← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 5641 | Posts: 42 | Started: 2003-03-19
2003-03-19 18:55 | User Profile
Interested in folks' opinions on this subject. You can vote without adding a reply.
One thing to keep in mind before voting is that those serving in the military volunteered to join-up. As far as I know and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, no one serving was drafted and forced to serve.
2003-03-19 19:17 | User Profile
I'm skeptical of that phrase that gets tossed about in times like these, "support our troops." I'm not sure what it means.
Of course, I don't want American soldiers to come to harm, and I hope that things work out for them so that they can come home safely and get on with their lives. That's obvious. If that's what "supporting the troops" means, then they have my support.
I think that critics of the war should continue to discuss the issues involved and critique what's going on. Don't hold back or let the "rally-round-the-flag" effect intimidate you. The troops shouldn't be there in the first place, and people should say that. They wouldn't need our "support" if the government didn't go around getting itself into wars, and we should also keep in mind that the troops are there voluntarily--they enlisted (many of them for money and various benefits [travel, education rebates, etc.] and many of them didn't expect to have to fight a war during their term of service).
I suspect that the "support our troops" phrase is one that the war-cheerleaders like to toss around to silence their critics, implying that those who warn that the U.S. is following the wrong course are somehow unpatriotic or unsupportive of "the boys." I'm not criticizing "the boys"--they're just doing their jobs--I'm criticizing the barbarians, the compromised and controlled decisionmakers who sent "the boys" into harm's way.
If you're travelling at 60 mph down the wrong highway, should I not mention that you're going the wrong way just because we're already travelling in that direction really fast? Is my silence helpful, even if it leads to further problems down the road? Or am I guilty of "not supporting our driver?" Maybe now is the best time to criticize the war since it's such a visible issue everyone has their eyes on. It's no longer a hypothetical we're debating in a vacuum, but a fact in motion.
2003-03-19 19:19 | User Profile
The declaration that "Well, I support the troops, but not the war" rings as hollow as the New York City cocktail party declaration that "I'm not religious, but I consider myself a spiritual person." Ever hear anyone say they're AGAINST the troops but FOR the war?
Of course I'm concerned about the fate of the troops. Of course I think the war is an insane, Jewish production designed to ensure the safety of Greater Israel. Of course I'm dismayed that few notice this. Of course I'm dismayed at the lunchroom opinion at work: Support our Troops on one side, No blood for Oil on the other. Duh, duh, duh. What can I say? The troops are a multi-cultural lot, with largely brainwashed Whites occupying most of the more action-oriented positions (check Pentagon stats on this --- despite the idiotic statements of folks like NYC councilman Charles Barron, blacks fill the military's "support" positions). What's the duty of a White military man? We have to remember that many, many White folk are good, loyal, honor-and-duty bound people, who say with all sincerity that they won't question the Commander in Chief when he calls. This is a good instinct. I believe it's a White soldier's duty not to fight. Grounds? The actions of the U.S. are treasonous to its founders' intentions. But this won't happen... Michael New doesn't happen every day. So they will fight and some may die. Their blood is on Wolfowitz's hands. Damn him to Hell. Damn them all to Hell --- Podhoretz, Kristol, Krauthammer, Chafets, Feith, Fleischer, all of them.
The next 24 hours are a Jew's dream and yet another chapter in the slide of White America toward oblivion.
2003-03-19 19:29 | User Profile
See my comment here.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=6613&view=getlastpost]Whose War[/url]
I ues the metaphor as that of a fellow who's friend has just rashly pointed a gun at someone, and encounters unexpected resistance. Your friend may have made a serious mistake, but right now you're sort of stuck with it. In the short term you are bound to support your friend.
When this blows over however, you need to make it clear to your friend that unless he changes his ways, your friendship is over. In the same way, conservatism and America has failed us. We obviously need to discretely explore ways to get out of this rather unfair and almost abusive situation. But right now, I can't see any clear way out. Going against your troops is practically like going to the embassy and renouncing your citizenship, or shooting your friend in the back.
2003-03-19 19:38 | User Profile
Going against your troops is practically like going to the embassy and renouncing your citizenship
Going to the embassy to renounce one's citizenship won't be necessary. Once they pass the much-whispered-about "Patriot Act II," the government will be able to "infer" from your actions (speech?) that you've renounced your citizenship, and I imagine they'll then deport the defrocked American citizen to someplace like Israel for "processing," since the proposed law also allows for that as well.
What Patriot Act II will basically do is codify in law what Clinton [who will one day be hailed by Republicans as a "mainstream conservative"] once said, "you cannot love America while hating your government." And all this time I thought it was a true American tradition to hate government. Silly me.
Dissidents are going to be living in some interesting times in the near future.
I agree with PJB where he states in The Death of the West:
"We did not leave America...she left us." (p. 5)
and
"They have replaced the good country we grew up in with a cultural wasteland and a moral sewer that are not worth living in and not worth fighting for--their country, not ours." (p. 6)
2003-03-19 20:10 | User Profile
Let's face the facts that we are not conserative anymore if we ever we're. We do not resist change to the current socio-political order. We want to restore it to a better time. In that, we are reactionaries.
2003-03-19 21:19 | User Profile
The other side of the idea that the military is under civilian control is that the burden is entirely on civilians to ensure that the military are only used for legitimate purposes. Civilians have already failed in their role. The military will certainly succeed in theirs, hopefully with minimal casualties.
2003-03-19 21:27 | User Profile
**I ues the metaphor as that of a fellow who's friend has just rashly pointed a gun at someone, and encounters unexpected resistance. Your friend may have made a serious mistake, but right now you're sort of stuck with it.
In the short term you are bound to support your friend.**
This is about the dirtiest trick in the Inner Party's arsenal -- go beyond the creation of an illusion of a shared fate to the creation of a reality of a shared fate. To the extent the Inner Party succeeds in this project, there is a silver lining: our demise augurs theirs as well.
2003-03-19 22:35 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Mar 19 2003, 15:27 ** This is about the dirtiest trick in the Inner Party's arsenal -- go beyond the creation of an illusion of a shared fate to the creation of a reality of a shared fate. **
Brilliantly put. Remember the sneer of the Jew hanging around in the white van after 9/11 in New Jersey: "Our problems are your problems." Jews are like that slimy loser in high school who puts his arm around you, proclaims you his friend, then proceeds to copy your homework, steal your lunch money and get you busted with the principal. But it's tough to fend him off because he's got a lot of slimy friends to back him up.
2003-03-19 22:55 | User Profile
No mercenary arm of a corrupt establishment that actively seeks to destroy everything I value needs or deserves my support or my sympathy. IMO they are modern day Redcoats and I'm a colonial. They're as likely to be used against me as against colonials anywhere around the world, which they are right now. If circumstances hadn't permitted Washington to publicly withdraw his allegiance to the British king, I still doubt that he would've been confused about or feigned loyalty to the king's army.
"If this be treason, make the most of it." ~ Patrick Henry
2003-03-19 22:59 | User Profile
The troops damn well better be able to support themselves. The flag-wavers, if they get close enough, just may poke their eye out. The first loyalty of the troops is to their fellow soldiers (and marines). They have little use for loud-mouthed civilians. If you see one after the battle, I hope that some of the tough-talkers here mind their manners and realize what that young man may have been through. This just may be enough support.
2003-03-19 23:45 | User Profile
I do not tell my sailors what I think of this war. It would be bad for morale, and though we haven't been invited yet to this little party, it could happen.
But that's me in my position. I see nothing wrong with others protesting.
2003-03-19 23:48 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Mar 19 2003, 18:55
One thing to keep in mind before voting is that those serving in the military volunteered to join-up. As far as I know and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, no one serving was drafted and forced to serve.** **
Not only did they volunteer, but they volunteered to a military that has a recent history of annihilating "enemies" from a distance with high-tech weapons with little or no real threat of counterattack (i.e., harm) to themselves. The phony BS propaganda about how these "brave men and women are sacrificing their lives so we can have freedom..." is nauseating. And the disrespect they articulate for the human lives they take or plan to take is obscene. When I see these disgusting generals like McInerny or McCaffrey or Downing talk giddily about what is essentially the slaughter of people trying their best to protect themselves and/or their country, I get enraged.
But to the question of the poll. Either this action is legitimate and moral or it is not. If is not, it is essentially an immoral action that results in the deaths of thousands, thus it is mass murder, or at best mass-manslaughter. Bottomline: if you take the position that we should support soldiers when they are serving, even if they are engaged in an immoral act, then you should be prepared to support soldiers raping girls in Okinawa (yes, yes, I know, you don't support rape, just the rapist, er, soldier serving his country).
Sorry, I'm not able to support our troops when they are engaged in an unjust, immoral, criminal action. If someone breaks into a neighbors house and shoots the dog, the kids, the wife, I sure as hell hope he gets what's coming.
2003-03-20 00:16 | User Profile
This violently ignorant war is going to change the world, and the USA especially, for the very worst, regardless if we support the troops or not.
What counts now is supporting ourselves, our families, our friends, our race during the ghastly chaos that will come as a result from evil deeds all done in the name of God.
2003-03-20 00:29 | User Profile
Support our troops--bring them home. That's the real patriotic attitude.
2003-03-20 01:04 | User Profile
ââ¬ÅOur troops?ââ¬Â Theyââ¬â¢re the mindless shock troops of the NWO, whose only loyalty is to those who sign their paychecks. Did the overtaxed and underrepresented colonists support King Georgeââ¬â¢s Hessians? No. They recognized unprincipled tools of an illegitimate government when they saw them.
And if tomorrow the agents of the NWO unleash them on a demonized France, Germany--anyone, should we support them then? And when they are finally sent to burn the Constitution and the Bill of rights and set about to eliminate every remaining American dissident voice do we blindly support that, too?
Up the Republic. Death to tyrants.
2003-03-20 02:50 | User Profile
Victory is likely to be a swift display of American military hegemony. Oil prices will plummet on the expectation of sucking Iraq dry like leeches in a surgery. This fact, combined with the psychological boost of American victory, will push the US economy into high gear in short order. Far from signalling the 'end' of the country, there will be a rightward move that will unify larger elements of the populance than ever, and will leave the left forced to accept increasing conservative power.
A taste for blood is likely to be helpful in revving up interest among whites in ethnic nationalism, despite the anti-white policies of Our Glorious Leader and his Likkud friends.
Never underestimate the powerfully postive psychological effects of killing many members of hostile ethnic groups and nations, when such killing leads to victory, or at least its media facimile.
PS Of course we ought to support our troops now -- just as we always ought to have.
2003-03-20 04:07 | User Profile
As simple minded as this sounds I think the actual soldiers (not necessarily officers) deserve some level of respect. The fact that they joined voluntarily doesn't take away from the fact that they are putting their ass on the line for what the leadership of their country has deemed a good reason. Many of them lack the education (products of public education) to understand what really is going on. They've been fed a steady diet of Rah-Rah. No wonder they will march off into something that is at best dubious.
I say respect the troops and pound on the chicken f**kers that risk nothing and gain everything.
2003-03-20 04:37 | User Profile
Originally posted by londo@Mar 20 2003, 04:07 I say respect the troops and pound on the chicken fkers that risk nothing and gain everything.**
Or as Buchanan would say: lets at least give some sympathy to the Murphy's, Smith's, and Circero's who are fighting this war. Even though we can't forget there are 1488 - (14/88 - I still can't believe this :lol:) of the IP fighting along them.
2003-03-20 05:07 | User Profile
I notice over and over again from the war coverage that the US forces are overwhemingly White. Note to multiculturist diversity mongers: Would y'all still feel the superiority of the US Armed Forces in combat if there weren't so many White officers and conscripts "defending freedom"?? Didn't think so.
Unfortunately these soldiers are fresh outta the high school indoctrination of sex, violence, political correctness and false bravado, and then enter the military indoctrination of kill or be killed. These 18-21 year old greehorns are used to following orders all their lives and they're not about to ask any questions.
I don't want to see all those White soldiers, or any soldier, killed or maimed because the leaders of this US entity have succumbed to the Law of the Jungle where Might=Right.
2003-03-20 08:49 | User Profile
Originally posted by seq@Mar 19 2003, 19:04 ** ââ¬ÅOur troops?ââ¬Â Theyââ¬â¢re the mindless shock troops of the NWO, whose only loyalty is to those who sign their paychecks. Did the overtaxed and underrepresented colonists support King Georgeââ¬â¢s Hessians? No. They recognized unprincipled tools of an illegitimate government when they saw them.
And if tomorrow the agents of the NWO unleash them on a demonized France, Germany--anyone, should we support them then? And when they are finally sent to burn the Constitution and the Bill of rights and set about to eliminate every remaining American dissident voice do we blindly support that, too?
Up the Republic. Death to tyrants. **
I agree somewhat, although I tend not to place as much responsibility on the individual soldiers. At worst, they're brainwashed slaves; at best, naively trusting of their leadership and the US government. Most of them, however, probably believe they're doing the right thing.
As for the military being a threat to the Bill of Rights, I completely concur. They are a bigger threat to our freedom than any foreign power. This is a simple fact. Just as most law enforcement in the US doesn't give a crap about freedom or rights, neither will most soldiers object when ordered to confiscate guns or round up dissidents. They will be told that what they're doing is in line with the Constitution, and most of them will probably believe it.
I hope everyone here has a good semiauto rifle, lots of ammo (preferably steel core), magazines and pouches, gas mask and filters, and body armor, all ready to go. Don't expect to survive; just try to take as many of the thugs with you as possible when they attack.
2003-03-20 14:56 | User Profile
**As simple minded as this sounds I think the actual soldiers (not necessarily officers) deserve some level of respect. The fact that they joined voluntarily doesn't take away from the fact that they are putting their ass on the line for what the leadership of their country has deemed a good reason. Many of them lack the education (products of public education) to understand what really is going on. **
...although I tend not to place as much responsibility on the individual soldiers. At worst, they're brainwashed slaves; at best, naively trusting of their leadership and the US government. Most of them, however, probably believe they're doing the right thing.
Conformism is natural. They are blameless. Indeed, they are victims.
In Marxist (Gramscian) terms, they are operating under a false consciousness. In biological terms, they are adhering to norms propagated by the locus of social coordination (societal brain) to facilitate group cooperation -- albeit for the benefit of a parasitic intruder into the group.
None of this is a mystery. It's hardly worthy of comment. The phenomenon that demands our attention is ... us.
How have we achieved philosophical detachment from this parasite-infested societal organism? How can we induce such detachment in others?
2003-03-20 14:59 | User Profile
I agree somewhat, although I tend not to place as much responsibility on the individual soldiers. At worst, they're brainwashed slaves; at best, naively trusting of their leadership and the US government. Most of them, however, probably believe they're doing the right thing.
Hey, if this argument didn't wash at Nuremberg, why should it apply to the good guys?
i.e. what's good for the Nazi goose is good for Uncle Sam's gander.
2003-03-20 19:28 | User Profile
Support the troops?
They are committing mass murder in Iraq. No, I cannot support them.
It is absurd to say you do not support the war but you do support the troops. If you do not support what they are doing then you do not support them.
I have the utmost respect for the honest profession of soldiering; risking your life to protect the freedom of others. But, that does not apply in todayââ¬â¢s military nor does it apply with the war on Iraq. Anyone joining the military today is not joining to defend the US, but is a mercenary who will be employed in the fairly safe profession of killing others to spread American hegemony. If they think they are honest soldiers then they are ignorant and I cannot respect ignorance. And, none of them are so ignorant as to think that they are defending the US against Iraqi aggression ââ¬â the only moral reason for war against Iraq.
2003-03-21 03:20 | User Profile
Some of the comments here make me think the poster has never met anyone in the military, let alone served himself.
I am a CPO in the Navy Reserve, with 19 years active and reserve duty. My unit has not yet been mobilized.
I think we have no business in Iraq (as we had none in Yugoslavia or Afghanistan) -- and I am not the only one who thinks so. I'll go anyway, if I am ordered to. If that damns me, then I'll be damned.
We all volunteered. We know perfectly well that we could be called into action. I've certainly made that clear to my people.
We're not all kids. I'm amazed at the number of people in their late thirties who have signed up. We're certainly not robots. Most of us are "conservative," in the political sense of the word, and we vote overwhelmingly Republican. We are "red-zone" Americans.
I'll say again, I have no problems with others demonstrating against the war. My sailors' morale is my responsibility. But keep in mind we are your fellow countrymen, and we are going to have to live together.
2003-03-21 03:36 | User Profile
Does the "U.S. Government" itself support our troops?
Some recent news that's been downplayed by the Establishment:
[url=http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=4066]Iraqi Radar Systems Give US Concern: Air Defenses Detecting, Firing On Stealth Bombers More Accurately Than Expected[/url]
[url=http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=4065]Iraq Repulses US-Israeli Special Forces Unit: Television States An Attack In Western Iraq Defeated; Disputes Status Of Umm Qasr[/url]
2003-03-21 05:34 | User Profile
Originally posted by Stanley@Mar 21 2003, 03:20 ** Some of the comments here make me think the poster has never met anyone in the military, let alone served himself. **
On the contrary.
Back in the days of the Cold War, joining was admirable. I wanted to be clear "Anyone joining the military today..." That's after the decline of legitimate military use by the government, especially under Clinton and now under Bush. Someone joining today isn't going to be fighting Communists backed by another superpower.
Yes, I'm sure you'd go to Iraq if you were told to. Going is safe and you'll be rewarded. Not going will get you in deep doo-doo. And, not one bit of difference will be made outside of your world.
2003-03-21 06:47 | User Profile
Let's be realistic. The Great God ZOG has every propaganda engine firing. In this climate, anyone declaring oneself as "supporting the troops, but-" will have their mikes cut off on 'but' and their photo displayed on FOX News nationally, over a subtitle "FAVORS REGIME CHANGE". That is why it's uncomfortable to "support our boys" this time.
Well, that- and the fact that a lot of those 'boys' are black predators who opted for three hots and a cot off of Uncle Sucker once they'd failed the Post Office test.
How about this? I pray for no harm to befall our troops as they deploy First World weaponry at a relatively-Westernized third world pesthole on behalf of the parasites who have thoroughly corrupted the West into adopting national suicide as policy. Whether bulldozing towelheads alive into mass graves,or merely dropping incendiaries upon them from way up in the sky, I wish Jamaal and Jane Q Dogface Godspeed and safe return.
But I also wish for every man, woman and child the world over whose hearts pledge allegiance only to Israel behind false facades of 'patriotism' to their host bodies, to spontaneously catch fire and burn to death from God's wrath like the mean ol' Nazis did in the climax of RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Failing that, I wish for Arab fanatics to seize one of these moments in which the mighty US Imperial Army is simply spread too thin to do anything about it, to engulf Israel in a veritable tsunami of suicide bomb attacks - say, one thousand per day or so. There has been so much discussion lately over Sharon's using the invasion of Iraq as a distracting cover to step up his ethnic cleansing policy that I fail to see why it can't work the other way around, too. You can't tell me the Arab 'street' isn't looking at Gulf War 2 as a quickly closing window of opportunity to be rid of Israel once and for all. If not now, when?
2003-03-21 08:17 | User Profile
Great post il ragno - but the fact is that very few Leroy predators are doing the fighting - you can take a look at the other thread that reprinted the article from USA Today that admitted US combat troops are disproportionately white. Which no doubt killed the editors on one level - and had them rubbing their hands gleefully on another - as they feel they whip the white "boys" into a macho frenzy, and enjoy themselves in the knowledge that most US casualties, whether large or small in number, will be white. And all the while, Iraq gets to become subordinate to the vortex of all troubles on this rock, Israel. The best of both worlds for the zhidniks.
2003-03-21 15:16 | User Profile
Yes, it's past time for the vaunted Arab Street to sh-t or get off the damn pot. It's always "be careful - the Street will rise up if....", but it never seems to do anything of substance. Where are the revolutionary riots in jew flunky rag states like Jordan & Pakistan? Why aren't there masses of jewish heads rolling in the gutters of Tel Aviv? Are they hoping their prospects will get better?
2003-03-21 15:29 | User Profile
Originally posted by N.B. Forrest@Mar 21 2003, 09:16 ** Yes, it's past time for the vaunted Arab Street to sh-t or get off the damn pot. It's always "be careful - the Street will rise up if....", but it never seems to do anything of substance. Where are the revolutionary riots in jew flunky rag states like Jordan & Pakistan? Why aren't there masses of jewish heads rolling in the gutters of Tel Aviv? Are they hoping their prospects will get better? **
NB Forrest, I think the same way on this point. They are being spit on by the Amerisrael Entity if front of the whole world and although they hate it, they do nothing but shout a little bit while their stooge governments still fully intact with fresh bribes from Uncle Samuel.
But then again, the Arab "street" has maybe caught the same disease as the WhiteMan's "Street"?
2003-03-21 15:40 | User Profile
I admire guys who served in Vietnam in 1967-69 (in a real meatgrinder war)-- esp. theose who didn't want to be there.
This military operation against Iraq is once again a lesson to the third-world that unsymmetrical war is the ONLY way to fight a superpower. These Iraqi soldiers trying to fight don't have a chance. Going against Global Hawks, cruise missles, B-52's, et al., an Iraqi soldier has to get lucky to kill some unimportant 20-year-old (and get himself killed in the process). I wonder if military commanders would be so nonchalant about bombing and killing people overseas if they had to worry that years later a golf course, supermarket, Thanksgiving get-together, or family vacation could well be the last hostile action in the war they started. Decentralized unsymmetrical war is the war of the future, and you can't fight it with electronic intercepts, aircraft carriers, Apaches, or night-vision goggles. The post-9/11 demise of Al Qaeda is the lesson that centralized or bureacratic unsymmetrical warfare (terrorism) isn't feasible. Decentralized unsymmetrical warfare would be composed of 1, 2, or at most 3 people, generally educated and self-educated in unsymmetrical warfare. They will be older and more disciplined than Al Qaeda recruits (analogously, they'd be the special forces of terrorists).
2003-03-21 15:42 | User Profile
Originally posted by jesuisfier@Mar 21 2003, 15:29 **
But then again, the Arab "street" has maybe caught the same disease as the WhiteMan's "Street"? **
Hell, Whitey doesn't even HAVE a "street" yet. Maybe a back alley.
2003-03-21 20:26 | User Profile
Originally posted by MadScienceType@Mar 20 2003, 08:59 ** > I agree somewhat, although I tend not to place as much responsibility on the individual soldiers. At worst, they're brainwashed slaves; at best, naively trusting of their leadership and the US government. Most of them, however, probably believe they're doing the right thing.
Hey, if this argument didn't wash at Nuremberg, why should it apply to the good guys?
i.e. what's good for the Nazi goose is good for Uncle Sam's gander. **
Just to clarify, I agree that the US military should be held to the same moral and legal standards as the military of any other nation. American lives are worth no more than the lives of other human beings. But unless I'm mistaken, even at the Nuremberg trials (which were, BTW, of questionable fairness) it wasn't miscellaneous individual Nazi footsoldiers who were held accountable for war crimes. It was primarily officers.
Similarly, I can't quite view the youngest and lowest-ranking US soliders as being morally responsible for participating in the Iraq war; they're just too young and naive on the average. However, those in leadership positions who have even limited knowledge of the ulterior motives behind this campaign must certainly bear some guilt. A person's guilt in undertaking a wrongful action is proportional to his awareness of its wrongfulness or possible wrongfulness. Hence, following orders when you know those orders are evil is inexcusable. I think we all agree on that.
2003-03-21 21:22 | User Profile
We all "support" the troops because we pay for everything they do with our tax dollars. It's unfortunate that those who have waged this operation are among those who stand to benefit the most, while we do nothing but pay more as the military-industrial-political-psychological complex grows in its monstrosity. Obviously there is no other way a civilian can actively "support" the troops without joining the military. The question is are we ROOTING for the troops. Those who do that believe that this is either: 1) an act of self-defence against Iraqi W.M.D. and terrorist links and/or 2) an act of liberating the Iraqi people from a tyrannical dictator
I for one don't like to hear of any troops dying, but as we all know the only way that a mostly unthinking populace can be made to make its judgements is when the troops die, forcing them to question the war. This is obviously looking like a major coup for the Administration politically and I would guesstimate that a good additional 20 % of the population is now for this war based only the facts that its looking EASY.
2003-03-23 05:17 | User Profile
With all the bitching on this group about New World Order, Israel-Jewish interests directing things, and all the rest, 33% more people on OD supported the actions of the troops in Iraq than didn't. Geez, and we wonder why the goyim are so easily manipulable?!! When people like these here on OD can easily suspend their deep-rooted convictions for some contrived patriotic obligation, there is no hope. The military is the biggest government welfare program going (albeit for white guys). To act like the U.S. military fights for our freedom is crap. Ironically, when we had a military that used up a mere fraction of the GDP-- pre-WWII-- we had many more freedoms than we do nowadays. Back then you could put a creche in the town square at Christmas, buy a gun w/o going through the federal bureaucracy, or sell or rent a house to whom you desired. Why should I care that my religious freedoms are under the auspices of the ACLU, when there are aircraft carriers and nuclear subs and JDAMs being used around the globe in protection of that "freedom"?!!
2003-03-23 05:46 | User Profile
Agreed, JRC. For a while the "No's" (whom I joined) were winning, but they've been edged out, of late. I'm not surprised, though, because my position seems to always be the "minority" position. In this case, I got a "double whammy"--I not only occupy a minority point of view compared to the general population of the country, but it appears I'm also the minority among paleos on OD. My situation reminds me of that foolish Bob Dole credit card commercial that used to be on, where he says, "I just can't win." :lol:
Hey, lurkers! You! Yeah, you! Sign up and vote in the poll--you don't have to say anything if you don't want to. All you have to do is push the button.
2003-03-23 05:48 | User Profile
**Hey, lurkers! You! Yeah, you! Sign up and vote in the poll--you don't have to say anything if you don't want to. All you have to do is push the button. **
Have you considered that it just may be non-paleo lurkers who skewed the poll?
2003-03-23 12:21 | User Profile
Yes, I did, but I didn't want to say it out loud for fear it might encourage them.
2003-03-23 12:23 | User Profile
Whoa guys...I respectfully submit that you're reading too much into the poll results and are seeing something that isn't there. Only two people (at the time of this posting) have voted their support for the soldiers' actions in Iraq. Those here who voted "somewhat" and "no" probably agree on just about everything except what it means in this case to "support the troops." IMHO, the best way to "support" them in the case of an unjust war like this one is to demand their recall. Maybe that doesn't fit some peoples' definition of "support," but it's really just a question of semantics. By recalling our military personnel, we are taking them out of harm's way and reuniting them with their families.
For those who say they do NOT support the troops, perhaps you could clarify what you mean. Do you wish to see Americans killed in combat? I'll be honest with you: while I don't wish to see that happen, I don't desire to see any Iraqis killed either! If there must be mass casualties on one side or the other, I would choose for the casualties to be on the American side. Sound treasonous? It's not: the treason is on the part of those who ordered the invasion in the first place. The Iraqi soldiers are just as human as the Americans, and they have wives and children too. If someone has to die, I'd rather it be the unjust aggressors, even if those aggressors don't understand the immorality of their actions.
Furthermore, I agree with JRC that the US military does NOT fight for the freedom of Americans or of anyone else, although many of them did so in the past. In fact, the US military represents what is probably the greatest threat to Americans' freedom in existence today, since it is really just a tool of the government. If the military were ever to participate in such activities as gun confiscation, believe me, I would fire upon them when they came for mine. I wouldn't enjoy it and would almost certainly be killed, but "resistance to tyranny is obedience to God."
2003-03-24 06:52 | User Profile
I'm reminded of the 101st Airbourne taking over the schools of Little Rock. These people will kill whoever their masters tell them to kill.
2003-03-25 18:07 | User Profile
Originally posted by Centinel@Mar 22 2003, 23:48 ** Have you considered that it just may be non-paleo lurkers who skewed the poll? **
Quite possible, Centinel. I can't tell who voted for what.
For what it is worth, one conclusion that can be drawn is that I haven't manipulated the thing because I'm firmly in the second choice camp. :(