What do you mean when you say you...

[MissScripture]

I am curious, and I really want people who say this to explain what they mean, because it really doesn't make sense to me, What do you mean when you say you support our troops but are agianst the war?

[hierochloe]

To me it means you want them to kick butt and not die even though you don't support the cause for which they are fighting.

[Lounge Daddy]

support our troops but against the war...
i mean that i want pictures of "torture" of terrorists ...er, i mean "freedom fighters" released during a war --- so that said freedom fighters can be used to incite further freedom fighters to attack our troops in the middle east as more middle-eastern countries begin to vote for the first time

[Snarf]

LD, if you're being serious, that's disgusting.

I see a total disconnection between a draft-dodger prissied up in a jet fighter outfit who decides who fights whom in what country from the people who are trying to earn an education or simply trying to find their place in the world.

Most American soldiers come from low-income, conservative families who naturally support the war. I disagree with them, I think they've been sadly mislead, but do I want them to get shot? Well, that'd destroy families, be a waste of life, and all in all be a travesty, so no. So sure, I support the troops.

That being said, I have a very utilitarian outlook on the war. I want as few casualties as possible, regardless of what side takes them. At the beginning of the war I said that I'd rather see 99 Americans die than 100 Iraqis, if there were some instance in which that choice could be made. At this point any sane Iraqi should realize that it's a lost cause, so I have much less sympathy now for Iraqi "freedom fighters". They're not accomplishing anything and should be dealt with accordingly. The difference between them and the Iraqi troops at the beginning of the war is that there is no longer any state-driven impetus to fight against one's will, so the Milgram connundrum is out the window.

So, I'd like to see this whole thing end with as few Iraqi and as few American casualties as possible. The whole thing was pointless, but I hope that maybe some good will come of it. I just hate to see fellow Catholics play the Machiavelli game. I would be greatly disparaged should I see the whole thing fall on America's face and cause more terrorism on the long-term scale than it prevents, but I sure wouldn't be surprised.

[Lounge Daddy]

[b]RELATED: [/b]
[u]Moore film distributor OK with terror support[/u]
[quote]The company distributing filmmaker Michael Moore's Bush-bashing movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" says it won't reject an offer of help from Middle East terrorist organization Hezbollah.

As WorldNetDaily reported, terrorists affiliated with the Iran-backed network last week offered to help promote the film in the United Arab Emirates.

The movie industry publication Screen Daily reported, "In terms of marketing the film, [distributor] Front Row is getting a boost from organizations related to Hezbollah which have rung up from Lebanon to ask if there's anything they can do to support the film."

The story then quotes Front Row Managing Director Gianluca Chacra: "We can't go against these organizations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria."

Terror-war supporting organization Move America Forward publicized the Chacra quote and reacted strongly against it.

"Michael Moore dismisses Americans who are upset with his film and the impact it has in undermining support for the war against terrorism," said Vice Chair Melanie Morgan. "At the same time, his distribution companies are concerned about offending the sensibilities of terrorists. That certainly gives rise to asking the question: Whose side are you on?" [/quote]
[url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39079"]FROM HERE[/url]

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Sep 30 2005, 02:08 AM']LD, if you're being serious, that's disgusting.

I see a total disconnection between a draft-dodger prissied up in a jet fighter outfit who decides who fights whom in what country from the people who are trying to earn an education or simply trying to find their place in the world.

[right][snapback]741791[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
???
Bill Clinton never climbed into a fighter jet

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote]As the U.S. gets hits by another hurricane, the Cindy Sheehan media circus is blowing into Washington, D.C. On Saturday she's a featured speaker at a communist-organized "anti-war" rally. On Sunday, she's scheduled to speak at a national conference of the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA). Other speakers include Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee, co-chairs of the 61-member Congressional Progressive Caucus. One PDA slogan is "Get out of Iraq now." Lee holds the distinction of being the only member of Congress to vote against the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan after terrorists based in that country hit America on 9/11.

If past coverage is any guide, the major media will deliberately ignore the involvement of communists in organizing the "anti-war" protest. They will focus instead on celebrity speakers such as actress Jessica Lange, the flamboyant George Galloway, Ralph Nader and, of course, Sheehan. But if we had anything approaching an investigative press, the communist role is something that would be exposed. It is a classic case of Marxists using front groups to manipulate innocent people.

The top leaders of International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism), the group organizing and paying the full costs of the stage, sound and setup at the rally, come out of the Workers World Party. This is a group so extreme in its adulation for anti-American dictators that honest liberals like David Corn of The Nation magazine have recoiled in dismay over how many people on the left associate with them.

The immediate aim is to defeat the U.S. in Iraq by creating the impression that the American people are tired of the war and want to withdraw U.S. troops. The long-term objective is to destroy the American way of life. [/quote]

[url="http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:VYmpnakNOccJ:www.gopusa.com/commentary/ckincaid/2005/ck_09221.shtml+Act+Now+to+Stop+War+and+End+Racism+++communist&hl=en&client=firefox-a"](partisan) GOPUSA[/url]

[Lounge Daddy]

[b]Communist party financed pro-Iraqi march in San Francisco[/b]
[quote]The Jerusalem Post (www.jpost.com) has a good analysis of the American extreme left:

    [quote]Last weekend, the Left held large antiwar marches in Washington, San Francisco and elsewhere. Major media coverage of these marches was highly respectful. This was "A Stirring in the Nation," in the words of an approving New York Times editorial, "impressive for the obvious mainstream roots of the marchers."

    There is, increasingly, much that happens in the world that the Times feels its readers should be sheltered from knowing. The marches in Washington and San Francisco were chiefly sponsored, as was last October's antiwar march in Washington, by a group the Times chose to call in its only passing reference "the activist group International Answer."

    International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) is a front group for the communist Workers World Party. The Workers World Party is, literally, a Stalinist organization. It rose out of a split within the old Socialist Workers Party over the Soviet Union's 1956 invasion of Hungary - the breakaway Workers World Party was all for the invasion.

    A.N.S.W.E.R. today unquestioningly supports any despotic regime that lays any claim to socialism, or simply to anti-Americanism. It supported the butchers of Beijing after the slaughter of Tiananmen Square. It supports Saddam and his Baathist torture-state. It supports the last official Stalinist state, North Korea, in the mass starvation of its citizens. It supported Slobodan Milosevic after the massacre at Srebrenica. It supports the mullahs of Iran, and the narco-gangsters of Colombia and the bus-bombers of Hamas.[/quote]

Although I hold in many ways liberal values (e.g. I am pro-choice, I am against the death penalty, etc...), the issues of national security override today all other considerations. The Democratic party will not get my vote and NPR will never again get my money.[/quote]

[url="http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000598.html"]LINK[/url]

[Snarf]

Uh-oh, someone's on a rampage.

Anything relevant in there? I can stomach only so much triteness, especially when it's just recycled.

I'm sure you threw in the Jerusalem Post so I'd think you have something that's not biased. Ha.

Edit: And why is the right so fascinated with Clinton? He was a bad president, yes. He had serious integrity issues. I disagree with many of his policies. But I've never seen any convincing argument that he harmed the country in any lasting way. Blaming everything on Clinton is not only chimerical, it's immature and stupid.

Edited September 30, 2005 by Snarf

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Sep 30 2005, 02:35 AM']Uh-oh, someone's on a rampage.

Anything relevant in there?  I can stomach only so much triteness, especially when it's just recycled.

I'm sure you threw in the Jerusalem Post so I'd think you have something that's not biased. Ha. 

Edit: And why is the right so fascinated with Clinton?  He was a bad president, yes.  He had serious integrity issues.  I disagree with many of his policies.  But I've never seen any convincing argument that he harmed the country in any lasting way.  Blaming everything on Clinton is not only chimerical, it's immature and stupid.
[right][snapback]741822[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
again, you mentioned "I see a total disconnection between a draft-dodger prissied up in a jet fighter outfit..."
Clinton never flew a ....

ooohhhh, lol
you are talking about GW BUSH!
[quote]...something that's not biased[/quote]
Bush being the draft dodger... right

[Snarf]

Okay, let's put it this way. Clinton is a draft dodger. Clinton hates children. Clinton invented cholera and caused the Great Chicago Fire.

Bush is still a terrible president, and a despicable human being.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote]The WWP has campaigned against the war-crimes trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. A recent Workers World editorial declared, “Iraq has done absolutely nothing wrong.”

Officially, the organizer of the Washington demonstration was International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism). But ANSWER is run by WWP activists, to such an extent that it seems fair to dub it a WWP front. Several key ANSWER officials — including spokesperson Brian Becker — are WWP members. Many local offices for ANSWER’s protest were housed in WWP offices. Earlier this year, when ANSWER conducted a press briefing, at least five of the 13 speakers were WWP activists. They were each identified, though, in other ways, including as members of the International Action Center.

The IAC, another WWP offshoot, was a key partner with ANSWER in promoting the protest. It was founded by Ramsey Clark, attorney general for President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s. For years, Clark has been on a bizarre political odyssey, much of the time in sync with the Workers World Party. As an attorney, he has represented Lyndon LaRouche, the leader of a political cult. He has defended Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic and Pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, who was accused of participating in the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Clark is also a member of the International Committee To Defend Slobodan Milosevic. The international war-crimes tribunal, he explains, “is war by other means” — that is, a tool of the West to crush those who stand in the way of U.S. imperialism, like Milosevic. A critic of the ongoing sanctions against Iraq, Clark has appeared on talking-head shows and refused to concede any wrongdoing on Saddam’s part. There is no reason to send weapons inspectors to Iraq, he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “After 12 years of brutalization with sanctions and bombing they’d like to be a country again. They’d like to have sovereignty again. They’d like to be left alone.”[/quote]

[quote]Most of the protesters, I assume, were oblivious to the WWP’s role in the event. They merely wanted to gather with other foes of the war and express their collective opposition. They waved signs (“We need an Axis of Sanity,” “Draft Perle,” “Collateral Damage = Civilian Deaths,” “floopy Bush”). They cheered on rappers who sang, “No blood for oil.” They laughed when Medea Benjamin, the head of Global Exchange, said, “We need to stop the testosterone-poisoning of our globe.” They filled red ANSWER donation buckets with coins and bills. But how might they have reacted if Holmes and his comrades had asked them to stand with Saddam, Milosevic and Kim? Or to oppose further inspections in Iraq?

One man in the crowd was wise to the behind-the-scenes politics. When Brian Becker, a WWP member introduced (of course) as an ANSWER activist, hit the stage, Paul Donahue, a middle-aged fellow who works with the Thomas Merton Peace and Social Justice Center in Pittsburgh, shouted, “Stalinist!” Donahue and his colleagues at the Merton Center, upset that WWP activists were in charge of this demonstration, had debated whether to attend. “Some of us tried to convince others to come,” Donahue recalled. “We figured we could dilute the [WWP] part of the message. But in the end most didn’t come. People were saying, ‘They’re Maoists.’ But they’re the only game in town, and I’ve got to admit they’re good organizers. They remembered everything but the Porta-Johns.” Rock singer Patti Smith, though, was not troubled by the organizers. “My main concern now is the anti-war movement,” she said before playing for the crowd. “I’m for a nonpartisan, globalist movement. I don’t care who it is as long as they feel the same.”[/quote]

[url="http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/50/news-corn.php"]LA Weekly[/url]

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote]At the rally, speaker after speaker declared, “We are the real Americans.” But most “real Americans” do not see a direct connection between Mumia, the Cuban Five and the war against Iraq. Jackson, for one, exclaimed, “This time the silent majority is on our side.” If the goal is to bring the silent majority into the anti-war movement, it’s not going to be achieved by people carrying pictures of Kim Jong-Il — even if they keep them hidden in their wallets.

As yet another WWP-in-disguise speaker addressed the crowd, Steve Cobble, a progressive political consultant, gazed out at the swarm of protesters and observed, “People are looking for something to do.” Good for them. But they ought to also look at the leaders they are following and wonder if those individuals will guide them toward a broader, more effective movement or toward the fringe irrelevance the WWPers know so well.[/quote]

by the way - the WWP is the Workers World Party... a Communist Party - obviously Anti-American and atheistic
they would love to see the face of America changed to reflect the Communist ideal [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=39813"](see this post "1963 Communist Goals")[/url]
huh, and they are trying to organise and incite protests hoping they will reflect vietnam?
suprise?
noooo

[Snarf]

All you're proving is your inability to digest material. Brevity, sir.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Sep 30 2005, 03:13 AM']All you're proving is your inability to digest material.  Brevity, sir.
[right][snapback]741832[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
ya - i am a bit scattered all over things tonight...
so ok -i am going to bed - ill be back tomorrow after work i thnk

in the mean time - show me the perpective, brother!

my real, and honest point is this:
[b]1 – the organizers of the big “anti-war” rallies are anti-Americans

2 – it is not possible to stage anti-military programs without aiding and comforting the military[/b]



as a side point also.... i am thinking the Bush vs Clinton thing should be for another topic, lol

[Snarf]

1) That's a broad generalization. Obviously, to protest government activity ad hoc is going to elicit a supportive response from those who protest government at large. But to call every proponent of peace "anti-American" is just blind arrogance, and not the least bit constructive.

2) I'm going to take it that you mean the opposite of what you wrote, if not, then thank you for proving my point. Many people are able to differentiate between the trillion-dollar industry of the military and the hard-working soldiers who have been shafted by the government that sent them overseas by reduction of veterans benefits and such. If someone joined the army because she feels the need to support her country while forging a bright future for herself, then good for her. I hope that she comes to no harm. But for someone to join the war just to go around killing foreigners, I have no sympathy for them. Fortunately, the latter group doesn't really exist to any great extent, though I have met soldiers with that attitude.

I think that one slogan I've heard countless times does fit: The best way to support the troops is to bring them home. I think it would be a mistake to pull out en masse right now, but it shows the right attitude. Our military is over-extended, tired, and out of place. It would be nice if there were an easy solution for the here and now, but there isn't. I just find it horrid that those mistakes were made.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Sep 30 2005, 02:55 AM']Bush is still a terrible president, and a despicable human being.
[right][snapback]741826[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Look, if you wanted a saint in office you are out of luck. Nobody can long remain a saint in the realm of international politics. A leader is forced by his position to make the most effective choices for the country that he can, which are not often the most moral choices. History will tell us whether Iraq was folly or good strategy.

Idealists are doomed to disappointment. Only an act of God could change the face of international politics.

We should also keep in mind that we have a volunteer military and they don't get free college. If you don't want to support the country's affairs, then stay out of the military and you are absolved from any conflict with your conscience. But to try to tell the gov't that they should let these soldiers skip out on their part of the contract is sheer stupidity. It might be nice, but it's 1. not going to ever work and 2. disrespectful of the soldier who made his choice to join the military. They're [b]MEN[/b], not CHILDREN.


To answer the thread, I don't believe war is often morally right. However, when the rules of engagement are not followed by certain groups, then those rules CANNOT apply to anyone involved or they will lose. We are at a huge disadvantage by having to follow all these humane rules. Terrorists are not thus disadvantaged.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

While I like Bush and favored this war from the beginning, I'm not going to sit by without saying this: it is possible to support the troops but be against the war.

StColette's brother is over there fighting, but she is and has always been against the war. I would not dare to tell her that she is allied with terrorists, nor a coward, nor two-faced for her beliefs.

A long time ago, the Church declared that you did not have to go out and seek martyrdom. It was okay to avoid it, so long as you didn't deny the faith. That doesn't mean that the Church was saying that we shouldn't love and support those to whom martyrdom was granted.

Not everyone needs to support a cause, but everyone should love and support fellow human beings. We may most certainly support soldiers without supporting the particular reasons for their war.

The early Christians prayed for the emperor, even as he was persecuting them...but they still could not ally themselves with his insistence on pagan worship. This is patriotism. It is a far cry from patriotism--indeed, it is nationalism--to say that those who support the people of the nation must also support the causes of the nation.

I like Bush and I'm glad Saddam's gone.

The same principles apply, that's all I'm saying...you can and should support the troops, even if you don't support the reason they are offering their lives. They are to be honored by all.

[Snarf]

Toledo, you seem to think that this war is somehow different from every war that's ever been faught before. It's not. There is such a thing as a "moral" war, even if war is in any instance unsavory. Of particular note is that there is such thing as a "just" war, and we as Catholics have a stringent procedure of determining if the name fits.

Your attitude that ethics don't matter is irresponsible, anachronistic, dangerous, fool-hardy, and stupid. The crux of western philosophy, including the words of Jesus Christ and the OT patriarchs, decisively dictate that ethics are the foremost priority in living well a life worth having. It is better to act against the constituion than against ethics, and it's becoming very popular to go against both these days.

[i]But to try to tell the gov't that they should let these soldiers skip out on their part of the contract is sheer stupidity. It might be nice, but it's 1. not going to ever work and 2. disrespectful of the soldier who made his choice to join the military.[/i]

Oh, man, you totally slayed me for when I said that all the soldiers should bail out on their duty. I don't know what I was thinking when I said that. In fact, I can't remember saying that at all in the first place. Funny thing, the mind.

[i]They're MEN, not CHILDREN.[/i]

I've heard men who've seen more combat than you or I ever will call various modern wars a "children's crusade". Vonnegut used it as an alternate title for his memoirs on World War II, [i]Slaughterhouse Five[/i]. Yes, I respect these individuals rights to make decisions for themselves. But could they possibly know into what they were getting themselves? Joining the military to get an ROTC is an honorable way of getting ahead in life. Joining the military out of patriotism is noble. Joining the military for war's sake alone is deplorable, and I have no more remorse for losing one such person over losing an enemy terrorist. They're all the same in my book.

So really, what's your point?

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Sep 30 2005, 10:53 AM']Toledo, you seem to think that this war is somehow different from every war that's ever been faught before.  It's not.  There is such a thing as a "moral" war, even if war is in any instance unsavory.  Of particular note is that there is such thing as a "just" war, and we as Catholics have a stringent procedure of determining if the name fits.
[color=blue]
This war is somewhat different as it has broken with convention.  Preemptive war is an activity of which we don't yet understand the full repercussions.  I don't think the war is moral.  Quite the opposite.  I'd rather that we weren't there.  But if we are attacked, we need to win.  If our national leaders feel that the country's security is better served by engagement in Iraq, then so be it.  We are free to criticize or suggest alternatives.  But our leaders probably don't have morals at the top of their list of reasons to fight.[/color]


Your attitude that ethics don't matter is irresponsible, anachronistic, dangerous, fool-hardy, and stupid.  The crux of western philosophy, including the words of Jesus Christ and the OT patriarchs, decisively dictate that ethics are the foremost priority in living well a life worth having.  It is better to act against the constituion than against ethics, and it's becoming very popular to go against both these days.

[color=blue]The crux of modern international political theory is that the state takes its cues from what is in its best interests, not from Our Lord.  A successful (politically at least) state will always act in its best interest.  The Pope himself could yea or nay wars up until Westphalia, but that all changed when the concept of state sovereignty really took off.  We have not returned to a time when morality substantially influenced the use of force.  In many ways force is still governed by the pressing interests of a state, either economically or in terms of national security.  It's not stupid, it's reality.  Reality is that the world is not a nice place and people don't play by Christian ethics when power is on the line.  I have never said that ethics don't matter.  I have said that they are irrelevant to the people making the decisions because they preclude certain options which, though ruthless, are the most effective in solving the problems of the state.[/color]

[i]But to try to tell the gov't that they should let these soldiers skip out on their part of the contract is sheer stupidity. It might be nice, but it's 1. not going to ever work and 2. disrespectful of the soldier who made his choice to join the military.[/i]

Oh, man, you totally slayed me for when I said that all the soldiers should bail out on their duty.  I don't know what I was thinking when I said that.  In fact, I can't remember saying that at all in the first place.  Funny thing, the mind.

[color=blue]I'm sorry, I was referencing the protesters, not you.  It wasn't clear.  I assure you I won't put words in your mouth and cause you to deplete your reserves of sarcasm any further.  I do view the effort to bring them home as advocating the abrogation of their duty.  The men made a choice to tell the gov't they would perform a duty, and they should not be able to get out of it because their mommy is mad.  The military should not care about their mommy.  Now here's an interesting thought:  Are men being rotated out of Iraq or are they serving beyond their required duty amount?  Could that be a problem?[/color]

[i]They're MEN, not CHILDREN.[/i]

I've heard men who've seen more combat than you or I ever will call various modern wars a "children's crusade".  Vonnegut used it as an alternate title for his memoirs on World War II, [i]Slaughterhouse Five[/i].  Yes, I respect these individuals rights to make decisions for themselves.  But could they possibly know into what they were getting themselves?  Joining the military to get an ROTC is an honorable way of getting ahead in life.  Joining the military out of patriotism is noble.  Joining the military for war's sake alone is deplorable, and I have no more remorse for losing one such person over losing an enemy terrorist.  They're all the same in my book.

[color=blue]I agree that most wars are fought for childish reasons.  Man hasn't stopped acting childish in certain arenas.  Consider Yassir Arafat meeting with Clinton and Israeli PM Barak.  When given the maximum concession by Israel, Arafat simply turned it down.  Now, an adult mindset would be, "I can't have it all, so this compromise works."  Arafat wanted the whole sandbox for himself.
Joining the military is service to country.  Being drafted is the price we pay for our freedom, and the system has been retooled so that even a Senator's son could go.  Military service is a sacrifice.  It should not be primarily a way to get ahead in life.  I question the motives of those who join [b]solely [/b]to further a career or score points for a later political campaign.  I think that anyone who understands that armies fight and kill understands what they are getting into.  The military will pay for your college and in return it will require you to perform tasks such as are needed to accomplish military goals.  An 18 year old man has enough mental fortitude to understand that basic concept.  Joining to fight for fighting's sake is pretty bad, I agree.  But joining to fight for your country is not bad at all.  It's a civic duty, in my opinion.[/color]

So really, what's your point?

[color=blue]My point is that the world doesn't care about how things ought to be.  There are a number of ideas in political science which are coming to the fore that are critical of realism or the traditional views of the obligations of the state and what defines the National Interest.  These may be worth looking into to promote a more Christian world-view.  But currently, they aren't main policy.[/color]
[right][snapback]742038[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]