Post #93,690
4/2/03 8:05:46 AM
|
How heinous can those Iraqis be?
Taking a wounded POW to a hospital? These guys are awful. Thank God we have a Free Press(tm) in this country who can properly explain things to us. The hospital was described as a Fedayeen Saddam paramilitary stronghold. bcnu,
Mikem
Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
|
Post #93,707
4/2/03 9:20:41 AM
|
yep love those modern hospital beds with shackles and
generators with alligator clips for starting stopped hearts and buckets of water to make the electricity flow better.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
Since corporations are the equivelent of human but they have no "concience" they are by definition sociopaths
|
Post #93,712
4/2/03 9:36:07 AM
|
Nope. Just found it ironic that a wounded POW would be there
bcnu,
Mikem
Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
|
Post #93,737
4/2/03 10:58:03 AM
|
Strange indeed
Wounded POW in a hospital, along with some [link|http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/02/iraq_powrescue030402|ammo, maps and mortars]. Well-stocked medical establishment.
--
It made Ketchup!
Sweet Ketchup!
Put it on a hot dog, put it on a burger,
Put it on your sister and she'll holler blody murder!
Sweet Ketchup.
--Tom Paxton.
|
Post #93,743
4/2/03 11:10:30 AM
|
Okay, this is entirely out of hand.
I'm not defending Iraqi treatment, strategy, or anything else.
I'm sickened at what we are doing, more sickened that we are rationalizing it because "we're winning" and I've heard just about all I ever want to hear of the great PFC Lynch. She was part of a large, illegal invasion whose aim was the "decapitation" of a sovereign nation (er, at least that's one of the many reasons we've been told we're doing this). Her group apparently had a shitty sense of direction and fell victim to forces fighting for their homes. I guess that makes her some kind of goddamned hero in this Neo-Fascist country.
If my position that she is no more important than the people we're killing offends some of the more prone to goose-step around here, I am sorry. But I'm still not going to put on an armband and rejoice as the tanks roll through the streets of Paris Baghdad.
bcnu,
Mikem
Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
|
Post #93,767
4/2/03 1:03:38 PM
|
What's more.......
I guess if you are dead set against the war...its easy to view her
as just another part of "the problem".
For those of us who happen to believe that this war is a necessary evil
......we are more inclined to believe that we owe her a debt of gratitude
(as we do all of those who serve to protect us).
Chances are that Jessica Lynch joined the army simply because
she couldn't get a job anywhere else and/or she couldn't afford college.
Now she has a broken arm, two broken legs and multiple gunshot wounds.
She's as worthy a victim as any I have heard of.
The story of her rescue makes for great press. Let's not blame her for the shortcomings of our own media.
And while we're on the subject......
I'm sick of people parading their paper compassion before my eyes.
It means FUCK ALL to the people who are suffering. If you really care...
sell all your shit now and send the proceeds to those who have lost
a father in Iraq (American OR Iraqi).
Oh oh oh ....... placing monetary concerns above the plight of others....?
S'okay .... we're all doing it. Some of us are just not in quite the same state of denial.
-Mike
P.S. If we're going to have a circle wank over how concerned we all are...
let's not forget that approx 30,000-40,000 people will die of starvation today. About 80% of them will be children. They will have endured long slow
painful deaths. That many died yesterday. That many will die tomorrow.
I know it doesn't have that delicious spice of Byzantine politics sprinkled
on the top...but still.
"My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier."
(The Onion)
|
Post #93,776
4/2/03 1:56:10 PM
|
Please, spare me the pap.
(as we do all of those who serve to protect us). Protect me? From what? Saddam? Hells Bells, man, I need a hell of a lot more protection from the Office of Homeland Security than I've ever needed or ever will need from Saddam. I'm sick of people parading their paper compassion before my eyes. And this relates to my point that PFC Lynch is no more and no less human than the kids whose picture I posted a link to in what FUCKED UP way? Am I glad that PFC Lynch is still alive? Hell yes I am. But I'd rather she hadn't "simply taken orders." In a nutshell, PFC Lynch's death would have been tragic. But ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NO MORE TRAGIC than the people's deaths who were caused by her rescue. bcnu,
Mikem
Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
|
Post #93,783
4/2/03 2:48:21 PM
|
You stole my title!!!!!!!
>>Protect me? From what? Saddam?
So.....you feel supremely safe from interference from characters like Saddam?
And why the fuck IS that? Because none of his kind could ever possibly
want anything you've got? Because he fears your forum writing skills?
>>Hells Bells, man, I need a hell of a lot more protection from the
>>Office of Homeland Security than I've ever needed or ever will
>>need from Saddam.
Why do you think you have no proection from the Office of Homeland Security?
Hey......if you're getting something out of this delusion...more power to ya.
"My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier."
(The Onion)
|
Post #93,798
4/2/03 3:21:16 PM
|
Now I need to support MMoffit..
So.....you feel supremely safe from interference from characters like Saddam?
And why the fuck IS that? Because none of his kind could ever possibly
want anything you've got? Because he fears your forum writing skills?
Because nothing that Saddam has done makes me fear him. He funds terrorists... The likelyhood of being killed by a terrorist are small. It's more likely that I'll die from secondhand cigarette smoke. His WMD, if he still has them, do not have a delivery vehicle that would be able to threaten the US.
Why do you think you have no proection from the Office of Homeland Security?
Hey......if you're getting something out of this delusion...more power to ya.
Check the liberties that we have lost in the name of Homeland Security. Credit check to fly? We have lost more freedoms than we have gained in security.
[link|mailto:jbrabeck@attbi.com|Joe]
|
Post #93,807
4/2/03 3:57:01 PM
|
Disagree
>>Because nothing that Saddam has done makes me fear him. He funds
>>terrorists... The likelyhood of being killed by a terrorist are small.
>>It's more likely that I'll die from secondhand cigarette smoke.
>>His WMD, if he still has them, do not have a delivery vehicle that would be
>>able to threaten the US.
I sense some irony. You are painting a picture of the security
which you are afforded by today's capable army ...... to argue that you
don't feel the need for its protection.
>>Check the liberties that we have lost in the name of Homeland Security.
>>Credit check to fly? We have lost more freedoms than we have gained in
>>security.
And what freedom would that be which you lost......the freedom to fly
without appropriate identification? The freedom to fly while paying
cash? The freedom to fly while poor. The freedom to fly anonymously?
Similar to the point above ...... you require the benefit of the security you
already have in order to decry those measures that lead to it.
The life of the typical American has NOT been impacted by ANY of the changes since 9/11.
(So long as we're playing the statistic game).
Want to see an impact?
Let's all just drop our guard for 12 months and see what happens.
-Mike
"My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier."
(The Onion)
|
Post #93,809
4/2/03 4:03:57 PM
|
"You're damn right I did!"
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #93,817
4/2/03 4:14:22 PM
|
Lost you on that one Jake. What ya referring to?
[link|mailto:jbrabeck@attbi.com|Joe]
|
Post #93,820
4/2/03 4:17:05 PM
|
Jack Nicholson
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #93,835
4/2/03 5:11:01 PM
|
Quit worrying.....
You'll be back on your knees in no time.
"My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier."
(The Onion)
|
Post #93,841
4/2/03 5:21:42 PM
|
Right.
It's pretty clear what the quality of your character is too.
Have fun in your revenge fantasy. I hope you really enjoy it when it blows back.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #93,983
4/3/03 12:06:05 AM
|
Oh you bitch! <sniff>
Dude,
you need to study your Jack Nicholson a little harder.
-Mike
"My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier."
(The Onion)
|
Post #93,821
4/2/03 4:26:50 PM
|
Huh?
I sense some irony. You are painting a picture of the security which you are afforded by today's capable army ...... to argue that you don't feel the need for its protection.
Where did I ever say that we don't need the Army? IIRC the armed services are part of the Department of DEFENSE. The Department of WAR was renamed after WWII. Our military should be used to DEFEND the US. And, no, I don't believe that a good offense is a good defense. If Saddam had attacked the US, then go get him. But until then leave him alone. No, I will not defend Saddam, his regime nor his politics.
[link|mailto:jbrabeck@attbi.com|Joe]
|
Post #93,830
4/2/03 5:00:36 PM
|
If I understand you right
You don't fear Saddam.
And the reason is.......if he attacks America the (call the department
whatever you like) will then kick his ass.
Shame that didn't work with Bin Laden ...... no?
-Mike
"My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier."
(The Onion)
|
Post #93,839
4/2/03 5:17:35 PM
|
Perhaps we shouldn't have funded and trained bin Laden.
Nor Saddam for that matter.
And I guess I fall to the edges because I sure as hell have been affected by the anti-American, un-Constitutional establishment of the Gestapo Office of Homeland Security.
But from your posts I can see that you are one of those myopic "Well, if you've got nothing to hide, why worry?" types.
bcnu,
Mikem
Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
|
Post #93,840
4/2/03 5:19:54 PM
|
False analogy
Iraq is a state, and Ba'ath is its duly constituted government. Al-Qaida is a criminal organisation. That's like equating Peru and Shining Path, or Italy and the Red Brigade. Or even New York City and the Gambino family.
Also, if you're living in fear of Al-Qaida, then your priorities are basically boxed; you're far far more likely to buy the farm on a highway than you are to be killed by terrorists.
The world is no more dangerous now than it was a week before 9-11. If the US was living in a false paradise before, that does not excuse the current movement towards widespread abolition of the consitutional protections of the individual from the state. Nor does it excuse the US abdication of its international responsibilities. The US cannot conquer the world, and if it tries it will only ensure its own destruction.
Does this mean that the US armed forces are bad? No, it doesn't. It does mean that the current leadership is bad. This has happened before, and will probably happen again.
Do you really want to live in a world where the current rules of international order no longer apply?
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #93,861
4/2/03 6:28:05 PM
|
"Or even New York City and the Gambino family."
Exactly.
|
Post #93,988
4/3/03 12:46:33 AM
|
What analogy?
What analogy?
I'm pointing out why it might not be a great idea to sit and wait.
>>Also, if you're living in fear of Al-Qaida, then your priorities
>>are basically boxed; you're far far more likely to buy the farm
>>on a highway than you are to be killed by terrorists.
Yeah...and estimates are that the sanctions on Iraq killed between
500,000 and 1,000,000. If your rationale is legitimate...that makes
the war we are inflcting on them negligible doesn't it?
>>If the US was living in a false paradise before, that does not excuse the
>>current movement towards widespread abolition of the consitutional
>>protections of the individual from the state.
You need to evidence this. The majority of the legislation enacted
is expressly written to exclude U.S. citizens. So that leaves us with a
statistically VERY small number of people impacted. Now.... if I take
your statistical reasoning...I think that leads you to say "fuck 'em"...right?
>>Nor does it excuse the US abdication of its international responsibilities.
You mean like voting for 1441 then failing to follow through?
>>The US cannot conquer the world, and if it tries it will only ensure
>>its own destruction.
To infinity and beyond. Not sure who talked about conquering the world.
>>Do you really want to live in a world where the current rules
>>of international order no longer apply?
Dude ....... this has been true for years. You just don't know it yet.
-Mike
"My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier."
(The Onion)
|
Post #93,997
4/3/03 1:59:49 AM
|
Re: What analogy?
What analogy? \r\n\r\n The analogy of not being afraid of Iraq because the US is quite capable of crushing his skull and how that didn't work with bin Laden. As I said, it's like saying one should destroy New York City to get rid of the Gambino family. \r\n\r\n I'm pointing out why it might not be a great idea to sit and wait. \r\n\r\n Sit and wait for what? It's not like Hussein can even reach the US, let alone try to hit it. You're conflating the actions of a criminal organisation with those of a nation state again. They are not the same thing. \r\n\r\n >>Also, if you're living in fear of Al-Qaida, then your priorities
\r\n>>are basically boxed; you're far far more likely to buy the farm
\r\n>>on a highway than you are to be killed by terrorists. \r\n\r\n Yeah...and estimates are that the sanctions on Iraq killed between 500,000 and 1,000,000. If your rationale is legitimate...that makes the war we are inflcting on them negligible doesn't it? \r\n\r\n Another bad analogy. My point is about an individual assessing risks to their physical self, and you're talking about the affect of actions on a population. Try again. \r\n\r\n >>If the US was living in a false paradise before, that does not excuse the
\r\n>>current movement towards widespread abolition of the consitutional
\r\n>>protections of the individual from the state. \r\n\r\n You need to evidence this. The majority of the legislation enacted is expressly written to exclude U.S. citizens. So that leaves us with a statistically VERY small number of people impacted. Now.... if I take your statistical reasoning...I think that leads you to say "fuck 'em"...right? \r\n\r\n Well, only if we take your strawman version of my reasoning. Besides, in case you didn't notice, I'm not an US citizen. Furthermore, one of my countrymen's been sitting down in Guantanamo Bay incommunicado for a year or so, so clearly there's no compunction about holding Canadians without any due process whatsoever; Land of the Free, right? As a person who is sitting here looking at the risks to myself, misdirected fury of your justice system ranks a lot higher than al-Qaida, as I'm a LOT more likely to run into your justice system than I am to run into al-Qaida. Finally, while the majority of legislation is written to exclude US citizens, there is some legislation that does NOT exclude US citizens, and this legislation makes a total mockery of your (as in you, Mike) rights against unreasonable search and seizure. \r\n\r\n I'm surprised you're not more concerned about this. \r\n\r\n >>Nor does it excuse the US abdication of its international responsibilities. \r\n\r\n You mean like voting for 1441 then failing to follow through? \r\n\r\n See Negroponte's comments about automaticity. They've been referenced here enough. Besides, the Bush administration let it slip some months ago... their goal was regime change and nothing less would satisfy them. 1441 doesn't say anything at all about regime change. "Failing to follow through" is a red herring. \r\n\r\n >>The US cannot conquer the world, and if it tries it will only ensure
\r\n>>its own destruction. \r\n\r\n To infinity and beyond. Not sure who talked about conquering the world. \r\n\r\n The Project for a New American Century, that's who. Go look 'em up on the web, and take a nice long look at the people who signed on the founding principles of the group. Then go read some of the papers they've published. \r\n\r\n >>Do you really want to live in a world where the current rules\r\n>>of international order no longer apply? \r\n\r\n Dude ....... this has been true for years. You just don't know it yet. \r\n\r\n Wow, you are ignorant of how the world works, aren't you? Are you looking forward to a complete breakdown in global trade? Where do you think the rules governing global trade come from? How about the rules governing interoperation if national telecom systems? How about the rules governing interoperation of power grids? Highway systems? The system of international order touches your life daily, every time you use a good manufactured or otherwise produced outside the US. --\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\r\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\r\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #94,105
4/3/03 12:26:53 PM
4/3/03 12:29:52 PM
|
Thoughts
I'd hate for this to disappear into threadblivion...but oh well.
>>Wow, you are ignorant of how the world works, aren't you?
Blah blah blah.
If you want to have an argument over how treaties operate
between certain selected first world countries .....have at it.
But for just a second.....let's assume that when you used the
word "world" .... you meant "the world".....and how more powerful
nations interact with weaker ones (can't help but think this is relevant).
We'll come back to this.
Just for the record.....I studied International Law under Michael Akehurst.
(I know you know of him). Not saying that this makes me holier than thou
..... but cheap shitty insults which have as their foundation.... how smart
and worldy wise you are ... just ain't gonna cut it. Partucularly in your case.
Just so ya know.
An even more pertinent fact for you:
I am not a U.S. citizen (in case you didn't know) ..... so it seems
you have made a rash assumption.
The impact for me was minor......but just for the record
1) Was asked/advised to (re)register my whereabouts
2) My application for citenship has been delayed
3) I may have been monitored for all I know
>>Finally, while the majority of legislation is written to exclude US
>>citizens, there is some legislation that does NOT exclude US citizens
>>and this legislation makes a total mockery of your (as in you, Mike) rights
>>against unreasonable search and seizure.
.......
>>one of my countrymen's been sitting down in Guantanamo Bay incommunicado
>>for a year or so, so clearly there's no compunction about holding Canadians
>>without any due process whatsoever
You appear free to dance in and out of whatever level of granularity you see lends
itself to supporting your arguments. I've tried to point this out.
I know it may seem logical to you .... but I don't believe it is.
When it comes to security measures and whether or not they are justified ...... you
are in the corner of numbers, statistics and probabilities when gauging the benefit.
But when it comes to gauging the harm ..... you conveniently avoid using the same lens.
Suddenly your solitary countryman is raised to overwhelming importance in the debate.
You can try to say that this may have implications for the rest of us.... but then you stumble into
having to show whether this is even remotely likely.
Finally......let's come back to this shall we?
>>Wow, you are ignorant of how the world works, aren't you? Are you looking
>>forward to a complete breakdown in global trade? Where do you think the rules
>>governing global trade come from? How about the rules governing
>>interoperation if national telecom systems? How about the rules governing
>>interoperation of power grids? Highway systems? The system of international
>>order touches your life daily, every time you use a good manufactured or
>>otherwise produced outside the US.
If I may so...this is the response of a fuckwit who reads the equivalent of
USA today and fuck all else. Let me give you ONE.....just ONE.....example of what I am talking about. And this......just happens to involve Canada. (How about that!) Am I right in understanding that Chretien ordered Canadian forces to bomb Yugoslavia without even bothering to consult the United Nations? Was there a declaration of war? Did it have the approval of the Canadian Parliament? The bombing was a flagrant violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. There was no hesitation or scruples about going ahead. Where was the suggestion that operating outside the umbrella of the UN might have long-term consequences and deal a blow to the framework of international security? No explanation was ever given for this. Indeed I don't believe the failure to consult the UN was even discussed in Parliament.
So where was the fucking rule of law?
Now.......you can ....if you like .... fret and worry about the role of telecommunications agreements in International Law.....but I put it to you that there are more pressing things to be concerned about. And I put it to you that the idea that we have a "fair" world which is being conducted
according to the rule of international law is very...very.......naive.
-Mike (who believes that its possible to show support for a noble goal....and
still not be particularly enlightened)
"My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier."
(The Onion)
Edited by Mike
April 3, 2003, 12:29:52 PM EST
|
Post #93,771
4/2/03 1:18:43 PM
|
Whoa...
I'm against this "war". I also believe that we shouldn't be there.
But we are there. The grunts have no choice. It's not up to them whether they are in Iraq or Texas. No, I won't go down the road of illegal orders...
As such, the celebration of the retrieval of a POW is appropriate. I do support the troops, not the President. I served with the 3ID. You lose a brother or sister, you rejoice when they are found.
Is she "more important" that the Iraqis that are killed? No. Is she/we better than the Iraqis? No. We're all equal in the eyes of God, even those who worship a different god.
I still don't support the current regime in either country.
[link|mailto:jbrabeck@attbi.com|Joe]
|
Post #93,777
4/2/03 2:00:13 PM
|
Well said. But I differ even with you.
The grunts have no choice. It's not up to them whether they are in Iraq or Texas.
Yes they did and Yes it is up to them where they are. They volunteered, remember? The only way they can't be held responsible is if they were/are mentally insufficient to understand the implications of volunteering. And even in such a case, I'd still claim they had a choice when the marching orders came.
bcnu,
Mikem
Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
|
Post #93,786
4/2/03 3:04:16 PM
|
FYI
Uniform Code of Military Justice ART. 85
(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
Some option huh?
"My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier."
(The Onion)
|
Post #93,791
4/2/03 3:12:55 PM
|
Thanks Mike.
I thought I remembered death being the punishment for desertion in the time of war (IIRC, that only applies to battlefield desertion), but since I wasn't sure, didn't want to include it in my answer, which is posted below your reply.
[link|mailto:jbrabeck@attbi.com|Joe]
|
Post #93,842
4/2/03 5:22:09 PM
|
Ever heard of Mandela? King? Gandhi?
I didn't say it was an easy choice, but she would not have been the first to be incarcerated for standing on principal would she?
Nice duck of the "she volunteered" though. Impressive, ... truly.
bcnu,
Mikem
Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
|
Post #94,133
4/3/03 3:50:03 PM
|
LOL
Now why on EARTH would you expect your AVERAGE trooper
to rise to the standards achieved by certain EXCEPTIONAL
people?
I naturally will conclude that you have first elevated yourself to these
standards and that you are refusing to go to work and pay taxes etc etc.
to resist this regime you so passionately disagree with. Thought not.
Hells bells you DON'T disagree THAT much! Am I right?
What the heck is to duck about "volunteered"?
When people volunteer a very large percentage are hoping and praying that
they NEVER have to go to war and NEVER have to kill ANYONE.
Sure they understand that they might be called on ...... and if so they hope
it will be for a just cause ...... but ultimately they are volunteering
to serve a higher authority......a higher authority we (collectively)
vote for.
To be able to pick and choose which causes you will/will not act upon
could make a mockery of many of our institutions (and not just the military).
I think deep down you know this. But its masked by your desire to somehow
throw some culpability onto the shoulders of ANYONE associated with this war in ANY way.
Tell you what....when they volunteer they definitely don't hope to be treated
like pariahs by ingrates whose freedoms to be assholes they are protecting.
-Mike
"My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier."
(The Onion)
|
Post #94,188
4/3/03 8:02:47 PM
|
Pap again.
Tell you what....when they volunteer they definitely don't hope to be treated like pariahs by ingrates whose freedoms to be assholes they are protecting. Not surprising really. People with your mindset have always held that "No one will believe a little lie. It must be a big lie, and repeated often. Then it becomes truth." bcnu,
Mikem
The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.
- Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
|
Post #94,358
4/4/03 11:56:27 AM
|
Nice dodge. Addressing 5% of the post :-)
"My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier."
(The Onion)
|
Post #94,361
4/4/03 12:03:46 PM
|
That's what happens.
When < 5% makes any sense at all.
bcnu,
Mikem
The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.
- Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
|
Post #94,385
4/4/03 2:06:03 PM
|
And funnily enough........
......also when one has no answers for 95%.
So now I am to believe that you elected to not
point out shortcomings in a position you disagree
with? Works for me!
"My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier."
(The Onion)
|
Post #94,397
4/4/03 2:50:29 PM
|
Are you really that thick?
Or just trying to say the same stupid things over and over and over and over until I don't respond and you think "Oh Goodie! I won again!"
Briefly, if I can read through the nonsense of your LOL post, your rebuttal to my submission that "Yes, they [the troops] too could have stood on principle, but chose not to" is:
1) I'm not taking a vow of poverty (which would include a vow for my wife and two kids), so I can't mean what I say.
I can't imagine what brand of logic one uses to make that an argument in favor of, "But the volunteer militia doesn't have any choice".
2) Gandhi, Mandella, King, etc. were not human beings, they transcended that. Consequently, no other human being can stand on principle even if it costs them something.
That is ridiculous on its face.
3) I suffer from a serious ego problem. Because, apparently, no one can hold the view that one can fail to go along with the pack simply because they are a member of the pack unless they consider themselves "EXCEPTIONAL".
Ibid.
4) We shouldn't question authority, because if we do we threaten all of our institutions.
Ibid.
See, 95% nonsense, (and I'm being kind).
bcnu,
Mikem
The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.
- Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
|
Post #94,401
4/4/03 3:19:08 PM
|
The last word is yours (and thankyou :-) )
>> 1) I'm not taking a vow of poverty (which would include a vow for
>> my wife and two kids), so I can't mean what I say.
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm pointing out that you feel at liberty to hold everyday people to the
high standards of certain outstanding people such as Gandhi....while
leaving yourself exempt.
It has nothing to do with you meaning what you say.
Zilch. Nada. Nichts. Rien.
I'm not sure its a particularly complicated argument
......but you clearly are having more success avoiding it than
you are at grasping it.
-Mike
Who is quite certain you mean what you say. And is equally certain that you've
got your head ......... naaaaaah I think I'll take the high road.
P.S. Didn't Gandhi have a family too?
"My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier."
(The Onion)
|
Post #94,416
4/4/03 5:04:43 PM
|
Just one more thing, sorry ;-)
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm pointing out that you feel at liberty to hold everyday people to the
high standards of certain outstanding people such as Gandhi....while
leaving yourself exempt. It doesn't take "outstanding people". How many protestors have been arrested here (and elsewhere) for protesting the war? Hell, I was arrested once (under age - which I wouldn't tell them, as soon as they found out I was 16, they got me the hell out of CJ [County Jail]. AFAIK, nothing ever showed up on my record) when I joined some college students at a protest. You make the point that some people who enlist in the Armed Forces do so "hoping they never have to kill anyone." Way back, I suggested that was a very ill considered thing to do. You can't join any militia if you aren't ready to say, "Okay, my college tuition is worth killing some one for, or at the very least, worth helping others kill some people for - i.e. PFC Lynch." Now if these folks really believe that, they are immoral (in my book, and I suspect the books of the majority). If, as you say, (and yes, as I suspect) a good many of the enlistees hadn't thought about killing anyone when they joined up, then they are at best naive. But if they were truly only naive when they signed up, then they don't have to be an "outstanding person" to say, "No, I don't want to kill. I don't even want to contribute to killing. Because my having to spend some time in the brig is better than my becoming an accomplice to murder." And no, I'm not exempt. But then, I didn't enlist did I? bcnu,
Mikem
The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.
- Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
|
Post #93,788
4/2/03 3:10:35 PM
|
They volunteered, remember
To defend the United States and to obey the lawful orders of their superiors.
How many of those volunteers enlisted since Bush sent the troops to Iraq? Those that did are still in training. Basic traing is 6-8 weeks and then there's the job training lasting another 6 weeks to 6 months depending upon the job.
These kids wanted to defend the US, get job training, fund an education or some of the above. None of the current soldiers signed up to attack Iraq. These kids are faced with a moral dilemma, perform their job even if they disagree with it, or desert (go AWOL) and face jail time and/or dishonorable discharge. Which is the lesser of two evils? The orders that they receive are legal orders.
Should we be in Iraq? - IMO No,
Does the president have the authority to send in troops? - Yes
Do I support his decision for a preemptive strike? - No.
Do I support the troops "in harm's way"? Yes.
[link|mailto:jbrabeck@attbi.com|Joe]
|
Post #93,799
4/2/03 3:25:00 PM
4/2/03 4:47:05 PM
|
Hmmm...
Ever go through the process of enlisting in the US Armed Forces? Evidently not. Once you sign the Last document (of about 300 when I did, and ~1800 Initialing) you are Property of the United States Government. You have these options: 1) Following the Lawful orders of your superiors.
2) See Option #1.
3) See Option #2.
4) See Option #3. TTFN. edit: insert the Lawful I forgot to put in... Thanks Brabeck!b4k4^2
| [link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT | | [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] | | [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Microsoft develops apps for Linux by 2004] | Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberspace_strategy.pdf|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at checkpoints. |
|
Post #93,802
4/2/03 3:30:07 PM
|
Not quite
Follow LAWFUL orders of your superior.
Tell me to attack Iraq, gotta do it.
Tell me to shoot non-combatants, gotta refuse.
[link|mailto:jbrabeck@attbi.com|Joe]
|
Post #93,805
4/2/03 3:42:31 PM
|
Yep
I don't know if they still do it, but when I was in you had to attend a class on exactly that subject. Your duty includes refusing to follow an illegal order. The class taught you how to do that in a lawful (UCMJ) manner.
The world is only a simple place to the simple.
|
Post #93,808
4/2/03 4:02:08 PM
|
Have we moved on? If not........
In your wildest dreams.....
wanna tell us what the fuck a supplies clerk was doing
shooting non-combatants?
"My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier."
(The Onion)
|
Post #93,810
4/2/03 4:04:20 PM
|
Here's a question
What was a supply clerk doing in a hot zone?
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #93,812
4/2/03 4:08:33 PM
|
I want to say.....
....her team took a wrong turn. But heck that's only what our
utterly unreliable press have reported.
Failing that....let's say she was ordered to be there to do
supply clerking stuff (is that illegal?).
Good question though.
"My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier."
(The Onion)
|
Post #93,815
4/2/03 4:13:18 PM
|
Legal -Illegal
Failing that....let's say she was ordered to be there to do supply clerking stuff (is that illegal?).
Yes, that is a legal order, one that she was/is complied to obey.
[link|mailto:jbrabeck@attbi.com|Joe]
|
Post #93,818
4/2/03 4:14:50 PM
|
I think we're on the same page
"My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier."
(The Onion)
|
Post #93,813
4/2/03 4:09:39 PM
|
Wondered that myself.
I don't know what her duties are.
Since she was attached to a maintenance unit, perhaps it was something along the lines of recording supplies used/needed for maintenance.
They were in a hot zone because they took a wrong turn on their way to fix something. Helluva wrong turn. :-P
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #93,814
4/2/03 4:10:41 PM
|
Someone has to resupply the front lines...
Or do you mean "Why has the military failed to advance a pace where they could secure the supply lines"?
[link|mailto:jbrabeck@attbi.com|Joe]
|
Post #93,819
4/2/03 4:16:34 PM
|
That's pretty much directly where that question takes you
The only conclusion that I can come up with is that the planning didn't include any contingency planning: as in, "what happens if there is no rebellion against Hussein by the population at large?"
Considering the noises coming out of the career military folks, I suspect that question got asked, but was dismissed by the People In Charge.
The right way to use a military is to say "here's the goal; figure out how to do it. Keep me briefed." I don't think that's how it happened.
This is the kind of thing that happens when decisions are driven by ideology rather than actual pragmatism.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #93,811
4/2/03 4:07:06 PM
|
Start at the beginning of the thread...
It was said that she had a choice of being there. She didn't. Had to follow legal orders. Example was provided to show the difference between a legal order, attack Iraq and an illegal order, shoot non-combatants.
[link|mailto:jbrabeck@attbi.com|Joe]
|
Post #93,816
4/2/03 4:14:14 PM
|
All I was saying was....
...I think the issue of illegal vs. legal orders is
not especially germaine to the situation which PFC Lynch
found herself in.
"My purchase of a Hummer was inspired by our 1991 Gulf War victory. After this war, I'm buying an aircraft carrier."
(The Onion)
|
Post #93,823
4/2/03 4:42:27 PM
|
Oops... Will edit to be Correct...
I meant that too... How the HELL did I miss putting that IN...
/me slaps forehead.
b4k4^2
| [link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT | | [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] | | [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Microsoft develops apps for Linux by 2004] | Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberspace_strategy.pdf|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at checkpoints. |
|
