War.

War.

Joined: August 2nd, 2001, 4:29 pm

March 20th, 2003, 4:08 pm #1

After hearing the news last night, I awoke this morning in the middle of a disagreement with my self. I have always objected to war. Always hated it. While I do my utmost to strive always for the greater good, I have never agreed with the loss of human life as being an acceptable tactic. And yet I find my self in a most peculiar position. This, well, it has to be done. And it causes much inner turmoil.

Brain: Since when do you support war?

Doc: Never. But this seems right.

Brain: By your own words "loss of human life is never the right course of action."

Doc: In this case it has to be.

Brain: Since when do you go around eating your own words? I thought the loss of life was a lesson you learned the hard way?

Doc: I did.

Brain: Did the lesson not stick?

Doc: It sure did. It still hurts. However, personal issues aside, this is what must be done.

Brain: You're full of crap Doc.

Doc: Shut up Brain.

Brain: No. You are supporting the loss of human life. I am going to have to punish you.

Doc: Bugger off you...

And it goes on in this fashion all morning.

On a different note, the age old question comes up again... Is it anti-patriotic to protest war? Or is it patriotic to be the moral compass in a Democracy? (I use that term only in it's base sense) That's been floating around my mind as well. Seeing all these boys faces on TV.. And they are boys. They barely have the ability to grow a beard... They are young, their eyes glazed with fear... These boy soldiers put my mind back in time to another time... I lived during that age. I did not go to Viet Nam. (Thank God for piss poor eye sight and the near loss of vision in one eye) I did however see the mess brought home. During my time spent on the west coast, I spent a lot of time visiting some of these poor boys in hospitals and boarding homes. After seeing the consequences, the very idea of war makes me ill.

After protesting war for so long, and, when one actually starts... Where does one draw the line? To protest war but to have the desire to support our troops... Creates conflict. Can one do both?

I am probably not making much sense, considering the confusion in my own mind. I should probably delete this... However, maybe others have doubts or questions as well and this could serve as a jumping point.
Quote
Like
Share

FoxBat
FoxBat

March 20th, 2003, 5:10 pm #2

But about anti-war being patriotic, it's obvious.

If you believe that war is bad because you like Iraq better than the U.S.: this would include the definition of being unpatriotic towards the U.S.

However, if you believe that war is bad for Iraq and the U.S., bad for the world at large, or bad even for just the U.S., then you are certainly still a U.S. patriot.

In a true democracy, patriotism needs to be determined by goals. War is only one possible means towards the interests of the U.S. and the world. Everyone who values their country as a democracy needs to put forth their own opinion of the best means for pursuing that goal as a part of the democratic process. Only those who value their country as some form of dictatorship/oligarchy can put define Patriotism as "going along with what the government thinks is best."
Quote
Share

Lissa
Lissa

March 20th, 2003, 5:12 pm #3

After hearing the news last night, I awoke this morning in the middle of a disagreement with my self. I have always objected to war. Always hated it. While I do my utmost to strive always for the greater good, I have never agreed with the loss of human life as being an acceptable tactic. And yet I find my self in a most peculiar position. This, well, it has to be done. And it causes much inner turmoil.

Brain: Since when do you support war?

Doc: Never. But this seems right.

Brain: By your own words "loss of human life is never the right course of action."

Doc: In this case it has to be.

Brain: Since when do you go around eating your own words? I thought the loss of life was a lesson you learned the hard way?

Doc: I did.

Brain: Did the lesson not stick?

Doc: It sure did. It still hurts. However, personal issues aside, this is what must be done.

Brain: You're full of crap Doc.

Doc: Shut up Brain.

Brain: No. You are supporting the loss of human life. I am going to have to punish you.

Doc: Bugger off you...

And it goes on in this fashion all morning.

On a different note, the age old question comes up again... Is it anti-patriotic to protest war? Or is it patriotic to be the moral compass in a Democracy? (I use that term only in it's base sense) That's been floating around my mind as well. Seeing all these boys faces on TV.. And they are boys. They barely have the ability to grow a beard... They are young, their eyes glazed with fear... These boy soldiers put my mind back in time to another time... I lived during that age. I did not go to Viet Nam. (Thank God for piss poor eye sight and the near loss of vision in one eye) I did however see the mess brought home. During my time spent on the west coast, I spent a lot of time visiting some of these poor boys in hospitals and boarding homes. After seeing the consequences, the very idea of war makes me ill.

After protesting war for so long, and, when one actually starts... Where does one draw the line? To protest war but to have the desire to support our troops... Creates conflict. Can one do both?

I am probably not making much sense, considering the confusion in my own mind. I should probably delete this... However, maybe others have doubts or questions as well and this could serve as a jumping point.
...I find that the facts dictate that this is the wrong time, but the right regime. As it stands right now, Iraq doesn't present a clear and present danger to anyone outside the immeditate area of the Middle East.

On the other hand, Kim il Jong and North Korea do present a clear and present danger to the US with the fact that they have nuclear weapons and a missile system that can reach the western US. Likewise, North Korea is known for being the largest weapons exporter in the world, even larger than the US, China, and Russia. North Korea also has no qualms about who it sells to and what it sells. I would be far more afraid of terrorists buying items from North Korea and using it than getting WMDs from Iraq since the WMDs are Hussien's crown jewels (so to speak).

So, while I find the facts dicatate that Hussien must be removed in Iraq, the facts also show that now is not the time while it is the time to do something about Kim il Jong and North Korea.
Quote
Share

Joined: August 2nd, 2001, 4:29 pm

March 20th, 2003, 6:00 pm #4

After hearing the news last night, I awoke this morning in the middle of a disagreement with my self. I have always objected to war. Always hated it. While I do my utmost to strive always for the greater good, I have never agreed with the loss of human life as being an acceptable tactic. And yet I find my self in a most peculiar position. This, well, it has to be done. And it causes much inner turmoil.

Brain: Since when do you support war?

Doc: Never. But this seems right.

Brain: By your own words "loss of human life is never the right course of action."

Doc: In this case it has to be.

Brain: Since when do you go around eating your own words? I thought the loss of life was a lesson you learned the hard way?

Doc: I did.

Brain: Did the lesson not stick?

Doc: It sure did. It still hurts. However, personal issues aside, this is what must be done.

Brain: You're full of crap Doc.

Doc: Shut up Brain.

Brain: No. You are supporting the loss of human life. I am going to have to punish you.

Doc: Bugger off you...

And it goes on in this fashion all morning.

On a different note, the age old question comes up again... Is it anti-patriotic to protest war? Or is it patriotic to be the moral compass in a Democracy? (I use that term only in it's base sense) That's been floating around my mind as well. Seeing all these boys faces on TV.. And they are boys. They barely have the ability to grow a beard... They are young, their eyes glazed with fear... These boy soldiers put my mind back in time to another time... I lived during that age. I did not go to Viet Nam. (Thank God for piss poor eye sight and the near loss of vision in one eye) I did however see the mess brought home. During my time spent on the west coast, I spent a lot of time visiting some of these poor boys in hospitals and boarding homes. After seeing the consequences, the very idea of war makes me ill.

After protesting war for so long, and, when one actually starts... Where does one draw the line? To protest war but to have the desire to support our troops... Creates conflict. Can one do both?

I am probably not making much sense, considering the confusion in my own mind. I should probably delete this... However, maybe others have doubts or questions as well and this could serve as a jumping point.
Iraq has been supplying weapons to the Palistinians and supporting the urban terror campaign in Israel. He does indeed have chemical and biological weapons, as it has been confirmed that Saddam's troops are armed with them. (Or so sources from the Pentagon said in a press release) Our boys are in a clear and present danger during invasion. Saddam has ties with dozens of terrorist organizations all over the world, provind funding and weapons. He is a known menace. He is setting him self up as a little tin god, calling him self Saladin and trying to rebuild Babylon in his own words.

As for my patriotism, that has always been a funny thing. I have always hated what the American government has become... I dislike what America is. I am however, still deeply in love with the Constitution and the ideals presented therein. I do not care for the Shrub... Yet his Coalition of the Willing struck a chord with me. People who do the right thing are seldom popular (God how I know that) and taking the right path often means you will be taking it alone. There is a certain moral responsibility buried under all of this. While I still can't figure out which side to take with my self, my own conflict of interests going on inside my head, I do know that certain threats must be neutralized by those that have the capacity to do so. Korean threat included. I lived during the Cold War. We simply do not need another threat lurking just under the surface creating tension. It must be removed. But at what cost? I can't figure that out yet. While I can not accept an action that takes human lives, I find my self in the awkward position of finding out that it must happen so that life may be preserved. It has me tied up in knots thinking about my own morals and ideals. My brain just wont shut the hell up.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 21st, 2002, 5:55 pm

March 20th, 2003, 7:32 pm #5

...I find that the facts dictate that this is the wrong time, but the right regime. As it stands right now, Iraq doesn't present a clear and present danger to anyone outside the immeditate area of the Middle East.

On the other hand, Kim il Jong and North Korea do present a clear and present danger to the US with the fact that they have nuclear weapons and a missile system that can reach the western US. Likewise, North Korea is known for being the largest weapons exporter in the world, even larger than the US, China, and Russia. North Korea also has no qualms about who it sells to and what it sells. I would be far more afraid of terrorists buying items from North Korea and using it than getting WMDs from Iraq since the WMDs are Hussien's crown jewels (so to speak).

So, while I find the facts dicatate that Hussien must be removed in Iraq, the facts also show that now is not the time while it is the time to do something about Kim il Jong and North Korea.
Korea may have more potential threat (in general terms of single weapon damage) since they DO have nuclear weapons, but realistically, which poses a larger threat to their neighbors and their region; Korea or Iraq?

My answer would be Iraq.

Iraq has already invaded one of their neighbors, and attacked others without nuclear weapons, would the cost to root-out Saddam be greater or less if he possessed nuclear weapons? Some will say that there is no proof he is developing nuclear weapons, but with the recently uncovered arms that were shipped from Korea, through France, then Syria, then to Iraq (or something like this) how can anyone be sure what Saddam does and does not have?

As much as I dislike the idea of a war to force compliance, in this case I think it's justified, if fo no other reason than to legitimize the UN, even over the protests of other UN nations. Saddam was given less than 6 months to display all of his WMD and to destroy them back in 1991 as conditions that the coalition stop attacking. The forces stopped attacking in good faith, but Saddam has NEVER complied with his side of the agreement in the 12 long years since Desert Storm.

This war should have happened in 1998 when Saddam kicked the inspectors out, but due to different political things going on at the time didn't. Essentially this is conflict should rightly be called "Desert Storm Part 2" since Saddam never lived up to the terms of the cease-fire originally, and hence conflict began again.

Not to open a huge can of worms, but how is it Saddam is receiving virtually NO bad press for staling and delaying and lying to the UN and it's inspectors but when the US tries to enforce the resolutions passed by the UN (which apparently the UN never planned to enforce) it is labelled as the aggressor?

In any event, right war, right target, right time, IMHO.
Quote
Like
Share

Nystul
Nystul

March 20th, 2003, 7:47 pm #6

After hearing the news last night, I awoke this morning in the middle of a disagreement with my self. I have always objected to war. Always hated it. While I do my utmost to strive always for the greater good, I have never agreed with the loss of human life as being an acceptable tactic. And yet I find my self in a most peculiar position. This, well, it has to be done. And it causes much inner turmoil.

Brain: Since when do you support war?

Doc: Never. But this seems right.

Brain: By your own words "loss of human life is never the right course of action."

Doc: In this case it has to be.

Brain: Since when do you go around eating your own words? I thought the loss of life was a lesson you learned the hard way?

Doc: I did.

Brain: Did the lesson not stick?

Doc: It sure did. It still hurts. However, personal issues aside, this is what must be done.

Brain: You're full of crap Doc.

Doc: Shut up Brain.

Brain: No. You are supporting the loss of human life. I am going to have to punish you.

Doc: Bugger off you...

And it goes on in this fashion all morning.

On a different note, the age old question comes up again... Is it anti-patriotic to protest war? Or is it patriotic to be the moral compass in a Democracy? (I use that term only in it's base sense) That's been floating around my mind as well. Seeing all these boys faces on TV.. And they are boys. They barely have the ability to grow a beard... They are young, their eyes glazed with fear... These boy soldiers put my mind back in time to another time... I lived during that age. I did not go to Viet Nam. (Thank God for piss poor eye sight and the near loss of vision in one eye) I did however see the mess brought home. During my time spent on the west coast, I spent a lot of time visiting some of these poor boys in hospitals and boarding homes. After seeing the consequences, the very idea of war makes me ill.

After protesting war for so long, and, when one actually starts... Where does one draw the line? To protest war but to have the desire to support our troops... Creates conflict. Can one do both?

I am probably not making much sense, considering the confusion in my own mind. I should probably delete this... However, maybe others have doubts or questions as well and this could serve as a jumping point.
Where does one draw the line? To protest war but to have the desire to support our troops... Creates conflict. Can one do both?

It most cases, and particularly in this case, I would say no. When peace was still a legitimate possibility, then sure; protests can serve to protect our troops from dying in a cause some might not consider necessary (or even flat out wrong). But at this point, the shooting has started, and protests are not going to bring it to an end. In my opinion, such protests at this point in time serve no purpose other than to convince the rest of the world that even Americans don't think this should be happening. The best it can do is nothing, and the worst it can do is to hurt the war effort in some way (costing us a potential ally, for example), prolonging the conflict and costing our troops' lives.

So I think people who strongly oppose the war face a dilemma right now. They can choose to take the stand, or they can choose to put it aside and support the troops, but they can't really do both.

At this point, the fastest way to return to peace is probably to secure victory as quickly as possible. I think the line "Pray for peace, and pass the ammunition," is fitting right about now.
Quote
Share

Joined: March 21st, 2002, 5:55 pm

March 20th, 2003, 8:01 pm #7

After hearing the news last night, I awoke this morning in the middle of a disagreement with my self. I have always objected to war. Always hated it. While I do my utmost to strive always for the greater good, I have never agreed with the loss of human life as being an acceptable tactic. And yet I find my self in a most peculiar position. This, well, it has to be done. And it causes much inner turmoil.

Brain: Since when do you support war?

Doc: Never. But this seems right.

Brain: By your own words "loss of human life is never the right course of action."

Doc: In this case it has to be.

Brain: Since when do you go around eating your own words? I thought the loss of life was a lesson you learned the hard way?

Doc: I did.

Brain: Did the lesson not stick?

Doc: It sure did. It still hurts. However, personal issues aside, this is what must be done.

Brain: You're full of crap Doc.

Doc: Shut up Brain.

Brain: No. You are supporting the loss of human life. I am going to have to punish you.

Doc: Bugger off you...

And it goes on in this fashion all morning.

On a different note, the age old question comes up again... Is it anti-patriotic to protest war? Or is it patriotic to be the moral compass in a Democracy? (I use that term only in it's base sense) That's been floating around my mind as well. Seeing all these boys faces on TV.. And they are boys. They barely have the ability to grow a beard... They are young, their eyes glazed with fear... These boy soldiers put my mind back in time to another time... I lived during that age. I did not go to Viet Nam. (Thank God for piss poor eye sight and the near loss of vision in one eye) I did however see the mess brought home. During my time spent on the west coast, I spent a lot of time visiting some of these poor boys in hospitals and boarding homes. After seeing the consequences, the very idea of war makes me ill.

After protesting war for so long, and, when one actually starts... Where does one draw the line? To protest war but to have the desire to support our troops... Creates conflict. Can one do both?

I am probably not making much sense, considering the confusion in my own mind. I should probably delete this... However, maybe others have doubts or questions as well and this could serve as a jumping point.
There sometimes comes a time and place where force is the only solution to be found for an issue. If you don't believe this then you have never had someone keep trying to knock your block off while you're trying to talk your way out of a situation.

In a nutshell; some people respect NOTHING but force and won't do anything they aren't forced to do.

I don't think anyone likes war, but sometimes, it's necessary, IMHO. War can be scary however; having to deal with the prospect of having to shoot someone, come under fire yourself, the terror of bio/chem weapons, etc, yet it must sometimes be done.

One thing that the majority of those here in the US don't understand is living under a dictator or tyranical regime. I don't know what it is like living under such a "leader" myself but I CAN understand the need to end the reign of such a "ruler" can be a "noble" cause. How self-centered are those who live here, in freedom, without having to worry about food or shelter or having someone barge into your house and drag you off to be slaughtered somewhere, or your family held hostage pending your cooperation? I don't understand those who, having everything, say it is wrong and immoral to help those who don't share the same freedoms. It would be like denying food to a starving person, while eating from a full plate yourself.

Anywho...

Regarding protesting war but supporting the troops, it is entirely possible. One of the things I think the "Vietnam generation" should pay for is their treatment of the US military personell at the time. It's as if the protestor's threw a children's temper tantrum that they couldn't get their way so decided to beat up those who had NO CHOICE whether to go to war or not.

It's one thing to protest an Administration if you don't like what is being done, but for god's sake, do you REALLY think the military people WANT to fight? Sure some of them do, but for most they are just doing their job. Thankfully the majority of society today isn't as senl-centered as the "hippy" generation and can understand this simple concept. As a former soldier myself, I can say that the support I have seen for our troops now is a welcome change to all the "baby-killer" crap that happened during Vietnam.

Yes you CAN protest war and still support our troops. War is never a good solution, but if you try every diplomatic measure possible and someone isn't dealing in good faith, sometimes armed force to comply is the only available answer. Saddam had 12 years to give up ALL of his WMD and he refused. If he had complied as some, like South Africa, had done willingly, this issue would have never gotten this far.
Quote
Like
Share

ShadowHM
ShadowHM

March 20th, 2003, 8:11 pm #8

Iraq has been supplying weapons to the Palistinians and supporting the urban terror campaign in Israel. He does indeed have chemical and biological weapons, as it has been confirmed that Saddam's troops are armed with them. (Or so sources from the Pentagon said in a press release) Our boys are in a clear and present danger during invasion. Saddam has ties with dozens of terrorist organizations all over the world, provind funding and weapons. He is a known menace. He is setting him self up as a little tin god, calling him self Saladin and trying to rebuild Babylon in his own words.

As for my patriotism, that has always been a funny thing. I have always hated what the American government has become... I dislike what America is. I am however, still deeply in love with the Constitution and the ideals presented therein. I do not care for the Shrub... Yet his Coalition of the Willing struck a chord with me. People who do the right thing are seldom popular (God how I know that) and taking the right path often means you will be taking it alone. There is a certain moral responsibility buried under all of this. While I still can't figure out which side to take with my self, my own conflict of interests going on inside my head, I do know that certain threats must be neutralized by those that have the capacity to do so. Korean threat included. I lived during the Cold War. We simply do not need another threat lurking just under the surface creating tension. It must be removed. But at what cost? I can't figure that out yet. While I can not accept an action that takes human lives, I find my self in the awkward position of finding out that it must happen so that life may be preserved. It has me tied up in knots thinking about my own morals and ideals. My brain just wont shut the hell up.
S'welp me, I just can't stop myself.....

The proof of the pudding is in the eating!
Quote
Share

Joined: July 19th, 2000, 6:16 am

March 20th, 2003, 8:26 pm #9

...I find that the facts dictate that this is the wrong time, but the right regime. As it stands right now, Iraq doesn't present a clear and present danger to anyone outside the immeditate area of the Middle East.

On the other hand, Kim il Jong and North Korea do present a clear and present danger to the US with the fact that they have nuclear weapons and a missile system that can reach the western US. Likewise, North Korea is known for being the largest weapons exporter in the world, even larger than the US, China, and Russia. North Korea also has no qualms about who it sells to and what it sells. I would be far more afraid of terrorists buying items from North Korea and using it than getting WMDs from Iraq since the WMDs are Hussien's crown jewels (so to speak).

So, while I find the facts dicatate that Hussien must be removed in Iraq, the facts also show that now is not the time while it is the time to do something about Kim il Jong and North Korea.
I agree with right place, wrong time, but for different reasons.

The USA is spending somewhere between $80B and $100B USD on this war. In my opinion, just about every cent of that is better spent rebuilding Afghanistan. While inspectors are in Iraq, at least he won't be developing any new weapons. No, inspectors aren't a permanent solution but that's not what's needed at the moment. Afghanistan is in a sorry state - Karzai's power evaporates one centimetre outside the borders of Kabul and warlords own the land. Things are barely better than they were under the Taliban and are probably some degrees worse in outlying areas, where the Taliban used to mean no bandits (but now Taliban refugees are the bandits).

Does Iraq have weapons? Maybe, though no conclusive evidence has been found. Does Al-Qaeda? Maybe, but it's sure that they're looking for them. And when they want to find people to deliver them, they'll look at Afghanistan. Twenty years down the road when a group of Afghans blows up something else important, and the US military goes into Afghanistan again, they won't be met with cheers, but with a "No, we aren't falling for that 'liberation' line again." Every day that Afghanistan remains in chaos is more Afghans converted to Al-Qaeda. That's a threat. It's not as visible and it doesn't exactly exist right now, but it will unless something's done about it.

Iraq wasn't going to be a threat. Saddam knew what was going to happen if he ever used weapons of mass destruction - instant nuclear response. He may hate America, but Saddam always cared about his own skin and his own power first. In contrast, Afghanistan is developing the people that make perfect suicide bombers - people in a desperate situation, with no hope for improvement and nothing to live for. That's what's frightening.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 2nd, 2001, 4:29 pm

March 20th, 2003, 8:50 pm #10

There sometimes comes a time and place where force is the only solution to be found for an issue. If you don't believe this then you have never had someone keep trying to knock your block off while you're trying to talk your way out of a situation.

In a nutshell; some people respect NOTHING but force and won't do anything they aren't forced to do.

I don't think anyone likes war, but sometimes, it's necessary, IMHO. War can be scary however; having to deal with the prospect of having to shoot someone, come under fire yourself, the terror of bio/chem weapons, etc, yet it must sometimes be done.

One thing that the majority of those here in the US don't understand is living under a dictator or tyranical regime. I don't know what it is like living under such a "leader" myself but I CAN understand the need to end the reign of such a "ruler" can be a "noble" cause. How self-centered are those who live here, in freedom, without having to worry about food or shelter or having someone barge into your house and drag you off to be slaughtered somewhere, or your family held hostage pending your cooperation? I don't understand those who, having everything, say it is wrong and immoral to help those who don't share the same freedoms. It would be like denying food to a starving person, while eating from a full plate yourself.

Anywho...

Regarding protesting war but supporting the troops, it is entirely possible. One of the things I think the "Vietnam generation" should pay for is their treatment of the US military personell at the time. It's as if the protestor's threw a children's temper tantrum that they couldn't get their way so decided to beat up those who had NO CHOICE whether to go to war or not.

It's one thing to protest an Administration if you don't like what is being done, but for god's sake, do you REALLY think the military people WANT to fight? Sure some of them do, but for most they are just doing their job. Thankfully the majority of society today isn't as senl-centered as the "hippy" generation and can understand this simple concept. As a former soldier myself, I can say that the support I have seen for our troops now is a welcome change to all the "baby-killer" crap that happened during Vietnam.

Yes you CAN protest war and still support our troops. War is never a good solution, but if you try every diplomatic measure possible and someone isn't dealing in good faith, sometimes armed force to comply is the only available answer. Saddam had 12 years to give up ALL of his WMD and he refused. If he had complied as some, like South Africa, had done willingly, this issue would have never gotten this far.
The whole idea of trying to talk somebody out of something while they are trying to knock your block off is flawed.

Pacifist though I might be, it is rather simple for anybody who has learned to take said person into an armlock, and, with the slightest pressure that even a 4 year old could produce, place enough strain that any resistance could break the wrist and dislocate the shoulder. Loss of life is not needed in most situations, threats can be neutralized. I learned from my Aikido instructor Ernie, that defensive posturing is vital. To enter conflict is a situation where both sides lose. To prevent conflict from happening is key. However, should conflict be entered, all that can be done to end it quickly and cleanly with as little injury as possible should be done.

And the same principle should apply here. If we must enter conflict, make it as quick and clean as possible, with as little hurt as possible. Hostility should be removed as a factor, replacing it with compassion and kindness, as they can be powerful weapons in the right hands. Might I remind folks of the bombing campaign during WWII where the only thing dropped was food, clothes, and radios. That won us much needed support.

Inspite of how I feel this moment, I still think that any course that takes human life should be avoided at all costs. If life must be taken, I would rather it be my own.
Quote
Like
Share