Is Supporting Troops More Important Than Protesting Government Decisions?

[STAii]

The replies are really shocking.
Now i understand how US works.
First, all citizens put some guy as their president.
Then they accept the president even if they didn't like him (maybe this is not really a bad thing, if it is used right).
After that, they see what the president will do.
The president takes a certain action.
They start thinking if they are with that action, or against.
Some of them think the action is right, some of them think the action is wrong.
Eventually they all support the president, and the president does what he wants, and no one tries to defend his point of view.
So it does not really matter if they were with or against the action of the president, cause eventually they will support it.
And the role of the people stops the moment they choose the president.
So all the people eventually drop their morals and follow the 'leadership'.

 

[Njorl]

Monique,

Calling the desire to have your loved ones continue to live selfish is ridiculous. You might as well consider exhaling selfish - it adds to global warming. So everyone on Earth should drop over dead or be considered selfish? Selfishness is the expectation of unreasonable benefits at unreasonable costs to others.

Njorl

 

[Kerrie]

American People ARE NOT the American Government

Originally posted by STAii
The replies are really shocking.
Now i understand how US works.
First, all citizens put some guy as their president.
Then they accept the president even if they didn't like him (maybe this is not really a bad thing, if it is used right).
After that, they see what the president will do.
The president takes a certain action.
They start thinking if they are with that action, or against.
Some of them think the action is right, some of them think the action is wrong.
Eventually they all support the president, and the president does what he wants, and no one tries to defend his point of view.
So it does not really matter if they were with or against the action of the president, cause eventually they will support it.
And the role of the people stops the moment they choose the president.
So all the people eventually drop their morals and follow the 'leadership'.

STAii...please remember that there are Americans who do not support the government...what can one individual do about this war? they can only protest, but that doesn't get anything changed...

this thread was dedicated to our American troops who are away from their families for a reason (to me) that is uneccesary...idealy, no war should be fought on this planet, but reality is taking us on a differnet course...

so, STAii, i believe your general opinion is unfounded about the Americans, because there are many of us who are supporting those who are unwillingly fighting...do you think my friend's husband wants to be out there in Kuwait during the sandstorms being commanded to shoot? no, there maybe few men and women who are gung-ho for this war, but i assure you the majority of them do not want to be there, and will celebrate the minute they are told to go back home to their families...

i suggest you speak to more general americans about how they individually feel about this war, and stop passing a general judgement on us, as here in america, we are not passing a general judgement on the arabic people either just because of this pending war...

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by STAii
The replies are really shocking.
Now i understand how US works.
First, all citizens put some guy as their president.
Then they accept the president even if they didn't like him (maybe this is not really a bad thing, if it is used right).
After that, they see what the president will do.
The president takes a certain action.
They start thinking if they are with that action, or against.
Some of them think the action is right, some of them think the action is wrong.
Eventually they all support the president, and the president does what he wants, and no one tries to defend his point of view.
So it does not really matter if they were with or against the action of the president, cause eventually they will support it.
And the role of the people stops the moment they choose the president.
So all the people eventually drop their morals and follow the 'leadership'.

No Stai, that is not how America works. People will continue to protest this war. Some of these will be prominent people speaking on national television. Others will speak out against the protesters. Others, like me, will speak out for the war, and for the right of the protesters to express themselves without being considered traitors. The United States is one of the few countries in the world in which this is true. You can still be imprisoned in France for speaking out against the government. You can still be fined in Britain and Australia for speaking the truth, if it is considered libelous. That can't happen to you in the US.

Njorl

 

[Kerrie]

Laser Eyes needs his vision re-checked...

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
It is impossible to support the members of any armed forces who go to kill other people in a war if you disagree with the reason for the war. The two things just do not stand together. There is an inconsistency. The point that everyone is missing is that no member of the American forces (or any other country) can be forced to go into battle and kill other people against their will. No matter the reason they joined the military they can refuse to fight an unjust war. There may be serious consequences for them if they do but standing up for the right principle has always had a cost.

Laser Eyes

i see you have SRS (selective reading syndrome)...please re-read and re-consider HOW i said to support our troops, otherwise don't quote my words...


lend some care, compassion and support to the men and women who are sacrificing by sending letters, care packages, pictures and words of love and support

 

[STAii]

Kerrie,
I did not mean to make a general statement about everyone (and i am sorry if i did), i meant to talk about majorities.
About what you said (your friend's husband).
A person that really cares about his principals will defend them.
That is, if the person is against war, he will not go to fight, he will prefer being prisoned then fighting against his beleives.
Therefore i see that those fighting will either be :
1-Someone that sees the war should happen.
2-Someone that sees the war should not happen, but still is fighting because he will hate being prisoned.
3-Someone that is against war, but still is fighting cause he wants to take the benefits of being a soldier.

Well, in the case (2), the person is a cowerd.
In case (3), the person has no principles, since he will prefer his own good on doing what is 'right'.

So if you are a person that is against war, you should see that the soldiers do not really deserve your lovely support (as explained before).

No Stai, that is not how America works. People will continue to protest this war. Some of these will be prominent people speaking on national television. Others will speak out against the protesters. Others, like me, will speak out for the war, and for the right of the protesters to express themselves without being considered traitors. The United States is one of the few countries in the world in which this is true.

And ... no one will hear all of this ? (i mean there will be no reaction from the government when they see that lot of people are against what they are doing ?)

 

[Kerrie]

STAii, what you may not realize is, America gives great incentives to men and women who join the military RESERVES, different then the active military...by offering one weekend a month/two weeks a year of their time to train, they receive money for college, assistance for buying a home, and part time income...because the possibility of war is generally a very low one, my friend's husband (in his case specifically) joined the reserves for college reasons...his committment time would have been up this summer-thus not required by law to go to Kuwait-if he had not showed up for duty after being called up, he would face jail time, and probably end up owing a lot of money back for college (this fact i am not 100% sure of)...so in his perspective, he is probably not supportive of the war in general, but is doing his duty because the military provided him a lot of help with college in return for his pledge to serve his country...

again, please remember, this thread is not about protesting the war, but it is to lend encouragement to the men and women facing one of the scariest realities of our time-regardless if it is a good or bad reason, they are still dealing with something most of us would see as a nightmare...

 

[russ_watters]

I would change one word of that...'instead' to 'also'. You can supprt the troops and protest at the same time!

I completely agree. It saddens me how few people can require that not supporting a war means not supporting the troops. Supporting the troops is ENTIRELY about hoping the come back alive. What they fight for or even IF they fight is irrelevant to the desire to see them return alive. Example:

Therefore i see that those fighting will either be :
1-Someone that sees the war should happen.
2-Someone that sees the war should not happen, but still is fighting because he will hate being prisoned.
3-Someone that is against war, but still is fighting cause he wants to take the benefits of being a soldier.

Well, in the case (2), the person is a cowerd.
In case (3), the person has no principles, since he will prefer his own good on doing what is 'right'.

So if you are a person that is against war, you should see that the soldiers do not really deserve your lovely support (as explained before).

Though I disagree with your 3 case, I'll go with them. In any of those 3 cases, is your gripe with that person bad enough you wish them to DIE? Because failure in a mission means death. Patriotically supporting the troops is NOT about supporting the war, it is simply showing that you hope they don't DIE:

1. Misguided, but you are an American so I hope you don't die.
2. Coward, but you are an American so I hope you don't die.
3. Mercenary, but you are an American so I hope you don't die.

Do you realize that by your stance you are expressing a hope that our sodiers DIE? Whether you truly believe it or not, that's how it comes out. Hoping for Americans to die is unpatriotic.

 

[FZ+]

russ_watters: That's right. My appeal can be interpreted as simply hoping that the war, since it probably can no longer be prevented, happens as quickly and bloodlessly as possible.

 

[zk4586]

I know I'll be 18 when the 2004 Presidential election rolls around and will most definitely not be voting for President Bush. It is this ridiculous double standard that's being applied by Bush that I object to most: that we should punish Saddam Hussein for going against the UN by going against the UN.

 

[drag]

USA ! USA ! USA !

Originally posted by zk4586
I know I'll be 18 when the 2004 Presidential election rolls around and will most definitely not be voting for President Bush. It is this ridiculous double standard that's being applied by Bush that I object to most: that we should punish Saddam Hussein for going against the UN by going against the UN.

The UN is a bunch of magots and politicians worried
about their own jobs.
It is abvious that there can NEVER be real consensus
in the UN about ANY war by ANY country, for the
simple reason that countries don't vote for what is
"right", but rather for what's "beneficial" to them
and each country has different interests.
It is fortunate that a super-power like the US exists
and can act without this corrupted institution.
(Of course, as the saying goes - "Absolute power corrupts
absolutely." But, the history of the US appears
to prove this saying wrong, so far.)
Otherwise, no one would "raize a finger" in ANY
conflict ANYWHERE until WW3 would begin in full force.

The price of freedom is eternal vegelance.

Live long and prosper.

 

[rutwig]

Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
you bet kerrie, even though I have a few friends stationed in the middle east I still support the war. we can't sit and wait for another act of terrorism. I just hope it can be quick, successful and with minimal loss.

I agree with that idea, but the war has given to these groups the legitimation of continuing their attacks. And it has made from a local problem a religious question, and this is without doubt the most dangerous variant.
On the other hand, in Egypt and Algèrie there are groups that are much more dangerous than the troup of Saddam.

 

[heumpje]

Originally posted by drag
USA ! USA ! USA !


The UN is a bunch of magots and politicians worried
about their own jobs.
It is abvious that there can NEVER be real consensus
in the UN about ANY war by ANY country, for the
simple reason that countries don't vote for what is
"right", but rather for what's "beneficial" to them
and each country has different interests.
It is fortunate that a super-power like the US exists
and can act without this corrupted institution.
(Of course, as the saying goes - "Absolute power corrupts
absolutely." But, the history of the US appears
to prove this saying wrong, so far.)
Otherwise, no one would "raize a finger" in ANY
conflict ANYWHERE until WW3 would begin in full force.

The price of freedom is eternal vegelance.

Live long and prosper.

I can agree with this in parts. I do think that at the moment there are a lot of countries that only vote according to what benefits them most (and i believe that this also partially true for the states). I also think that the way the power within the counsel is distributed should be changed. It hasn't changed since the end of WW II, while the world did change a lot. So no more veto's for countries like france . Actually i think they should stop using veto rights because it doesn't help making decisions.

However, to state that it is fortunate that there is a superpower like the US, who can change the world in their favor without anybody able to do anything about it, is exactly the sort of arrogance that countries like france and germany are aggitating against. Perhaps it is naive, but i refuse to believe that Chirac vetoed only because of inland politics. I think a lot of countries at the moment are "against" the states because in the past few years (from the beginning of this administration) they have operated very unilateral. The US boycots treatise like the kyoto protocol and the international court only because it might, perhaps hurt the american economy.

Anyway, now that the war is here, i wish the troops fighting in the middle east all the very best. I also wish the Iraqi people all the very best. I think that they are the true victims of all this...

 

[kat]

Originally posted by heumpje


However, to state that it is fortunate that there is a superpower like the US, who can change the world in their favor without anybody able to do anything about it, is exactly the sort of arrogance that countries like france and germany are aggitating against. Perhaps it is naive, but i refuse to believe that Chirac vetoed only because of inland politics.

France invaded Rwanda in 1994, on the side of the Hutus. When Britain and the US asked the UN to impose sanctions on the warlord dictator Charles Taylor in Liberia, France fought the prroposal and forced a weakening of the original intent in the final Security Council resolutions. France supported Laurent Kabila after he removed his pro-Tutsi Rwandan and Ugandan advisors. It supported Mobutu in Zaire, turning against him only when he attempted to improve his relations with the US. France invaded the Ivory Coast this year, without asking the UN for approval, because Ivoran rebels were threatening Abidjan and San Pedro where 20,000 French settlers live, and the rebels would have kicked them out. France supported the U.S. invasion of Yugoslavia without UN approval, because it did not want to have to accommodate the mostly Muslim refugees from the Yugoslav civil war that were starting to knock on France's door.

Knowing all this as well as I do, you still think that France
threatened to veto because of anything other then self interest?


Anyone who knows even just the tip of the iceberg of French foreign policy these past few decades that I outlined in the first paragraph of this post, who is able to simultaneously believe that France really stands for the position "that unilateral warmaking by any state without the compliance of the UN is unacceptable" might be interested in coming to Brooklyn, I have a nice bridge to sell you.

 

[zk4586]

It is fortunate that a super-power like the US exists
and can act without this corrupted institution.

Fortunate? I find nothing fortunate in the fact that the US is a country which uses it's power to bully other nations into submitting to whatever suits the US. I find nothing fortunate in the fact that a country which was founded on the ideals of freedom and liberty would use its military strength and economic superiority so aggressively that its image becomes one of capriciousness, arrogance, and brutality.

 

[FZ+]

Knowing all this as well as I do, you still think that France
threatened to veto because of anything other then self interest?

Chirac threatened to use the veto for the same reason the US threatened to invade Iraq with or without an UN resolution.

If you can't believe that Chirac is acting out of principle and the common opinion of his public, then there is similarly no reason to believe that the US is invading Iraq to remove Saddam.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by FZ+
Chirac threatened to use the veto for the same reason the US threatened to invade Iraq with or without an UN resolution.

If you can't believe that Chirac is acting out of principle and the common opinion of his public, then there is similarly no reason to believe that the US is invading Iraq to remove Saddam.

I was talking about the hypocrisy of the French government, which repeatedly sent its soldiers to foreign territories without UN approval when it decided it was in its national interest to do so, but decided to insist on the requirement for UN approval only when the US government decided it was in its interest to do so. That is a very blatant example of hypocrisy on the part of France regardless of who one would prefer to be his president (Schroeder perhaps, Chirac probably not), regardless of whether one voted for Bush or not (I did not), regardless of whether the American decision to go to war against Iraq is right or wrong (I think at this point it may be the lesser of evils), and regardless of whether the U.S. is equally hypocritical (which it is).

 

[Zargawee]

If you can't believe that Chirac is acting out of principle and the common opinion of his public, then there is similarly no reason to believe that the US is invading Iraq to remove Saddam.

The reason is obvios , US And UK Want the fields of Oil , and wants to remove the most powerful arab country .
There's also a reason for UK to follow US, which is that The English Currancy is Going Down because of the success of the Euro , and if the Euro completes it's success , this will lead to make the Euro competor to The US Dollar .

Here In Jordan , we rely on The Us Dollar , but some investors are changing into Euro , becuase they see a very bright future for this currancy.

Back to the main subject , I think we have the right to suport the iraqi side , Not becuase they defend Saddam , but Only becuase they are arabs , and arabs are brothers .

 

[russ_watters]

The reason is obvios , US And UK Want the fields of Oil

If we had wanted to keep the oil, we would not have put out the fires then GIVEN THEM BACK to Iraq and Kuait in 1991. You will soon see (again) how wrong you are.

 

[russ_watters]

I was talking about the hypocrisy of the French government, which repeatedly sent its soldiers to foreign territories without UN approval when it decided it was in its national interest to do so, but decided to insist on the requirement for UN approval only when the US government decided it was in its interest to do so.

France is in fact fighting an unsanctioned war in the Ivory Coast right now. No UN approval was sought or given. Are they wrong for fighting it? Does it make them hypocrites? Absolutely.

 

[FZ+]

The following are random examples:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2622511.stm
I draw your attention to the following line:

Former colonial power France has some 2,500 troops in Ivory Coast in a bid to enforce the fragile ceasefire.

http://www.iht.com/articles/85092.htm
See:

Virtually no one in France, Africa, the United States or the United Nations has attacked France's involvement in the Ivory Coast, its richest former colony in Black Africa, as neo-colonialist or unwanted. Indeed Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, and a number of West African chiefs of state, came to Paris as part of the supporting cast over the weekend that was meant to give the Ivory Coast accord a look of gravitas.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/2/5/235723/8626

meanwhile, what is the United States doing? where are the troops, the stealth bombers, the high-powered diplomats? dithering outside iraq. the French -the French!- are left to try and avert this potential catastrophe.

Now, there is a critical difference here. The French are here to enforce a ceasefire. They were called on regarding a conflict that was already occurring, and they are in agreement with the UN. The same is not true for america. The situations are explicitly different. So no hypocrisy.

 

[russ_watters]

Now, there is a critical difference here. The French are here to enforce a ceasefire. They were called on regarding a conflict that was already occurring, and they are in agreement with the UN. The same is not true for america. The situations are explicitly different. So no hypocrisy.

Is there a UN resolution in force regarding this action? Did France even seek one? Unless the answer to BOTH of those questions is yes, then France is indeed hypocritical on this issue. It doesn't matter WHY they are doing it, just that they are doing it WITHOUT UN SANCTION.

meanwhile, what is the United States doing? where are the troops, the stealth bombers, the high-powered diplomats? dithering outside iraq. the French -the French!- are left to try and avert this potential catastrophe.

Further deepening the hypocrisy. Whoever is expressing that opinion chastizes the US for making France go it alone. But France refuses to support the US - in fact France is actively HINDERING the US.

Clarification: I left out an important word in my last post.

Are they wrong for fighting it?

*NO!*

 

[Nicool003]

anyway, i hear a lot of people bad mouthing the american president about the possibility of war, here in hippie land (that would be orygun) there are many marches for peace...yet i don't see the same loud support for our troops that are away from home, their families, sleeping on the floors/sand/ground etc, away from any communication source to call their wife, their children...

so here's food for thought...instead of protesting how our government is making choices, lend some care, compassion and support to the men and women who are sacrificing by sending letters, care packages, pictures and words of love and support for the tremendous courage they have for being on the forefront of this nation's security...

you bet kerrie, even though I have a few friends stationed in the middle east I still support the war. we can't sit and wait for another act of terrorism. I just hope it can be quick, successful and with minimal loss.

I AGREE! I supposrt the troops and I too hope this war goes by quick, with minimal loss. Thank you for making this topic Kerrie I was looking for something like this!

 

[Nicool003]

FZ you have much of your post backwards. Like:

meanwhile, what is the United States doing? where are the troops, the stealth bombers, the high-powered diplomats? dithering outside iraq. the French -the French!- are left to try and avert this potential catastrophe.

Hmmm I recently recall the French getting caught with secret trade with Iraq along with a cetrtan number of suspicious things...


BTW FZ! THIS IS A THREAD TO OFFER SUPPORT TO OUR TROOPS AND I DO NOT SEE YOU DOING THAT SO PERHAPS YOU SHOULD GO POST THIS IN ANOTHER THREAD!

 

[Sting]

Hi Nicool,

Please try to refrain from yelling. It's likely to start flaming. Thanks.

Hi FZ+,

If you wish to discuss the political aspects of the current situation, feel free to start another thread or continue with another discussion concerning this (as I am sure there are plenty of them).

Thanks Nicool and FZ+

 

[kyleb]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I completely agree. It saddens me how few people can require that not supporting a war means not supporting the troops. Supporting the troops is ENTIRELY about hoping the come back alive. What they fight for or even IF they fight is irrelevant to the desire to see them return alive.

well if they were not going over to fight the war then supporting them would be different. for instance if they went simply to guard inspectors in an accelerated search program, that i could support. also, i should point out that i have a friend who will ship out any day; i am always supportive of people who do things that i believe are good and especially my friends; but i cannot support him on this, especially because he does not think the cause is just either. his argument is that he will not be in much danger himself, will make enough extra pay to buy a new computer, and will avoid going to jail. so basically he has been bribed/blacked-mailed into killing people. i cannot support our government for doing such things and i cannot support those who let our government do it to them. at least i can not do it and still feel like i am being a good person.

 

[russ_watters]

but i cannot support him on this,

But do you hope he comes back ALIVE or hope he DIES? That really is the question you need to ask yourself. Here is a reasonable opinion: "I don't support the war you are fighting or the reasons you are fighting it but I hope you come back alive."

 

[Laser Eyes]

Originally posted by russ_watters
But do you hope he comes back ALIVE or hope he DIES? That really is the question you need to ask yourself. Here is a reasonable opinion: "I don't support the war you are fighting or the reasons you are fighting it but I hope you come back alive."

russ, I completely agree. You have stated the only legitimate support you can give to the men and women fighting the war if you do not support the war. You can hope they return alive and healthy.

I do not believe it is possible to support troops in any mental or physical way whether it is by letters, care packages or anything else if you take a position in opposition to the war. Do you think your support even in such an apparently harmless manner can make no difference? If you do then you are fooling yourself. What if the comfort you give to a soldier improves his frame of mind so he fires his gun more accurately and kills someone who might otherwise have lived? By your goodwill support you have helped to kill other people. To show any support to troops and say you oppose the war is hypocritical. But like any decent person we should all hope they return alive and well and wish the same for all countries' forces.

Laser Eyes

 

[drag]

Greetings !

USA ! USA ! USA !

Originally posted by drag
It is fortunate that a super-power like the US exists
and can act without this corrupted institution.

Originally posted by zk4586
Fortunate? I find nothing fortunate in the fact that the US is a country which uses it's power to bully other nations into submitting to whatever suits the US. I find nothing fortunate in the fact that a country which was founded on the ideals of freedom and liberty would use its military strength and economic superiority so aggressively that its image becomes one of capriciousness, arrogance, and brutality.

The USA was founded on the ideals of freedom
and liberty. If you remember - this freedom and
liberty was achieved through force. We are not
living in a black & white world. Not all wars are
bad, some are very good.

The UN is a pathetic institute when it comes to
deciding upon military action at present. The UN
can only, and even then in a poor way, handle
a real war.

Is the UN your idea of freedom and liberty ?!
The UN, if I may remind you, is an organization
where all countries are represented. There are
many countries in the world where there is no
freedom or liberty. This corrupted organization
draws descisions based on the opinion of tyrants.
While the US follows real democracy, its ideals and
intrests, this organization abides to only one
intrest - its internal stability.

The US is freeing people from a tyrant. Perhaps,
if you were an Iraqi citizen and you knew how
life is there and in the US and "western" countries
by comparisson - you'd have a "slightly" different
opinion on the subject.

People living in democratic countries throughout
their lives can not understand this. Do you really
think that absolute rulers care about the UN and
its treaties or human rights ? They're absolute
rulers - they only care about themselves, their own
greatness and power, their life-style and feeling
of control. They, unlike democratic countries, have
no problem to lie, kill, cheat, produce whatever
weapons they like for their own protection
and for their plans of conquest for further greatness.
The people are there just for the ruler's benefit.
Saddam disarming himself due to UN "pressure" is
just a joke. What does such "pressure" do to him ?
Do you think that the sanctions hurt him personally ?

Of course, that the US also has other interests in the
area, except protecting itself and the "western"
world (some of which apparently just won't "get it"
until there are explosions outside their houses).
Of course, that when african countries kill each other
by the tens of phousands they could also
intervene and force settlements - although these
are not at all threats to US security, unlike Iraq
which giving it's weapons to terrorists can cause
even greater catastrophies. But, the world is not
black & white, like I said. So, does it make it a
bad thing - certainly not !

Live long and prosper.

 

[kyleb]

but drag, we got our freedom by fending of those who would rather kill us than see us have it, not by attacking others. just because things are not as black and white does not give anyone the right to go painting the world red with blood.

Originally posted by russ_watters
But do you hope he comes back ALIVE or hope he DIES? That really is the question you need to ask yourself. Here is a reasonable opinion: "I don't support the war you are fighting or the reasons you are fighting it but I hope you come back alive."

well if what leads up to coming back alive includes killing people who did not make the choice to fight, i cannot wish him back alive. he is making his own choice, and a self-admittedly selfish one. if i were to which him safe passage, i feel i should do the same for thieves, drunk drivers, murderers, terrorists, and all the others who act out of similarly selfish motives; i cannot bring myself to do that. besides, we all die so i do not see any reason to waist much time worrying one way or another about that; it is how we live that is important.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by kyleb
[well if what leads up to coming back alive includes killing people who did not make the choice to fight, i cannot wish him back alive. he is making his own choice, and a self-admittedly selfish one. if i were to which him safe passage, i feel i should do the same for thieves, drunk drivers, murderers, terrorists, and all the others who act out of similarly selfish motives; i cannot bring myself to do that. besides, we all die so i do not see any reason to waist much time worrying one way or another about that; it is how we live that is important. [/B]

Disgusting !
(I just don't have any other word for it.)

 

[kyleb]

you say it is disgusting to not support people in their selfish motives? are you recomending i do otherwise?

 

[Nicool003]

Kyleb what the heck. once again I am TRYING to refrain from yelling but I swear if sting hadn't asked me too...


They are not being selfish! they are doing their jobs and doing what the are asked to do. And their job is to protect us and also ungrateful annoying people like you.


There sting I didn't yell.

 

[kyleb]

Nicool003, it seems you missed my previous comment to which i was referring to:

Originally posted by kyleb
also, i should point out that i have a friend who will ship out any day; i am always supportive of people who do things that i believe are good and especially my friends; but i cannot support him on this, especially because he does not think the cause is just either. his argument is that he will not be in much danger himself, will make enough extra pay to buy a new computer, and will avoid going to jail.

and yes, i am by no means grateful to people who do things that i do not think should be done and still claim it is for me, especially when they use my tax dollars to do it. if you are annoyed by my opinion, i recommend you lighten up on the intolerance and learn to accept that individuals are different by nature.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Sting
Hi Nicool,

Please try to refrain from yelling. It's likely to start flaming. Thanks.

Hi FZ+,

If you wish to discuss the political aspects of the current situation, feel free to start another thread or continue with another discussion concerning this (as I am sure there are plenty of them).

Thanks Nicool and FZ+

Hmmm... Wasn't it I who called for both pro and anti war people to support the actual soldiers in Iraq, only to be told that it was somehow "impossible" or "hypocritical"? I was merely responding to kat and other's implication that France is anti-war merely to be against us etc etc, which I vehmently disagree. Hmm... maybe I shouldn't have responded, I guess.
The fact of the matter is that now that the war has begun, it cannot be un-begun. We can say whether we feel it was wrong in the first place, but in terms of humanitarian and diplomatic effects it is best if the war is over quickly without many casualties. That's why when certain anti-war countries now wish for a quick victory, they are not being hypocritical. That's why anti-war marchers do announce on news their support for actual troops.
Because, in this case, a desire for peace and a desire for victory co-incide.