Patriotism: The War of Words Continues...  

nontoxicmale 64M
132 posts
6/5/2006 11:59 am

Last Read:
9/12/2006 5:25 pm

Patriotism: The War of Words Continues...


I think that it's important to take a stand against those ideas and actions that violate your beliefs. I don't stand in support of the US being in Iraq. I feel that those who got us into that fight took advantage of the emotional state of the nation after 9/11 and moved us into a war that was more to the benefit of Haliburton than to the citizens of this country. Furthermore, the new Iraq war has been prosecuted with great arrogance and inadequate materiel and manpower support by the current administration. How dare they declare that the war is won months after it began while American boys and girls are dying there still. Still, I support the troops on the ground. One of the misfortunes of a war situation is the polarization of ideas. With the if you're not with us, you're against us attitude, it is hard to find middle ground on which understanding and compromise can occur. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and company have chosen the my way or the highway stance and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh seem to have jumped on that bandwagon. There seems to be little opportunity for intelligent dialogue. So sadly, the result is that many people feel that any stand in support of our troops is a tacit agreement to support the war. If we can weigh in on this intelligently and not plant ourselves so firmly for or against everyone and everything associated with the military and the ongoing war, maybe some legitimate solutions may arise. Otherwise it seems that we will just continue the war at home.

RevJoseyWales 69M/66F
14393 posts
6/5/2006 1:07 pm

Be careful, you'll wind up being put on Blogville's anti-american list. Very good post. To the point, and non-offensive, well at least to most of us. Joe

"McVeigh had the right idea, wrong address."

"This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok."


nontoxicmale 64M

6/5/2006 2:14 pm

Truly it is not my desire to offend anyone. However, I am offended by the people who would rather sling mud on America rather than make positive changes. We so easily take our freedoms for granted and don't recognize that blood was shed so that we could enjoy them. Friends of mine are no longer here because they made the ultimate sacrifice. My opposition to the Viet Nam war in no way lessens the value of the people who fought it whether they were drafted or volunteered. I volunteered and spent almost 10 years in the submarine service in part during the Viet Nam war. My opposition to that war did not stand in the way of my love of this country or the appreciation I have for being a citizen. God bless you, Joe, for putting yourself on the line and for bearing the awful toll that war takes on any soldier. You have my deepest respect for having been in the military, fighting in the name of my country, and, in spite of tremendous pressure to do otherwise, living up to your citizenship in the most powerful way. I also appreciate that, unlike myself lately, you are able to have a sense of humor about it. Thanks for that, too. Let's hope I don't break my leg as I now leap off my soapbox!


rm_kronotharsis 38M

6/8/2006 3:12 pm

OK, there is a definite contradiction between seeing a cause as bad, and the sacrifice for this cause as good.
If the cause is unworthy and rotten, ANY participation in this cause is effectually helping evil. Any resources you pour into violent aggressive design increases this bad force and decreases the chances of this aggression being repulsed.

There were marvellous kind compassionate individuals among the soldiers of der Wehrmacht. My grandma used to tell me how she, 14 y.o., was cared about and treated candies by a German soldier named Peter. Peter was among the kindest persons she ever met in her life. Yet he, whatever his role in the military was, whether unwillingly, served the Nazi cause. He played his role in all Nazi crimes. There is always a chance that it was Peter who put a bullet in my grand-grand-fathers chest in 1941. And in doing so, he couls have merely defended his life. Kill or be killed.
And there is of course the question of those who made this bullet that killed my grand, those civilians back somewhere in Swabia.
You don't support the AGGRESSION in Irak yet your tax dollars sustain it. Does this make you a legitimate target ? Like the civilians in Nazi Germany who were perceived as legitimate targets by the Allied Command. If Churchill and Rousevelt saw German civilians as legitimate targets, and determinedly massacred them to undermine Hitler's was capabilites, why Al Qaeda is not granted same privilege ? If Truman saw legitimate droping A-bombs on civilians knowing in advance this meant HUGE loss of civilian life, what's wrong with 9/11 ? Hiroshima-Nagasaki has so far remained the biggest act of terrorism in history; it still affect the newborns in Japan. What's wrong is that "our" lives are way more precious than "their" lives. "Our" civilians are way more civilian than their civilians. "Our" cause is way gooder than any other cause.


nontoxicmale 64M

9/12/2006 5:25 pm

    Quoting rm_kronotharsis:
    OK, there is a definite contradiction between seeing a cause as bad, and the sacrifice for this cause as good.
    If the cause is unworthy and rotten, ANY participation in this cause is effectually helping evil. Any resources you pour into violent aggressive design increases this bad force and decreases the chances of this aggression being repulsed.

    There were marvellous kind compassionate individuals among the soldiers of der Wehrmacht. My grandma used to tell me how she, 14 y.o., was cared about and treated candies by a German soldier named Peter. Peter was among the kindest persons she ever met in her life. Yet he, whatever his role in the military was, whether unwillingly, served the Nazi cause. He played his role in all Nazi crimes. There is always a chance that it was Peter who put a bullet in my grand-grand-fathers chest in 1941. And in doing so, he couls have merely defended his life. Kill or be killed.
    And there is of course the question of those who made this bullet that killed my grand, those civilians back somewhere in Swabia.
    You don't support the AGGRESSION in Irak yet your tax dollars sustain it. Does this make you a legitimate target ? Like the civilians in Nazi Germany who were perceived as legitimate targets by the Allied Command. If Churchill and Rousevelt saw German civilians as legitimate targets, and determinedly massacred them to undermine Hitler's was capabilites, why Al Qaeda is not granted same privilege ? If Truman saw legitimate droping A-bombs on civilians knowing in advance this meant HUGE loss of civilian life, what's wrong with 9/11 ? Hiroshima-Nagasaki has so far remained the biggest act of terrorism in history; it still affect the newborns in Japan. What's wrong is that "our" lives are way more precious than "their" lives. "Our" civilians are way more civilian than their civilians. "Our" cause is way gooder than any other cause.
Nothing is as simple as judging everyone and everything associated with an event or cause as being equal in the goodness or evil of attributed to it.

All the Germans who fought against the "allies" were not aware of the evil being perpetrated upon the Jews, POWs, and others in WWII. They thought that they were defending the motherland. In their minds it was a noble cause worth putting their lives on the line. They were not evil, just mistaken.

Those who flew the planes over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unaware of the massive destruction that would occur. They were defending the US against a country that had attacked us unprovoked. Again, it was a noble cause.

You describe Hiroshima and Nagasaki as terrorist attacks. If so then any nation that defends itself against an agressor is a terrorist state. I cannot hold with that. Truman's camp believed that Japan would have no choice but to surrender against such unsurmountable odds. And despite the horror of the means, he was right.

In the days of WWII, war-making technology was not at a point that pinpoint targeting was possible. Neither Roosevelt nor Churchill was interested in destroying civilian populations. However, in defending against the Germans (who showed no signs of giving up), they felt it was better to destroy the enemy nation and its populace than to leave their own in jeopardy. By the way, there were landings and raiding parties by German U-boat crews on Long Island and Connecticut.

Terrorists are those who would attack indiscriminately when unprovoked and purposefully target the innocent. When they do that, their cause no longer has meaning to those who are being attacked. Now there are those in the US government who do not understand that those doing the terrorist deeds are not going to stop with a change in US foreign policy. Bin Laden has made it very clear when he said that his cause will be won when America is converted to Islam.

The soldiers in Iraq are trying to help in the establishment of an independent democratic Iraqi government. From our standpoint, a noble cause. From a Middle Eastern Muslim standpoint, it is not. That does not make the US soldiers evil. The cause however, is unjustified. Our current administration continues to push the idea that preemption is legitimate and that we had to preemptively remove Saddam Hussein from power. They play on the emotions of the US population and hide the real reason for going into Iraq in the first place. The truth is that we are stymied at every turn in trying to drill in the Western Hemisphere for oil. We have a huge reserve that we cannot use that is being pumped out of the Alaskan pipeline because politicians have continually stood in the way of building new refineries. So what better way to secure our gluttonous future than to try and create an oil rich ally in Iraq. Arrogant? Yes. Realistic? No. And that is why the fighting and terrorism gets worse. We will never win in Iraq.

The idea that the terrorists are jealous of our way of life is a joke. To them we are evil in our decadence and they are fighting to prevent the spread of our decadence. To them, the only way to ensure that our way of life won't poison their own is to destroy us wherever and whenever they can.


Become a member to create a blog