Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by sniperg

Actually Fisher is right in this case.

I have spoken with many soldiers that were going to Iraq, and I was actually surprised that most of them were actually believing that they were fighting for an ideal.

Because mentally and emotionally, they have to.

I doubt morale would be very high if people consistently felt that they were over there fighting for nothing. But that's not WHY they went in the first place.

I think their morale would be a lot lower if they bought into arguments like the ones you put forth.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by sniperg

Actually Fisher is right in this case.

I have spoken with many soldiers that were going to Iraq, and I was actually surprised that most of them were actually believing that they were fighting for an ideal.

Because mentally and emotionally, they have to.

I doubt morale would be very high if people consistently felt that they were over there fighting for nothing. But that's not WHY they went in the first place.

 

I think their morale would be a lot lower if they bought into arguments like the ones you put forth.

Like what arguments?

Originally posted by Fishermage  

Nice to see how little you all think of our troops. Pretty much proves the worst "they" say about the left.

Typical neo-conservative non-veteran response to veterans, accuse them of disrespect to other veterans that served. Pitting one group against another in order for a minority to rule is the trait of the GOP.

Kind of reminds me of how a Presidential candidate that spent his war years drinking in the Texas Air National Guard attacked the record of another Presidential candidate that was shot down flying missions over North Vietnam, and spent the rest of his war years in the Hanoi Hilton. Of course, he made up for it during his Presidency when by visiting Hanoi and staying at the Hilton so he could share stories with the former POW ("hey man, did you swipe some towels too?").

Also reminds me of how that same Presidential candidate attacked another Presidential candidate that served on Swift Boats, and received a decoration attributable to a firefight.

You see, Fishermage never served, yet he attacks those that did. Of course, I'm sure his knowledge of the military is well grounded in reading books, or grabbing a beer and watching the history channel, from the safety of his living room couch.

Armchair experience is just as good, oh, excuse me, better, than actually being there.

Nice touch boy, attacking veterans on Memorial Day.

You're quite the piece of work.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Myrdek

Originally posted by popinjay

More fallen heroes.

 

 

Remember, the deaths in Iraq are now all yours, not Bush's. Fulfill your promise, President Obama.

 

 

Bring our troops home from Iraq.

 

I don't know if you wrote that yourself but how can soldiers who invade a country wrongfully be heroes? This is just like when americans say Support our Troops, support them to do what? Kill innocents? 100k+ innocents and counting

I'm sorry but let's pretend that the U.S would have invaded Canada instead, who do you think would be the good guys? Those of us killing the invading americans or your soldiers? 

You can of course say that they didn't want to go, that their victims of circumstances but how does that absolve them? My cousin quit the army when they announced Canada would send soldiers to Afganistan and every single member of the family is proud of him for it. He's not a coward, he just doesn't believe in invading/killing/raping another country so a few greedy jerk get more money and power. Any good person would have quit the army before even at the risk of spending a few years in jail or having to defect.

For those that believe in God, do you really think God is going to accept "I had to follow orders" as an excuse and send them to heaven? I sure as hell wouldn't if I were God :)

 

Why is overhrowing a Stalinist dictatir morally wrong? One can certainly argue that the war was ill-advised, but wrong? How so? We did not do this to conquer to rule, or to kill innocent. We attacked and overthrew a man who was an outlaw leader, a tyrant, an invader himself, who for years had blatantly violated the terms he agreed to to remain in power when he agreed to the ceasefire.

It was perfectly moral to invade and kick him out of power for that alone, much less any other reasons.

Our men and women of the coolitian did what they did for the best of reasons: freedom.

Now, they have what we have -- a messy, corrupt, semi-socialist quasi fascist state just like we do -- and I think that's a moral thing to, compared with what they had.

Again there are MANY reasons that Iraq may not have been the best battle to fight right now, but it certainly was moral and the warriors and all the people engaged there are heroes. Any human being from any nation who takes down a tyrant is a good guy. Anyone who helps anyone rebuild after that is as well.

 

No no no no no.

We did not do this for "freedom." That became the reverse-engineered reason after the first one -- that Saddam had a giant death ray or whatever -- turned out to be completely fabricated.

 

It wasn't called the "stop Iraq's death ray war", it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Plus, where did I say we did this "for" freedom, as if that were the reason we actually did it? Freedom is what we did, regardless of the reason. We liberated a country, even if there were other reasons as well, even if those other reasons were more important, like our perceived security.

It doesn't change that fact that we removed a dicatator and anytime anyone does that anywhere, they won won for the good guys.

 

 

"Our men and women of the coolitian did what they did for the best of reasons: freedom."

Yeah, we got rid of Saddam, and that's not a bad thing. However, I think the price we have paid in blood and treasure, in our diminished standing in the world and the quagmire we find ourselves in now, wasn't worth it.

 

I said THEY, the soldiers did it for freedom. I did not say WE, as a political entity, the united states, did it FOR or only for freedom. I was being very careful how I said things there.

I said the men and women of our coalition -- obviously meaning the people who fought. Then you said WE, meaning the politics of it. Tsk tsk.

Your second argument is a reasonable one -- but it's not the moral one. It's the prudential one, and isn't what I was addressing. I was answering Myrdeks' moral attack. Wether it was a pridential move is another thing entirely.

Personally, I don't think we'll know for a decade or three whether it was worth it or not. This is a long war.

"Tsk tsk"?  Please.

You're also wrong. Our soldiers went there and fought because their commanding officers fucking told them to.

 

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Nice to hear how little you think of our men and women who fight. Most of the ones I know know what they were fighting for, and they would disagree with you as well.

They are also fighting for your right to your incorrect opinion.

Your ego is showing again Fishermage. Anyone that you agree to disagree with is automatically wrong, right?

Can't stand an opinion contrary to your own, and you can't acknowledge when you are wrong.

I speak from personal military experience, I've been there. I've done shit you can't even dream of.

If you believe so strongly in spreading freedom and democracy, get off your couch, enlist, and go out on a combat patrol in Afghanistan. Talk is cheap, quit cowering behind books, theory, and television shows. Either put up, or shut up.

Understand firsthand why soldiers fight.

Originally posted by sniperg

Actually Fisher is right in this case.

I have spoken with many soldiers that were going to Iraq, and I was actually surprised that most of them were actually believing that they were fighting for an ideal.

You are confusing why people enlist to fight, with why they actually fight.

People enlist to fight for a variety of reasons, some ideological, some financial, some for a sense of adventure.

Soldiers fight because they have to. If they don't, the other side will kill them. It's as simple as that. You fight for your own life, and the lives of those that are closest to you. And those closest to you are in your squad, your platoon. Not mom, or your girl back home. Those closest to you are the ones you share ever minute of terror with. It's a bond.

Fishermage has this philosophy of fighting for freedom and democracy against tyranny. Yet his arguement falls short in real life situations like Zimbabwe, Sudan, Burma, and Israel. His is a select fighting in which he defines "evil" tyranny, and uses it to authorize foreign interference in the domestic affairs of another nation. Fishermage is an advocate of the Bush doctrine, identify an "enemy", label them as "evil", and attack them first, justifying aggression as a "defensive measure".

Fishermage ignores internation rules of conduct when and where it suits him. No country has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of another country unless it is asked in by the representatives of the majority of the population segments of that other country.

That is why, in the American Revolution, France waited for a Declaration of Independance from the Colonies, signed by representatives of all the Colonies, which clearly stated the reasons the people of those Colonies saw fit to terminate their bond with England.

It was never about France starting a war to "liberate" the Colonies. It was about the Colonies seeking the help of France to "liberate" themselves.

If Iraq and Afghanistan are about a war of "liberation", where are the majority of Iraqis and Afghans that should be fighting on their own behalf? Isn't it odd that they haven't come foreward en masse? And if they did, and chose a government other than a democracy, would we let it stand?

Really now, who's war are we fighting over there, our war, or theirs?

Originally posted by olddaddy

Originally posted by sniperg

Actually Fisher is right in this case.

I have spoken with many soldiers that were going to Iraq, and I was actually surprised that most of them were actually believing that they were fighting for an ideal.

 

You are confusing why people enlist to fight, with why they actually fight.

People enlist to fight for a variety of reasons, some ideological, some financial, some for a sense of adventure.

Soldiers fight because they have to. If they don't, the other side will kill them. It's as simple as that. You fight for your own life, and the lives of those that are closest to you. And those closest to you are in your squad, your platoon. Not mom, or your girl back home. Those closest to you are the ones you share ever minute of terror with. It's a bond.

Fishermage has this philosophy of fighting for freedom and democracy against tyranny. Yet his arguement falls short in real life situations like Zimbabwe, Sudan, Burma, and Israel. His is a select fighting in which he defines "evil" tyranny, and uses it to authorize foreign interference in the domestic affairs of another nation. Fishermage is an advocate of the Bush doctrine, identify an "enemy", label them as "evil", and attack them first, justifying aggression as a "defensive measure".

Fishermage ignores internation rules of conduct when and where it suits him. No country has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of another country unless it is asked in by the representatives of the majority of the population segments of that other country.

That is why, in the American Revolution, France waited for a Declaration of Independance from the Colonies, signed by representatives of all the Colonies, which clearly stated the reasons the people of those Colonies saw fit to terminate their bond with England.

It was never about France starting a war to "liberate" the Colonies. It was about the Colonies seeking the help of France to "liberate" themselves.

If Iraq and Afghanistan are about a war of "liberation", where are the majority of Iraqis and Afghans that should be fighting on their own behalf? Isn't it odd that they haven't come foreward en masse? And if they did, and chose a government other than a democracy, would we let it stand?

Really now, who's war are we fighting over there, our war, or theirs?

 

Well technically speaking theirs.

Though yeah you are right, most of the soldiers I was speaking to were new recruits, so I guess these things didn't sink yet to them.

It is amusing watching a person who CLAIMS to be a veteran belittling our troops while they are in service, and then playing the victim when called upon it. Well, more sad than amusing.

And on Memorial Day weekend indeed. Piece of work, indeed.

back tothe original argument, and avoiding the childish ad hominem nonsense:

The Bush Doctrine is that by spreading Freedom, We fight the "War on Terror" because decades of promoting tyrannies in tha region has resulted in decades of instability.

To that end, the Operation Iraqi Freedom was born.

Now, how about proving me wrong with actual evidence instead of ad hominem attacks.

Show me what magical knowledge you have that the "Bush Doctrine" was something unstated. What hidden hand was behind it and what hidden reason was not stated, and how does it CONFLICT with what I am saying and refure it?

You can't just show that there were multiple reasons for doing it, that doesn't prove anything, you have to refute my reason.

Obviously you can't so you attack me personally and THEN claim I am attacking you, a poor weak old veteran. What a load of poo poo.

---

Originally posted by olddaddy

You see, Fishermage never served, yet he attacks those that did. Of course, I'm sure his knowledge of the military is well grounded in reading books, or grabbing a beer and watching the history channel, from the safety of his living room couch.
Armchair experience is just as good, oh, excuse me, better, than actually being there.
Nice touch boy, attacking veterans on Memorial Day.
You're quite the piece of work.
 

---

---

LEVIN: Yeah, sure, he can do whatever he wants. Let me ask you a question. Why do you hate this country?

CALLER: No, I love this country.

LEVIN: (angrily shouting) I SAID WHY DO YOU HATE MY COUNTRY?WHY DO YOU HATE MY CONSTITUTION? WHY DO YOU HATE MY DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE? You just said it. He can blow off Congress. He can do whatever he wants, right?

---

Nothing you can do when see some posters resemble this quote exchange over and over in every thread like a mirror, huh old?. They are masters of words, procrastinators of actions.

I guess I can respect it, it's a side benefit of you and I serving in the first place to protect their right to do that. At least Dick Cheney appreciates it.

It usually is the non-military experienced who have the most opinions on the military. For them, it's like some vicarious game of Stratego or Risk, and the closest to real sevice they'll ever get, lol.

Nothing you can do but call it the same old straw when you see it.

Exactly, the straw man being used here is MOST visible.

Originally posted by Fishermage

back tothe original argument, and avoiding the childish ad hominem nonsense:

The Bush Doctrine is that by spreading Freedom, We fight the "War on Terror" because decades of promoting tyrannies in tha region has resulted in decades of instability.

To that end, the Operation Iraqi Freedom was born.

Now, how about proving me wrong with actual evidence instead of ad hominem attacks.

Show me what magical knowledge you have that the "Bush Doctrine" was something unstated. What hidden hand was behind it and what hidden reason was not stated, and how does it CONFLICT with what I am saying and refure it?

You can't just show that there were multiple reasons for doing it, that doesn't prove anything, you have to refute my reason.

Obviously you can't so you attack me personally and THEN claim I am attacking you, a poor weak old veteran. What a load of poo poo.

Well put, Fisher.  Critics of the Iraq War bring up every reason in the book why it was a bad idea, but ignore the one reason why it was the right thing to do.  They say the United States attacked on the pretext that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, they point to the number of US lives which have been lost, they argue that Saddam had no ties to Al Qaida.  These points have some validity to them, but are not as clear cut as the opponents claim.

We may have gone in on the pretext of WMD, but that really is a minor issue as far as I'm concerned.  After 9/11 The Bush administration looked beyond simply who attacked us and examined the root cause of why.  And the conclusion was that much of the Middle East is a breeding gound for terrorism against the West because most of the young people have little or no hope for a bright future because of a lack of freedom and opportunity.  Therefore, if the United States could liberate a Middle East country, in this case Iraq, and convert it into a successful Democracy, other nations in the region might take note and their people demand the freedom that Iraqis have.  In a best case scenarion, Democracy spreads, livings standards go up and the hatred against the West subsides.

That's why the argument in favor to Iraqi Freedom is more visionary than all the arguments against it.  The fact that the Bush administration made some mistakes along the way didn't help the cause, but it looks like it finally got it right before Bush left office.  Now it's up to the Iraqis to do their job.

Originally posted by Zindaihas  

Well put, Fisher.  Critics of the Iraq War bring up every reason in the book why it was a bad idea, but ignore the one reason why it was the right thing to do.  They say the United States attacked on the pretext that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, they point to the number of US lives which have been lost, they argue that Saddam had no ties to Al Qaida.  These points have some validity to them, but are not as clear cut as the opponents claim.

We may have gone in on the pretext of WMD, but that really is a minor issue as far as I'm concerned.  After 9/11 The Bush administration looked beyond simply who attacked us and examined the root cause of why.  And the conclusion was that much of the Middle East is a breeding gound for terrorism against the West because most of the young people have little or no hope for a bright future because of a lack of freedom and opportunity.  Therefore, if the United States could liberate a Middle East country, in this case Iraq, and convert it into a successful Democracy, other nations in the region might take note and their people demand the freedom that Iraqis have.  In a best case scenarion, Democracy spreads, livings standards go up and the hatred against the West subsides.

That's why the argument in favor to Iraqi Freedom is more visionary than all the arguments against it.  The fact that the Bush administration made some mistakes along the way didn't help the cause, but it looks like it finally got it right before Bush left office.  Now it's up to the Iraqis to do their job.

Not at all well put.

The question was, who's war is this, ours, or theirs?

That answer is not a criticism of the war. That answer is that it is our war. We were not invited in by a representative cross section of the Iraqi people to liberate them from Saddam. The Sunnis never would have consented. There was, and still is, no "voice of the Iraqi people". It is three factions, Kurd, Sunni, and Shiite. Which faction are we representing, because they don't see each other as the same.

No, we went in because the Bush administration presented a case that Saddam was near to deploying "weapons of mass destruction".

You continually use the term "they say" about the above fact. You do not believe that is why we went in?

As to the Middle East being "a breeding ground for terrorism because the young people have no hope for the future because they lack freedom", you ignore Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, Kuwait, United Arab Emerates, and countless other Arab principalities that have quit successful economies without democracy and freedom. Iran, without sanctions, has also had a quit successful economy. Iraq under Saddam was one of the more progressive industrialized Middle East nations. You also ignore Chile under Pinochet, and Argentina under Peron. To hear you talk, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain, and Mussolini's italy were also backwater places without jobs and hope. You ignore the fact that the Marxists dragged Russia out of the feudal agrarian age of the Czars into the modern industrial age. That the Wehrmacht swept the continent of Europe. That Red China today is both Communist, and hosts the worlds fastest growing economy. That Vietnam is Communist, and has a quite successful garmet industry.

You ignore other areas of the world that live in poverty, and which the youth have no hope. Most of Africa, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, and the Gaza strip. Oh, yea, I forgot, it's okay to ignore the Gaza strip, we all know why they have no freedom.

You also ignore the reasons given by Colin Powell before the UN Security Council as if they mean nothing, calling them a "pretext" and a "minor issue". So,  you believe it was acceptable for Colin Powell to get up before the United Nations and use a questionable "pretext" to justify starting a war? You promote the idea that the United States should unilaterally decide which regimes are members of an "Axis of Evil", and legitimately effect regime change?

And Cuba, why didn't President Bush authorize a "regime change" in Cuba? Because Cubans are opposed to it?

Putin subscribes to the Bush doctrine. You saw it demonstrated in Georgia. For consistencies sake, are you okay with that?  

In regard to calling the operation Iraqi Freedom, why didn't Colin Powell just go up before the United Nations and say that we were going to invade for the primary purpose of regime change, and that regime change was a legitimate reason for the United States to attack another country? Why was the operation not called "Operation Regime Change"?

I don't hold much with fancy labels given by politicians to justify their actions, they are generally smoke and mirrors. Tax acts that talk bout "Revenue Reconciliation" rather than raising taxes, wars justified by staging an attack on US naval forces to justify upgrading from advisors to full combat forces. I highly doubt you will find a single example of a politician signing "Operation Landgrab" in authorizing biological warfare against the American Indians.  

You may selectively believe in simple political semantics games, I don't believe in them from either the right, or the left.

The Bush Doctrine is one of the most ill thought out and dangerous positions to defend. just think if every nation used a "pretext" to attack another nation in a "war of liberation".

We would soon have global thermonuclear war.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Myrdek

Originally posted by popinjay

More fallen heroes.

 

 

Remember, the deaths in Iraq are now all yours, not Bush's. Fulfill your promise, President Obama.

 

 

Bring our troops home from Iraq.

 

I don't know if you wrote that yourself but how can soldiers who invade a country wrongfully be heroes? This is just like when americans say Support our Troops, support them to do what? Kill innocents? 100k+ innocents and counting

I'm sorry but let's pretend that the U.S would have invaded Canada instead, who do you think would be the good guys? Those of us killing the invading americans or your soldiers? 

You can of course say that they didn't want to go, that their victims of circumstances but how does that absolve them? My cousin quit the army when they announced Canada would send soldiers to Afganistan and every single member of the family is proud of him for it. He's not a coward, he just doesn't believe in invading/killing/raping another country so a few greedy jerk get more money and power. Any good person would have quit the army before even at the risk of spending a few years in jail or having to defect.

For those that believe in God, do you really think God is going to accept "I had to follow orders" as an excuse and send them to heaven? I sure as hell wouldn't if I were God :)

 

Why is overhrowing a Stalinist dictatir morally wrong? One can certainly argue that the war was ill-advised, but wrong? How so? We did not do this to conquer to rule, or to kill innocent. We attacked and overthrew a man who was an outlaw leader, a tyrant, an invader himself, who for years had blatantly violated the terms he agreed to to remain in power when he agreed to the ceasefire.

It was perfectly moral to invade and kick him out of power for that alone, much less any other reasons.

Our men and women of the coolitian did what they did for the best of reasons: freedom.

Now, they have what we have -- a messy, corrupt, semi-socialist quasi fascist state just like we do -- and I think that's a moral thing to, compared with what they had.

Again there are MANY reasons that Iraq may not have been the best battle to fight right now, but it certainly was moral and the warriors and all the people engaged there are heroes. Any human being from any nation who takes down a tyrant is a good guy. Anyone who helps anyone rebuild after that is as well.

 

No no no no no.

We did not do this for "freedom." That became the reverse-engineered reason after the first one -- that Saddam had a giant death ray or whatever -- turned out to be completely fabricated.

 

It wasn't called the "stop Iraq's death ray war", it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Plus, where did I say we did this "for" freedom, as if that were the reason we actually did it? Freedom is what we did, regardless of the reason. We liberated a country, even if there were other reasons as well, even if those other reasons were more important, like our perceived security.

It doesn't change that fact that we removed a dicatator and anytime anyone does that anywhere, they won won for the good guys.

 

 

"Our men and women of the coolitian did what they did for the best of reasons: freedom."

Yeah, we got rid of Saddam, and that's not a bad thing. However, I think the price we have paid in blood and treasure, in our diminished standing in the world and the quagmire we find ourselves in now, wasn't worth it.

 

I said THEY, the soldiers did it for freedom. I did not say WE, as a political entity, the united states, did it FOR or only for freedom. I was being very careful how I said things there.

I said the men and women of our coalition -- obviously meaning the people who fought. Then you said WE, meaning the politics of it. Tsk tsk.

Your second argument is a reasonable one -- but it's not the moral one. It's the prudential one, and isn't what I was addressing. I was answering Myrdeks' moral attack. Wether it was a pridential move is another thing entirely.

Personally, I don't think we'll know for a decade or three whether it was worth it or not. This is a long war.

"Tsk tsk"?  Please.

You're also wrong. Our soldiers went there and fought because their commanding officers fucking told them to.

 

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Nice to hear how little you think of our men and women who fight. Most of the ones I know know what they were fighting for, and they would disagree with you as well.

They are also fighting for your right to your incorrect opinion.

Now that my immediate visceral reaction to your absolutely reprehensible distortion of my position for the sole purpose of making political hay has subsided, allow me to retort.

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

As was said earlier in the thread, people join the military for a variety of reasons. However, nobody joined the military for the sole purpose of liberating Iraq. If spreading liberty and freedom is really the priority, where's the clamoring to go to Darfur, where there's REALLY bad shit happening that our government has chosen to ignore?

I never said that the troops never believed in the mission. You will say anything and misrepresent anyone's position to attempt to "win" an argument, and it's disgusting. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but you won't be, because you are incapable of shame.

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Myrdek

Originally posted by popinjay

More fallen heroes.

 

 

Remember, the deaths in Iraq are now all yours, not Bush's. Fulfill your promise, President Obama.

 

 

Bring our troops home from Iraq.

 

I don't know if you wrote that yourself but how can soldiers who invade a country wrongfully be heroes? This is just like when americans say Support our Troops, support them to do what? Kill innocents? 100k+ innocents and counting

I'm sorry but let's pretend that the U.S would have invaded Canada instead, who do you think would be the good guys? Those of us killing the invading americans or your soldiers? 

You can of course say that they didn't want to go, that their victims of circumstances but how does that absolve them? My cousin quit the army when they announced Canada would send soldiers to Afganistan and every single member of the family is proud of him for it. He's not a coward, he just doesn't believe in invading/killing/raping another country so a few greedy jerk get more money and power. Any good person would have quit the army before even at the risk of spending a few years in jail or having to defect.

For those that believe in God, do you really think God is going to accept "I had to follow orders" as an excuse and send them to heaven? I sure as hell wouldn't if I were God :)

 

Why is overhrowing a Stalinist dictatir morally wrong? One can certainly argue that the war was ill-advised, but wrong? How so? We did not do this to conquer to rule, or to kill innocent. We attacked and overthrew a man who was an outlaw leader, a tyrant, an invader himself, who for years had blatantly violated the terms he agreed to to remain in power when he agreed to the ceasefire.

It was perfectly moral to invade and kick him out of power for that alone, much less any other reasons.

Our men and women of the coolitian did what they did for the best of reasons: freedom.

Now, they have what we have -- a messy, corrupt, semi-socialist quasi fascist state just like we do -- and I think that's a moral thing to, compared with what they had.

Again there are MANY reasons that Iraq may not have been the best battle to fight right now, but it certainly was moral and the warriors and all the people engaged there are heroes. Any human being from any nation who takes down a tyrant is a good guy. Anyone who helps anyone rebuild after that is as well.

 

No no no no no.

We did not do this for "freedom." That became the reverse-engineered reason after the first one -- that Saddam had a giant death ray or whatever -- turned out to be completely fabricated.

 

It wasn't called the "stop Iraq's death ray war", it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Plus, where did I say we did this "for" freedom, as if that were the reason we actually did it? Freedom is what we did, regardless of the reason. We liberated a country, even if there were other reasons as well, even if those other reasons were more important, like our perceived security.

It doesn't change that fact that we removed a dicatator and anytime anyone does that anywhere, they won won for the good guys.

 

 

"Our men and women of the coolitian did what they did for the best of reasons: freedom."

Yeah, we got rid of Saddam, and that's not a bad thing. However, I think the price we have paid in blood and treasure, in our diminished standing in the world and the quagmire we find ourselves in now, wasn't worth it.

 

I said THEY, the soldiers did it for freedom. I did not say WE, as a political entity, the united states, did it FOR or only for freedom. I was being very careful how I said things there.

I said the men and women of our coalition -- obviously meaning the people who fought. Then you said WE, meaning the politics of it. Tsk tsk.

Your second argument is a reasonable one -- but it's not the moral one. It's the prudential one, and isn't what I was addressing. I was answering Myrdeks' moral attack. Wether it was a pridential move is another thing entirely.

Personally, I don't think we'll know for a decade or three whether it was worth it or not. This is a long war.

"Tsk tsk"?  Please.

You're also wrong. Our soldiers went there and fought because their commanding officers fucking told them to.

 

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Nice to hear how little you think of our men and women who fight. Most of the ones I know know what they were fighting for, and they would disagree with you as well.

They are also fighting for your right to your incorrect opinion.

 

Now that my immediate visceral reaction to your absolutely reprehensible distortion of my position for the sole purpose of making political hay has subsided, allow me to retort.

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

As was said earlier in the thread, people join the military for a variety of reasons. However, nobody joined the military for the sole purpose of liberating Iraq. If spreading liberty and freedom is really the priority, where's the clamoring to go to Darfur, where there's REALLY bad shit happening that our government has chosen to ignore?

I never said that the troops never believed in the mission. You will say anything and misrepresent anyone's position to attempt to "win" an argument, and it's disgusting. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but you won't be, because you are incapable of shame.

I have nothing to be ashamed of. I'm not the one belittling our heroes, and acting as if they are morons following orders. I have respect and gratitude for those who serve. I disagree with you, I feel they know what they are fighting for and what they are fighting for is freedom. You don't. Sorry I'm not going to be ashamed for differing with you on that.

I believe in their mission, and I am on their side, even if I questioned its prudence from the get go and continue to do so, I never questioned that it was at the heart a just cause.

I support the troops, support the mission, and am proud of them for what they have done. Nope. No shame there.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Myrdek

Originally posted by popinjay

More fallen heroes.

 

 

Remember, the deaths in Iraq are now all yours, not Bush's. Fulfill your promise, President Obama.

 

 

Bring our troops home from Iraq.

 

I don't know if you wrote that yourself but how can soldiers who invade a country wrongfully be heroes? This is just like when americans say Support our Troops, support them to do what? Kill innocents? 100k+ innocents and counting

I'm sorry but let's pretend that the U.S would have invaded Canada instead, who do you think would be the good guys? Those of us killing the invading americans or your soldiers? 

You can of course say that they didn't want to go, that their victims of circumstances but how does that absolve them? My cousin quit the army when they announced Canada would send soldiers to Afganistan and every single member of the family is proud of him for it. He's not a coward, he just doesn't believe in invading/killing/raping another country so a few greedy jerk get more money and power. Any good person would have quit the army before even at the risk of spending a few years in jail or having to defect.

For those that believe in God, do you really think God is going to accept "I had to follow orders" as an excuse and send them to heaven? I sure as hell wouldn't if I were God :)

 

Why is overhrowing a Stalinist dictatir morally wrong? One can certainly argue that the war was ill-advised, but wrong? How so? We did not do this to conquer to rule, or to kill innocent. We attacked and overthrew a man who was an outlaw leader, a tyrant, an invader himself, who for years had blatantly violated the terms he agreed to to remain in power when he agreed to the ceasefire.

It was perfectly moral to invade and kick him out of power for that alone, much less any other reasons.

Our men and women of the coolitian did what they did for the best of reasons: freedom.

Now, they have what we have -- a messy, corrupt, semi-socialist quasi fascist state just like we do -- and I think that's a moral thing to, compared with what they had.

Again there are MANY reasons that Iraq may not have been the best battle to fight right now, but it certainly was moral and the warriors and all the people engaged there are heroes. Any human being from any nation who takes down a tyrant is a good guy. Anyone who helps anyone rebuild after that is as well.

 

No no no no no.

We did not do this for "freedom." That became the reverse-engineered reason after the first one -- that Saddam had a giant death ray or whatever -- turned out to be completely fabricated.

 

It wasn't called the "stop Iraq's death ray war", it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Plus, where did I say we did this "for" freedom, as if that were the reason we actually did it? Freedom is what we did, regardless of the reason. We liberated a country, even if there were other reasons as well, even if those other reasons were more important, like our perceived security.

It doesn't change that fact that we removed a dicatator and anytime anyone does that anywhere, they won won for the good guys.

 

 

"Our men and women of the coolitian did what they did for the best of reasons: freedom."

Yeah, we got rid of Saddam, and that's not a bad thing. However, I think the price we have paid in blood and treasure, in our diminished standing in the world and the quagmire we find ourselves in now, wasn't worth it.

 

I said THEY, the soldiers did it for freedom. I did not say WE, as a political entity, the united states, did it FOR or only for freedom. I was being very careful how I said things there.

I said the men and women of our coalition -- obviously meaning the people who fought. Then you said WE, meaning the politics of it. Tsk tsk.

Your second argument is a reasonable one -- but it's not the moral one. It's the prudential one, and isn't what I was addressing. I was answering Myrdeks' moral attack. Wether it was a pridential move is another thing entirely.

Personally, I don't think we'll know for a decade or three whether it was worth it or not. This is a long war.

"Tsk tsk"?  Please.

You're also wrong. Our soldiers went there and fought because their commanding officers fucking told them to.

 

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Nice to hear how little you think of our men and women who fight. Most of the ones I know know what they were fighting for, and they would disagree with you as well.

They are also fighting for your right to your incorrect opinion.

 

Now that my immediate visceral reaction to your absolutely reprehensible distortion of my position for the sole purpose of making political hay has subsided, allow me to retort.

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

As was said earlier in the thread, people join the military for a variety of reasons. However, nobody joined the military for the sole purpose of liberating Iraq. If spreading liberty and freedom is really the priority, where's the clamoring to go to Darfur, where there's REALLY bad shit happening that our government has chosen to ignore?

I never said that the troops never believed in the mission. You will say anything and misrepresent anyone's position to attempt to "win" an argument, and it's disgusting. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but you won't be, because you are incapable of shame.

 

I have nothing to be ashamed of. I'm not the one belittling our heroes, and acting as if they are morons following orders. I have respect and gratitude for those who serve. I disagree with you, I feel they know what they are fighting for and what they are fighting for is freedom. You don't. Sorry I'm not going to be ashamed for differing with you on that.

I believe in their mission, and I am on their side, even if I questioned its prudence from the get go and continue to do so, I never questioned that it was at the heart a just cause.

I support the troops, support the mission, and am proud of them for what they have done. Nope. No shame there.

 Another shameless misrepresentation of my point of view. I expect nothing less out of you.

You are the most intellectually dishonest person I have ever encountered.

This is nothing more than a shameless attempt to continue the "libruls hate the troops!" meme. And you'll misrepresent, obfuscate, and outright lie to keep that arrow in your quiver, because it's all you've got to deflect attention away from your ethically, morally and intellectually bankrupt mindset.

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Myrdek

Originally posted by popinjay

More fallen heroes.

 

 

Remember, the deaths in Iraq are now all yours, not Bush's. Fulfill your promise, President Obama.

 

 

Bring our troops home from Iraq.

 

I don't know if you wrote that yourself but how can soldiers who invade a country wrongfully be heroes? This is just like when americans say Support our Troops, support them to do what? Kill innocents? 100k+ innocents and counting

I'm sorry but let's pretend that the U.S would have invaded Canada instead, who do you think would be the good guys? Those of us killing the invading americans or your soldiers? 

You can of course say that they didn't want to go, that their victims of circumstances but how does that absolve them? My cousin quit the army when they announced Canada would send soldiers to Afganistan and every single member of the family is proud of him for it. He's not a coward, he just doesn't believe in invading/killing/raping another country so a few greedy jerk get more money and power. Any good person would have quit the army before even at the risk of spending a few years in jail or having to defect.

For those that believe in God, do you really think God is going to accept "I had to follow orders" as an excuse and send them to heaven? I sure as hell wouldn't if I were God :)

 

Why is overhrowing a Stalinist dictatir morally wrong? One can certainly argue that the war was ill-advised, but wrong? How so? We did not do this to conquer to rule, or to kill innocent. We attacked and overthrew a man who was an outlaw leader, a tyrant, an invader himself, who for years had blatantly violated the terms he agreed to to remain in power when he agreed to the ceasefire.

It was perfectly moral to invade and kick him out of power for that alone, much less any other reasons.

Our men and women of the coolitian did what they did for the best of reasons: freedom.

Now, they have what we have -- a messy, corrupt, semi-socialist quasi fascist state just like we do -- and I think that's a moral thing to, compared with what they had.

Again there are MANY reasons that Iraq may not have been the best battle to fight right now, but it certainly was moral and the warriors and all the people engaged there are heroes. Any human being from any nation who takes down a tyrant is a good guy. Anyone who helps anyone rebuild after that is as well.

 

No no no no no.

We did not do this for "freedom." That became the reverse-engineered reason after the first one -- that Saddam had a giant death ray or whatever -- turned out to be completely fabricated.

 

It wasn't called the "stop Iraq's death ray war", it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Plus, where did I say we did this "for" freedom, as if that were the reason we actually did it? Freedom is what we did, regardless of the reason. We liberated a country, even if there were other reasons as well, even if those other reasons were more important, like our perceived security.

It doesn't change that fact that we removed a dicatator and anytime anyone does that anywhere, they won won for the good guys.

 

 

"Our men and women of the coolitian did what they did for the best of reasons: freedom."

Yeah, we got rid of Saddam, and that's not a bad thing. However, I think the price we have paid in blood and treasure, in our diminished standing in the world and the quagmire we find ourselves in now, wasn't worth it.

 

I said THEY, the soldiers did it for freedom. I did not say WE, as a political entity, the united states, did it FOR or only for freedom. I was being very careful how I said things there.

I said the men and women of our coalition -- obviously meaning the people who fought. Then you said WE, meaning the politics of it. Tsk tsk.

Your second argument is a reasonable one -- but it's not the moral one. It's the prudential one, and isn't what I was addressing. I was answering Myrdeks' moral attack. Wether it was a pridential move is another thing entirely.

Personally, I don't think we'll know for a decade or three whether it was worth it or not. This is a long war.

"Tsk tsk"?  Please.

You're also wrong. Our soldiers went there and fought because their commanding officers fucking told them to.

 

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Nice to hear how little you think of our men and women who fight. Most of the ones I know know what they were fighting for, and they would disagree with you as well.

They are also fighting for your right to your incorrect opinion.

 

Now that my immediate visceral reaction to your absolutely reprehensible distortion of my position for the sole purpose of making political hay has subsided, allow me to retort.

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

As was said earlier in the thread, people join the military for a variety of reasons. However, nobody joined the military for the sole purpose of liberating Iraq. If spreading liberty and freedom is really the priority, where's the clamoring to go to Darfur, where there's REALLY bad shit happening that our government has chosen to ignore?

I never said that the troops never believed in the mission. You will say anything and misrepresent anyone's position to attempt to "win" an argument, and it's disgusting. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but you won't be, because you are incapable of shame.

 

I have nothing to be ashamed of. I'm not the one belittling our heroes, and acting as if they are morons following orders. I have respect and gratitude for those who serve. I disagree with you, I feel they know what they are fighting for and what they are fighting for is freedom. You don't. Sorry I'm not going to be ashamed for differing with you on that.

I believe in their mission, and I am on their side, even if I questioned its prudence from the get go and continue to do so, I never questioned that it was at the heart a just cause.

I support the troops, support the mission, and am proud of them for what they have done. Nope. No shame there.

 

Another shameless misrepresentation of my point of view. I expect nothing less out of you.

How am I misrepresenting you? I believe when our people went to Iraq, they went because they believed they were doing the right thing, which was liberating the people of Iraq. That does not preclude a host of other reasons and justifications as well (obviously) but that was Operation Iraqi Freedom's goal. Iraqi Freedom.

You disagree, you believe they agreed with you, didn't believe in the mission, and were just doing as they were told.

I know there were probably some like that, but not all, not most.

Anyway instead of making baseless accusations how about explaining how I am wrong about what you are saying?

Please explain your view more clearly if I am misrepresenting it.

Originally posted by kobie173

This is nothing more than a shameless attempt to continue the "libruls hate the troops!" meme. And you'll misrepresent, obfuscate, and outright lie to keep that arrow in your quiver, because it's all you've got to deflect attention away from your ethically, morally and intellectually bankrupt mindset.

How have I misrepresented, obfusated, or outright lied about anything here?

I'm not the one belittling the troops or implying that they are morons.

If I am wrong about what you are saying, please explain.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kobie173

This is nothing more than a shameless attempt to continue the "libruls hate the troops!" meme. And you'll misrepresent, obfuscate, and outright lie to keep that arrow in your quiver, because it's all you've got to deflect attention away from your ethically, morally and intellectually bankrupt mindset.

How have I misrepresented, obfusated, or outright lied about anything here?

I'm not the one belittling the troops or implying that they are morons.

If I am wrong about what you are saying, please explain.

Nobody's belittling the troops or implying that they are morons. If you drew that conclusion based on what I wrote, it's because that's the conclusion you wanted to draw.

You're creating this fantasy vision of the military and why people enlist. Sure, some people enlist for ideological reasons, some for others.

However, that's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing why they are in Iraq. And the reason they are in Iraq is because the government told them they were going to Iraq.

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kobie173

This is nothing more than a shameless attempt to continue the "libruls hate the troops!" meme. And you'll misrepresent, obfuscate, and outright lie to keep that arrow in your quiver, because it's all you've got to deflect attention away from your ethically, morally and intellectually bankrupt mindset.

How have I misrepresented, obfusated, or outright lied about anything here?

I'm not the one belittling the troops or implying that they are morons.

If I am wrong about what you are saying, please explain.

 

Nobody's belittling the troops or implying that they are morons. If you drew that conclusion based on what I wrote, it's because that's the conclusion you wanted to draw.

You're creating this fantasy vision of the military and why people enlist. Sure, some people enlist for ideological reasons, some for others.

However, that's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing why they are in Iraq. And the reason they are in Iraq is because the government told them they were going to Iraq.

I never mentioned why people enlist. That never came into my discussion. That's the fantasy.

They may have been in iraq because someone told them too, but that's not the real reason. That's the obvious reason anyone in any command situation does anything. It's never the REASON. The REASON is dictated by the mission and its objectives.

That was to free Iraq. That was why they were there.