The 3 things that piss me off about the conflict

[Josh W]

In no particular order...

1.) Now, I'll hear even more protesting equating "no war" with "peace".

2.) So many, who know so little, about something so important, are going to say so little. It's like poker...when at the table, and two people are talking theory, there are three groups of people...those talking, those listening interested, and those who are completely uninterested. Those talking know a little. Those uninterested are just that. And often, it's the best players who aren't talking, but listening interested.

3.) During the Viet Nam conflict, so many people claimed they supported the troops, but not the politicians. They showed this support by spitting on the troops when they returned home. If the "anti-war" people now say they support the troops, I fear saliva. If they don't pretend to support the troops, well, those thankless wastes of flesh deserve little other than pain.

Josh

[andyfox]

1. It is our president who is equating war with peace in Orwellian fashion.

2. All citizens have the right to speak. There are certainly enough talking heads on television speaking. If they have little to say, so what? We have a wealth of sources of information available to us. Hopefully the best players will be talking too.

3. There are always a few spitters in a country of hundreds of millions of people. Lots of people don't support many people who provide the sinews of our country: teachers, cops, working people. . . I don't look on them as "thankless wastes of flesh."

[Josh W]

In response to Andy...

"1. It is our president who is equating war with peace in Orwellian fashion."

Okay. So what? My point was (is) that it bothers me that I have to listen to people equating "no war" with "peace". It's laughable.

"2. All citizens have the right to speak. There are certainly enough talking heads on television speaking. If they have little to say, so what? We have a wealth of sources of information available to us. Hopefully the best players will be talking too.

Of course, I agree that everybody has the right to speak. I just don't have to like what everybody says. As for a wealth of information, some have more than others....but it's the people with limited knowledge who speak the most. Too bad.

"3. There are always a few spitters in a country of hundreds of millions of people. Lots of people don't support many people who provide the sinews of our country: teachers, cops, working people. . . I don't look on them as "thankless wastes of flesh.""

I don't think everybody should have to outwards appreciate the sinews of our nation (although when I got a speeding ticket in December, after the ticket was written, I did sincerely thank the cop for doing his part for the nation...which is silly).

But the difference between "not supporting" and "spitting" is a very wide chasm. It is the people on the 'spitting' side that I view as little more than oxygen thieves.

I hope this clears up what I was trying to say in my first post.

Josh

[nicky g]

I find it odd that people get worked up about a few people spitting on someone dropping bombs on innocent people, when bombs are being dropped on innocent people.

[Clarkmeister]

"My point was (is) that it bothers me that I have to listen to people equating "no war" with "peace". It's laughable"

Yes, clearly more laughable than those who equate war with peace.

[Josh W]

Now I remember why I left this website....

Clark, seriously man, read what I write if you wanna respond.

I didn't make any comments about those equating war with peace. None. But you go ahead and insinuate that I did, under my name if that's what makes you feel good.

All that I was saying is, not having war is not the same thing as peace. Not even close.

Rest assured, say whatever you want now, I'm leaving town for a week, so I won't be able to respond. I'm sure you're licking your chops with all the possibilities of putting words in my mouth. Have a ball.

Josh

[andyfox]

Why is equating no war with peace laughable? Surely the claim of the administration, that we are a peace-loving people, that it is Saddam Hussein who is responsible for this war, would be more laughable, were it not so sad.

[Josh W]

When a bomb gets dropped, there is some immeasurable amount of good that is done. There is also some immeasurable amount of bad. Nobody on Earth can say which is greater.

When a citizens spits on a soldier who risked his life, lost a limb, and lost many friends defending the citizens right to spit, no measurable amount of good is done, and some bad is done.

THAT is why some people get worked up.

Another reason is because many of those spat upon weren't dropping bombs on innocent people. I know that it's easier for the spitters to sleep at night if they lie to themselves and convince themselves that everybody in fatigue's is personally responsible for the death of 10,000 innocent children, but those with even a slight grasp on reality know that this isn't the case.

Many of those spat upon are busy saving the lives of innocent people, directly or indirectly.

But, yeah, most of it comes from my first statement....anytime anybody goes out of their way to induce harm with knowledge beforehand that their actions will create no good, it upsets me. This is people who beat helpless children, people who litter, and people who spit on our finest men and women. Call me crazy.

Josh

[adios]

In September of 1938 some leaders of various nations signed an agreement in Munich that averted war. Diplomacy was much preferred to an ultimatum. One of the leaders upon return gave the following speech:

Peace in Our Time (http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs36.htm)

One year later the countries were at war.

[andyfox]

Hitler claimed that his occupation of Poland was a preemptive war, necessary for the secutiry of his homeland. The Japanese claimed the same thing as the reason for Pearl Harbor.

We can all come up with examples from history that "prove" war is necessary or unnecessary. The value of these analogies is dubious at best.

[andyfox]

Your original post said "so many people" spat on the soldiers when they returned home and this pissed you off.

It's simply not true. There were a few people who spat.

You're certainly entitled to be pissed off by the spitters. It's a disgusting thing no matter what the circumstance. But I'm more pissed off that my government lied to me and deliberately killed civilians by the thousands. Those soldiers were not fighting in Vietnam to defend citizens' right to spit.

[Clarkmeister]

Are you retarded? Read what I write for a change. Where in my post did I say or insinuate that JOSH equates war with peace??

You said those who equate non-war with peace is laughable. I replied that its not as laughable as those who equate war with peace.

No mention of Josh anywhere.

What is your problem?

[nicky g]

"Many of those spat upon are busy saving the lives of innocent people, directly or indirectly.

But, yeah, most of it comes from my first statement....anytime anybody goes out of their way to induce harm with knowledge beforehand that their actions will create no good, it upsets me. This is people who beat helpless children, people who litter, and people who spit on our finest men and women. Call me crazy."

You're crazy. Dropping bombs on people who can'tfight back is almost always infinitely worse than any of those things. Troops are supposed to be able to cope with killing and being attacked; they can cope with a minor insult. What innocent lives were they saving in Vetnam, or Camodia, or Laos?

[Ray Zee]

its ceratinly wrong and sad that people do those things. the troops do believe they are doing the right thing. but also the people spitting are feeling like they are right to lash out. their mistake is that the troops in their mind represent the politicians. so they are lashing out at the wrong people. unfortunate. especially when we had the draft. current soldiers are mercenaries, and being professionally paid volunteer soldiers, they have to cope with whatever the public perceives.

plus we must remember the news reports the things that sell papers and air time and leaves out the boring real story.

[Josh W]

I've been misunderstood again.

If you think I'm going to defend the Viet Nam "war", you are wrong. I hate the fact that it took place, and my dad is a vet from that war.

I was merely using the war protestors from that era as an example of what pisses me off about the anti-war crowd.

But I am in no way a fan of that conflict, or our involvement in it.

Josh

[Josh W]

You are 100% right. You didn't mention me anywhere.

Of course, you did quote me. And, of course, you did write your post in a reply to mine.

And if you read what I wrote (insert applicable joke here), you'd see what upset me is that you were mocking my statement (quoting me, then sarcastically saying "yeah, that's worse that equating war with peace").

But now I'll answer your previous question...

equating war with peace is not nearly as silly as equating 'no war' with peace. this is because war has the possibility of leading to peace, whereas pacifism doesn't. just ask france. afterall, france has treelined streets because german soldiers like marching in the shade.

Now that that's aside.....

No, I'm not retarded. No, I don't take this forum seriously. It is largely controlled by Mason Malmuth who has told very respected posters that they may not discuss sports, the internet, war, stocks, or any other non-related poker items (this is, of course, referring to Abdul Jalib).

It is most frequented by Dynasty and Clarkmeister, whom are both very good (I'm assuming) poker players, with good advice. Dynasty would rather test the thickness of anonymous posters' skin than carry on a peaceful conversation, and Clarkmeister would rather twist words and pretend to respond to something, while ignoring the original poster's words.

This forum is a valuable tool for learning about poker, and to say it isn't is absurd. But if I were to ever start taking this forum as serious as many of the posters seem to, I'd pity my own existence.

And it's too bad, too. For instance, I'm leaving in 45 minutes for Vegas for the next 5 days. I'm going to watch basketball, bet on basketball, visit with some friends, and play some poker. And there are people here that, in a different world, it would be fun to meet and hang out with. Yes, Dave, you are one of these.

But the fact is, at the end of the day, I know that I can't meet you. I know that if I were to meet you, even though we have probably a fair amount in common, I'd want to puke due to your complete lack of civility. What do I mean by this?

When you first responded to this thread, you had no point to prove, no agenda, you just responded to twist my words and mock what I said. That's your perogative. Good for you. You acheived it.

And you probably think your life is better for it.

If I see you this weekend, I'll be sure to not say hi (ala when you and Dynasty were at commerce a few weeks ago, and when you were at commerce roughly 1.5 yrs ago).

And you'll probably respond with a "why are you pissed off?" post.

But because you haven't really read what I've written in the past, you'll have no way of knowing that I'm anything but pissed off. "Amused" is a much better word. "laughing" may be the best of all.

Josh

[Josh W]

As sad as it is, war has the possibility of leading to peace. Pacifism does not.

"no war" = peace is laughable because it's so far from the truth. We weren't at war on September 10th and 11th 2002. But was it peaceful? Have you felt "at peace" since then? Me neither.

And, yes, it is sad that Saddam Hussein is responsible for this war.

Josh

[Josh W]

Japan and Germany didn't have any "smoking gun" evidence (at least as far as I'm aware). Big, huge, un-overestimatedly big difference (perhaps a made-up word in there somewhere).

And to the citizens who think that "hey, if you have evidence of WMD, let's see it!!"....please, stop. Your lack of foresight is pathetic.

It is important to know just how little the average citizen knows.

Josh

[IrishHand]

You really should learn something about history before you try to use it to bolster your flagging arguments.

Both Germany (Poland '39) and Japan (US '41) had far better and more legitimate reasons for their invasions than the US does in this instance. In the former case, they were recovering land taken from them (illegitimately in their minds) in the Versailles treaty - the "Polish corridor", including Danzig (a German city). In the latter case, I would reference you to John Toland's The Rising Sun, an excellent analysis of the US actions, decisions and policies which led inevitably to Pearl Harbor. (Basically, the attack on Pearl Harbor was about as much a surprise to the US government/military as an Iraqi attack on US forces in the area would be this evening.) Frankly, on both counts (Pearl Harbor and Poland), you'd be well served to read a number of books on the topics - I'd start with the aforementioned Rising Sun, then move onto Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (Shirer).

[Clarkmeister]

Uhhhhh, you said people who like green beans were nuts and I said not as nuts as people who like peas.

Not sure how you got 16 paragraphs of angst from that, but its really all I said. For the record, I happen to think green beans and peas suck, but for whatever reason, you took my post to mean I disagreed with you about green beans, which I really don't.

GL in the tourney, I'll be at the IP every day at their viewing party.

[brad]

u really come off as crybaby in a lot of your posts

[El Dukie]

Ray,

With all due respect, as a Reservist and former active-duty officer, I suspect that most of my fellow military members would be extremely offended at being characterized as "mercenaries." That's one of the terms that the Iraqi regime reportedly used at the outset to describe the American troops -- the implication being that our forces, if captured, would not be treated as PoWs...

We do believe in what we're doing. Now more than ever. It may be a grim view of things, but most of us believe there are bad people in this world, and that some of us need to work to stop them. We're saddened to some extent that not everyone sees things with the same clarity we do, but we don't demand that everyone agree with us. We're quite willing to defend other people's right to protest against the actions that we take to preserve their liberty. But it'd be awfully nice if, every now and again, those same people demonstrated a little appreciation for the fact that their freedom to protest has been paid for, and at this very moment is continuing to be paid for, by the blood of our brothers, sisters, and forebearers.

[Josh W]

Seriously...Pissed off. This isn't some "poker doesn't really matter" post.

But, relax....

I'm mad at myself. I was away for a few days, got home, and looked back at some of the crap I wrote...

Clark, I apologize mostly to you. Why I started trying to pick on you, I'll never know. I don't know you, your name doesn't offend me, your word choice doesn't upset me, but I started nit-picking everything you said.

And I'll be honest...you showed a hell of a lot more patience than many (any?) other people would.

A lot of my closest friends and family members have been worried about me 'cracking' recently. But screw that. I don't throw out any excuses or weak reasons. I screwed up. Repeatedly. For no good reason.

I screwed up, and I'm sorry. I'll try to refrain from doing this in the future.

Best of luck....but, damn, I wish 'zaga woulda made the 5 foot leaner at the end of 2OT...

Josh

[Clarkmeister]

Josh,

Don't worry about it. Thanks for the kind words, however. Hope you havd a fun and profitable Vegas trip.

[TimTimSalabim]

Pacifism does not lead to peace? Ever heard of Ghandi?

And how many wars have we had to end all wars? I've lost count.

[Josh W]

Yeah, I've heard of Ghandi...so what? Are you saying he was passive? He'd say he was active.

He certainly was NOT violent, but he was not passive. Big, albeit subtle, difference.

As for "wars to end all wars"....I did not mean to imply that a 'victory' in Iraq would ensure peace throughout the world for the rest of eternity....I merely meant that it would to say that it would create a more peaceful environment in the region for the next generation (or more).

Josh

[nicky g]

Er... He's saying he was a pacifist.

[IrishHand]

Explain to me how the war with Iraq will create a more peaceful Middle East, since to most people, that's a contradiction in terms at least as applies to the present, with no evidence to support your application to the future.

[Michael Davis]

The problem is that the war in Iraq does not in any way "defend my right to protest" or "my freedom."

Ray's point, I think, is that it doesn't matter what soldiers think about the war. They aren't paid to cogitate about the validity of a particular action. They are to do what they are told, and in this respect those of us against the war should not despise them.

I, for one, think that just following orders and committing atrocities is always worthy of scorn. I don't have much respect for mindless soldiers who are just doing their job. I certainly hope they make it out alive, the same way I hope the civilians do.

-Mike

[IrishHand]

I understand your perspective, but I think it's a bit ill-informed.

are to do what they are told, and in this respect those of us against the war should not despise them.
Completely true - directing anger towards the common soldier because of a disenchantment with a nation's military policies is both pointless and insulting to those who decided to devote some portion of their lives to the service of their nation.

I, for one, think that just following orders and committing atrocities is always worthy of scorn.
There's a very fine line between "following orders and committing atrocities" and "following orders which fulfill a vital and legitimate military interest." War has a way of blurring that line to a very high degree - does dropping a bomb on an armaments factory and killing the 200 civilians working therein constitute an atrocity or a legitimate military action? How about shooting surrendering soldiers because the enemy repeatedly uses this ploy to launch surprise attacks? What about letting a couple thousand enemy POWs starve to death because you're short of food and direct all that food to the sustenance of your own troops? How about letting those POWs die from exposure because you have neither the manpower nor the resources to build a reasonable camp? I only mention these examples because often what can appear to be an atrocity is actually a necessary and unfortunate consequence of being in a state of war.

I don't have much respect for mindless soldiers who are just doing their job.
So I take it you'd have more respect for intelligent soldiers who choose not to do their jobs? You wouldn't have any soldiers to worry about before long if that's the case. Our military, like every other, is based on a chain of command. If one link in that chain breaks, the chain ceases to function as a useful tool, and so does the army. I've long held that in a military situation, it is almost never correct to hold a subordinate responsible for following legal orders ("Hey - shoot that guy because he's got blue hair" isn't a legal order). Of course, in order for that to work, you have to have superior officers willing to accept responsibility for their orders, something which hasn't always happened in the US military.

Don't get me wrong - I understand where you're coming from, and I suspect I share those values. I just don't think they apply to the military in the nice, easy way that you (and many others) would like.

Irish

[Michael Davis]

I appreciate your response, and recognize the truth in what you say. And, of course, my perhaps unfair feelings toward the military have been shaped by what I see as an unjust war.

[morgan]

I'm not a long-time protester. But my experience in protesting this war has shown me that the protesters don't "spit on the troops". I don't know how it was during Viet Nam. At the most recent protest many signs read "support our troops". Of course there are probably some radicals who say stupid things, and the media truly loves them. But this is NOT the general view-point of protesters.

In this regard my position is a very awkward one. No one wants to say that any US soldier has died needlessly. It is too sad. But I have to take that position. If you think I'm a jerk, well, what can I say except that I am, after all, on the side that is trying the hardest to bring them home alive.

Morgan

[brad]

you know given the fact that many troops after gulf war 1 were denied medical treatment (and told it was all in their heads and given prozac) when many were exposed to low levels of nerve gas and stuff and had what turned out to be major bona fide conditions and that furthermore US command covered up a lot of stuff (chemical weapons detectors went off all over region, chemical weapons depots blown up, experimental vaccines with unknown side effects, depleted uranium, etc.)

its highly ironic that the ones pushing for war this time are 'supporting our troops'.

i only hope this time around gulf war veterans will not be given the shaft.