Our ambassadors of peace speak

[PT]

So then you are saying that unless you are in the military, you should have NO opinion on whether or not we go to war? That is hypocrisy at its best.

Thats not what I said at all. I said "while refusing to go". That means you can advocate war without being in the military as long as you are willing to die for the same cause that you would want others to die for. War isn't a silly game. It deserves a lot more consideration than a knee-jerk reaction.

That I will agree with. And since you have no idea how much consideration I, or anyone else has given the subject, you don't have any right to say we are making a knee-jerk decision. What I am looking at is the fact that Saddam has continually lied to the UN, lied to the US, and lied to his own people. He has shown that he is no better than a terrorist who takes hostages to get what he wants, and is willing to kill the hostages to prove his point. This man should not be a leader of a country, and certainly not a leader of a country that has biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons at their disposal. That is my reasons why I think we should go in and take him out.

Maybe it shouldn't be a full scale war, if there was a way to go in and take him out without making it a full scale war, I would be very supportive of such a plan. I just don't think that's going to happen. Even if we take him out, his supporters would take over where he left off, so what we need to do is a clean sweep of the current regime, and help the country to establish a new one.

That's just my OPINION, I could be wrong.

 

[Squiggy]

That I will agree with. And since you have no idea how much consideration I, or anyone else has given the subject, you don't have any right to say we are making a knee-jerk decision. What I am looking at is the fact that Saddam has continually lied to the UN, lied to the US, and lied to his own people. He has shown that he is no better than a terrorist who takes hostages to get what he wants, and is willing to kill the hostages to prove his point. This man should not be a leader of a country, and certainly not a leader of a country that has biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons at their disposal. That is my reasons why I think we should go in and take him out.

Maybe it shouldn't be a full scale war, if there was a way to go in and take him out without making it a full scale war, I would be very supportive of such a plan. I just don't think that's going to happen. Even if we take him out, his supporters would take over where he left off, so what we need to do is a clean sweep of the current regime, and help the country to establish a new one.

That's just my OPINION, I could be wrong.

Wow...Progress. I actually agree with those statements, PT. I just don't yet agree with the methods on the table to accomplish those ends.

 

[PT]

Oh hell, what have I done.

j/k

So what do you propose? Ranger team going in and taking out the top officials?

 

[Squiggy]

I don't think we could effect a successful "black op" and get everyone we would need to. I do think that the regime is due to fall because of internal strife and we could affect the hastening of that. Its not as glorious or fast as a military insurgence, but, in the end, less Americans would be buried. And they may have or want children too.

 

[Gato_Solo]

My entire take on this? Everyone here has claimed their right to speak, and offer their opinions on this matter. However, they have forgotten, or neglected, to mention the fact that each right has a corresponding duty/responsibility. If you are going to stand by your rights, you should, at the very least, be willing to fight, and perhaps even die, to keep them. You may not like the way I say it...hell, you may not even like me, but the simple fact is that if you aren't willing to stand up for your rights, or expect others to do it for you, then you are a hypocrite. I forwent a career in computer programming in order to support and defend our constitution and our way of life. I did so of my own free will, and I am proud of the fact that I did so. If you choose not to serve, however, that does not mean that you should give up your rights. It does, however, mean that your opinion, however poignant, will be held in less regard by me than those who actually are serving. You say we should go to war, fine. Sign up, and follow me, otherwise you will be branded a hypocrite for wanting others to do your work for you.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Then you give us no alternative but to question your courage.

No, Gato. Anyone who has been on this board and read my previous posts knows why I'm not running out right now to join up. Congratualtions to you and Squiggy, though, for changing the debate from being about whether war with Iraq is justified to being about whether I'm a coward or not.

Military action is a function of failed diplomacy. You can't be diplomatic with a criminal.

And Saddam is a criminal.

Any reason you could give for not serving is most likely going to be lame, anyway.

That was always going to be the response to whatever I said, which is why I have refused to say anything.

Any stance you take dealing with military action from this point on will be met with derision and ridicule.

If it suits your purpose to take the debate there, then go ahead.

It's one thing to be physically/emotionally/religiously unfit for serving, and quite another to ask others to do the job for you.

I haven't asked anyone to do anything for me. The people who volunteer for the military have their own reasons for serving. Reasons that have nothing to do with me. I do not believe in the draft, and would never advocate having people sent off to fight against their will.

I do, however, live in a country that is run by civilians. The military is there to protect us from foreign enemies. Those who sign up know that that is their job-- it's why they signed up. They also know that the decision about who to fight is made by the civilian government, elected by the citizens of the country, and that those citizens have the right to an opinion on who we should be fighting.

It smacks of hypocrisy, and most likely is. You may not be a coward, but you certainly lack the fortitude to answer one simple question...and it is simple.

The question may be simple, but the answer is not. I can say anything I like about my willingness to serve, but any answer I give short of signing up will be dismissed as "lame" by those who simply want to get me out of the debate.

I'm not going to go away that easy, Gato.

 

[Squiggy]

Go Gato...

 

[Gato_Solo]

You're very good at spouting off your rights, but you must have missed my last post. I suggest you read that, and, instead of making yourself look even more hypocritical, think on it. By saying that we should go to war, and then refusing to sign up, you have done just what you said you didn't say. You opt out for 'personal reasons'. What's more personal than standing up and fighting for what you believe in? Up until now, you never even mentioned wanting to serve. Just that you wanted someone else to do your 'shit' details. Call Saddam a criminal, and that makes war so much better...Fact is, Saddam is an elected head of a foreign government. Operations to specifically remove him from power are also illegal. Now who's the criminal? I think it's you. You sure are thinking now, aren't you? But instead of thinking of a hasty retort, think about this...If you are unwilling to do a job, then why should I do it for you? That makes you no better than the person who created the job in the first place. If this job is that important, then nothing should stop you from rushing down to your local recruiter and putting pen to paper. If it isn't that important, then why are you so hot for this job to be completed?

 

[PT]

I understand your point a little better now Gato, you think that since you are Man enough to serve, and we're not, that you are somehow better than us. Not the case. The Military is there to protect the civilian life that we are so accustomed to. The norm is the civilian life, not the military. I do respect the troops, probably alot more than you know, as my Grandfather served in WW2 and Korea, My father served in Vietnam, and my older brother served in Desert Storm. Grandfather was Rainbow division, Father was a Marine Grunt, and Brother was 82nd Airborne. So don't be telling me that I have no idea what it is like to send others to battle for something I believe in, I know. I also know what my brother said to me before he left for Saudi 12 years ago. He looked at my 1 year old son, and told me he's doing it for him. If he doesn't make it back, it was for him. Thank God he made it back.

I do respect your cause, Gato, but what are you protecting if not the civilians of our country? You are willing to protect us, but not allow us to have the freedoms that you are protecting?

 

[HomeLAN]

Go, Ards.

The attitude that those not actively serving have less of a right to an opinion on a decision to go to war is inherently flawed. The military does not make those types of policy decisions, and there are reasons for that. Check out some history involving military coups if you doubt me.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm a huge supporter of the miltary. I grew up in that environment, and have nothing but respect for those who put their asses on the line. However, this does NOT give those folks' opnions a higher wieght than mine on this issue. It does when we're talking about how to go about it and minimize casualties, but NOT on the topic of whether the war is undertaken at all.

I agree with Ards that this was a masterful job of taking a real issue and twisting it into a "my dick's bigger then yours" contest.

 

[Squiggy]

Go, Ards.

The attitude that those not actively serving have less of a right to an opinion on a decision to go to war is inherently flawed. The military does not make those types of policy decisions, and there are reasons for that. Check out some history involving military coups if you doubt me.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm a huge supporter of the miltary. I grew up in that environment, and have nothing but respect for those who put their asses on the line. However, this does NOT give those folks' opnions a higher wieght than mine on this issue. It does when we're talking about how to go about it and minimize casualties, but NOT on the topic of whether the war is undertaken at all.

I agree with Ards that this was a masterful job of taking a real issue and twisting it into a "my dick's bigger then yours" contest.

The argument is about being willing to serve your beliefs. Its a matter of conviction. Not whether you are an active member of the military. Talk about twisting things....

 

[unclehobart]

lay down my life for the principle idea that the country was founded on? in a heartbeat.

 

[HomeLAN]

I have no qualms about fighting and dying for my beliefs.

It does, however, mean that your opinion, however poignant, will be held in less regard by me than those who actually are serving.

What did I twist, eh?

 

[Gato_Solo]

I understand your point a little better now Gato, you think that since you are Man enough to serve, and we're not, that you are somehow better than us. Not the case. The Military is there to protect the civilian life that we are so accustomed to. The norm is the civilian life, not the military. I do respect the troops, probably alot more than you know, as my Grandfather served in WW2 and Korea, My father served in Vietnam, and my older brother served in Desert Storm. Grandfather was Rainbow division, Father was a Marine Grunt, and Brother was 82nd Airborne. So don't be telling me that I have no idea what it is like to send others to battle for something I believe in, I know. I also know what my brother said to me before he left for Saudi 12 years ago. He looked at my 1 year old son, and told me he's doing it for him. If he doesn't make it back, it was for him. Thank God he made it back.

I do respect your cause, Gato, but what are you protecting if not the civilians of our country? You are willing to protect us, but not allow us to have the freedoms that you are protecting?

Who said that? I never did. I said that if you aren't willing to stand up for something, then you shouldn't ask somebody else to stand up for you. If you want to mis-read what I said, or add into it, then that's your bit, not what I said. If you're so hot to have somebody go out and do something for you, then you should be willing, nay, determined to go out also. As for the life you are accustomed to, it is your responsibility even moreso than mine to protect it. Before the war in Vietnam, there was a draft, and just about everybody served. After Vietnam, the draft was abolished, and every time the subject has come up, there are cries and laments about sons and daughters going off to war. Guess what. If everybodys son or daughter had a stake in this, I doubt we'd be so willing to throw lives away. I will go if ordered, but I do not go for you. I go to support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I will obey the lawful orders of the officers and NCO's appointed over me. That is my pledge, and that's what I'll do.

 

[Squiggy]

I have no qualms about fighting and dying for my beliefs.

It does, however, mean that your opinion, however poignant, will be held in less regard by me than those who actually are serving.

What did I twist, eh?

Even Gato's response was about Ard's not being willing. Not that he isn't an active member of the military.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Thanks, PT and Steve. I appreciate the support.

Back when the Gulf War started, I discussed with Janimal the possiblity that I might need to join up if things got ugly. It turned out that it wasn't necessary. When it becomes necessary for civilians to become soldiers, I'll be there. It's not to that point yet. We have the world's best military, and they are are perfectly capable of handling Iraq.

 

[PT]

Who said that? I never did. I said that if you aren't willing to stand up for something, then you shouldn't ask somebody else to stand up for you. If you want to mis-read what I said, or add into it, then that's your bit, not what I said. If you're so hot to have somebody go out and do something for you, then you should be willing, nay, determined to go out also. As for the life you are accustomed to, it is your responsibility even moreso than mine to protect it. Before the war in Vietnam, there was a draft, and just about everybody served. After Vietnam, the draft was abolished, and every time the subject has come up, there are cries and laments about sons and daughters going off to war. Guess what. If everybodys son or daughter had a stake in this, I doubt we'd be so willing to throw lives away. I will go if ordered, but I do not go for you. I go to support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I will obey the lawful orders of the officers and NCO's appointed over me. That is my pledge, and that's what I'll do.

And I respect you for risking your life for OUR country. It just seems to me that you think it's more yours than mine. Just because you are currently serving, and I am not, does not make it more your decision.

 

[Gato_Solo]

And what has that to do with the debate you started? Whether we can handle Saddam Hussein and Iraq again or not is not the issue. The issue is whether or not you will stand up for your country, your rights, and your responsibilities, or stand aside and ask somebody to do it for you.

Also...back when the Gulf War started, there was a firm allegiance in the area. It was the US, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Oman, Yemen, Turkey, Pakistan, and Canada versus Iraq. It wasn't just the US. Give credit where credit is due. We, as in the allies, beat Saddam because he didn't put up a fight. After the first week or so of bombing, including the BLU-82, his army wasn't willing to go onto the field. We had a few fire-fights, and a few skirmishes to be sure, but it was a total lopsided victory because he had no air-power to speak of. He still doesn't have any airpower to speak of, but he does have some things he didn't then. A smaller enemy, and desperation. Now here comes the media, turning him into the new Hitler (which he pales as, BTW), and you have the public whipped into a frenzy, calling for war. Where are the volunteers? A lot of folks are saying what we should do, but where are the folks who are going to do it? When the balloon goes up, where will PT, Ards, and Steve be? Saying what's right, and speaking out are hard. Doing what's right and acting is a whole other ball of wax, isn't it? PT said that I thought I was better than he is because I'm military and he's not. I reverse that argument and add this. Why do you think you're too good to serve?

 

[PT]

I don't think I'm too good to serve, although I am reaching the point where I'm too old to serve. I considered joining very strongly when I was 19 years old. Went through the tests, medical exam, everything, but decided I wanted to be there for my child. (I'm not trying to say you are wrong for doing otherwise, I made my decision, you made yours).

I just get a very hostile feeling from you that if you aren't in the military, you aren't worthy of making decisions. I don't see how you can justify this. There is more to life than the military, and just because I am not willing to serve my country in that capacity does not mean I have no say or should have no opinion on what my country does.

 

[HomeLAN]

I just get a very hostile feeling from you that if you aren't in the military, you aren't worthy of making decisions.

That's it in a nutshell. Squiggy, I'm seeing that all over Gato's posts, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. That HAS turned into what this thread is about. And, IMO, your position is bullshit.