern. Seems that the Repiubs PR team has done a fine job of casting them as the party that supports our troops. Problem is, they may support 'um butr they sure don't want to be 'um:

Dems who served:

Richard Gephardt
Davis Bonior
Tom Daschle
Al Gore
Bob Kerry
Daniel Inouye
John Kerry
Charles Rangel
Max Cleland
Ted Kennedy
Tom Harkin
Jacl Reed
Fritz Hollings
Leonard Boswell
Pete Peterson
Mike Thompson
Bill McBride
Gray Davis
Pete Stark
Chuck Robb
Howell Heflin
George McGovern
Jimmy Carter
Walter Mondale
Tom Lantos

Repubs who did *not* serve

Dick Cheney
Dennis Nassert
Tom DeLay
Roy Blunt
Bill Frist
Mitch McConnell
Trent Lott
John Ashcroft
Jeb Bush
Karl Rove
*Saxby Chambliss
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
Newt Gungrich
Don Rumsfeld
**George W. Bush
Ronald Reagan
Phil Gramm
JC Watts
Dan Quaylr
George Pataki
***Arnold Schwarzenegger
Rudy Giuliani
Spenser Abraham

*Responsible for linking combat disable veteran Max Cleland to terrorists...

**AWOL

***Awaol from Aurian army

Republican Apologists who did not serve:

Sean Hannity
Rush Limbaugh
Bill O'Reilly
Michael Savage
George Will
Chris Matthews
Pat Buchannon
Bill Kristol
Ken Starr
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Ted "2nd Ammenedment" Nugent

Hey, I'm still a Nadar Greenie but lets get real here about 'supporting the troops"... There are some difference between Dems and Repubs and this is probably one of them. Dems serve but, fir the most part, their rival fraternity boys and girls don't but sure nuff want to wear that "support the troops" badge...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 05:01 PM

I was a soldier for 23 years. I was never told that my main (only?) purpose (was) to kill and/or die; this was not part of our training, and none of the other soldiers I served with would have been there in the first place if we thought it was. Patton, of course, was an abbherent individual, with an excellent grasp of the principles of tactics but not whatsoever of human relations. If you seriously believe that this is the purpose of the military, than I'm very sorry for you.

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 04:10 PM

The fact that not everybody serves their purpose does not change what their purpose is... that's like saying Women aren't the ones supposed to bear the children because so many women are childless. Doesn't change the purpose one little bit, Barney.

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,Apollo
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 02:54 PM

"Rendell Flip Came After Exposure of Jailhouse Vote Drive

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell's decision Friday morning to seek an extension for absentee ballots returned by soldiers serving overseas came less than 24 hours after Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., accused him of mounting an absentee ballot vote drive for his state's prison population while disenfranchising the military.

"I've been in office twenty-three years and I've never had any governor send a nine-page document to our prison wardens across the state, telling them that they had to post a document in every cell block to allow our prisoners to vote by absentee ballot," Weldon told ABC radio host Sean Hannity on Thursday.

Story Continues Below

"I'm friends with Ed Rendell, too," an angry Weldon continued. "But I've go to call a pig a pig. I've got to call something the way it is. To me it's purely partisan. This is about Pennsylvania being a very close state."

Asked point blank if he though Rendell was trying to "disenfranchise" military voters in his state, Weldon told Hannity: "That's exactly what he's doing. I have soldiers e-mailing me from overseas ... Marines coming up to me saying, 'I have friends who haven't got their absentee ballot.'"

Asked how many prisoners would take advantage of Gov. Rendell's absentee ballot outreach, Weldon said, "I have no idea."

Surveys show that two-thirds of active-duty military back President Bush, while the same proportion of the prison population supports John Kerry.

In announcing his decision to seek an extension for military voters, Rendell said Friday, "I've decided that one military or civilian overseas [voter] not getting a ballot in time is too much."

Rendell served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee during the 2000 election."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/29/104857.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 02:50 PM

I am not against soldiers.

I am a pacifist but I respect the conscience of the young men and women who decided that they would serve their country for their convictions. I won't do what they did but I made the decision not to because I am a conscientious objector. Fortunately, I live in a country that respects conscientious objection and it is legal.

I respect John Kerry for his convictions regardless of whether I would do what he did. I worked in a hospital for two years.

Soldiers are human beings. They must be respected for their convictions as I must for mine. As a protester, I believe in the right of people to disagree and will only protest peacefully and non-violently.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: mg
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 02:33 PM

Wrong answer. Wars have been prevented by people standing strong and not blinking. Cold war did of course have deaths but could have been a whole lot more. Lots and lots and lots of soldiers, and other military of course, did not kill and did not die. It is the cost of peace and a high cost it is, to be stronger than then enemy and be prepared to do what it takes, which can, but hopefully does not, and does not necessarily come to, try diagramming this sentence, killing and dying. Eternal vigilance. mg

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 01:19 PM

It's not callous - it's the truth. Even Patton knew that - "No soldier ever won a war by dying for his country. He won by making the other poor bastard die for HIS country." How are they to defend - by writing writs and getting restraining orders? No, by killing. Otherwise they'd be lawyers. How are they to protect me from attack - if not by putting their bodies between me and the attacker? They sure aren't going to do it by writing notes in this Forum.

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: mg
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 12:42 PM

No their main purpose is not to kill or die. How callous to have said that. That can be a side effect. Their main purpose is to defend and protect. That can mean they kill and it can mean they die. It does not mean it is their main purpose. mg

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 12:03 PM

Military Families Speak Out

Iraq Veterans Against the War

Veterans for Common Sense

Operation Truth

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: saulgoldie
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 11:47 AM

Oops! Shoulda read the whole thread to see that JennyO already mentioned that.

True, economic times are tough (and getting tougher all the time) for those who are not white and landed. But we all STILL make choices. And we are responsible for those choices. This "responsibility" thing is a well-known Republican theme. They just don't like it when it refers to things they think are good.

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: saulgoldie
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 11:40 AM

"He's the Universal Soldier, and he really is to blame..."

Buffy St. Marie

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 11:13 AM

I protested this war vehemently, and was roundly insulted and called unpatriotic and unamerican - by folks who, to my mind, didn't understand just how American it is to be able to protest against your government.

However, I do not support the troops. It would be different if there were still a draft, but there isn't; all those soldiers volunteered to be exactly what they are, which is not war criminals, it is soldiers, whose main (only?) purpose is to kill and/or die.

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 09:11 AM

Looks like this BuShite sycophant doesn't mind 'dissing' the troops.

Now THERE'S a real "War President" for ya- "The Buck Stops....

someplace else"

Giuliani suggests troops were responsible for weapons stockpiles

By James Gorden Meek and Helen Kennedy
New York Daily News

WESTLAKE, Ohio - (KRT) - Rudy Giuliani stepped all over President Bush's message of the day when he suggested Thursday that U.S. troops and not the White House were responsible for the missing explosives in Iraq.

"The actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there," Giuliani said on NBC's "Today" show. "Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?"

John Kerry's campaign quickly noted that commanders say the soldiers who stopped at the arms depot during the push to Baghdad were not ordered to search or secure the place.

"If George Bush is going to have his friends out there blaming the troops, then he needs to back up his claims with evidence. Mr. President, show America the order that you issued for our troops to secure these dangerous explosives," said Kerry running mate John Edwards. "Our men and women in uniform did their jobs. It's our commander in chief, George Bush, who didn't do his."....

more at
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/election2004/10044474.htm

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 02:06 AM

"--based on --information,Saddam presented an imminent threat. It turns out he was not-----"
   I'd guess, Doug R., that some of your old posts could come back to haunt you. Know what Bushie calls that? --"flip-flop"!

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:44 AM

No, due to the economy, it won't be that hard to find soldiers. Whenever there is high unemployment, war is an excellent way to get the young people off the streets before they start causing trouble. When push comes to shove it is often a means of putting the groceries on the table for your family. Why be an unemployed bum, hanging around the house or living on the streets when you get 3 squares a day and a bed? Better than welfare.

...and after all, isn't it your patriotic duty?

d

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 10:32 PM

It's a requirement for all services that enlistees have a high school diploma or GED, that they have no criminal record, that they get a certain score on the ASFAB, which is a test given during the recruiting process. Want to get more people? Lower the requirements. My guess is there are sufficient numbers of fathers, mothers and single folks with very low income who'll jump at the opportunity. The probablity of dying may not be enough to deter people who are looking for a chance to provide food, a decent place to live, and receive free medical and dental care for themselves and their families.

All of the services have been greatly down-sized within recent years. Bases have been closed and numbers of people recruited have intentionally reduced. People already in have been given 'early outs' and other people that would have sailed through in years past were discharged for failing to pass tests on job training and not-all-that-serious Uniform Code of Military Justice infractions. I don't think we're going to see anyone pushing for a draft just yet.

As to Viet Nam and learning, governments don't ever learn anything unless it's about acquiring and maintaining power. Individuals who vote DO learn, though. I think a lot of us who heard veterans speak about their experiences with hate-filled lovers of peace really thought about the damage those angry with government's decisions can do to individuals who had no more say in those decisions that they did. I think some people were angry and other people were ashamed. I think maybe we, as a society, learned a little bit about not using human beings as targets for the anger and frustration we have with our government.

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 08:40 PM

DougR - However, I believe had Saddam have been left in power, he would have eventually developed WMD, made them available to terrorist organizations, or used them himself against the U. S. and our allies.

Doug, you can believe whatever you want to believe but what about all those other leaders that could or should be under suspicion. Wanna go after them too?

...and what about Bush? What if I suspect that he might sell or trade or use WMD's? Does that mean he should not be left in power?

d

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 08:36 PM

And just so the mealy-mouthing doesn't harp n the point again the reason the congress gave power tot he President was because they were handed false information which militated for pre-emptive warfare due to real and present danger.

Later it was neither present nor real.

So don't hand me that, Doug. It was power received under false pretenses.

A

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 07:48 PM

"I think we did something afer Viet Nam that, for a society, is extremely rare: we listened to people (veterans)
and actually learned something."

the only thing the government learned from vietnam is to get rid of the draft. an all-volunteer force makes it much easier to undertake military adventures without people of all economic classes paying attention. easy, you sell the poor kids on college money, job training, etc., send them off on your oil wars, tell'em "hey, you signed the paper, you knew you might have to fight" and bingo! there's your cannon fodder. no one raises a fuss cuz the people with no kids in the service are too busy to notice. it's funny, tho, if it's their kid on the line they pay a lot more attention. hence, no draft, poor classes in the military, everybody else into your SUVs and PARTAY!

now, however, with the massive screwups running this particular military escapade putting us in a position where 40 per cent of the troops in iraq are army reserves and national guard they won't be able to continue this BS without more troops. wonder where they'll get them?

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 07:39 PM

Whoo. lost my temper.

It's just that I tried to explain how one can be for the soldiers and against the war, and DougR comes up with a statement about how "such people" behaved to Vietnam veterans.

Which has nothing at all to do with the people on this thread who are anti-Bush but pro-soldier.

But even though I've calmed down some, I'd still like to hear if he's calling me -- and most of the others on this thread -- a liar.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 07:22 PM

•And Jim, do you remember how troops returning from Vietnam were treated when they returnted home by the same kind of protestors that are marching against the war on terror? Perhaps you weren't old enough, but many of those returning soldiers, sailors and marines would be hard pressed to buy the statement from such people that "we're not against the soldiers."•

So, when I say "I'm not against the soldiers" you call me a liar? And are you saying I demeaned the soldiers who fought in Vietnam? Get the mush out of your mouth and let's hear what you mean.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 03:32 PM

Why Lala Lipscomb hated the protestors, and thought at first they were against the soldiers: likely because right wing pro-war people spun it that way. That's what they said then and that's what they're still saying. Read DougR's post.

I think we did something afer Viet Nam that, for a society, is extremely rare: we listened to people (veterans) and actually learned something.

I'm against the war, but I'm not against folks in the military. I'm for them. These people put their trust in their leaders to not get them killed for a bad reason. We all should be able to trust our leaders, but soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are the ones who can get killed if that trust is misplaced.

There is a perception that members of the military are all as hawkish as Bush & Co. It's simply not true. There are Republicans, Democrats, and independants. Some would have thought the war was right and still do. Some would have changed their minds. Some of those who went would have thought it was wrong from the outset and either gone anyway or been court martialed. Most who are still alive and still in Iraq likely believe there are things happening now that should be being done better.

People in the military aren't any more fond of viewpoints disagreeing with theirs than civilians are. It is definitely NOT demoralizing though, to know that the voting public cares about what happens to them and doesn't want them to get killed for a stupid reason. A person in the military will likely tell you he may disagree with a person's viewpoint, but will defend to his death your right to express it. There is occasional truth heard in the harmonics of voices on all sides of an issue shout at one another.

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 03:00 PM

Based on the information available, not only to him but other world leaders, Saddam presented an imminent threat. It turns out that he did not. However, I believe had Saddam have been left in power, he would have eventually developed WMD, made them available to terrorist organizations, or used them himself against the U. S. and our allies.


Monday morning, hell, Doug. There were numerous outcries all across the country saying that the rush to war was ill-informed. Don't try to cover that crap up by scraping dirt over it -- the administrative was fully, loudly, and unwaveringly informed that the information on which it was operating was riddled with flaws. People all over thew country said so at the time, all through the ramp-up against Iraq. Hell, his own advisors told him, when they could.

On this forum I said it over and over. I was not the only one saying so, either. It was a crappy analysis seeking to fulfill a pre-ordained dogfmatic decision.

If you believed the mythology Bush and Co were pumping up your possum-hole, that is your problem for being a robotic believer instead of an analyst.

A

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 03:00 PM

DougR, I was one of those returning soldiers from Vietnam, and I was treated that way. The fact that neither I nor anyone I served with knew about or was involved in any of the alleged atrocities had nothing at all to do with the fact that there was not, and never had been, any reason for us to be fighting a war in Vietnam.

It is equally true that the fact that American soldiers are now doing a difficult job in Iraq, as well and as honorably (except for an extremely small number of people) as they can, does not mean that we have any more business there than we had in Vietnam. It took over ten years and over 50,000 dead soldiers (without counting the number of dead Vietnamese, mostly killed by their own people) to realize we had made a mistake in the first place and to get out. By the time we did so, the US military had lost much of its sense of honor. I know...I was part of the US military at the time.

You say that we shouldn't question the mission they are assigned? We certainly should, and as often and as sincerely as we can, while assuring to the best of our ability that our sons, daughters, brothers and sisters know that they are not the ones being questioned.

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 02:43 PM

There is not a single solitary soldier or marine in Iraq who did not voluntarily join his/her branch of service. Anyone who has been in the service knows that you may be called on to go to war. Those who joined the service for the benefits may have been surprised to learn that simply being a member of the military wouldn't hack it. You may be called on to fight.

The congress of the United States authorized the president to go to war if he deemed it necessary. Based on the information available, not only to him but other world leaders, Saddam presented an imminent threat. It turns out that he did not. However, I believe had Saddam have been left in power, he would have eventually developed WMD, made them available to terrorist organizations, or used them himself against the U. S. and our allies.

The world is full of Monday morning quarterbacks, and certainly the Mudcat is populated with it's fair share.

I repeat what I have said time and again here on the "Cat". If Kerry is elected, it will be a disaster for the war on terror. There will be now war. Kerry will treat it as a police action and that won't get the job done.

Those of you who profess to support the soldiers do not consider how demoralizing it must be to the troops, you say you support, to read and hear about protestors, like yourselves, who question the mission they are assigned.

Better that the battles be fought and won in Iraq than on the streets of New York.

Now, Amos, if you don't understand THAT, I doubt YOU can contribute much to this discussion.

And Jim, do you remember how troops returning from Vietnam were treated when they returnted home by the same kind of protestors that are marching against the war on terror? Perhaps you weren't old enough, but many of those returning soldiers, sailors and marines would be hard pressed to buy the statement from such people that "we're not against the soldiers."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 02:26 PM

The individual troops did not decide to begin this war, did not make the critical strategic errors which turned a diplomatic problem into a maelstrom of hard tactical flak. They are the ones who have to carry out the tactics OR face charges of cowardice and imprisonment as a result. Culturally, the latter is unacceptable to most of them. And for most of them, they trusted that certain moral guidelines were at work at the strategic and diplomatic levels when they "jined up" to provide tactical manpower.

If these distinctions escape you then you are not going to add anything discriminating tot he discussion,I guess. THere's a big difference between being ordered into battle   under extreme pressure, and foisting that same fate on others to face flying lead while one stays safe in the halls of power thousands of miles away. Vive la difference.

A

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 01:41 PM

"Balderdash! How could you profess to support the troops, if you don't support their mission?"

Think of it this way: I do not think young people should die for GWB's mistakes.

Or say I think it irresponsible of Bush to send his troops into battle ill-equipped. I have seen photos of troops in the desert wearing "woodland" camouflage. And that's minor irresponsibility.

Or a historical analogy: Look up the "Charge of the Light Brigade" in the Crimean War. The soldiers were brave, and doing their duty; the commanders should have been jailed for life. At least.

I don't see how you could have supported that mission, no matter how much you supported the troops. Especially if you supported the troops.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 02:06 AM

I love my brother so I will support his decision to do what is right according to his own conscience.

Unfortunately, as we all know, young men often make rash decisions.

d

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 01:42 AM

Balderdash! How could you profess to support the troops, if you don't support their mission? That makes no sense at all, unless you just want to go on record as liking everybody.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 10:27 PM

Guest -

I would imagine, like so many Americans (including Kerry) they, at one time believed the president to be 'in the know'. Many of them probably thought they were going in to fight for a good cause. You know; protecting the people of the U.S. from terrorism, bringing democracy to the poor and oppressed, ridding the world of WMD'S, etc. How did they know that it was all lies?

Now they have to suffer with poor eqipment, shitty pay and a Commander in Chief that makes decisions based on his 'gut feeling'. I guess the 'vibes' from Iraq just aren't reaching through the walls of the oval office.

d

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: mack/misophist
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 09:54 PM

The US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq are not G W Bush's Army. It's my Army. He only has the temporary use of it. Before he dies, bush will understand that he, not terrorism, was the greatest threat to it.

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:48 PM

In other words, you have no intelligent response.

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:25 PM

Must be nice to live in your world, GUEST...oh, yeah, how are W and Tom and Johnny-boy?

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 12:41 PM

Doesn't anyone else here see a major league disconnect when opposing the war, but professing to support those who actually do the killing? Yeah, I felt that way in WWII. I supported the Gestapo and the SS, it was just Hitler and the German govenment I was against. It's the same thing (except it's our kids) and it makes no sense. After all, these aren't unwilling draftees like in Viet Nam. Were these kids so stupid when they enlisted that they thought this sort of thing (war) would never happen? or that maybe they could pick and choose which wars to fight?

Quit deceiving yourselves. If this war is immoral and illegal, then the resultant war criminals aren't just in Washington (or were the poor darlings "just following orders"-like the guards at Buchenwald and Dachau?).

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 10:28 PM

Larry K. said, "speeches and rallys cause terrorists to think the USA is divided and weak, it helps them recruit more terrorists"

Wrong Larry K. - Killing innocent civilians, destroying infrastructure and ripping off resources helps them recruit more terrorists. Speeches and rallys send a message that there are people in America who think war is unnecessary.

I protested against the war in VietNam before, during and after my brother was in VietNam. I also wore a celtic knot braided around my wrist to remember him at all times. It didn't come off until he was returned to us safely.

War is not waged by soldiers. War is the result of inept politicians. The soldiers are members of our families. Nobody should die for the inability of politicians to negotiate a peaceful resolution. Wars are also caused by greed and ignorance. I hope protesting sends a message to the people of Iraq that I do not agree with the killing of innocent civilians.

As to torture - Who is to say what form of torture is worse or who's methods are worse. Toture is torture. I personally know someone who was one of Saddam's prisoners. Yes, it was hell sharing a tiny cell with another. Yes, it was hell to eat nothing but tomato soup and bread. Yes, although he hasn't told us about it yet, he was probably tortured. He was not, however, photographed in pornographic poses. That would probably have destroyed him. At least he is capable of having normal, healthy relationships with others. Shame is not a part of him.

d

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 03:49 PM

If the US is still enlisting, I would be against any soldier who joins up whilst the US still has a presence in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,we are not against the soldiers
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 03:39 PM

we are not against the soldiers just against the Political schemes of the goverment that want war - bush {oil business} to save face with dad to get saddam - cheney - who has Military business whom is good friends with his dad bush sr ?

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Blackcatter
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 03:02 AM

HA!

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 02:57 AM

Ooh, I'm rubbing against one right now!

Oops, I forgot: Don't ask, don't tell!

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Blackcatter
Date: 24 Jul 04 - 11:37 AM

I'm against the soldiers who are in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are taking part in an illegal and immoral action and should be tried for war crimes along with their leaders and the President.

It is one thing to volunteer to serve our country in the military for defensive reasons. This is not what is happening and as far as I'm concerned anyone involved in this was deserves to be tried for war crimes since they haven't refused to obey illegal orders.

Until the average grunt or seaman refuses to follow such orders, there will be no peace in this world.

That being said, I hope they all come home soon safely, and that the government supported them and their families. Another thought - how many of you who support our troops have done anything to get them the pay they deserve so their families don't have to be on public assistance back here in the wonderful old U.S.A. I have written letters to the President and my congress people to push for better pay for our military.

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Nerd
Date: 24 Jul 04 - 11:17 AM

You guys BOTH beat me to it. It's the first time I've heard a defense of School of the Americas that read, well, sure it teaches torture and murder, but it also teaches proper hygiene! Goes right along with his defense of American soldiers in the last sentence: "Not quite as brutal as Saddam Hussein!"

It's simply not been proven that the folks at Abu Ghraib did it "mostly on their own." That's a Republican talking point that is trying desperately to become an unchallenged belief among Americans. But the techniques they were using were too consistent with a widely known system called RTI (Resistance to Interrogation) for this to be credible. Someone above them in the hierarchy told them what to do (and from what I've heard, NHDave is right and it was a civilian operation, not even CIA but "contractors" aka mercenaries).

I also notice your statement that

Small rods of the sort used to clean rifles can double for middle eastern interrogation/torture devices, but it is the person weilding the equipment and not his training that turns his equipment to these uses.

Can they not also double for American or European interrogation/torture devices? Is it just me or did this seem racist: "this can be used for middle eastern torture, but it's the [middle eastern] people who are evil...

Okay NHDave, I know you didn't mean that. But I DO think a few prejudices show through that wording.

Also, a person CAN be trained to do this. It seems odd for you to to say "it's not his training that does it." Are you saying that it's okay to TRAIN people as torturers because in the end, you can still blame the person and not the training? That's walking a mighty fine line!

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jul 04 - 08:27 AM

Beat me to it, clint, on the "sorely teach toture" aspect of the School of the Americas...

I'd love 60 Minutes to do a story on it but the folks who run it don't want no one sniffin' 'round. And, as NH Dave has alluded to, fir very good reasons...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 24 Jul 04 - 03:50 AM

I had served my time in the Army before the Vietnam war, and I sure as hell knew what I was protesting.

And I don't think that the people who protest at The School of the Americas think that "this school was set up solely to teach torture and murder." I've never heard that said anyway. But even if if you leave out "solely" it's still wrong to teach torture and murder.

I did hear in a TV documentary that none of the graduates of The School of the Americas who achieved power in their country was elected democratically.

Again, I don't see that it matters much if it was the CIA or the brass that taught the Abu Graib guards their tricks; the fact is that what they did was either encouraged or permitted by their superiors.

But all this is a sidetrack. I'm against torturers, soldiers or not, but I'm NOT against soldiers who are following legal orders, even if the orders are given by damn fools. And I am against the damn fools that give the damn fool orders.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: GUEST,NH Dave
Date: 24 Jul 04 - 02:29 AM

I can say from personal experience that wearing a uniform wasn't popular during or even for some time after Viet Nam. But, having said that, I don't believe most of the protesters really knew whT they were protesting about.

I had a lady friend who gets all wound up about The School of the Americas, an international military school for what I suspect are the elite of the South and Central American states. Initially formed in Panama, it transferred up to Ft. Benning in Georgia when we relinquished our contol over Panama. Since all of the military dictators of this region have attended this school, she assumes that torture and killing is all that is taught there, and many demonstrators believing the same have been arrested for trespassing at Ft. Benning.

When is was briefly in Panama, I had the opportunity to visit the school, and I had a good friend who was transfered into the same base as I, from the school. For these reasons as well as my belief in our military system, I don't believe this school was set up solely to teach torture and murder. I do feel that many of the graduates improvised on what they had been taught to insure their rise in power, more because they were inherently evil than from whatever they learned there.

Some of the things I know were taught there were the things any serviceman needs to know about living and working effectively in the field, and fighting a war under those conditions. This runs the gamut from learning how to march - marching being one of the easier ways of moving a group of people between two points, in good order - to methods of constructing a field expedient privy - sanitation is very important in the field to maintain readiness. It's tough to try to perform ones duties while racked with dysentary, cholera, or malaria.

My friend was an electronics instructor, and since he had the same work experience as me, more than likely taught the theory and repair od the equipment that the US gave their air forces and army. Can these radios be used for torture? Sure they can, but the air hose you use to fill up your tires is just as effective and far cheaper. Small rods of the sort used to clean rifles can double for middle eastern interrogation/torture devices, but it is the person weilding the equipment and not his training that turns his equipment to these uses.

The army certainly didn't teach the guards at Al Graib prison to torture their prisoners, even as a method of making them more amenable to interrogation. Those folks did this mostly on their own, with perhaps some suggestions from their civilian interrogators - can you say CIA? Mind you the means used on those prisoners was far less severe than those used bu the Hussein regime.

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: We're not against the soldiers.
From: harvey andrews
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 05:13 AM

It is your belief in the USA.   

Which USA Larry K?
Who's?