The War

[MK]

Here are some quotes from an article I just read in Life Magazine:

It's what our boys have been doing that worries me...

the Army kicks the civilians around...

the Army is engaging in looting...

..., friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American.

..people never tire of telling you of the ignorance and the rowdyism of American troops..."

The troops returning home are worried. ?¢‚Ǩ?ìWe?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ve lost the peace,?¢‚Ǩ? men tell you. ?¢‚Ǩ?ìWe can?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t make it stick.?¢‚Ǩ?

.....feel that the cure has been worse than the disease.

The taste of victory had gone sour in the mouth of every thoughtful American I met.

This article was written for the January 7, 1946 issue about the US rebuilding of Germany. The nay-sayers were finding fault with the military and FDR's administration then too.

The whiners will always tell you it will never work.

 

[Art Fawcett]

this is why this election is so important MK. We HAVE to have someone with the fortitude to do what's right, not what's easy or popular.

 

[Renderking Fisk]

Gallop Poll asking if World War II was a just war, more then 90% of Americans said it was. Yet, also in this poll, only 47% of people age 18-29 could correctly identify ?¢‚Ǩ?ìGermany?¢‚Ǩ? as our major enemy in Europe.

The not-so-surprising fact evident from these data: The youngest group of Americans (18 to 29) is the least able to correctly identify the enemy on D-Day.

A guest on a local radio show here in the Boston area speculated that the same people who could not correctly identify Germany as the European enemy in WWII also stated they were voting for Kerry because of Bush's views and actions on The War On Terror, and how he catagorized some middle eastern states as being the new Axies of Evil.

 

[kite005]

I remember hearing, before we went to iraq, that they had a missle that could go 97 miles or kilometers. I forget which. It was a couple miles or kilometers more than sanctions allowed. I remember thinking "oh yeah that sounds like a real threat to us".

I think we would be much safer if all the money and troops were concentrated on Afganistan and Al-qeida instead of Iraq.

I'm a veteran myself, 7yrs 1996-1984. But my dad disagrees with me totally of course. He's a veteran also. The difference is he thinks Bush is doing a good job and I think he's the worst president in my lifetime. Time will tell. If he gets re-elected he might prove me wrong. But I'm voluteering for the Kerry campaign. After all he has actually been in war. Anti Kerry people take his voting record and say that he voted for this or that. I think though that anyone that's been a senator for some time has a mixed record. Especially when one takes into consideration the way they add many unrelated things into bills up for consideration. To me Kerry has the right idea, more U.N. involvement, but it may be to late for that. Too bad

 

[MK]

It seems most people who plan to vote for Kerry are don't really think much of him. They appear more to be voting against Bush than voting FOR Kerry.

So....which of Kerry's ideas (about the war, other foreign policies, economy or domestic issues) do you think are great?

 

[Captain Krunch]

Originally posted by kite005
To me Kerry has the right idea, more U.N. involvement, but it may be to late for that.

According to this site, since August 1990, there have been 75 or so U.N. resolutions that deal with Iraq. How much more U.N involvement is necessary before it is acceptable to take action?

 

[kite005]

I'll take that arguement. I will probably be unpopular here soon. I think we should have concentrated on Bin Laden and Al qeida. I think we have made Al qeida stronger than they were.
Totally uneccesary. Theres one way to do whats right in the middle east. Stop supporting Isreal unless they get serious about peace. Why shoud we sell them weapons anyway? Put pressure on Israel, after all thats central to the whole thing.
Just my view as a man. Political guy.

 

[Fedora]

We, as a people, have an incredible weakness. We are easily blown off course. Normally, this is mostly insigificant, as the difference between the two political parties, doesn't affect us personally. It doesn't matter if a Democrat is in office, or a Republican. Oh, sure, the followers of the respective party gets bragging rights for 4 years. Reminds me of collegiate football rivals. There is always next time. Regardless of who is in office, you really don't see earthshaking changes. We, as a nation, are far too settled for that. Then something like 9-11 happens. All of a sudden, the majorty of the literate public become aware of what is actually happening in the world. We are so insulated, with our 9 to 5 lives. We as a people are by and large complacent. Then, we get the kamikaze attack. The nation gets in an uproar. We, are ready for revenge. But, the enemy is not a particular country. It is a fanatical religious group, the worst sort of group to deal with because it is a belief system that the believers will literally die for. Not just lip service, but they will destroy their own life just to take yours. Not your miltary, but you, and your family, and your neighors. They have one goal. That goal is to destroy you, and your country. All of us know this of course, but I am just refreshing the memory of the ones who quickly forget what did happen on Sept. 11.

So, we have a problem. A big problem. We not only need to kill these folks, in self defense, but we need to do something else. Something more important than just tracking down the enemy. That will take years to do. What we have to worry about is that same enemy getting a hold of nuclear weapons. Do you think they would hesitate to use these? I want to throw something at you. It is my contention that the Bush administration is painfully aware of this. And that is why we are in Iraq. I do think that the war plan was flawed, but that is something we can't change. Remember, there has been a major change in foreign policy. It is called "preemptive action". This is something this country knows little about. We are usually pulled kicking and screaming into wars. This is all so new to us, and mistakes are made. That is the nature of war. Now, this is my fear. I fear that Kerry will be elected, and we will soften up on the war on the radicals. We will lose interest in Iraq, ignore Iran and then we get multilple nuclear warheads detonating in every major city in this country. Remember those little Russian suitcase nuclear bombs? I know that they are coming. I can just feel it. Perhaps I am a pychic. Nowadays, if you are in a ongoing war, keep the democrats out of office. They don't have the backbone to handle this sort of crisis. Fedora

 

[Imahomer]

Originally posted by kite005
I'll take that arguement. I will probably be unpopular here soon. I think we should have concentrated on Bin Laden and Al qeida. I think we have made Al qeida stronger than they were.
Totally uneccesary. Theres one way to do whats right in the middle east. Stop supporting Isreal unless they get serious about peace. Why shoud we sell them weapons anyway? Put pressure on Israel, after all thats central to the whole thing.
Just my view as a man. Political guy.

Well, although I'm not as quick to say we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. I will agree that we need to rethink our supoort of Israel.

 

[Renderking Fisk]

The veterans who have been calling into the local talk station 96.9 voice the same issues and concerns. Under Carter and Clinton, they?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ve been under-funded, demoralized and deployed in parts of the world to do humanitarian work and not what they were trained to do. The Democrats in recent decades have been responsible for dismantling Army bases, under-funding all the branches of the military in terms of the supplies they need.

Now, with this War on Terror, do you really think that Kerry is going to do everything he can to make sure the military is going to get everything they need, and what has he done in the past that would make you think so?

Kerry has voted against every new Navy Vessel, every new fighter and bomber plane, and every new weapon and weapons system, and has consistently voted against pay-raises for the members in the military. Finally, he is on record saying that he will give the UN an more active roll in deciding what our military should do and how?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ that?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s giving our sovereignty over to someone other then the American Citizens.

I don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t believe John Kerry is a friend of this country or our military. His supporters are misguided to say the least; to vote for Kerry just because they?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢re ?¢‚Ǩ?ìAnti-Bush?¢‚Ǩ? is part of the mentality that keeps inept politicians in office.

 

[Renderking Fisk]

By the way... many of the anti-Iraq war nuts need to re-read Fedoa's last post. Read it, and re-read it.

In this War On Terror... we're not just talking about the Political future of just one President, we're talking about the whole country and civilization as we know it.

We're talking about life and death here of the Future.

 

[jamespowers]

Originally posted by Fedora
We, as a people, have an incredible weakness. We are easily blown off course. Normally, this is mostly insigificant, as the difference between the two political parties, doesn't affect us personally. It doesn't matter if a Democrat is in office, or a Republican. Oh, sure, the followers of the respective party gets bragging rights for 4 years. Reminds me of collegiate football rivals. There is always next time. Regardless of who is in office, you really don't see earthshaking changes. We, as a nation, are far too settled for that. Then something like 9-11 happens. All of a sudden, the majorty of the literate public become aware of what is actually happening in the world. We are so insulated, with our 9 to 5 lives. We as a people are by and large complacent. Then, we get the kamikaze attack. The nation gets in an uproar. We, are ready for revenge. But, the enemy is not a particular country. It is a fanatical religious group, the worst sort of group to deal with because it is a belief system that the believers will literally die for. Not just lip service, but they will destroy their own life just to take yours. Not your miltary, but you, and your family, and your neighors. They have one goal. That goal is to destroy you, and your country. All of us know this of course, but I am just refreshing the memory of the ones who quickly forget what did happen on Sept. 11.

So, we have a problem. A big problem. We not only need to kill these folks, in self defense, but we need to do something else. Something more important than just tracking down the enemy. That will take years to do. What we have to worry about is that same enemy getting a hold of nuclear weapons. Do you think they would hesitate to use these? I want to throw something at you. It is my contention that the Bush administration is painfully aware of this. And that is why we are in Iraq. I do think that the war plan was flawed, but that is something we can't change. Remember, there has been a major change in foreign policy. It is called "preemptive action". This is something this country knows little about. We are usually pulled kicking and screaming into wars. This is all so new to us, and mistakes are made. That is the nature of war. Now, this is my fear. I fear that Kerry will be elected, and we will soften up on the war on the radicals. We will lose interest in Iraq, ignore Iran and then we get multilple nuclear warheads detonating in every major city in this country. Remember those little Russian suitcase nuclear bombs? I know that they are coming. I can just feel it. Perhaps I am a pychic. Nowadays, if you are in a ongoing war, keep the democrats out of office. They don't have the backbone to handle this sort of crisis. Fedora

One word man---Amen! I couldn't have said it better myself.

Regards to all,

J

 

[fedoralover]

fedora wrote:

"But, the enemy is not a particular country. It is a fanatical religious group, the worst sort of group to deal with because it is a belief system that the believers will literally die for."


I accidently ran across this site http://www.center2000.org/

I don't know how accurate it is, nor am I advocating everything it says. However it is interesting that there are so many conflicts in the world both present and in the past that were religiously inspired.

It says that there are currently 18 major conficts going on that are religious based. I ran across this site about 4 years ago, at that time it said that there were 17 conflicts. After 9-11-01, I went back to it and it had now added the United States to the list making it what it is now at 18.

History shows that Christendom has been just as bloodguilty of this as Islam. As the list shows very few religions claiming to be Christian have actually followed the true teachings of Christ in this regard.

Every historical fact we know about the Roman Empire shows that the first century Christians, the one's taught by Christ and his disciples would not participate in warfare of any kind even in defense of the country in which they lived. They believed that so strongly that they were willing to die themselves at the hands of the Romans who considered them traitors for not taking up arms in the defense of the Roman Empire.

It was only in 312 A.D. when the Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and then twisted the religion to his own ends that it became perversely possible to now fight and kill under the banner of Christ.

fedoralover

 

[The_Edge]

Originally posted by fedoralover
Every major historian agrees on these facts.

I love throw away lines like this. It implies that everything just stated is undeniably true and that there is absolutely no room for debate on the issue. Whatever.

I'm going to take the high road and let this issue go. I've chosen which side I'm on. You may deduce all my other positions from that.

 

[fedoralover]

Well gee, I don't what to make of that statement edge. This is "the Obsevation Bar" and my statement wasn't meant to promote one view over another, it was just an observation. If I said every major historian agrees that George Washington was the first president of the United States would that be a throw away line. There are things that happened in history that are indeed recognised as actually having happened.

I wasn't making that statement to say the U.S either should or should not have went to war. Sorry if it came off different. I have taken out that line to avoid confusion of my observation.

But it was a statement and an observation that does come from creditable historians and history books and coincided with fedora's observation about fanatical religious factions and the blood they have spilled down through the centuries all in the name of God.

regards fedoralover

 

[The_Edge]

Historians agreeing on one individual being the first President is one thing. But you were speaking about a large population of individuals all believing one way and then suddenly changing all at the same time and that is a generalized statement I can not agree with at this time. All I was saying is that despite your last line it is still a debatable subject. Nothing more was meant.

If it came across as a personal attack, I apologize. I'm just a cranky pants.

 

[fedoralover]

To be sure it didn't happen all at once, Constantine just gave it the state's endorsement. It was already starting to happen before that. But if you do the research on it you will find that Christ's early followers did not go to war. I could put the references here for people to read, but it would probably be more convincing if people did that for themselves. I'm only taking about the 1st century christians, those taught by Christ and his disciples. After they were gone, the drift toward involvement in wars and politics started. And again I'm only saying this as an observation and not a statement for or against any policy.

regards fedoralover


and no hard feelings, I understand this is indeed an emotional issue and that's why I'm not taking a stand either way. Also just for the record, I'm 54 and a Vietnam vet with an honorable discharge.

 

[Fedora]

you do the research on it you will find that Christ's early followers did not go to war. I could put the references here for people to read, but it would probably be more convincing if people did that for themselves. I'm only taking about the 1st century christians, those taught by Christ and his disciples. After they were gone, the drift toward involvement in wars and politics started. And again I'm only saying this as an observation and not a statement for or against any policy.

Fedoralover you are correct. I will go further. Early Christianity, was much different than what we have today. A good place for an illustrative story. One day, the devil and one of his cohorts were walking down the road. Up ahead, they both witnessed a man, stopping, and then bending over to pick up something lying on the road. They also noticed that after examing what it was that he picked up, he stood straight, and tall, and literally beamed with happiness. The cohort looked to the devil and asked. "Wonder what that fellow found?" The devil replied. "He just discovered Truth." "Isn't that rather bad business for you?" asked the cohort. "No, not at all, said the devil, I will help him organize it!" And that is what has happened with organized religion as we know it today. How else could you read the words of Christ and commit the atrocities that have been committed in his name throughout history? Now, this has nothing to do with the war in Iraq, and the war against terror. And, this is not a war of the Christians against radical Islam. This is a war of self defense. Operationally, the attitude of the early Christians would only result in their extermination, and if the Roman Empire had not of taken on the Christian religion, it would probably not exist today. At least I doubt that it would. It would only be a footnote in history. But, also realize, that by the Romans taking on this religion, it also changed it. Not many people really know, or care to know the history of their particualar belief system. And, it is not taught by the churches. Why? Because it would shake the faith of the faithful. That is my conclusion. So many wars and deaths stem from one religion fighting another. Religious wars are the bloodiest, or seem to be. Someday, each and every one should read the Sermon on the Mount, and then the other quotes from Christ. This, was His teaching. It also contradicts much of what modern Christianity teaches. I will never attribute a war to be in the name of God, or Christ. That is just the devil helping us organize it. Fedora

 

[kite005]

Jamespowers
I agree with a lot of what you said but Kerry has actually served our country as I did. Bush? He took a way out of serving. Though he was in the military he had the priviledge of another way to avoid the military at the same time. Not very honorable as far as I can tell.

 

[Renderking Fisk]

I agree with a lot of what you said but Kerry has actually served our country as I did. Clinton? He took a way out of serving. Though he was in Oxford and protesting his country in Moscow he had the priviledge of another way as commander-and-Cheif but failed to do anything against Al-Qaeda or Saddam when he had the chance. Not very honorable as far as I can tell.

I think THAT'S what you mean. Were you ever outraged at Clinton when he was gutting the military? Or did you turn a deaf ear and blind eye to his "issues" like the NOW (National Organization for Whiners) did when women accused him of inappropriate behavior.

It?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s kind of funny that when Clinton was running the first time, Kerry said that it wasn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t any big deal that Bubba never served and it was time to let the wounds of Vietnam heal. But now that Kerry is running, he?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s doing a 180 on his views service being prerequisite to being in the White House.

Almost as funny when politicians stand by the rule of law only when it serves there purpose.