I get it now!

[jimmy]

Wow, who'd have thought that it'd be The Onion who would open my eues to what all of you have been saying about Patriotism and supporting the pres during war...

http://www.theonion.com/onion3912/i_should_not_be.html

 

[jimmy]

Haha...I was hoping someone would respond with the "support our troops" arguement....man, I'd say that's about the saddest tactitc in use right now to quell dissention.

"oh, if you don't support the war, you must not support our troops and care about them fighting for us and our freedoms."

Fact 1-- The troops are not over there fighting for OUR freedom. I believe the name of the operation is Operation IRAQI Freedom.

Fact 2--Being against the war is NOT being against the troops. How it can even be suggested is beyond me. I realize that our military serves a very high purpose to our freedom and safety. I also realize that they take orders and are over there doing a job. I find it repulsive that there were those during the vietnam war that supposedly were spitting on troops and yelling "baby killer" and all that crap. That's retarded and I don't support that at all.

I grieve for those troops that lose their lives, I want the rest (including a few good buddies of mine) to return home successful and safe. But that doesn't mean I can't question the overall premise behind their being over there in the first place.

 

[Frank]

How can you support the troops - but be against what they are risking life and limb, for? How about this - I'm FOR you, I support you, I just am opposed to virtually everything you do in life, especially causes for which you are willing to die. What a pile of sh*t.

I mean, how do YOU support the troops? Write them letters, telling them, they're dying for nothing? Boy, that will really encourage them!

If you're against the war, don't come crying when the ones doing the fighting over there don't express their appreciation for your "support". You're not doing them any favors "supporting" them but opposing what they do.

 

[Pookie]

Originally posted by Frank
How can you support the troops - but be against what they are risking life and limb, for? How about this - I'm FOR you, I support you, I just am opposed to virtually everything you do in life, especially causes for which you are willing to die. What a pile of sh*t.

I mean, how do YOU support the troops? Write them letters, telling them, they're dying for nothing? Boy, that will really encourage them!

If you're against the war, don't come crying when the ones doing the fighting over there don't express their appreciation for your "support". You're not doing them any favors "supporting" them but opposing what they do.

I'm with Frank all the way!!

How do you think it makes those troops feel to see all of these a$$clowns saying they support the troops, but don't support the war??? Sounds pretty idiotic if you ask me. If you don't support the war, then you're not supporting our troops....no matter what you say!

 

[Pookie]

Originally posted by cariblue
So bite me.

Be careful with that statement, cari. You might not be able to bite him back!

 

[jimmy]

Ok...here we go.

First of all, the men and women of our military are over there doing a job they were told to do by their commander in chief. That is what they are supposed to do. IF they have to be over there because of orders from our president, why do I have to, in your eyes, be taking a position of being against THEM (the troops themselves??).

The 'gay' point is completely irrelevant here because we are talking about duty and obligation vice individual action. Every soldier doesn't HAVE to believe in the specific cause that they are fighting for, but they do have to believe in and follow the principles and fundamentals that they agreed to upon joining the military. Serving our country was the choice they made, the war in Iraq is not.

Hate to break it to you but the troops are "risking life and limb" over there for a policy inacted by a President's administration that I happen to disagree with. I still hope as many as can return home safely and with success since certainly I don't want them to LOSE this conflict...jesus...

I don't have to agree with the reasoning that we are over there and I can call the president on his failings and misjudgements but at no time does that presuppose and lack of support for the troops themselves on their mission.

Keep in mind, folks, I'm not a "peace queer" as you so intelligently put it, and I'm not "pro muslim/terrorist" as you so quickly infer. I am quite anti-Saddam and his regime but one of the things that this article pointed out (yes yes, through sarcasm but I think it only helps to futher illustrate the hipocracy we are being fed) is that this is clearly NOT the reason we are in Iraq right now (defending human rights, protecting our freedoms).

Bottom line is Bush has done a terrible job presenting justification for handling the war in the manner in which he has. It is his decision-making and policy that I take issue with, not the actions of the troops themselves.

 

[jimmy]

Oh and Bluto,

I get it so since I'm against this war, I'm also GAY?? Thanks for reminding me of the intrinsic link between political dissention and a$$-pounding...you are truly insightful!

 

[jimmy]

Anti-W? Yes. I'm not ashamed of that, he's done it to himself.

As for the rest? At least in terms of this anti-war person, I don't really have any financial backers so I don't know what your talking about. I'm not talking about the crappy anti-war movement made up of pseudo hippies in their designer tie-dies and their sh!tty signs saying "No blood for oil"...I'm just talking about my own opinon...

 

[SeaRide]

Originally posted by jimmy
Anti-W? Yes. I'm not ashamed of that, he's done it to himself.

As for the rest? At least in terms of this anti-war person, I don't really have any financial backers so I don't know what your talking about. I'm not talking about the crappy anti-war movement made up of pseudo hippies in their designer tie-dies and their sh!tty signs saying "No blood for oil"...I'm just talking about my own opinon...

:shrug: same differences.

 

[MDindef]

Hey, I was over there during the first go-round 12 years ago. We were there because we were ordered...true. We were there because we believed in the mission and wanted to be there...that's also true. Don't attribute this to simply being "under orders." I couldn't wait to hang weapons on the wings and fly.

...wish I could be there with 'em now!

 

[Frank]

You were already anti-W. It comes as no surprise, you'd be against the war.

What I can't figure out, is, if you're anti-Saddam, why on earth wouldn't you support the war.

You seem to suggest, that your disagreement lies in the motive for the war, and not the fact that we are IN it. How you are privy to the REAL motives, I don't know, and if you dislike W to begin with, it comes as no surprise to me that you would doubt his motives, no matter how clearly they are expressed, because no answer would satisfy you.

My little sister once pointed out to me, when I was criticizing the "obvious hypocrisy" of a group of people working for a charity - that they did it for publicity, and their own ego, and I would have none of it. She called me on the carpet for that remark - she told me "like it or not - people ARE getting fed through this charity, and with low overhead. I can't fault someone for doing a good deed, no matter what their reason is".

That's a big part of my feeling. No matter what your feeling about Bush is - I can't see overthrowing one of the most brutal dictators in years as being a bad thing. I can't see this war as wrong. And I can't see how anything else would have worked, in lieu of how despicable the Iraqi army and militia have behaved.

If I thought, for some idiotic reason, that Bush only conducted this war simply for political gain - I would still be behind it, because it is doing a *good* thing.

I know that politics plays all sides - but why is it that the US is the ONLY one with NO altruistic motive? Do people REALLY think that the UN, France, Germany, Russia, China, the Democrats, high-school kids who get a day off from school, everyone who is against the war have ONLY pure motives, and those who are for it, have only wrong ones? What kind of fantasy world is that?

 

[Kyle]

Diplomacy. That's the standard answer.

Diplomacy: The concept lost on the culture in question. The tactic that hasn't worked 4,319,611 times before, but they're certain will this next time. Listen for the cry, "We should have tried diplomacy"

 

[Makavide]

personal security briefing

Originally posted by jimmy

Bottom line is Bush has done a terrible job presenting justification for handling the war in the manner in which he has. It is his decision-making and policy that I take issue with, not the actions of the troops themselves.

So, because President Bush and his security advisors have not sat down with you personnally and given you a full brief, including raw intelligence data to jusitify the war, you are against it. Would it suprise you to know that there could be some information in their hands that just can not be made public, and that revealing that information at this time could put peoples lives in jeopardy?

 

[vraiblonde]

First of all, I wasn't aware Jimmy was gay - he has a gay brother.

And now for you, Jimmy, you non-gay Bush-basher.

Bottom line is Bush has done a terrible job presenting justification for handling the war in the manner in which he has. It is his decision-making and policy that I take issue with, not the actions of the troops themselves.

You are in the distinct minority. No...really...check the polls. So it's fine for you to voice your opinion - that's what it's all about. But know that you're not going to find many people that agree with you.

This is one of the few times I've really liked Bush - he stepped up to the plate, risking his political viability, taking on the UN, to get rid of this freak. I think that's admirable and shows integrity.

Admit you're just mad because the guy you kept calling illiterate and illegitimate has turned out to be a pretty good President.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by jimmy
Fact 1-- The troops are not over there fighting for OUR freedom. I believe the name of the operation is Operation IRAQI Freedom.

The name used to identify an operation has very little, if anything, to do with the intent of that operation, it's just a name. By the way, Congress statutorily directed the President to resolve this issue and gave him the power to use military force. If you bothered to read the law concerning our actions you would see that these troops are there defending our freedom.

Fact 2--I find it repulsive that there were those during the vietnam war that supposedly were spitting on troops and yelling "baby killer" and all that crap.

Supposedly? It did happen, nothing supposed about it.

 

[SmallTown]

two points to make:
1) With all of this talk about "If you support this, you must support that" is all BS. So by your own rational, all of those who oppose abortion must be PRO the people who kill abortion doctors, meaning you support people who kill people who kill people. Nice.

2) All we heard about since last september was how awful saddam was and how he must disarm (READ- Get the hell out ). this was for our own security against terrorism. Of course, the world didn't like that notion, so we suddenly went from getting rid of a terrorist threat against us, to an operation to liberate the iraqi people. Cute change of course, but we're seeing even that rhetoric isn't working all that well anymore. I just wish Bush would let Franks and Powell and the other generals do all the talking. And when he is together with Blair, for Gods sake, let Blair do the talking.

 

[vraiblonde]

So by your own rational, all of those who oppose abortion must be PRO the people who kill abortion doctors, meaning you support people who kill people who kill people. Nice.

Don't even do that, Jimmy - you're smarter than that. However I would support the killing of whoever invented partial-birth abortion. That's a sick SOB. I wouldn't kill him myself but I'd probably keep my mouth shut if I knew who did it.

I really don't care what the "reason" is for Bush to go after terrorists and dictators - I just want them gone. You anti-war types think that the military is just carpet-bombing this place and taking out any- and everything. That's not the case and you know it.

When the Iraqi military holds Iraqi citizens as human shields, is that our fault? Is it our fault that Saddam has built military bunkers under schools and hospitals? When they force families to become suicide bombers, is that our fault? Should we just back down and say, "Well, heck. If they're gonna be that way about it, maybe we should just leave them alone"?

Explain to me, Jimmy, exactly WHY you're against this war. You say you think Saddam is a bad guy, you say you support our military. Is it just because of Bush?

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Don't even do that, Jimmy -

dammit beavis, i'm not jimmy

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by SmallTown
dammit beavis, i'm not jimmy

Sure you're not!

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SmallTown
dammit beavis, i'm not jimmy

Well, you SOUND like Jimmy! Sorry 'bout that.

So, ST, explain to me exactly WHY you're against this war. You say you think Saddam is a bad guy, you say you support our military. Is it just because of Bush?