Antiwar protests.

We can tell the truth using moderate language.

henry

Though I share a number of your sentiments (eg, the legality of this war) might I suggest that highly inflamed rhetoric in a forum such as this has only minimal utility, as it tends to further isolate the debate into two camps who cannot talk with each other.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,964232,00.html


mysteryman

I'm afraid I cannot accept as a point of faith that US soldiers are without sin. My views on this matter are very much those of Tartarin. One can acknowledge the esprit d'corps, the bravery, the teamwork and yet acknowledge the other side of the coin - that same training and organizational structure has consequences, and they aren't all happy consequences by a long shot. All soldiers (or most) believe their cause just and their behavior meritorious, but clearly this can't be so.

Mysteryman -- I think I tend to agree with Cicerone on the loyalty point. There have been some terrific books written in part about it. I'm always suspicious of what I call the "rah-rah" factor. A bloated military in the US (way over budget, way under-scrutinized) depends on shows of patriotism, little flaggies all over the place. Of course, the military does not belong to you (the soldier) nor me (the citizen), but has become an off-shoot of the defense industry. Look at how "acceptable" it has become for the top brass to be in a revolving door between Pentagon and industry. Many of us would breathe much easier if the military were reduced to proper size and job description. Had the military been deployed in March to defend the Constitution and to do so on our soil, I would have raised a flag too. To invade another country a "sovereign nation," puts you (the soldier) in a morally wrong situation -- and those who led you to do that should be on trial. No respect or glory adheres to participants in the Iraq invasion, no matter how you cut it. I don't personally blame you, of course, unless you personally caused destruction and death while on duty --but you evidently didn't say "no." I can't join in your "rah-rah." The anti-war protesters did nothing more than their duty to warn their country of its moral (and political) mistakes. Now THEY'RE the guys I have respect for.

blatham

point taken (though my rage that this sort of horror is being perpetrated by the U.S. 30 years after Vietnam is--as you gather--intense).

When we make heros out of the Rachel Corries of the world and stop glorifying America's butchers, we can begin to call ourselves a civilized society. I fear we are further from such an ideal than at any time in our blood-drenched history.

Want the truth told "quietly and politely"? Try this:

http://www.bushflash.com/memorial.html

But rage is not out of place. Not at all. Thank god those guys in 1776 didn't feel they had to be polite to the King.

Henry seems incapable of being moderate when it comes to America. He wants to see the country destroyed!

Apparently he loathes his country -- but doesn't have what it takes to abandon it in favor of some place else. And rather than make reasonable suggestions about how things can be made right (although he exaggerates the wrongs) he simply throws out stuff like "they ought to be shot" or "I hope America is destroyed."

I have never said that our military is without sin,My Lai alone is a classic example of what can go wrong. What I am saying is that our military has done much for this country,both on the battlefield,and off.Many military innovations have been put to civilian use,such as GPS,kevlar,the humvee,etc.

Tartarin,you said "proper size and job description" Define that for me.
The National Guard responds to natural and man-made disasters all over the country,but that is thr job of civilian authorities,isnt it.After all,the NG is military.
The US Coast Gaurd provides drug interdiction and life saving services on our nations waterways,again that is rightfully a civilian function,not the military. Granted,the USCG is part of the Dept. of the Treasury,but they are still a military organization.
The USMC provides guards at every US embassy on the planet,that is a civilian function,not the military.
The USAF provides emergency medevac flights and helicopter rescue flights to civilians all over the country,that is a civilian function also.
How big should the military be?
Granted,it should be big enough to defend this country,and its territories and possesions all over the world,but there is more to it then that.
The US Navy is the primary deterrent force we have. A carrier battlegroup can be anywhere in the world where American interests are threatened,also they can be used to evacuate American citizens from anyplace that they are threatened.

You said " Look at how "acceptable" it has become for the top brass to be in a revolving door between Pentagon and industry"...I dont see a problem with that.
IMHO,it makes sense for the guys that are responsible for making the weapons that the soldiers use,also knowing how they are used,and if it is a viable battlefield system.Or,do you suggest that the military still use single shot muskets and spears?

While I will never say our military is perfect,nor are all of our military personnel,there should be no doubt in any persons mind that our military has not been a force for good on this planet.
You have every right to protest a decision to use the military,but I just wish you would remember one thing,the fact that we have a strong,capable military has by itself been a deterrent to people that would threaten us.
Every president,including Bill Clinton,has ordered troops into the field,but it seems to me that only now are the protesters coming out.

Als9,did I cause death and destruction in Iraq.
I hope not,but I did use my weapon in defense of myself and my buddies.
I have to live with that,so dont even go there.

mysteryman, I agree with most you say; however, I do disagree with:



The war itself was a crime and evil, based on lies and falsehoods designed merely to invade another country. However, after that fact, the soldiers and sailors preformed admirably.

Just because you believe that the war was wrong,does NOT mean that US forces commited any war crimes. "War Crimes" has a very specific meaning,as defined by the Geneva conventions,the Hague,and several international courts. The US troops in Iraq,at least while I was there,did NOT commit ANY actions that could be interpreted to be war crimes by any court in the world.
I wish you people would realize that,and stop accusing our troops of war crimes.

Don't go there, you ask? I "go there", Mysteryman, and so should you and every other American citizen.

The crime was that you were in Iraq at all. You can take responsibility for that (if I understand you correctly, you chose the military), or not.

The guys who decide when to use the "muskets" should not be involved in their manufacture nor profit from it.

BillW -- Now there's an idea -- to behave admirably while committing an atrocity...

tartarin

Frank has advised us to use more moderate language in describing America's crimes against humanity. Please substitute "incident" for "atrocity" or "massacre" (eg "the My Lai incident").

Civilian casualties as you know are to be described as "collateral damage."

Children whose arms have been blown off thanks to Mysteryman and fellow Nazi's patriotic attentions are to be referred to as "expected untidiness" (as our secretary of defense wisely instructs).

Frank will supply you with a more complete hymnal, with pleasant-sounding catch phrases to suit every occasion, helping to avoid the sort of discomfort candid talk is bound to produce in cultivated circles.

This is just to get you started.

Frank did no such thing.

Frank merely said "Henry seems incapable of being moderate when it comes to America. He wants to see the country destroyed!"

You're a newbie, so I guess it is okay to overlook the fact that you misrepresented what I said so that you could mock your misrepresentation and pretend you were mocking what I said.

But that kind of thing quickly becomes a habit in these forums, Henry, so you want to keep it in check while you still can.

Democracy in America is on its way out, preceded truth. Did Rumsfeld really say that?

Ain't he just the life of the party, Frank ?

The unPresident, Rumpsfelt, Powell, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Franks - they deserve jail - the soldier can not be held responsible for the decision to go to war, only the actions he/she are in. Death is an inevitable outcome of a warring action - sad to say that this will also make the warrior a victim.

As long as the individual actions are just, they are admirable - if that whole war is an atrocity (as in the case of the Iraq tragedy), the ones that are in charge of the decision to go to war are the guilty parties. There is no guilt by association that flows down!

Action has been taken against member henrygreen for violating Section III B of the Terms of Service. We take threats of physical harm very seriously. Thank you to all who reported this user's comments.

I dont know what action was taken against henrygreen,but I was not being bothered by his tone,or his comments.I have learned to ignore people like that.I have more important things to worry about.
I do apologize to everybody else if my being here set him off,and if his comments offended anyone.As for me,My attitude was !@#%$ him.

Really, Mysteryman?

I would think some would have been offended by this.

I usually don't see the world as you do, MM, but i thought it was way out of line, even if you didn't take offense. I was opposed to this war, and think it was bad idea, going to hell more and more every day. But i served three years, honorably, as a volunteer--Regular Army, for those old enough to know what the distinction means. I don't take kindly to GI-bashing . . .