|
19 Mar 03 - 10:46 AM (#913421) Subject: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Beccy Boy oh boy... I know I'll be laying myself open on this one, but I'd like to know if anyone plans on taking part in counter demonstrations to show support for the action in Iraq and/or support for the troops. I'd be interested if there are any in Western New York (AKA NotHillaryLand...) :-) Beccy |
|
19 Mar 03 - 11:24 AM (#913470) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: GUEST Yes - |
|
19 Mar 03 - 12:12 PM (#913535) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: artbrooks 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. |
|
19 Mar 03 - 12:17 PM (#913544) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Beccy I'd do a support the troops, support the war, legalize marijuana, we love our country demonstration... But I don't suppose you'd be interested in that one :-) Beccy |
|
19 Mar 03 - 12:21 PM (#913553) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Gareth Count me in. - Some of us have principles. Gareth |
|
19 Mar 03 - 12:26 PM (#913561) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Beccy Are any of you from Western New York? Can we organize something? Or shall we all seek out demos in our area and take part? Beccy |
|
19 Mar 03 - 12:32 PM (#913567) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: mg it should not be called a counter demonstration. People have always assembled on behalf of those going over. mg |
|
19 Mar 03 - 01:08 PM (#913605) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Beccy Semantics, mg... but you're right. I guess I meant to say counter demonstration in reference to those situations where the gathering would be juxtaposed against those protesting the war. Beccy |
|
19 Mar 03 - 01:42 PM (#913641) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: *daylia* Beccy, I know we don't agree on this, but imo the best way to support your troops would be to 1. Stop brainwashing them. 2. Stop attempting to legitimize their role as illegal, dehumanized high-tech mercenaries at the beck and call of the mighty Western imperialists. That ongoing farce makes the US the laughingstock of the rest of the (thinking) world. 3. Bring them home. 4. Use them to clean up the deplorable political, social and environmental conditions now existing in your own country. I'm not trying to 'flame' you, just to present what I see as the unfortunate facts of the matter. I wish only the best for your family members stationed in Iraq, and all other victims of your government's propoganda machine. daylia |
|
19 Mar 03 - 02:12 PM (#913678) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: GUEST daylia - I don't see us as victims. Very proactive about resolving some of the world's problems. As far as your comments on US troops - Bugger off - Fuck off - whatever language works - stupid, just stupid, you and your ilk. |
|
19 Mar 03 - 02:18 PM (#913687) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Beccy daylia- I didn't comment about how misguided I thought the other protests were... I wish you'd extend the same respect to me. You say you don't wish to flame me, but then you insult my country and my family members currently serving in the military (of whom I have two) and my friends serving (of whom I also have 2 stationed in the Gulf region.) That's like saying, "I don't want to hurt you" while throwing a sucker punch to my jaw. It doesn't compute. Please take your rant about the U.S. Military to another thread. Thank you, Beccy |
|
19 Mar 03 - 05:42 PM (#913893) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: boglion Good luck to all the troops over there on both sides. No-one has yet admitted to a plausible cause of Gulf War Syndrome. The US Gulf War Veterans site reckon there are 207,000 US victims. If we are really running this again without a full understanding of what went wrong last time - God help them all! Terry |
|
19 Mar 03 - 06:06 PM (#913935) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: toadfrog Ms. Beccy: 1. It is not an insult to MY country to say that its leaders' policies are wrong. 2. It is not an insult to servic epeople to say that they are being made to serve a wrong-headed cause. It is not even an insult to the U.S. military to say they are being misused. What you are saying, essentially, is that if any United States President attacks a foreign power, without a declaration of war as the Constitution requires, everyone must agree that he is right or else they are untrue to their country. Think about that. If that is so, any President can become a dictator just by starting more wars. Fascists did things like that. Up to the time of World War I, or maybe even World War II, every declared war the U.S. was in had really lively domestic opposition. The Korean and Vietnam wars had lively domestic opponents. That's why we call the United States a democracy. And if you do not like the United States, Beccy, perhaps you should go back to Russia or China, or wherever it is you come from. 3. Have you ever contributed to a musical thread? Even once? Why are you here, anyway? |
|
19 Mar 03 - 06:13 PM (#913948) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Beccy Toad- apparently you don't read EVERYTHING on this forum or you would know for a fact that I have contributed to several musical threads. I am more on the mid-level area of musical ability and therefore use the musical threads to answer more of my own questions than educate others. You are an obnoxious ass and if your goal was to irritate me consider it a job well done. I started this thread for a specific purpose and when daylia said, "2. Stop attempting to legitimize their role as illegal, dehumanized high-tech mercenaries at the beck and call of the mighty Western imperialists. That ongoing farce makes the US the laughingstock of the rest of the (thinking) world." that insulted my country and my family members who serve. Donc, take your self-righteous blithering elsewhere, please. Beccy |
|
19 Mar 03 - 06:22 PM (#913951) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: JedMarum How far west NY - would tha inlcude maybe, Dallas??? |
|
19 Mar 03 - 06:25 PM (#913953) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Beccy Well, Jed... if you take the global village comment from one of the other threads, I guess so. :-) Beccy |
|
19 Mar 03 - 06:51 PM (#913989) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Bobert While it is no secret that I strongly oppose a foriegn policy that showcases military solutions over diplomatci ones, as a God loving and follower of Jesus Christ, my prayers are for the safety of all people whose lives are threatened by this war. It is a shame that so mnay people are in harms way relative the very small number of people who are at the center of the conflict. Fundamentalists rationalize this war by saying that God controls everything. Not my God, thank you. He, tonight, is looking upon these events with sorrowfull eyes but knowing He's got a lot of difficult work to do here. But, yes, these service people have been and will continue to be very much in my thoughts and prayers. Same for the Iraqis. Bobert |
|
19 Mar 03 - 07:46 PM (#914028) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: InOBU Dear Beccy: We who are life long peace activists, in the case of we Quakres, back to the 1620s or so, we have always warmly welcomed back the troups, when the government forgets them. Every day I stop and talk to Bobby, a silver star winner from the Viet Nam war, who is homeless and lives on my doorstep, as he knows most in the neighborhood call the cops to move him on. In every war, we are blamed for the treatment of the vets, while those who send them are the ones who deny them treatment, jobs and housig. I salute your concern. Where and when you will be needed the most is when large numbers of vets join Bobby on the street. Every war since Viet Nam, presidents have promiced to take care of the vets, and say that unlike the Viet Nam vets, these vets wont be spit upon, then that same government spits them out onto our streets. Mr. Bush's father's war saw homeless vets on the streets of New York within six months. So, out there in the north west of our state, keep in touch. Every Christmas we Quakers pass thermal underwear out to folks living on the street, most of them are vets. So, keep in touch and lets work for the vets when they need it the most, when they return sad, lonely, and forgoten by the government that sent them. I don't see why this war will be different that any other. One more thought. Go and spend time visiting local pennitenturies, we do. Most of the inmates you will meet there are forgoten vets. Your fellow citizen Larry |
|
19 Mar 03 - 08:22 PM (#914047) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: michaelr I'm gonna stick my neck way out here and say this: I don't want anyone to get maimed or killed, whether US or Iraqui citizens. (Or anyone else.) But I do believe this "war" is morally wrong, evil, and indefensible. Therefore I believe that those who wage this war are criminally wrong. That includes the grunts pulling the triggers as well as their leaders. I support our troops as far as wanting them to come home unharmed. But I cannot support the activity they're engaged in. It's a volunteer army. Nobody is forced to join up and go violate the commandment "thou shalt not kill". The soldiers have made a choice, and I cannot support that choice. And no, I'm not going to spit on them when they return. But I believe that any member of the armed forces has a moral obligation to lay down their weapons and say "No, I am not going along with this. I will not let myself be used by an illegitimate administration to perform an illegal attack which will harm innocent people." The attitude that "you may be against the war but now that the troops are there you have to support them" does not fly with me. In fact, it's another example of the pseudo-patriotic jingoism designed to silence the dissent this country was founded on. Okay, now drop your daisycutters on me... Cheers, Michael |
|
19 Mar 03 - 08:40 PM (#914056) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Joe Offer Hi, Beccy - If you want to suppport George Bush, that's your right. If you do it around here, you're going to find a lot of people who disagree with you. Most of them will do it politely, but you can expect their opposition to be strong. That's life. -Joe Offer- |
|
19 Mar 03 - 09:00 PM (#914064) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: robomatic For the most part I've enjoyed my excursions in these BS waters. In Anchorage we have a large service presence and a lot of support for the service. I believe the overall consensus is pro-get Saddam out of there. To me it's a no-brainer. Even the anti-American action concedes that Saddam is scum. Stalin is his role model. He has proven he's resistant to inspection, and he is a clear and present danger to the United States due to his wealth, his ability to finance another nuclear program if he so wishes, and the same with mass production of toxins. It is no question a follow-on to 9/11, and probably not the last one. I have been hearing there is a rally in downtown Anchorage on behalf of current policy on Saturday and I expect to be there. (I will still listen to the Dixie Chicks, and I will still talk to my combative friends in the Mudcat BS lists and my friends and relatives who may somehow be so wrongheaded as to disagree with me). |
|
19 Mar 03 - 09:07 PM (#914068) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Neighmond Bobert, I wish more people knew your God. This world would be a better place. Chaz |
|
19 Mar 03 - 09:12 PM (#914073) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Lepus Rex Fuck the troops. If they're stupid/evil enough to choose killing as their profession, maybe they shouldn't get the chance to breed. Besides, a few thousand US-soldier-kebabs roasting in the Iraqi desert might help to cure "us" of "our" imperialist disease. ---Lepus Rex Brought to you as part of our ongoing effort to make Lepus the most beloved Mudcat member, ever. Thanks! ---The Lepus Rex is One Loveable Motherfucker Society of the Upper Midwest |
|
19 Mar 03 - 10:33 PM (#914116) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Troll Tell us daylia, what perfect planet do you live on that you feel you can instruct us in the way we should run our country? Lepus, your attitude toward our troops is not nice. Do you feel the same way about those men and women who gave their lives in WWII so that you could have the right to spout your asinine drivel? I have known a few men who enjoyed killing but the vast majority of those who chose the military as a profession do so out of a sense of duty to their country. No one who has seen combat wants to see it again unless he's a nut-case and most soldiers would prefer to never have to fight and kill. I don't really expect you to understand all this because your usual pattern in the past has been to ignore any point of view but your own. This is probably because you are only capable of dealing with one opinion. Your's. troll |
|
19 Mar 03 - 11:42 PM (#914159) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: toadfrog Beccy: Maybe I am an "obnoxious ass." You, on the other hand, have made 341 posts in the forum, of which 14 arguably related to music, including 6 on home schooling children. Basically, you are only interested in the political threads. And aside from disagreeing with your point of view, I object to people who are constantly throwing slogans and invective rather than trying to discuss things rationally. But attacking people's patriotism when they disagree with you is the cheapest kind of cheap shot. Arguments like that deserve no respect. If you can't live with being told it is a cheap shot, rough. |
|
20 Mar 03 - 12:11 AM (#914171) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: InOBU Hi Joe: I, for one, said nothing about Beccy's support of Mr. Bush. I stand by my statement that the vets in real need, are generally looked after by the anti war folks who treat them on the streets and look after them in jail. All the best Everyone get home safe and stay safe on both sides Larry |
|
20 Mar 03 - 12:55 AM (#914189) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: DougR Toad: spoken like the true gentleman I'm sure you are. Joe: your admonition to Beccy surprised me a bit. As one of the officials of the Mudcat, I was surprised that part of your responsibilities, evidently, is to inform members that their political beliefs might not always be welcome on the mudcat. Any Mudcatter who posts to political threads can surely pick that up on their on after a few posts I would think. Any poster should expect civility, I would think from fellow Mudcatters, and in my opinion, Toad has gone over the line with Beccy. As I say, IMO. DougR |
|
20 Mar 03 - 02:23 AM (#914224) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Joe Offer Well, Doug, the political discussions get pretty heated around here. Generally, the practice has been "no holds barred." I'm not about to step in unless somebody really crosses the line. It seemed to me that Beccy ought to know that. Considering the political opinion of the majority of people here, she's better figure that she's in enemy territory. Considering the political opinion of the majority of people in the area where I live, I figure I'm in hostile territory and take appropriate precautions. Since I value my car, I don't express my antiwar opinions on bumper stickers. So, Doug, do you and Shambles think I don't have the right to say anything around here? -Joe Offer- |
|
20 Mar 03 - 02:24 AM (#914225) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: JudyR The problem is that supporting the troops is not anaethema to the goals of the antiwar peace movement. You can support the troops by wanting them home and out of harm's way as soon as possible. This separation being made by so many Americans that you are either for war and for the troops, or against war and "against" our soldiers, needs to be addressed. It goes to the very heart of his argument that (as many have made on here), being in the peace movement means acting on the highest of democratic principles. No wonder it gets we antiwar people up in flames! For those who are antiwar and tired of having the flag coopted from you, there's apparantly a shift in strategy in the peace movement toward aiding and supporting the troops, now that the war is underway. Here's one paragraph from an e-mail message I received: "As soon as the war begins, the Win Without War coalition, an umbrella group of more than 35 organizations, from the Sierra Club to the NAACP, plans to launch a fund-raising campaign, soliciting contributions for both Iraqi civilians and U.S. veterans. Arguing that the Bush administration is slashing medical benefits for veterans, the group hopes to raise money for families of reservists who have lost their paychecks and veterans returning from Iraq with disabilities." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-war-antiwar19mar19,1,3694480.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dnation |
|
20 Mar 03 - 02:48 AM (#914234) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: JudyR Ah, just want to say -- it feels like such a relief to be in territory where I am not the enemy! I have frequented another board or two where I am constantly called Commie and Pinko, "you leftie," "you libs," and I waste my breath sometimes just mustering up arguments against the attacks. Currently on one of those boards (a health board with a social forum), we were told by the moderator, a Canadian who is pro-Israel and presumably for war -- to basically "shut up" during war time, no war threads allowed. Except an evangelical Christian started a prayer thread for the troops -- that was allowed! I wanted to post on there about praying for the Iraqi people, too -- the child I read about who has been asking his mother, "Why do the Americans want to come here and hurt us, Mommy? Will the Americans come in my bedroom and kill me?" The kind of psychological scars that never go away. Right now, like so many of you, I get angry whether or not someone agrees with me -- but I really don't mind preaching to the choir once in awhile. |
|
20 Mar 03 - 03:10 AM (#914242) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: stevetheORC I dont support this war at all, but hope that the Troops all come home safely with a minimum amount of casulties. There is nothing honrable or patriotic about a Body Bag with some poor squady in it and greaving folks at home. War is dirty, bloody it kills and maims without thought as to what country you are from, make no mistake about that. Lepus Rex your comments are distastful to say the least. Beccy I wish you well with your support for the boys campaign and hope that all your loved ones come home relitivly untoched by what is going on. Please remember though that there are those who like me object to this war and that we have a right to do so and in our own way we to support our boys. to our friend INOBU what can I say except keep up the good work Bro, to some degree it's the same over here in the UK. May whatever God you believe in protect you and yours. Orc |
|
20 Mar 03 - 09:34 AM (#914428) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Lepus Rex Oh, c'mon, Troll. Are you saying that most of the people in the military aren't stupid? That's usually why they chose the military: they have no other prospects, and they want free training or schooling. Which is cool. I'm all for free education. But agreeing to become an inhuman killing machine to get that makes you either 1.stupid, 2.evil, or 3.misguided. 95%, at least, of all soldiers I've met have been ignorant, brainwashed, conformist fucktards, who throw around phrases like "we gonna get them sand niggers" and "we gonna fuck up them dune coons." Low quality human beings, whose ancestors should have been exterminated after the Civil War. And, yeah, I know, that's not everyone. The remaining 5% are usually nice (misguided) people. And no, I don't feel the same about WW2 vets. The majority of them were drafted, weren't they? Besides, that was a much different time, and involved a different generation. The young people in the military today were raised in what was to many (yeah, yeah, in part thanks to the efforts of veterans in decades past), a more enlightened time, and should know better. They should be, at most, only half as ignorant as their parents. But they're not. Which is why they shouldn't breed. :) ---Lepus Rex |
|
20 Mar 03 - 09:51 AM (#914441) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Bagpuss Lepus, I don't know a huge number of people in the military, but those few that I do know were intelligent people. One has a degree and is in the RAF as an air traffic controller. My brother for a long time, also considered joining up - mainly because from a very young age he was fascinated by military aircraft and wanted to be a pilot. He was in the ATC as a kid and then the TA - paras. He has also always loved physical exercise and loved survival exercises. In the end he didn't join up mainly because it would have interfered too much with his hobby - rock climbing. He turned down a scholarship with the RAF because he realised it would tie him to that career and he hadnt completely made up his mind. He is now a firefighter (and has a degree from Oxford. People join up for different reasons and they are by no means all stupid or ignorant. Knowing some of my brothers friends who did pursue service careers, I don't think he is in a 5% minority either. Bagpuss |
|
20 Mar 03 - 10:11 AM (#914464) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Beccy You pompous bunch of insufferable self-righteous demagogs. I may be in "enemy territory" as Joe so succintly put it, but I assumed that people were still capable of civil discussion without resorting to being close-minded, and demagogic. As for you, specifically, Toadfrog- I don't see what business it is of yours to which threads I post. You are a jerk of the first degree. If you are so fond of music threads, why don't you stick to them yourself? I couldn't help but notice that the preponderance of threads you post to are BS in nature, which I would venture to say is well in keeping to form. If it wasn't so cute, I'd tell you to kiss my a*s. And you talk about cheap shots? You seem to be pretty good at delivering them yourself... My homeschool thread was to ask advice in teaching music to homeschooled children- How is that NOT a music thread? You have undoubtedly been posting to the 'Cat longer than I have... That does not make you a Saint nor does it make you superior to me. I assume that this is either your forum to take out your frustrations on anyone with a dissenting point of view or that you're a real-life jerk. Either way, I'm through with you. I would like to make clear one other point. I NEVER said that Natalie Maines was unpatriotic. I said she was a COWARD for delivering her pronouncement from a stage NOT in the USA. There is a difference and I stick by that. Now- can we PLEASE get this thread back to where it started? If you have a counter-demonstration to talk about, please tell me about it. If you don't, then I humbly ask you just say that you don't like the idea of one and leave it at that. I do not go onto the "protest in case of attack" threads and spew anger at you. I ask, once again, that you observe the same courtesy in regards to my thread. Joe- I respect your opinion, but surely you can respect mine as well. I think that it is not too much to ask to start a discussion and ask that people not attack the content of my character for positing an opinion (from a computer in the USA, I might add...) There are PLENTY of other threads that were started for the sole purpose of opposing the action in Iraq. Please, please, please allow me the ability to discuss this calmly without having personal invectives directed at me. Thank you to those who have expressed support to me either publically on this thread or through PMs. Beccy |
|
20 Mar 03 - 10:21 AM (#914472) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: InOBU Dear Beccy "You pompous bunch of insufferable self-righteous demagogs. I may be in "enemy territory" as Joe so succintly put it, but I assumed that people were still capable of civil discussion without resorting to being close-minded, and demagogic.", may not be the best way to get both sides to speak to the issues rather than insult each other. There is alot of that on both sides here, but generally most of the folks are polite and well meaning. Fact is, Mudcat is the public commons for our little community and you have to stand up and put out what is on your mind, and take the good and the bad. Now, I must say, I find it odd you don't address my invitation. I must say, I find few who call to support the troops are out here caring for the real MIAs in America, here on the streets of our cities, homeless and broken. If you wish to call for respect for your point of view, which, by the way, I believe you deserve whatever you do, you deserve as part of our little community here, and we should all respect each other, but if you want to really demand more respect than that normal amount we give each other, do the hard work, not the easy public flag waving, do the real work advocating for ex-solidiers used and thrown away by our government. Cheers, best wishes Larry |
|
20 Mar 03 - 10:23 AM (#914475) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: GUEST,on the fence *lepus rex* Have you ever discussed your theory of eugenics face to face with a soldier? |
|
20 Mar 03 - 10:32 AM (#914491) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Beccy Larry- I respect you, but I am endeavouring to pull this thread back to its original purpose. I'd happily discuss this with you elsewhere. Beccy |
|
20 Mar 03 - 10:42 AM (#914506) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: katlaughing Thank you, InOBU, for putting it so well. Beccy, long streams of invectives will not make thread conformists of any Mudcatters. Not even being really polite will get any to conform to an original intent of a thread. It has always been this way. The best way to get your thread back on track is to take a deep breath, ignore the nastiness, and keep posting on topic, yourself. (Besides which, all that venom the anger produces can't be good for the little ones you nurture.:-) I do NOT agree with anything you've posted in this thread and I, too, find it curious that no one has responded to InOBU's call to support forgotten vets. As an American, born and raised in a family with a long tradition of speaking our minds, I am proud to stand up and say I do not support this president nor the war. I will carry a sign of protest which says, "Support Our Troops...Bring Them Home, NOW." kat |
|
20 Mar 03 - 10:49 AM (#914517) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Beccy kat- hasn't anyone ever gotten to you? Or a bunch of people loaded up on you and sent you over the edge? Surely you have a breaking point, too. I hit mine. Anger is not something to avoid at all times. Sometimes you need to let people know they crossed a line with you. Toad crossed it and others piled on. Like I said, I'd LOVE to discuss vet's affairs with Larry, but as I have been attacked here because of thread creep, I'm trying to keep us on topic. I'd be happy to PM discuss this or move the idea of veteran's affairs elsewhere. I guess it doesn't matter that I volunteer regularly to help them, I have to shout about it, eh? Beccy |
|
20 Mar 03 - 10:52 AM (#914523) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Beccy One more thing, Kat... My little ones are not privy to what Mum discusses on the computer. They are blissfully unaware that I have just had an online temper tantrum. Heck- I'm Irish (at least my parents, are...) I'm allowed a temper. Long may technology roll! :=) |
|
20 Mar 03 - 10:56 AM (#914532) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Ireland What a disgraceful statement Lupus, I'm an ex soldier, QUB degree, with all perquisite qualifications for entering tertiary level education. Many in my platoon were educated to A level, and yes there were some real dim people but what they lacked in education they made up for in common sense. Not one fitted the description you gave, that is not to say that there are no such people like that, may I point out you do not have to be wearing a uniform to hold such opinions. Five years in the Army daily contact with military personnel, according to your figures I would be tripping over people like those you describe. In truth I only experienced four people like that, from another regiment, who were soon put in the proper frame of mind. Being a bit melodramatic lupus don't you think? |
|
20 Mar 03 - 11:00 AM (#914537) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: katlaughing Beccy, if you look back at some of my very early posts you will find that I learned the lesson the hard way. My nickname, elsewhere, used to be "Irish" because of my temper. So, I was speaking from experience. Even Joe Offer and I tangled in a major way. Fortunately those types of "wars" are few and far between these days on the Mudcat. It was in the early days of Mudcat becoming more of a community, with more of the not always appreciated BS threads, etc. (BTW, I was thinking more of the one you carry. I am sorry I said, anything, though. It doesn't seem seemly to talk about it here.) kat |
|
20 Mar 03 - 11:13 AM (#914549) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Beccy Thanks for the apology, Kat... I appreciate you thinking of me and me wee bairn. Rest assured that I am a careful Mum. Besides- I've been nursing a couple sick ones this week and it got my blood going in a much needed way :-) There's only so much vomit a gal can look at without needing to vent a little spleen. Now- my original point was to ask whether anyone knew of demonstrations that show support for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power and/or support for our troops. Does anyone know of any? Beccy |
|
20 Mar 03 - 11:26 AM (#914559) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Ireland Sorry,perquisite should be prerequisite. |
|
20 Mar 03 - 11:46 AM (#914578) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: InOBU I have heard that in respect to the new Security State regime, those in favor of the war ARE holding counter demonstrations, in small numbers within their homes. Cheers Larry |
|
20 Mar 03 - 11:47 AM (#914580) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: InOBU PS Being Irish myself... we have to keep a sense of humor in the face of this horror. Larry |
|
20 Mar 03 - 01:27 PM (#914646) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Beccy Alright, Larry... That WAS funny :-) Don't forget, though, that before gathering, everyone must go through a credit check... Beccy |
|
20 Mar 03 - 01:45 PM (#914661) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Don Firth Support the troops? Yes, I think this country should support its troops. And it can start by redressing the grievances of the soldiers who came back from Gulf War I with Gulf War Syndrome, which the government refuses to acknowledge even exists. They served their country, and then got dropped like a pregnant girl friend. And Bush and his Merry Men are saying, "Encore! Encore!" Don Firth |
|
20 Mar 03 - 02:19 PM (#914681) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Beccy Piling on, Don, you're piling on... What is this, irritate the pregnant lady day? :-) Beccy |
|
20 Mar 03 - 03:00 PM (#914715) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: JudyR Don, I agree. For that matter, just stop cutting the veterans budgets by billions while attempting to pass a tax cut for the wealthy during a war. |
|
20 Mar 03 - 03:33 PM (#914744) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: DougR No Joe. I think you will find that when there have been criticizms of you I have always supported you. I did not mean to infer that you did not have a right to comment to Beccy about her thread. Since you are one of the managing class, though, your words carry a bit more weight than the average folk. Larry and Don: you are comparing apples with oranges. Both the down and out vets of other wars deserve respect and attention, but Beccy's chief concern, and I think she has made this quite clear, are the young men and women fighting a war in Iraq at this very moment. Beccy: I am not one to demonstrate about anything. Primarily because I question the value of demonstrations. I always have for whatever purpose. I salute those who believe they do accomplish something and do participate in them in promotion of whatever. I do totally support the troops, however, and vervently hope they all come back safely. Not all of them will, but I hope they do. Lepus: your description of the folks who are putting their lives on the line in Iraq so that you are free to insult them is just that. Insulting. DougR |
|
20 Mar 03 - 03:35 PM (#914745) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Ireland Sorry Beccy, not wishing to irritate you, Don has a very valid point,which illustrates the duplicity of standards within governments attitudes towards the very people they send to war. I hope Joe does not give out to me, I have copied part of LtCol Tim Collins addressing the Royal Irish Regiment, on the eve of battle yesterday. We go to war not to conquer. We are entering Iraq to free a people. Show them respect. If you are ferocious in battle, remember to be magnanimous in victory. In his address to the troops, Lt Col Collins cautioned against actions which would bring the RIR into disrespect, not once did he advocate the indiscriminate action that Lupus has referred to. I ask for all to give their military the support and understanding they need, you may not agree with them and what they do, but to be an effective force they have to obey their orders. I ask the you understand this and respect the people see this as their duty. I must admit I do find the posturing of some US top brass, some person going on about hammer time, does not make for good public relations. |
|
20 Mar 03 - 03:44 PM (#914751) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: artbrooks The statements that the government doesn't care about homeless veterans and doesn't acknowledge the existance are, in the words of the vernacular, a bunch of shit. The Federal government, through the VA, has an active program of funding homeless programs, and the link to information on that is here. In addition, the agency manages a network of Domiciliaries for homeless veterans and funds State Veterans Homes as well. Many veterans on the street will not go to these places because they have a zero-tolerance for alcohol and drugs policy. There have been studies done that imply that many of the "veterans" on the street have no military service, but have learned to claim this as a way to elicit extra benefits. One study summary I do have says that 1/3 of homeless men in the 1980s were veterans...of all wars. It also states that, at that time, about 40% of adult males were veterans (Stolen Valor, B.G.Burkett, p. 317), which would indicate that homeless veterans were perportionate to the overall population. The VA also has a very active medical research program on Gulf War issues. dedicating to studying the multiple issues that have been lumped into the term "Gulf War Syndrome" by the uninformed. The January 2002 report to Congress on this program is here. |
|
20 Mar 03 - 05:00 PM (#914797) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Lepus Rex Sayyyy, very perceptive, Doug. I was afraid I didn't get the whole "insulting" thing across when I said "fuck the troops," so thanks for noticing. :} Like they're really "putting their lives on the line." You'd have a better chance of getting killed driving to work than you would watching from the safety of a boat while bombs and cruise missiles pulverise "the enemy" for you. Sorry, not impressed. But... you're right, Doug. If they weren't over there, bombarding an annoying but mostly harmless third-world dictatorship into oblivion, we'd be living in, like, Nazi China or something, dude. Let's see... Bagpuss. I'd say your brother, who considered joining an organisation that exists only to kill people, just because he might get the chance to fly a plane, was "misguided," at least. If I was offered my "dream job," but one of the conditions of being hired was that maybe, I might sort of have to, uh, blow a few people to Hell, I wouldn't have to think much before turning it down. And maybe the ratio of "stupid" to "evil" and "misguided" is different over there (you're in the UK, right?), but here, soldiers are mostly "stupid." And Ireland, see above. And it's LEPUS. ---Lepus Rex |
|
20 Mar 03 - 07:32 PM (#914901) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: michaelr DougR -- you don't think parading around in a Civil War uniform constitutes a "demonstration" of some sort? Cheers, Michael |
|
20 Mar 03 - 07:34 PM (#914903) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Bobert Well danged, Beccy. Looks as if ya' got yerseff a good ol' fashion whoppin' here. Hey, I know about 'em. Trouble is really in the name of the thread. "Counter demonstartions to support our troops". The implication in using the word "counter" is that one cannot support peace and the troops. It is inherently arrogant in that in it you assume and pass judgement. Hey, I've done exactly what you have done so I know what I'm talking about here. I believe that you have been caught up in the somewhat narrowminded "With us or against us" stand of Mr. Bush. It has done nothing but alienated much of the world and in you're disguising it in the name of your thread, you have reaped, as Bush, pretty much what you have sowed. And I'm not passing judgement here since I do the same thing, just an observation. But when I do it, I expect to get the "blast" and am not shocked when it comes my way. Bobert |
|
20 Mar 03 - 07:49 PM (#914915) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: JudyR Art-- You say that statements that the government doesn't care about homeless veterans and doesn't acknowledge the existance are, in the words of the vernacular, a bunch of shit." Let me just say that in caring for their veterans, Republican administrations have been shamefully remiss. I have a disabled veteran friend (who is also the son of a man who lost his leg in WWII and was the president of Veterans Affairs). He has told me that in years when funding for every other program has been increased, VA benefits have decreased, or at most, stayed the same. Particularly under Reagan. And now Bush is talking out of one side of his mouth about "our boys" while cutting veterans benefits with the other hand. As for the homeless veterans, Reagan unleashed onto them onto the streets by cutting budgets for half-way houses, mental institutions and hospitals. It was the first time since the Depression we have seen homeless on our streets, and shamefully, it continues to this day. I don't think blaming the veterans for those who are somehow caught "lying." Granted, there may be some with zero tolerance" re the drug and alcohol rules, but I would almost be willing to bet that whatever patch the govt. is putting on the problem is not nearly enough to address the problem. |
|
20 Mar 03 - 09:22 PM (#914989) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: artbrooks JudyR...I'm not a fan of either Mr. Reagan or Mr. Bush, but it is simply not true that funds for veterans programs have decreased annually, either in the budget or in funds adjusted for inflation. It is also true, and I say this as a person who worked for the VA from 1974 to 2001, that the agency generally did better under Democratic administrations. |
|
20 Mar 03 - 09:37 PM (#914998) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Bobert art and Judy: You're both right. Our Vets haven't gotten the level of serives that they deserve but neither has the rest of the population. Health care in America is the best in the world for, ahhhh, those that can afford it. Unfortunately, that's only the very wealthy and a few folks who are lucky enough to work for good employers who are still able to enroll their employees in good programs. But with 41M folks withotu any type of health insurance and another 100M that are enrolled in programs that can be cancelled if you get sick, it ain't hard to see that their is a trend here and it doesn't favor vets and/or the working class (of wihich most vets belong.) Yeah, most of us are getting shafted in Boss Hog's America... And it's gonna get a lot worse and may not get better if we can't get Boss Hog's heel off out necks... Bobert |
|
21 Mar 03 - 03:08 AM (#915145) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: JudyR Art, sounds like you know what you're talking about! He did say that Reagan wanted to make VA hospitals open to Medicaid patients, which would have caused a disaster of overcrowding, he said. He may have just meant the Republicans, who he hates with a passion. I see some of this myself, though -- one of our two VA hospitals had to close as an overnight facility a few years ago (don't remember the year, could even have been Clinton), making veterans have to travel miles and miles out of their way. Bobert -- yeah, I'm with you on the need for health care. None of my friends have jobs that provide health care, and several of them live in fear of being dropped from their expensive plans all the time. How we can be waging a war and spending billions at this time, when our own needs are so dire...and will only get worse...grrrrrrr. !!!!! I want a regime change. I wish it could happen. |
|
21 Mar 03 - 07:59 AM (#915254) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: *daylia* Troll wanted to me to "Tell us daylia, what perfect planet do you live on that you feel you can instruct us in the way we should run our country? The beautiful planet upon which I am currently incarnate is governed by many "laws of nature", one of which is the "law of equal return". In physics, this translates roughly to "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". In human social affairs, the Hindus have long called it "karma", meaning "whatever you do comes back to you." Apparently the present rulers of the US, and many of your past ones, consider it their divine (?) "right" to "enforce American principles and American interests" upon the rest of the planet, using "all means necessary" (your President's words), legal or illegal, moral or immoral. If you don't like the "returns" this earns you, in the form of unsolicitied advice about how to run your country, then either get another President, take those "American principles and American interests" back to the drawing board, or both. Preferably both, and the quicker the better, for the sake of the rest of my beautiful planet and all life upon it. Simpler yet, how about giving your rulers a crash course in the meaning of the word "boundaries", or maybe "international law"? "Ethics" and "compassion" might prove helpful as well. Or maybe they just need a reminder that unlike in your "World Series", in real life the US is only one (relatively puny) part of the world, and not the whole thing. If you still don't understand where I'm coming from, an elementary geography lesson would likely help you, Troll. Oh yes, and I wanted to change the word "victim" in the statement I made above "I wish only the best for your family members stationed in Iraq, and all other victims of your government's propoganda machine." I was trying to be compassionate when I said that, and I do wish the best for everyone involved in this conflict. But as someone pointed out above, the truth is that soldiers are not really 'victims' of the propoganda machine unless they are forced to fight. 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. Sadly, they too will reap what they sow. As will we all. I'd say "God help us all", but "God" helps those who help themselves. So that's my BIG helping for y'all! Don't choke on it now! daylia |
|
21 Mar 03 - 09:58 AM (#915329) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Bobert daylia: Whereas I am in agreement with you in all most everything you say I might just throw a few thoughts into the mix. Many of these soldiers never thought in their wildest dreams that they would end up having to fight. When we look at the past decade or so, though there have been wars, these wars have been fought and won (for a lack of a better term since no one really wins a war except Satan...) from the air with bombs. With that said, lots of kids who have been heavily recruited in high school have joined the military as a means of getting an education. This partly expalins why so many of ground troops are from variuos minorities. These folks, as well as most of the world's population in the year 2000 could not have forseen the events that would unfold as the result of aa arrogant, unilaterialist President. So, I'm sure that the majority of these folks deep down inside are womndering just what the heck went wrong with their plans to move up in life. Bad timing. Now I know I am not speaking of all these people but enough of them for me to feel needs our good thoughts and prayers that they will not be put in harms way or inflict harm on anyone else. Peace Bobert |
|
21 Mar 03 - 10:21 AM (#915342) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: *daylia* Bobert I see your point, but it's difficult for me to empathize with the soldiers. I've been in the situation of badly needing a job myself, but I have never considered a military career even though that is a 'tradition' in my family. Why? Two reasons: 1. I can't stand taking orders from anyone, least of all political rulers who all too often have only their personal ambitions at heart. 2. I could never sacrifice my own principles re the sanctity of life for a paycheck. Guess I'd rather die myself than get paid to kill innocent people. That sounds pretty simplistic, but the truth is usually very simple. The soldiers in question have elected to put themselves in harm's way, and to harm innocent people. They could just as easily elect to lay down their arms and go home asap. And until they do, I don't think any amount of praying is going to help them. daylia |
|
21 Mar 03 - 10:56 AM (#915357) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: DougR daylia: well I, for one, agree. Your thinking does sound pretty simplistic. michaelr: I don't know. I never gave much thought to people who "parade around in Civil War uniforms." I don't do it myself, but if someone wants to do it, okay by me. Bobert, etc: I have been more pleased by my treatment at VA clinics than I have those provided by my HMO. I would rate the VA as excellent when it comes to medical care. I defer to Art on other matters, who is much more familiar with other aspects of the VA than I am. Beccy: it appears you are fighting an uphill battle with your thread, but not to be surprised. As Joe said, just remember where you are. DougR |
|
21 Mar 03 - 11:12 AM (#915367) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: *daylia* Doug, remember this? "Tis the gift to be simple, 'Tis the gift to be free, 'Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be, And when we find ourselves in the place just right, It will be in the valley of love and delight. When true simplicity is gained, to bow and to bend, we will not be ashamed To turn, turn, will be our delight, 'Til by turning, turning, we come round right." Here's to bowing, bending, turning, and true simplicity!! daylia |
|
21 Mar 03 - 12:10 PM (#915419) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Ireland I do not want to cause offence here, I do have to ask, no Army no armed forces at all, who keeps the wolf from the door? Try to answer this as if you are in the real world, that is Bin Laden and his ilk exist. None of this if every one put down there weapons crap either, pure simple logic is all that is asked for, how would we defend our children,family, loved one's and fellow citizens and protect our weak? |
|
21 Mar 03 - 12:13 PM (#915422) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: GUEST,Penny S. (elsewhere) This was in The Guardian last Saturday. I found it moving. The Sniper's Tale Though I opposed the war, and still do, and resent being told that now it is being fought I should shut up and support our troops, I do feel that some support is required. Not shutting up. (What is the war for, if we lose that freedom?) Those who are bearing the burden of other men's decisions deserve to receive the cover they are promised, the logistical support they need, medical support, the knowledge that behind the lines are people working to make their task as easy and as safe as it can be. That support cannot come from us. (I'd learn to knit socks if required.) It comes from the governments concerned making sure that everything about the campaign is set up to work properly. It should already be in place. The rest of us can pray - that's private. We can support families, if we know any - still private. We can urge that adequate arrangements are made for those returning after the war. That's public, and something that, on the evidence of Elizabeth 1's Poor Laws, has a long standing failure rate. If we go out to say "Support the troops" it can too easily be made to mean "Support the War", and these two are not the same. With the warb now in progress, I support fighting it as cleanly as possible, as quickly as possible, and with as few casualties as possible, on all sides. Much of the talk I heard on the radio from the military this morning sounded as if that's what they would like, too. But I still will not support it as something we had to do, now. I know that many join up because they do see it as a job that has to be done, in the interests of others who cannot do it for themselves, and though there are bad apples in every bunch of people, I wouldn't say they have chosen to join a group dedicated to killing, and insult them for it. I wouldn't think any serious army would find eager killers very reliable soldiers, anyway, and I imagine that a lot of the bad-mouthing the enemy that goes on is like operating theatre humour. It's needed to protect the mind from the unbearable. Hold them in the light out there - they are all in a dark place not of their choosing. Penny |
|
21 Mar 03 - 12:37 PM (#915432) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: *daylia* Ireland, if humans ever evolve to the point where armies and weapons are a just a sordid memory, it will be because everyone lays down their arms and goes home to tend their own gardens. There would no longer be "wolves at the door". And such an action would be best begun by the biggest, most dangerous "wolves" setting an example for all the little hyenas to follow, so to speak. Pretty simple, straightforward logic. But I'm not holding my breath for that bright day - as long as it pays to be a "wolf" (no disrespect to wolves intended), there will be wolves at the door. Sad but true. daylia |
|
21 Mar 03 - 12:50 PM (#915438) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: artbrooks The idea that most, or even many, of the women and men in uniform are there because they can't get jobs or need money for higher education is a gross insult to them. However, I suppose that's the point. |
|
21 Mar 03 - 12:59 PM (#915443) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Troll Kipling said it better than I ever could in his poem, "Tommy Atkins: "Now makin' mock 'o uniforms that guards you while you sleep, Is cheaper than them uniforms. And they're starvation cheap." italics mine So pontificate away, all of you who mock those whohelp to keep you free. You'll change your tune when another Hitler or Tojo arises and you want soldiers to protect you. "...But it's 'special train for Atkins' when the drums begins to play." troll |
|
21 Mar 03 - 01:02 PM (#915445) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: *daylia* PS imo Bin Laden and "his ilk" are no different than Bush and "his ilk". Just a lot poorer and less powerful. At present Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein are being used, rather transparently, as a scapegoat, a distraction for the square-eyed propoganda-slurping masses, by the Bushies and their ill as they carry out their illegal plans for economic and military global domination. Oops, that's ilk. Ill ilk. *whew* try sayin that 10X fast! |
|
21 Mar 03 - 01:04 PM (#915446) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: katlaughing Penny, thanks so much for the link to that extraordinary excerpt. Also, for your very astute and profound words. It is a pleasure, as always, to read your take on things. kat |
|
21 Mar 03 - 01:09 PM (#915448) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: *daylia* Troll maybe one day you'll wake up and find that another Hitler has arisen, and he's in your White House right now, working very hard to relieve you of whatever's left of your 'freedom'. There's a lot of people here who've woken up a long time ago though ... and if what they (and I) suspect proves to be true, it's them you'll be lining up to thank as they save your sorry butt. daylia |
|
21 Mar 03 - 01:13 PM (#915449) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Ireland That's it Daylia ? That is your answer if, old saying here, if your granny had balls she would be your granda. Saying if, does not answer my question, come into the real world,deal with the situations we have. I take offence when people like you advocate the utter nonsense of day dreams and wishful thinking, while others are left to make real decisions and take real action, none of the what if crap. While I agree that people have the right to argue against the war at the very least cut the if only crap. I agree with what Artbrooks has said, it is an insult to those who feel in their heart that they are doing some good. So far nine men have lost their lives,they put their money where their mouth is, it is so easy to sit at the keyboard and mouth off. All I say is may they rest in peace and their sacrifice as far as I'm concerned is not in vain, at least they were trying to do something. Before anyone says it I do regret the loss of Iraqi or any other lives, and I'll not insult their memory (Iraqi military) by insinuating the same crap about them as has been put across about our troops. |
|
21 Mar 03 - 01:24 PM (#915456) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Ireland Thats the point Daylia, who protects their citizens from Bush and his ilk? Are the Iraqi military meant to lay down their arms? |
|
21 Mar 03 - 01:32 PM (#915462) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: *daylia* Ireland I am in the real world. I have the same access to the very same "facts" of the matter as you do, and I have drawn different conclusions. Time will tell which conclusions are correct. I've always thought that military "solutions" are the least desirable ones in solving international problems. Unfortunately, they are the ones that continue to reap the biggest profit - and I'm not talking about soldier's salaries here. daylia |
|
21 Mar 03 - 01:42 PM (#915469) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: *daylia* Are the Iraqi military meant to lay down their arms? Of course not, Ireland. I certainly wouldn't if any of that 'ill ilk' broke into my home and tried to rob/kill me! Invaders are not 'innocent people', and self-defence is my right and my responsibility. That's why I said that disarmament must start from the top down, if it's ever going to happen on a global scale. But how to go about doing that is a real challenge - and it won't even begin if no one believes it's possible. |
|
21 Mar 03 - 03:35 PM (#915539) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Don Firth When I graduated from high school and entered the University of Washington in 1949, I found myself surrounded by a number of older men (men in their late twenties or early thirties are "older" to an eighteen-year-old). These were World War II veterans going to school on the G. I. Bill. They were mature, serious, goal-oriented students who had seem something of the world, and going to school with such friends and classmates was a unique experience. I was fortunate. And for the service they had rendered to their country, the government expressed its gratitude in concrete and meaningful ways. Since then, the government hasn't done quite as well. Perhaps the fact that World War II was the last "good" war this country was involved in has something to do with it. As far as I can remember, veterans of the Korean conflict were well take care of, but it's well known that many Vietnam veterans have had a rough time of it. And this was not because of protesters or the large numbers of people who were opposed to the war, but because the government has pretty much turned it's back on them, ignoring their concerns and difficulties. This was repeated in spades following the Gulf War. Tens of thousands of troops came back with a variety of debilitating but unexplained symptoms that came to be known as "Gulf War Syndrome." The government denies that such a thing exists. Nevertheless, there it is! See HERE. If I were one of our fighting personnel, I would be far less upset by people protesting against this war than I would be about the possibility that I could come home from the war debilitated by a wound, an injury, or an illness incurred while serving my country, and find that I've been mustered out, dumped on the street, ignored, and left to fend for myself. It has nothing to do with "apples and oranges," Doug. It has to do with the history of lies, duplicity, and ingratitude of our own government. Just because you ignore a problem—or an injustice—that doesn't mean it isn't there. Don Firth |
|
21 Mar 03 - 03:40 PM (#915540) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Beccy Thistles and roses, daylia... thistles and roses... Ya'll have wrecked the thread. It's yours now. Have fun. |
|
21 Mar 03 - 03:55 PM (#915554) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: artbrooks Don Firth: not true. The US government, through the VA, treats, does research, and pays monetary compensation for diseases related to the Gulf War. There is no scientific evidence for a condition called "Gulf War Syndrome" that affects all veterans of that conflict, but there are other, identifiable and treatable medical issues. Also, did you know that Vietnam veterans (and I am one) have higher employment rates and lower suicide rates (and I mention this specifically because of the erroneous data out there) than the veteran population on the whole? |
|
21 Mar 03 - 04:05 PM (#915560) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Ireland "I could never sacrifice my own principles re the sanctity of life for a paycheck. Guess I'd rather die myself than get paid to kill innocent people." "PS imo Bin Laden and "his ilk" are no different than Bush and "his ilk". What is it Daylia that you object to? You would take up arms against such ilk, therefore you would take up arms against Bin Laden,when are your principles not offended? "Of course not, Ireland. I certainly wouldn't if any of that 'ill ilk' broke into my home and tried to rob/kill me! Invaders are not 'innocent people', and self-defence is my right and my responsibility." Invaders are not innocent people, tell me this Daylia, what manner of use would an individual effort be to an organised aggressor of superior numbers? Would you cope with them? Who would defend the weak? Who would you call on for help? Would you be willing to pay that person for help in protecting your family? Would you recompense the family of those who came to help you and were wounded or killed? Your argument of invaders and the action you would take make you no different from the people you condemn. I would never be convinced that you would turn down assistance from an army unit if your life was at risk. |
|
21 Mar 03 - 04:07 PM (#915562) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: stevetheORC Hi All As I have said previously in this thread I do not support the action taking place in Iraq for one minuet. But I will ask that people stop slaging off the squadies (Grunts to our US inlaws) these are for the most part kids who joined up for a bit of adventure, see the world. Some do it to gain a education, some because they want to serve and protect there country and yes some because they have nowhere else to go. Believe me they do not join thinking 'Hey I can go kill someone now' as some seem to belive, they are trained to follow orders cus this is what keeps them alive. If they fail to carry out a legitamate order they face a court martial and possible imprisonment (please dont tell me 'well thats what i would do' cus you woud'nt) By all means slag off the politicos and there ilk who started this but leave the kids alone. Orc |
|
21 Mar 03 - 04:11 PM (#915567) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Don Firth Art, we must be living on different planets. But I'm open. Can you link to some authoritative, non-controversial date? Don Firth |
|
21 Mar 03 - 04:12 PM (#915568) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Don Firth "data," that is. . . . Don Firth |
|
21 Mar 03 - 04:19 PM (#915574) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Penny S. Kat, thanks for the comment - but I don't feel it's entirely mine. It drew on another source. When I read Swofford's piece, I was deeply impressed with his style, as well as the content, and felt glad that he had been spared to become such a writer. And then wondered how many other mute inglorious Swoffords had fallen in the sand last time. On both sides. We talk too loosely of loss of life, without thinking of the loss of mind, of all the little things the fallen would have done, the bright mornings they would have woken to, the snow they would have cleared, the smiles they would have exchanged across the breakfast table, the jewelled spider web they might have observed, the cups of coffee they would have savoured...all the minutiae of life that will not come again. Maybe there are books lost, art lost, songs lost: there are also letters to loved ones lost, post-it notes telling of love, each life gone as valuable as Swofford's. Penny |
|
21 Mar 03 - 04:39 PM (#915597) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Bobert Don: If you want proof that there's no such thing as Gulf War Syndrome all you have to do is ask the government. They'll be glad to deny it and masybe even send you a color brochure explaining how wonderful depleted uranium is. Might of fact, they're thinking of bottling it up and selling it in the health food stores. Ahhhh, now back to the *real world*. On another thread concerning the the government's attempts to sweep the ill effects of DU's under the carpet, I presented a lot of info that I don't have bookmarked but can get it should anyone be seriously interested in learning something new rather than just arguing. Someone pointed out that 9 servicemen have been killed which while terribly shameful, we be pale in comparison top the number of folks who come home from this war sick with DU. Bobert |
|
21 Mar 03 - 04:58 PM (#915616) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Don Firth 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 |
|
21 Mar 03 - 05:03 PM (#915622) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: artbrooks 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. |
|
21 Mar 03 - 05:07 PM (#915628) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Ireland So far, we're killing more of our own than the Iraqis are. . . . Is this some kind of gloat? |
|
21 Mar 03 - 06:46 PM (#915705) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Bobert 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 |
|
21 Mar 03 - 06:50 PM (#915706) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: artbrooks 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. |
|
21 Mar 03 - 07:45 PM (#915742) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: michaelr Sorry Doug -- I had you confused with another Mudcatter, whose pictures show him in a Civil War uniform. Cheers, Michael |
|
21 Mar 03 - 08:38 PM (#915767) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Don Firth 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 |
|
21 Mar 03 - 11:21 PM (#915827) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Troll 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 |
|
21 Mar 03 - 11:34 PM (#915837) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: katlaughing 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 |
|
22 Mar 03 - 07:36 AM (#915934) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: InOBU 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 |
|
22 Mar 03 - 07:40 AM (#915937) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: InOBU Re Turkey... where are Oliver and Hardy to say, "It is another fine mess you've gotten us into!" |
|
22 Mar 03 - 07:49 AM (#915939) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Bobert 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 |
|
22 Mar 03 - 08:16 AM (#915944) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Ireland 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. |
|
22 Mar 03 - 09:38 AM (#915962) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: artbrooks 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. |
|
22 Mar 03 - 09:57 AM (#915966) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: *daylia* 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 |
|
22 Mar 03 - 11:07 AM (#916003) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Ireland 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." |
|
22 Mar 03 - 12:30 PM (#916038) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: *daylia* 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 |
|
22 Mar 03 - 01:30 PM (#916064) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Celtic Soul 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! |
|
22 Mar 03 - 02:09 PM (#916079) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Troll 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 |
|
22 Mar 03 - 03:03 PM (#916101) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Don Firth 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 |
|
22 Mar 03 - 04:32 PM (#916156) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: katlaughing Don, thank you, very much. |
|
22 Mar 03 - 04:39 PM (#916162) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Ireland 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. |
|
22 Mar 03 - 06:15 PM (#916204) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Bobert 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 |
|
22 Mar 03 - 06:35 PM (#916213) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: *daylia* 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 |
|
22 Mar 03 - 06:41 PM (#916215) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Bobert 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 |
|
22 Mar 03 - 06:49 PM (#916223) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Gareth 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 :- " TommyI 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" |
|
22 Mar 03 - 07:16 PM (#916234) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: *daylia* 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 |
|
22 Mar 03 - 09:00 PM (#916285) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: John Hardly Fort Wayne Indiana had a "Support the troops" rally today. 15,000 attended. |
|
22 Mar 03 - 10:02 PM (#916302) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Troll 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 |
|
22 Mar 03 - 11:15 PM (#916329) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: *daylia* 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 |
|
23 Mar 03 - 02:54 AM (#916390) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Troll 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 |
|
23 Mar 03 - 04:14 AM (#916405) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Penny S. 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 |
|
23 Mar 03 - 06:18 AM (#916429) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Bullfrog Jones 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 |
|
23 Mar 03 - 06:30 AM (#916431) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Bullfrog Jones Sorry, I made that posting after reading only the first page. I now realize that Beccy has taken her ball and gone home! BJ |
|
23 Mar 03 - 07:47 AM (#916449) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: InOBU 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 |
|
23 Mar 03 - 10:47 AM (#916497) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: *daylia* 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 |
|
23 Mar 03 - 11:01 AM (#916502) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: *daylia* 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 |
|
23 Mar 03 - 03:23 PM (#916600) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Don Firth 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 |
|
23 Mar 03 - 05:07 PM (#916637) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Ireland "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? |
|
23 Mar 03 - 05:50 PM (#916653) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: *daylia* 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 |
|
23 Mar 03 - 06:30 PM (#916672) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: InOBU 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 |
|
24 Mar 03 - 02:20 AM (#916835) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Hrothgar The best way to support the troops is to bring them home. |
|
24 Mar 03 - 05:23 AM (#916892) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Troll 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 |
|
24 Mar 03 - 09:05 AM (#916978) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: *daylia* 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 |
|
24 Mar 03 - 09:45 AM (#917012) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Troll 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 |
|
24 Mar 03 - 10:42 AM (#917055) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: *daylia* 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 |
|
24 Mar 03 - 10:56 AM (#917078) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Troll daylia, where in Florida is she? I'm in Gainesville. Been here since '67. troll |
|
24 Mar 03 - 11:14 AM (#917098) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: TIA 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. |
|
24 Mar 03 - 11:28 AM (#917115) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: *daylia* 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 |
|
24 Mar 03 - 02:05 PM (#917260) Subject: RE: BS: Counter demonstrations to support troops From: Marion 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 |