USA Political Party Association

[MayheM]

Naaa, Happy and I have a mutual respect for each other and mainly agree to dissagree. For a young guy he actually thinks for himself and that is important. My comments today where mainly directed towards the posts by Mango. I saw his post and had to respond.

[RawMeat3000]

As for the 9/11 attacks I watched so closely the whole thing. I am from New York and know people who lost family there. It is a shame someone actually thinks that it was justified. Shortly after the attack, I watched the reactions of Muslim women and children in the Middle East. I watched as they cheered and rejoiced. The hate I felt for them was so strong. My immediate reaction was that should be the largest parking lot in the world. I then calmed down as time allows and realized that not all he people over there where happy about the attack.

Wouldn't you cheer if the country who's been bombing yours, and the countries next door for decades, just got attacked? And if that country's army murdered some of your family or your friends? Or if you became a refugee to another country because you home was destroyed by a bomb? Try to sympathize once in a while.

I for one think the media in the world is careless and spreads untruths like wildfire. I stand by my feelings that regardless of whether you are for the war or against it, we need to show support to our troops. They are risking their lives for us, whether for a good reason or not they are still out there taking bullets for you. So until they get home, God willing they do come home safely, show some freaking respect. People often compare this to the Vietnam War, how we should not be over there etc... I hope that when it is all said and done, those men and women serving in the armed forces do not come home to the same public response as those who fought in Vietnam.

Our boys in Iraq are not taking bullets for me, or you, or anyone in this forum. They're taking bullets for the mistakes made by the leaders of this country. They aren't there to protect our freedom, either. Our freedom hasn't been seriously threatened since the Cold War. And even then, I have my doubts, it may be not since WWII.

[MayheM]

The main issue in h middle east did start right after WWII, when the Jewish where given Isriel. Land was taken from Palistine and given to the Jews. That was the seed at least.

As for cheering when people in another country got bombed, I have never once cheered when I saw death. Not even when I saw Saddam Hussein hang from his neck did I cheer and rejoice. And he got what he deserved. But to see inocent people die never brings me joy. That is a sign of a problem with they way they think. Rejoicing in the death of innocence is sadistic at best. But hey, who am I but an infidel who live in a moraly ambiguous country with no Guidance.

I stated my feelings on the War and will stand by them. I have spoken to soldiers who have heard what people say about the war while over there and have told me how it damages moral to hear they shoudl not be there. I for one will not take part in the damage of moral.

[Dionysos]

The main issue in h middle east did start right after WWII, when the Jewish where given Isriel. Land was taken from Palistine and given to the Jews. That was the seed at least.

As for cheering when people in another country got bombed, I have never once cheered when I saw death. Not even when I saw Saddam Hussein hang from his neck did I cheer and rejoice. And he got what he deserved. But to see inocent people die never brings me joy. That is a sign of a problem with they way they think. Rejoicing in the death of innocence is sadistic at best. But hey, who am I but an infidel who live in a moraly ambiguous country with no Guidance.

I stated my feelings on the War and will stand by them. I have spoken to soldiers who have heard what people say about the war while over there and have told me how it damages moral to hear they shoudl not be there. I for one will not take part in the damage of moral.

Ok, fair enough. We all stand by our feelings

You might not be cheering. But they dont need to see you cheer to be able to hate you just as much, after an american bomb has killed half their family etc. Of course the whole "death to infidels" is rather retarded to put it mildly.

However I think, even though it might be bad for the soldiers, that "going along" with a war simply to not damage moral can be outright... dangerous. If that was how you meant it.

Basically, that would mean that once a war is started, and "no matter" (Im sure there would be a limit but in principal) how wrong or stupid it is/might be, it has to be supported because we shouldnt damage the moral?

[MayheM]

By no means do I mean it like that, though I can see what you mean. It is the constant reminder by the media of the death count, etc... The fact is that we ha a far lower death toll then any major war in some time. The media makes a huge deal of "American death toll up to 4000". Well not to lessen the cost of any life, but considering how many soldiers have been sent over there, 4000 is nothing. I want to be clear though. I am not saying 4000 deaths are ok, nor am I saying those 4000+ lives are not important. But the focus on a number and that is just not the point at all. There is some good going on over there, even if there is a lot of bad. The death of Saddam and his sons can only be viewed as a good thing. That psychopath killed and tortured his own people. The fact that it was them that ripped the statue of him down and them that hung him.

My main point is that the media focus is only on the bad. It is that way all the time and not only with the war. I watch local news and they go on about all the deaths, all the robbery, all the rape, etc... They glamorize the hate in the world. You look at the shootings in schools. They make those dumb ass kids famous by putting them on TV and getting their story out. I for one feel stories like that should not be told. It puts ideas in kid’s heads. The shame is it is not only the Medias fault. Parents need to man up and take responsibility for their kids. Not blame it on schools, or movies, music, video games etc. I was blessed to have two parents at home, my dad worked two and three jobs so my mom could stay home and raise me and my brother. I understand times have changed but parents need to get more involved in their kids lives. Anyway, I got a bit off topic there... but anyway... It is not the medias place to take sides, they are meant to be objective and give the story in full. The media however often takes sides and exploits the masses for support. A perfect example of this is way back when the Rodney King case. The media jumped on the cops saying they beat Mr. King. They however did not tell of the 30 minute chase which preceded the beating, or the fact he was hopped up on drugs. They had the public ready to draw and quarter the cops. I am not saying the cops where 100% justified in the case, but if the whole story is not told it paints a very one dimensional picture, No?

[Mr. Happy]

Well I honestly don't care if it damages their morale, well, I do care...it should. They shouldn't feel good about what they are doing there. We support them in the way that we won't to bring them out of harms way.. One of my brother's friends is a Marine reporter. I should say ex-friend. After he joined the army he got completely brainwashed, my brother was talking to him about how he wished we'd withdraw, get him out of harm's way, etc and he started screaming at my brother about how the things we are doing as a country, not himself individually, are good.

I'd like to think most of our army is intelligent enough to understand that there is a major difference in the millitary between the soldier and the general level. I think alot of them are, but alot of them are also too completely indoctrinated, too used to following orders without question.

If they are demoralized about what they are doing, then that means they are the smart ones. The one's who know it's another Korea, another Vietnam. The ones who follow orders like they should, but also realize the orders are coming from idiots.

I want our troops to know that we care about them, we support them, and we don't want them dying pointlessly. Let the middle east blow itself up. Let israel run around randomly bombing everyone who ever sneezed at them a thousand years ago. There's only one or two countries in the middle east who have realized it's not 500 B.C anymore. Let em destroy themselves.

Sorry for that little side rant.

But it's ironic, all the support our troops ribbons you see on the back of cars of people who support the war. Yes! Let's support our troops, the best way to do that is having them shot at!

Though at the same time, it's a soldiers JOB to die after taking out as many other brainwashed people as possible. I mean, it's not like our country wants to give them any benefits when they come home, except an honorguard for their casket.

[MayheM]

I know what you mean, but that is not the way military works. If you stop to think about orders, you die. Simple as that. You say they are brainwashed but they are trained to do what the are told without hesitation. That is the main reason I couldnever be in the army. I think WAY too much about stuff. I would not be afraid to take a bullet and die for whats right. I am however afraid that my hesitation would get someone else killed. The military can not exsist with free will. Picture giving a soldier the choice whether to follow orders or not. Having the choice to either take on your enemy and possably die or run and live. The fact of the matter is that the people over there, whether they want to be over there or not signed up and knew what the deal was. Anyway, following orders does not make you brainwashed, listening to all the probiganda in the media and taking it as 100% fact does...

[Sacul15]

The situation in Iraq is far different than the conflict in Vietnam. First of all, in Vietnam there was a draft. My views would be completely different if there was a draft now for Iraq. The soldiers there now all volunteered, and therefore they should accept the consequences. Sure, they should get the best training and equipment possible and they should have our full support, but everyone who signed up new that there was a great possibility he (or she) would die. For this reason, the death count is an invalid argument in opposing the war. Secondly, the Vietnamese people were not a threat to America. They were concerned with their own nation, not with killing Americans. There are many people in the Middle-East whose sole purpose in life is to kill Americans and destroy the western way of life. And they have the resources to do it. All it takes is a couple hundred dollars for a plane ticket and a bomb and you've got a few hundred bodies. I'll admit, many mistakes have been made in Iraq and progress has not been as fast as it should have been, but it is simply foolish to abandon everything thing there and give terrorists the means to organize and attack us once more.

[Mr. Happy]

More like a few thousand dollars, a fake identity, and some way of smuggling the bomb in

I really don't think there are any threats to us right now. I really don't. I think there are so few people that do have the resources that the CIA/NSA/FBI/BATF can handle it.

I know a soldier needs to follow orders, I thought I acknoweldged that. But there's a difference between following orders in a fire fight and vigorously supporting government propaganda when you come home. In a lot of military ads they talk about soldiers leading a double life, on the battle field and in civilian life, and it worries me how many of them can't seperate the two.

Iraq is different from vietnam, but the lack of a draft isn't really important. I mean, obviously it's important to us, but it doesn't affect the conflict and it's neccessity/morality very much. Neither are neccessary or moral. I think Iraq is alot like the Korean war though. North Korea is and was a threat to our interests without really any ability to attack us and who was intent on destorying our allies. Ya, it's alot the same, and that, like this, was an unnecessary failure.

[Sacul15]

Vietnam was not an "unnecessary failure". We didn't lose any significant battles and our efforts there did stop communism from spreading to the Philippines, Indonesia, and various other countries. The United States didn't even lose, in my opinion, the South Vietnamese did. The fall of Saigon happened two full years after nearly all our troops were pulled out. In this respect, perhaps Iraq is somewhat similar to Vietnam. Sure, we can never have a true "victory", since there is no conventional enemy to defeat, but progress that benefits the well-being of America can be made, and it has. I think that the US needs to reconsider its strategy, put more responsibility on to the Iraqi government, and start pulling out gradually as the Iraqi government strengthens.

[Dionysos]

Vietnam was not an "unnecessary failure". We didn't lose any significant battles and our efforts there did stop communism from spreading to the Philippines, Indonesia, and various other countries.

Sorry, I could not refrain from quickly commenting that. But was "defeating" communism really worth it? The lives? Also, you cannot be certain on how far it would have spread if you hadnt gotten involved. After all, you were driven out.

I could argue that it mostly served as preventing communism to prevent the closing of markets... but thats prolly half bull.

The United States didn't even lose, in my opinion, the South Vietnamese did. The fall of Saigon happened two full years after nearly all our troops were pulled out. In this respect, perhaps Iraq is somewhat similar to Vietnam. Sure, we can never have a true "victory", since there is no conventional enemy to defeat, but progress that benefits the well-being of America can be made, and it has. I think that the US needs to reconsider its strategy, put more responsibility on to the Iraqi government, and start pulling out gradually as the Iraqi government strengthens.

The well-being of america? I still can not get my head around how defeating a group of terrorists in one country will prevent them or other terrorists (who, after the war, may be even more pissed) to simply regroub or settle in a similar country. Somehow the whole affair made me compare Russia with the US in regards to fighting the Taliban. I predict the outcome will be the same.

And even though this might annoy if its brought up yet *again*, but one should never forget that the whole reason, that the war was started under false pretense. Thus, one could argue that it *is* in fact a wrongful war. Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum he could not fullfill, even if he wanted.


The big question is; were the lives of the american soldiers (and please lets not forget the civilians) lost *WORTH* going to war. What would have been the alternative. How many teorrist attacks would have demanded how many lives, in the time from the beginning of the war until now, had the war not been.

I somehow think the number of victims would be a lot less (and Im thinking of 80 000 civis (upwards) + us soldiers compared to terrorist attacks the size of 9/11).

[Sacul15]

Well sure, it's nearly impossible to destroy all the terrorist organizations in the world. But does that mean we should just let them be? I have mixed feelings on whether we should have gone to Iraq in the first place, but leaving it now would just negate all the progress we have made there.

[Dionysos]

Not let them be. But be realistic. Waging a war on basically one organisation is, in my view, just fuelling the their and others spirit in their cause.

Yes, leaving would prolly create more chaos, at first. In the end, the strongest party would prevail... even if that is a dictatorship. The chance of dying a violent death in Iraq is today higher than under Saddam.

You will have to draw out some day, and I cant see how there will be created order under US supervision, even if its well-meant. They simply wont have it.

[vcool]

I love how americans should be all tolerating, and freedom and liberty, and bla bla bla but when it comes to communism - onoes! Must wage war! Must not lose markets!

Hypocrisy much? I don't know if it is common right now to hate communist ideology in the State, although I DO believe it is, mainly because the people are completely uneducated about what Communism really is. (and I don't blame them, the school system takes care of that. I also don't want to say it is only apparent in America - it's pretty much in every western country)

I am not talking about Soviet Union communism. Though I am quite a bit biased towards communists, USSR wasn't the best thing since sliced bread. I am talking about communism, or rather, socialism, as an ideology. It genuinly pains me when people bash communism by the example of Soviet Union, without learning what it is all about.

True, unfortunately communism can never work with human society, because there is always one or two pricks who think they should have more. I think before we can reach utopia, we have to ascend to higher selfless beings. Which won't happen in the nearest thousand years (by which time I believe humanity will be gone) and perhaps will never happen. But there's always hope.

/here I stand,
the rant is over,
'thought I had something more to saaaaay...

(cookie to the one who guesses which song I used.)

[The Wanderer]

I love how americans should be all tolerating, and freedom and liberty, and bla bla bla but when it comes to communism - onoes! Must wage war! Must not lose markets!

Hypocrisy much? I don't know if it is common right now to hate communist ideology in the State, although I DO believe it is, mainly because the people are completely uneducated about what Communism really is. (and I don't blame them, the school system takes care of that. I also don't want to say it is only apparent in America - it's pretty much in every western country)

I am not talking about Soviet Union communism. Though I am quite a bit biased towards communists, USSR wasn't the best thing since sliced bread. I am talking about communism, or rather, socialism, as an ideology. It genuinly pains me when people bash communism by the example of Soviet Union, without learning what it is all about.

True, unfortunately communism can never work with human society, because there is always one or two pricks who think they should have more. I think before we can reach utopia, we have to ascend to higher selfless beings. Which won't happen in the nearest thousand years (by which time I believe humanity will be gone) and perhaps will never happen. But there's always hope.

/here I stand,
the rant is over,
'thought I had something more to saaaaay...

(cookie to the one who guesses which song I used.)

qft, communism has got such a bad name solely because it was marketed as the next big evil next to satan himself. USSR communism isn't communism, it was a dictatorship with supression of the people. True communism is a society where everyone is equal, which is unattainable in our current way of living.

btw, the song is Time of Pink Floyd.