Be american!!

Kuvasz,
Please enlighten me.Where did I make this claim..."the 50% of the american people who are dissenting on bush and his wild west ride thru mesopotamia are aiding and abetting terrorism?"
I never said that,or anything even remotely close to it.
Also, I have NEVER called for silencing critics of or dissenters to ANY policy taken by our govt.
I even said I support dissent.
I do NOT however,support dissent that can get people killed.
I have spent enough time on here to know that many people(I dont buy that 50%,BTW) are opposed to the war in Iraq.I support your right to believe that,but I do not support anyone or anything that risks my life unneccessarily.If you want to dissent,thats fine,but dont expect me to support everything you do in protest.
During Vietnam,dissenters destroyed recruiting stations,attacked college ROTC offices,and did other things to destroy private property.
Tell me,does that qualify as legitimate dissent to you?
Before I went to Iraq,while waiting in Ca to ship out,we had dissenters try and burn down a building with our equipment stored in it,that is also illegal.Are you saying that an illegal action,if cloaked as dissent,is ok?
I dont,and will use force to stop anyone destroying private or public property,in the name of dissent.
Call me what you will,but that is my opinion,and you cannot and will not,ever convince me otherwise.
Many of the protesters I have seen,but not all,seem to use their dissent as an excuse to commit criminal acts.Do you support them also?

Lol!

Which Tokyo Rose? Most "Tokyo Roses", (which was the name generally given by Allied troops in the Pacific to the English speaking Japanese women who broadcast propaganda to them) as I understand it, were doing exactly as you prescribe - being good citizens and supporting their country, right or wrong.

Ah - you mean the American born Tokyo Rose? Clearly, she was betraying the country she was born in - are you suggesting that those of us who are against the war are broadcasting misinformation to Allied troops in Iraq in sultry tones?

You aren't?

Well, what, then, is your analogy worth?

Nothing, I hear you say.

Good answer!

Oh - PS - HOW did the Tokyo Roses - most of whom remember were good rightly acting Japanese citizens - get "marines killed"?

The
american born Tokyo Rose was practicing a form of dissent,wasnt she?
She broadcast ship movements,and then those ships were attacked by Japanese planes.Men died in those attacks.

I am NOT saying that those of you opposed to the war are doing that,but dissent is dissent.
She practiced one form,and you practice another.
Tell me,is the destruction of private property a legitimate form of dissent?
I dont believe it is.But,if you wont condemn that,then you must condone it.
That makes you no better then the ones committing the destruction.

During the invasion of Iraq,and the liberation of Kuwait,I talked to several Iraqi prisoners that said that the only reason they fought as hard as they did is because they heard and saw the reports on the news that said we wouldnt fight if we took casualties,that Iraq outnumbered us,that we would take thousands of casualties,etc.
All of those statements came from "dissenters" here in the US and Europe.
American soldiers,including 3 in my platoon died.
So,as I said,dissent all you want.If its peaceful,doesnt destroy private property,is willing to listen to the other side,and doesnt get Americans,either here or overseas killed,then I will support it.BUT,if it doesnt meet all of those criteria,then I will oppose it and call it exactly what it is.

Just as I said earlier; the arguments about Tokyo Rose and American soldiers getting killed are tools the right tries disingenuously to use every time there is dissent during the increasingly uncalled for wars we seem to be getting into. They don't deserve further refuting, since they are in fact based in a ruse.

Please forgive the length of this post, but seesh, I have a lot to respond to, this is in response to the first reply I received on this thread, but I tried to broaden it to cover some of the others. I will try to respond to all others, but it will take time as I work all hours. ANGIE--No, I have no problem with dissent. However, calling your president a murderer because he made the decision (justly, in my view) to go to war is definitely something more than dissent. It does, in fact, display hatred, which liberals claim to, well, hate. A hatred, which by your measure must also be assigned to presidents Washington, Jefferson, Polk, Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy (gasp!), Johnson, Nixon, Bush 41, and yes, Clinton. While most of these men, to be sure, were spoken against because of their positions, the kind of rhetoric that the bush admin. endures is, understatedly, unprecedented. Moreover, assigning blame to the U.S for innocent lives lost in a war is UN-AMERICAN. True, in EVERY war there are horrible mistakes, and those are sad, and intolerable, and by the way, fewer and farther between than in any war in history. (albeit more thoroughly reported) As far as "the direction" you detailed, well you are just plain wrong on many of your points. The justification of the war in Iraq was clear, to me, before 9/11. A majority of this nation concurred (after 9/11) and still do (narrowly). The war was well planned and executed. The problem happened after the war. Did any of the dems foresee an insurgence of the magnitude with which it occurred? Did any say, "we should be ready to fight military resistance from every Middle Eastern country, while having our hands tied by an ever present and anti American press? These are ANIMALS who scream god is great while they cut off the head of a defenseless prisoner of war. Or worse yet, invoke the same god as they render innocent Iraqis into heaps of broken, lamenting humanity, all in time for the evening news. And yes, they ARE cowards (SCoates). They are cowards because dress as Iraqi citizens, fire on coalition troops (or civilians), drop their weapons, and blend into the crowd. They hide out in and fight from positions that are occupied by women and children, often causing their death or dismemberment. THEY BRING THE CONFLICT TO THESE INNOCENT PEOPLE. But ABC-Jazeera gleefully (but in an appropriately somber way) deceitfully paints them as victims of our brave solders ignorance, thereby steeling the very sentiment against them which they are trying to soften AS PART OF THEIR MISSION. And what would have been a "legitimate" reason for fighting this fight. Would 30 years of defiance against a U.S. backed resolution instead of 12 been sufficient? Would 10 million dead men, women and children instead of 2 million have stirred your constitution? Would 30 thousand Kurds killed by, that's right, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, moved you to consciousness rather than 5,000. Or would you have just preferred that your son or grandson fight a 10, 20, or 30 year more advanced Hussein regime. Sounds like you are speaking of the preferred tactics of those "allies" you so passionately referred to. They employed the doctrine of appeasement (which is the liberal way), they looked the other way while a small, impoverished country routinely broke a treaty meant to prevent them from becoming a military power, which forced them to pay for their crimes during a previous, invasive war. And oops?-guess what? America alone lost over 500,000 dead paying for the Allies' idea of dealing with a problem. And since then, anti American sentiment has grown by leaps and bounds in spite of the fact that our military prowess prevented countless disasters from befalling the world by its very presence. And over and over those allies you speak of (France, Germany, Russia, and the now disgraced and corrupt U.N.) slapped us in the face as we threw money at them. And we fulfilled the expectation of us that we carry the brunt of the load in this world, and now it turns out that France, Germany, Russia, AND the U.N. have their hands in Iraqi oil, trading (illegally) arms, accepting kickbacks, and making billions, in diametric opposition of their own stated policy! And here's the kicker: the international battle cry against the war in Iraq: NO WAR FOR OIL!!! All I have to say is " the hit dog hollers". And by virtue of this corruption and ignorance, they are doomed to repeat history, and they want us along for the ride?-no thanks!! (By the way, no one has even suggested the fact that we were in bed?-illegally?-or in any other way with Iraq, or involved in any thievery from starving people.) And by the way, check your dictionary for the definition of "unilateral", because the absence of France, Germany, Russia, and the U.N. in this war, in my view, does not make it unilateral. This is a coalition action and anti-war rhetoric too often and ashamedly speaks of the dozens of nations involved as if they have no international import and that their aid is meaningless. What a slap in the face to our staunchest allies of the day!!! As for the war being devastating, well, it is war you know. What you and many others fail to mention is all the good the coalition has done in Iraq, and how Iraqi citizens are beginning to take up arms against the insurgency in defense of their country and in support of our troops, of whom a majority support our effort, by the way. And as to your " anti Muslim, white, Christian, western…" statement, *deep breath*… America is and should be anti Islamic extremist. The problem comes when liberals replace the words Islamic extremists/islamo-facists with the word Muslim, thereby serving their partisan interests and inflaming hate against us from around the world. As for the "white" part of your statement, nice try, but race has NOTHING to do with this, and as for foreign perceptions, I would disagree that it would be an issue to them either, but oh well. As for the Christian comment - This country was founded upon Christian principal and values. That is who we are. That, to me, is what has made us great. And every step we take away from those values is one step closer to annihilation! It is the reason why it is anti American to oppose morality as a nation, to endorse the murder of a baby to cure the sickness of an adult (by the way- I have personally seen the terrible state of a loved one ravaged by Alzheimer's), or the murder of babies as a form of birth control, to endorse the destruction of the traditional family, and to legitimize what a majority of Americans believe is immoral and un-natural, all the while deriding and opposing the belief of 70 percent of Americans in a god who opposes all of these and more. ----So, in short--- yes, dissent is ok, and here is my dissent to your dissent,

P.s. I do not hate anyone, or want to kill anyone, I want to stop the destruction of America from within. The van statement was meant as ironic sarcasm, and I will answer more from doglover when I have time, but wanted to point out that I am not suggesting the abridgement of anyone's rights, but pointing out the paradox of the facts of anti-Americanism, and asking for suggestions. Also, I love debate, and do not consider any of this to be mean-spirited, and in fact, quite enjoy all responses. :wink:

man, how did I miss this thread? I have to go to work right now, and then tomorrow I have my middle school crack dealers for the Free Saddam fund breakfast meeting, but then I'll be back.

Nuclear Ox as an aside, do you by any chance collect Guns and Ammo and American Bodybuilder magazines?

Same questions as doglover.

nuclear ox,
This is good.

Regardless of whether your van statement is "ironic sarcasm" it is indicative of your mindset.

Some pretty backward stuff comes out of it.

It must be an old Econoline Van.

Oh dear that last post contains so many heaps and piles that it will take a lot of typing to carp.

Anywho, if nobody else does it sufficiently I'll try to find the time for it.

Even if you can add something as simple as paragraphs...

Hmm, you are right. No paragraphs makes it seem like a daunting read.

Great signature, moishe3rd, one of my favorite movies ever.

Sorry about the format, mc gentrix & craven, I was typing furiously as my wife was on me to do some stuff.

I kind of suspect that your "heaps and piles" are just beliefs that are in opposition to mine, and not factual refutations, but I cant wait to hear your reply

I am speechless . . .


heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .


After a few rousing bars of My Country, 'Tis of Thee, i'm gonna go see if there is anything interesting to read around here . . .


okbye

Betcha ya meant "stirring rendition" of "Beasts of England".

A difference in belief is inevitable in any such disagreement, even if only taking up opposite sides of a belief on whether or not certain portions constitute "heaps and piles".

i oughta be stirrin' somethin' . . . had i not forsworn strong drink, it would likely be martinis . . . this site it wacko central today . . .

Can someone show me where in the constitution it states I am required to agree with everything the President or other politicians or the military says is true or right. I have seen the part that says I have the legal right to disagree with my government as much as I care too.

Nope Rabel, nor has anybody in this thread or at any time on A2K said you are required to agree with anybody so far as I know.