Why I am embarrassed to say I went to UMass.

[southerndog]

There are so many dweebs at this school trying to look smart or something. When I was there, they protested the Minuteman now crap like this from some moron grad student. I feel bad for Daryn that he has to be around these people. Here is the article that Rene Gonzalez has written for the campus newspaper... An other wise decent campus newspaper. ( When I was there.)

Pat Tillman is not a hero: He got what was coming to him

By Rene Gonzalez
April 28, 2004


When the death of Pat Tillman occurred, I turned to my friend who was watching the news with me and said, "How much you want to bet they start talking about him as a 'hero' in about two hours?" Of course, my friend did not want to make that bet. He'd lose. In this self-critical incapable nation, nothing but a knee-jerk "He's a hero" response is to be expected.

I've been mystified at the absolute nonsense of being in "awe" of Tillman's "sacrifice" that has been the American response. Mystified, but not surprised. True, it's not everyday that you forgo a $3.6 million contract for joining the military. And, not just the regular army, but the elite Army Rangers. You know he was a real Rambo, who wanted to be in the "real" thick of things. I could tell he was that type of macho guy, from his scowling, beefy face on the CNN pictures. Well, he got his wish. Even Rambo got shot in the third movie, but in real life, you die as a result of being shot. They should call Pat Tillman's army life "Rambo 4: Rambo Attempts to Strike Back at His Former Rambo 3 Taliban Friends, and Gets Killed."

But, does that make him a hero? I guess it's a matter of perspective. For people in the United States, who seem to be unable to admit the stupidity of both the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars, such a trade-off in life standards (if not expectancy) is nothing short of heroic. Obviously, the man must be made of "stronger stuff" to have had decided to "serve" his country rather than take from it. It's the old JFK exhortation to citizen service to the nation, and it seems to strike an emotional chord. So, it's understandable why Americans automatically knee-jerk into hero worship.

However, in my neighborhood in Puerto Rico, Tillman would have been called a "pendejo," an idiot. Tillman, in the absurd belief that he was defending or serving his all-powerful country from a seventh-rate, Third World nation devastated by the previous conflicts it had endured, decided to give up a comfortable life to place himself in a combat situation that cost him his life. This was not "Ramon or Tyrone," who joined the military out of financial necessity, or to have a chance at education. This was a "G.I. Joe" guy who got what was coming to him. That was not heroism, it was prophetic idiocy.

Tillman, probably acting out his nationalist-patriotic fantasies forged in years of exposure to Clint Eastwood and Rambo movies, decided to insert himself into a conflict he didn't need to insert himself into. It wasn't like he was defending the East coast from an invasion of a foreign power. THAT would have been heroic and laudable. What he did was make himself useful to a foreign invading army, and he paid for it. It's hard to say I have any sympathy for his death because I don't feel like his "service" was necessary. He wasn't defending me, nor was he defending the Afghani people. He was acting out his macho, patriotic crap and I guess someone with a bigger gun did him in.

Perhaps it's the old, dreamy American thought process that forces them to put sports greats and "larger than life" sacrificial lambs on the pedestal of heroism, no matter what they've done. After all, the American nation has no other role to play but to be the cheerleaders of the home team; a sad role to have to play during conflicts that suffer from severe legitimacy and credibility problems.

Matters are a little clearer for those living outside the American borders. Tillman got himself killed in a country other than his own without having been forced to go over to that country to kill its people. After all, whether we like them or not, the Taliban is more Afghani than we are. Their resistance is more legitimate than our invasion, regardless of the fact that our social values are probably more enlightened than theirs. For that, he shouldn't be hailed as a hero, he should be used as a poster boy for the dangerous consequences of too much "America is #1," frat boy, propaganda bull. It might just make a regular man irrationally drop $3.6 million to go fight in a conflict that was anything but "self-defense." The same could be said of the unusual belief of 50 percent of the American nation that thinks Saddam Hussein was behind Sept. 11. One must indeed stand in awe of the amazing success of the American propaganda machine. It works wonders.

Al-Qaeda won't be defeated in Afghanistan, even if we did kill all their operatives there. Only through careful and logical changing of the underlying conditions that allow for the ideology to foster will Al-Qaeda be defeated. Ask the Israelis if 50 years of blunt force have eradicated the Palestinian resistance. For that reason, Tillman's service, along with that of thousands of American soldiers, has been wrongly utilized. He did die in vain, because in the years to come, we will realize the irrationality of the War on Terror and the American reaction to Sept. 11. The sad part is that we won't realize it before we send more people like Pat Tillman over to their deaths.

Rene Gonzalez is a UMass graduate student.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I heard the Editor of the paper on radio yesterday. He said that most of the staff was appalled at Gonzalez' take on Tillman.

Hey freedom of speech and the press. He's free to write what he thinks, and we're free to let him know we think he's an idiot.

[andyfox]

Could be worse. You could have gone to Yale. Bush and Kerry went there.

[M2d]

maybe Daryn is a 2+2 pseudomyn for Rene Gonzalez? I don't know, I've never met the guy or been to Massachusets, for that matter. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[B-Man]

I'm really angry that WEEI read this on the air. Why give this scumbag any publicity?

There are two possibilities:

1. Gonzalez is out for publicity, and succeeded in getting it.

2. Gonzalez is a self-loathing quasi-American that has no appreciation for the freedoms we enjoy in this country--(despite taking full advantage of them by writing that despicable column).

3. Both of the above.

I think 3 is most likely the case.

It's because of people like Pat Tillman that we have rights like freedom of the press. Tillman was without a doubt one of the most un-selfish, patriotic men this country has known in a very long time. We should all appreciate the ultimate sacrifice that he made, and we should refrain from giving ANY publicity to self-interested scumbags like Gonzalez, people who would capitalize on his death for their own twisted purposes.

[B-Man]

I'm glad this post isn't about Marcus Camby getting caught having a threesome with two hookers in his dorm room!

[MMMMMM]

For Gonzalez to argue that the Iraq war was unjustifiable or inadvisable is understandable (since it is quite debatable). For him to view the Afghan war in the same light is unbelievable.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The worst part is his impugning the motives of Tillman, who never sought the spotlight for his choice. In fact, he refused to be interviewd about the decision he made.

[daryn]

wow you beat me to it! i was just going to make a post about this loser. you guys said it all though, bravo.

[Vagos]

Yep, I'm currently a UMass student as well and this article just sickened me. To verbally abuse a fallen solider who left millions of dollars and a 4 star life style in order to fight for his country is just plain outrageous.
-Andy

[JoeU]

Daryn,

From one "paisan" to another, find this guy and make him an offer he can't refuse. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

What's sad is this guy writes this junk under the defense of the First Ammendment, and Pat Tillman (and the rest of our soldiers)are in a foreign land giving their lives to defend this idiot's freedoms.

Very sad that a respectable university would allow a moron like this to grace its halls.

Joe

[daryn]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif


i can't imagine this guy is well-liked after this article. this school definitely has its share of beatnicks and hippies, but i think the majority of the campus would like to find this guy and string him up.

i just can't understand the need to write that article. what has Tillman ever done to anyone? he made the ultimate sacrifice, and never wanted any public recognition for making his tough decision. what problem could you possibly have with Tillman? we need more Pat Tillman's.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

What's sad is this guy writes this junk under the defense of the First Ammendment, and Pat Tillman (and the rest of our soldiers)are in a foreign land giving their lives to defend this idiot's freedoms.

It's all of our freedom, not just the idiot's. The truth is we can all point at some scumbag and lament the protection the law gives him, but the loss of our freedom will begin with denying those freedoms to idiots and scumbags.

One of the reasons I'm a patriotic American is *because* this moron doesn't have to worry about being thrown in jail for writing that drivel.

[daryn]

this dickhead actually made the main page at www.espn.com (http://www.espn.com)

today's paper had some response pieces by students who criticize this loser. i just noticed that one kid who wrote a response is my buddy mike. i'd like to post his response but the server where the articles and such are hosted has gone over its daily bandwidth, how crazy.

[hetron]

Let me start off by saying that I didn't like the racist overtones of the article (as if GI Joe jingoism is the sole refuge of beefy, red faced white guys), nor did I appreciate the insinuations that Tillman joined the Army with the sole purpose of killing as many foreigners as possible in some Rambo fantasy. I don't know exactly what his motives were, and unless you have information as to his motives, it is dumb to speculate.

That being said, to elevate Tillman to hero status because he left a high paying job to join the Army is, as Gonzalez put it, knee jerk, and probably does have something to do with the "We're #1" cheerleader attitude so many in this country exhibit. Would people have made such a big deal if Tillman had left his NFL job to join the Red Cross? Or to join the Peace Corps?

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Would people have made such a big deal if Tillman had left his NFL job to join the Red Cross? Or to join the Peace Corps?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if he was putting his life on the line in those situations too. For example, it may be virtuous to sacrifice lifes comforts to be a missionary, or dedicate yourself to a church, its another thing to go out and help remove landmines in a foreign land. There's a difference.

[Cyrus]

I think the writer of that article was somewhat too glib in the analysis of Tillman's motives but otherwise the remarks are flawless. You don't get this kind of inciciveness at prime time. Watch:

"Whether we like them or not, the Taliban [are] more Afghani than we are. Their resistance is more legitimate than our invasion, regardless of the fact that our social values are probably more enlightened than theirs.

Al-Qaeda won't be defeated in Afghanistan, even if we did kill all their operatives there. Only through careful and logical changing of the underlying conditions that allow for the ideology to foster will Al-Qaeda be defeated. Ask the Israelis if 50 years of blunt force have eradicated the Palestinian resistance."

Just about as well said as can be.

[Chris Alger]

Gonzalez's piece is a refreshing counterpart to all the politically correct hysteria about Tillman being a "hero" because he sacrificed glory and money to kill people for the U.S. She's actually being generous by describing Tillman as an "idiot." An idiot has an excuse. If Tillman wasn't an idiot but the kind of person that volunteers to kill whoever the U.S. wants to have killed, he's no better than anyone else fighting an unjust war, like a mercenary or murderer-for-hire.

But I wouldn't say he got what he deserved. He deserved to be spanked or put behind bars.

When I was serving aboard a ballistic missile submarine, a fellow petty officer once confided to me that "in the event of a real launch, my battle station is MCC with a DC sledge hammer" (to smash the missile control computers and prevent the launch). An action like this could easily have spared a million lives, probably more (16 missiles X 10-12 warheads X 20-30 kilotons ea.). That's what real heros do.

[John Cole]

Chris,

I feel compelled to tell you your position on this may prove to be unpopular.

What's the "DC" stand for?

[Dilbert]

The bigger issue is that the town of Amherst, MA is named for General Jeffrey Amherst.

Lord Jeffrey Amherst's letters discussing germ warfare against American Indians (http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html)

This guy was just like Saddam Hussein.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Gonzalez: "Whether we like them or not, the Taliban [are] more Afghani than we are. Their resistance is more legitimate than our invasion, regardless of the fact that our social values are probably more enlightened than theirs.

Al-Qaeda won't be defeated in Afghanistan, even if we did kill all their operatives there. Only through careful and logical changing of the underlying conditions that allow for the ideology to foster will Al-Qaeda be defeated. Ask the Israelis if 50 years of blunt force have eradicated the Palestinian resistance."

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus: Just about as well said as can be.

More stupid thoughts could not be better said.

[MMMMMM]

Chris,

So you think we shouldn't have attacked al-Qaeda's base in response to 9/11?

[Chris Alger]

"Damage control." They were conveniently located at various stations around the boat to pound things in the event of a casualty.

[Chris Alger]

We didn't attack "al-Qaeda's base;" we bombed civilian centers throughout Afghanistan to overthrow its government and install a pliant warlord. The excuse for this was the Taliban's refusal to attempt what the U.S. Army couldn't do: capture and hand over bin Laden.

[MMMMMM]

So you think we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan and routed al-Qaeda from their base and training camps. You think we shouldn't have overthrown the Taliban, who were in bed with al-Qaeda and in efect were what enabled al-Qaeda to have such an excellent base for their terrorist training.

I guess we can just always count on Chris Alger to take a position contrary to U.S. interests.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

She's actually being generous by describing Tillman

Rene Gonzalez is a man.

[southerndog]

[ QUOTE ]
We didn't attack "al-Qaeda's base;"

[/ QUOTE ]

If you say WE, and you don't appreciate brave American's like Pat Tillman, maybe YOU shouldn't be an American. Please leave OUR country you waste of space.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Please leave OUR country you waste of space.

I hate doing this, but....

Despite the fact that I disagreee vehemently with Chris Alger's attitude and opinion about the US and capitalism, I am also completely turned off by your attitude.

The day someone is made to feel uncomfortable about living in this country because he or she disagrees with our policy and expresses that opinion is the day *I* stop wanting to live here.

This is the greatest country in the world *because* we not only tolerate dissent, but accept it as a prerequisite to freedom.

[southerndog]

Kurn,

I completely support his right to say what he wants, but to me what he is saying is this: "I hate American's." Not: "I hate our policy." When he say's Pat Tillman was an idiot, what he say's to me is that he hates Americans. And if he hates our people, then he hates our country, and he should find somewhere else to live.

Please don't categorize me as one of those people that says, "America, love it or leave it" when they hear or see people protesting about things I disagree with. That's not me at all. I fully support our right to protest and free speech, there just comes a point where I think people need to move on and go somewhere else if they are not happy.

If you hated the people you lived with, wouldn't you leave?

Dog

[MMMMMM]

Well...SouthernDog is expressing his views, too--as is his right. Nobody has a right to be protected from feeling uncomfortable. That said, I don't care for the love it or leave it attitude either, (although in the case of Chris Alger I think it is almost merited, since his hatred of the USA shines through in many a post. Nevertheless, such expression is his right. It's also anyone's right to suggest he take a hike. As long as legislation doesn't prevent Chris from expressing his views, I'll still be glad I live here).

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

That sounds reasonable. Maybe I overreacted. I do that sometimes. Very Klingon-like. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Yeah, you're right.

[Chris Alger]

So the Germans that opposed the invasion of Poland "shouldn't be Germans" and should have abandoned their country to Hitler's followers, or otherwise be a "waste of space"?

[Chris Alger]

"since his hatred of the USA shines through in many a post"

I don't hate the USA (in fact I'm too lazy to hate much of anything). But in fact I love the USA, which I think is one of the greatest country in world history. What bothers me is that America's grandest ideals have been sacrificed, once again, by war traitors who's cowardly failure to question authority has turned America and its leaders into objects of international ridicule and scorn. Even in the UK, "more than one in three Britons think George W. Bush is stupid and a majority branded the U.S. president a threat to world peace." Reuters (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031115/325/ee1zu.html)

Some people that imagine themselves patriots are proud of this, just as they're proud of sending Pat Tillman and so many others off to die in Afghanistan and Iraq, flag-waving myths over senseless killing being one of the few things that give meaning to their otherwise vacant lives.

I sleep better at night knowing I'm not one of them.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I sleep better at night knowing I'm not one of them

[/ QUOTE ]

I sleep better at night knowing that you are no longer in a position to interfere with a nuclear attack if so ordered by our commander in chief. Please stay out of positions of authority you seem not to have the guts required to make an unpopular decision.

[Utah]

Duh!

Of course not. Use your head. Why would Alger want us to attack all his good friends? Think about it - If we killed all the enemies of the U.S., who would Alger support?

[Chris Alger]

"guts?" That's a good conservative definition of bravery: the courage to incinerate anonymous millions by pushing buttons from a secret, impenetrable location deep in the ocean.

Normal human: "the Nazis sure did hoorible things with those death camps."
Wake-up Call: "at least they had the guts to follow orders from their commander-in-chief."

And Americans wonder why they're hated.

[Utah]

Its only hated and dispised by people like you.

funny how the US, for a country so hated, doesnt seem to have a problem getting people to want to live here. I guess you missed the story about one of the Iraqi's who was tortured asking if he could come live here.

Hey, I have a cool idea - why dont you two swap locations?

[Cyrus]

"More stupid thoughts could not be better said [about the war in Iraq]."

Funny how the consensus of the pro-war but informed opinion positions seems to be at odds with your happy-go-lucky, what-me-worry demeanor. For a taste of the completely different outlook and proposals the sane pro-war camp offers (if I may stretch my definitions a bit) you should check the NYRB article (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17103) I linked to.

I'm sure you know a lot more about Iraq and Yugoslavia than, for example, the former U.S. ambassador to Yugoslavia and envoy to Iraq, who wrote the article, but you never know, you might learn something new.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus:"More stupid thoughts could not be better said [about the war in Iraq]."

You bonehead, Cyrus;-)--it was about the war in Afghanistan, not Iraq. If you're going to quote me and add parentheses, at least get the parens right, please.

[ QUOTE ]
Gonzalez: "Whether we like them or not, the Taliban are more Afghani than we are. Their resistance is more legitimate than our invasion, regardless of the fact that our social values are probably more enlightened than theirs.

Al-Qaeda won't be defeated in Afghanistan, even if we did kill all their operatives there. Only through careful and logical changing of the underlying conditions that allow for the ideology to foster will Al-Qaeda be defeated. Ask the Israelis if 50 years of blunt force have eradicated the Palestinian resistance."

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus: "Just about as well said as can be."

M: "More stupid thoughts could not be better said."

At which point you quoted me, and this whole thing, as referring to IRAQ, and forthwith hunted up a link, even.

I know, I know, it's late...;-)

My primary objection to Gonzalez' comments cited above center around this sentence:

"Only through careful and logical changing of the underlying conditions that allow for the ideology to foster will Al-Qaeda be defeated."

...As if implying WE are somehow going to be able to change THEIR delusions, which spring from centuries of militant, fanatical Islamic ideology--which they, al-Qaeda, have adopted and revere wholeheartedly. If only WE act logically, carefully, to change the underlying conditions...Gonzalez is a spoon-fed dope, simply parroting in this article the liberal rhetoric and tenets he has soaked up during his college years.

The problem, and the underlying condition, that causes al-Qaedans to engage in terrorism, is their BRAINS--not our actions.

[Cyrus]

You went to all this trouble (with italics, quotes and everything) to point out to me that "this was about Afghanistan and not Iraq" ?!

The college student's article was about a young American's death in Iraq. I found her understanding of the war (in Iraq) (as well of the war in Afghanistan) to be far more informed and lucid than the total sum of the "understanding" that flag-waving yahoos and bozos have of the situation.

You get the whole thing backwards and ..you have the nerve to ask me to "read"?

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, I hate to have to tell you this, but...Pat Tillman was killed in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Gonzalez's piece is a refreshing counterpart to all the politically correct hysteria about Tillman being a "hero" because he sacrificed glory and money to kill people for the U.S. She's actually being generous by describing Tillman as an "idiot." An idiot has an excuse. If Tillman wasn't an idiot but the kind of person that volunteers to kill whoever the U.S. wants to have killed, he's no better than anyone else fighting an unjust war, like a mercenary or murderer-for-hire.


[/ QUOTE ]
I read this an wanted to instantly punch you Chris. You are doing precisely what douche bags and motherfuckers do. You are politicizing the service of the troops of the U.S. They have no choice where they go and who they fight. Don't even try to say that they troops over there have a choice. First of all the war in Afghanistan was definitely warranted and just, so any conflict over there is right. Yeah, you might argue that civilians have died, but 3500 civlians died over here, and the whole reason civis died over there is their radical oppresive government supported terrorists and murderers.

[ QUOTE ]
But I wouldn't say he got what he deserved. He deserved to be spanked or put behind bars.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tillman??? No troop ever deserves to die, nor does any civilian. Tillman does not deserve any punishment what so ever. why should he? because he joined the military? like I said earlier, he doesn't get to choose where he goes, nor did you, so you should not chastise him or any other solider for fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. Atleast Tillman was ready to do his job unlike you apparently
[ QUOTE ]
When I was serving aboard a ballistic missile submarine, a fellow petty officer once confided to me that "in the event of a real launch, my battle station is MCC with a DC sledge hammer" (to smash the missile control computers and prevent the launch). An action like this could easily have spared a million lives, probably more (16 missiles X 10-12 warheads X 20-30 kilotons ea.).

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's what real heros do.

[/ QUOTE ]
yeah being a pacifist while millions die in the U.S., thats what heros do. You are an example for all.

[nicky g]

"You are politicizing the service of the troops of the U.S. They have no choice where they go and who they fight."

Didn't Tillman join up specifically because he wanted to go to Afghanistan? Correct me if I'm wrong, that is the impression I got.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
They have no choice where they go and who they fight. Don't even try to say that they troops over there have a choice

[/ QUOTE ]
No one forced or even asked Tillman to fight anyone. That's one of the reasons he's supposed to be a "hero." He chose to enlist when the country was at war with Afghanistan and volunteered for Ranger duty to maximize his chances of seeing combat.

In other cases you might have a point. A lot of people in the service get caught up in unjust conflicts they didn't expect and couldn't foresee and feel obliged to fight them out of a sense of duty or fear of incarceration or ignominy. Of course, citizens in a democracy responsible for such wars, like you and I, don't have that excuse.

[ QUOTE ]
First of all the war in Afghanistan was definitely warranted and just

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what everything hinges on. If it was, I'm wrong and Tillman is a hero. If it wasn't, Tillman is just another gun-for-hire who got what he deserved, "a cog in a low-rent occupation army that shot more innocent civilians and terrorists to prop up puppet rulers and exploit gas and oil interests" (cartoonist Ted Rall, who's received hundreds of death threats for challenging the official line about Tillman and the war).

Since assuming one way or the other is stupid, one needs a very clear idea about why the war was justified, as all wars must be, as a last resort. Your blanket assertion that it was justified, case closed, suggests you're having trouble articulating your reason for helping get Tillman killed.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Of course, citizens in a democracy responsible for such wars, like you and I, don't have that excuse.

I'll give you this one, Chris. I harp on the Constitution enough when arguing against liberals that I can't hide from this point.

Since WWII, there has not been one single constitutionally acceptable use of US troops, the current one included. We the People (and our true representatives - Congress) have too comfortably ceded the responsibility for committing our troops to the Executive Branch.

Now, I would have told my representatives that I supported this action, but that doesn't change the fact that IMO, this war is unconstitutional.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
My primary objection to Gonzalez' comments cited above center around this sentence:

"Only through careful and logical changing of the underlying conditions that allow for the ideology to foster will Al-Qaeda be defeated."

...As if implying WE are somehow going to be able to change THEIR delusions, which spring from centuries of militant, fanatical Islamic ideology--which they, al-Qaeda, have adopted and revere wholeheartedly. If only WE act logically, carefully, to change the underlying conditions...Gonzalez is a spoon-fed dope, simply parroting in this article the liberal rhetoric and tenets he has soaked up during his college years.
The problem, and the underlying condition, that causes al-Qaedans to engage in terrorism, is their BRAINS--not our actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your missing the point of that sentence. Their will always be extremists, their will always be people who will pervert logical thought for their own ends. They can only be defeated if they are marginlized and their idealogies are shown as perverse idiotic ramblings. Something that by it's actions this administration has no desire to do. The Iron fist will not work, it just makes it easier for terrorist organisations to recruit and therefore exist.

[southerndog]

[ QUOTE ]
...Gonzalez is a spoon-fed dope, simply parroting in this article the liberal rhetoric and tenets he has soaked up during his college years.



[/ QUOTE ]

You hit the nail on the head with this one. This is exactly what fuels my embarrassment. Its not so much that Gonzalez wrote this peace of trash, its that he thought it would win him admiration from the campus community. The reason why he thought it would win him admiration is because he knew d-head profs and other bozos at that school would support him.

Let me reiterate, I do not support the war in Iraq one bit, but I certainly recognize sacrifices like Tillman's. To be honest with you, if a soldier from an opposing country of ours made the same sacrifice as Tillman, I would still have respect for him. Even if his side was clearly in the wrong.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't Tillman join up specifically because he wanted to go to Afghanistan? Correct me if I'm wrong, that is the impression I got.

[/ QUOTE ]
He enlisted after 9/11, well before any conflict was under way.

[nicky g]

The Afghanistan war started in October and everyone knew it was coming for several weeks before that.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
He chose to enlist when the country was at war with Afghanistan and volunteered for Ranger duty to maximize his chances of seeing combat.


[/ QUOTE ]
No he enlisted before we went in Afghanistan.

[ QUOTE ]
If it wasn't, Tillman is just another gun-for-hire who got what he deserved

[/ QUOTE ]
You still think this? Our troops deserve to die over there if the war is unjustified in your eyes?

WTF is going on in our country when a soldier dies in combat, and he is called everything but a hero?

[nicky g]

Suerly he has been called a hero by thousands of people.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, I would have told my representatives that I supported this action, but that doesn't change the fact that IMO, this war is unconstitutional.

[/ QUOTE ]

I found the two pertinent clauses in our Constitution to your objection.

A right of the Congress: To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

A right of the President: The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

These two rights/responsibilities are not necessarily exclusive. It can of course be argued that only Congress may declare war but that is merely an official designation. Since the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces he may command them to do anything he deems necessary in order to defend our country. This is easily construed to mean that even without a formal "declaration" of war by Congress the President may "wage" a war in order to fulfill his constitutional duties.


Another good point is that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 authorizes the President to act unilaterally with military force for 60 to 90 days, with congressional approval required for troops to remain engaged in hostilities after that.

One more point is made that in the 1991 Congressional Authorization of the Gulf War in January of 1991 stated: "The resolution allowed the use of force to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions, including demands that Iraq eliminate weapons of mass destruction and open the country to U.N. inspectors."

Naturally this is all open to discussion and legal interpretation except for the facts that the President had the initial 60 to 90 day authority to wage war in Iraq via the War Powers Act of 1973 and that Congress has authorized continued funding of the continuence of said "conflict".

It is therfore surmised that the War against Iraq was perfectly constitutional.

[Lazymeatball]

southern dog
[ QUOTE ]
An other wise decent campus newspaper. ( When I was there.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know when you were at UMass but the Daily Collegian has gone a long way downhill. The paper has been overrun with the type of anti-american rhetoric similar to Gonzales, although usually a bit more subtle. And Dan Lamothe sucks.

[B-Man]

It's hatefull, moronic and ignorant.

I'd love to see what the reaction would be from the left if a writer wrote something like, "The woman who was raped got what she deserved because she wore a short skirt to that nightclub," or, "the man who was murdered [in a bad neighborhood] got what we deserved, because he shouldn't have been there in the first place."

I support freedom of speech, but its ironic that so many lefties only support it when it is in their own best interest. Remember the story last year when the offices of a couple of college newspapers were trashed because they took advertisements against reparations for slavery? Where was Rene Gonzalez then?

[nicky g]

"I'd love to see what the reaction would be from the left if a writer wrote something like, "The woman who was raped got what she deserved because she wore a short skirt to that nightclub," or, "the man who was murdered [in a bad neighborhood] got what we deserved, because he shouldn't have been there in the first place." "

I don't share Chris's position on this, but nevertheless surely you see the difference between a rape victim or someone in a bad neibourhood, both of whom are mere victims of circumstance, and someone willingly signing up to go to fight people in a foreign country?

[nicky g]

" Since the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces he may command them to do anything he deems necessary in order to defend our country. This is easily construed to mean that even without a formal "declaration" of war by Congress the President may "wage" a war in order to fulfill his constitutional duties. "

I don't agree that there is no contradiction. Does this mean that in a country where the commander in chief of the army is a military figure, he should be able to start wars at whim? The army is in charge of conducting the fighting of wars, not of starting or declaring them, so being commander in chief in itself does not give one that right.

[hetron]

Maybe he just hates the conservatives and war mongers. That means he still likes about 50% of the population.

[hetron]

People come to the US from poor countries because they know there are jobs and money here. They often go back to their home countries after they retire. They don't have a problem with US domestic policy. However, many people DO hate the US's foreign policy. That's why our president gets greeted with protests when he goes abroad. That's why our athletes are getting booed at soccer matches in Mexico. Do you understand the difference?

[MMMMMM]

Good points to consider, Superleeds, and I would add the following.

It seems that our weak, Non-Iron-Fist responses to terrorism in the 80s and 90s only encouraged more attacks, and the terrorists strengthened in organization. Now we are taking them apart as best we can. But the element you describe is necessary too: their ideology must be recognized and decried as irrational. But therein lies the problem! Not only are most moderate Muslims silent on such issues--partly out of fear trhemselves--but the Q'uran itself clearly supports "radical" Islam more than it does "moderate" or "weak" Islam. As Ibn Warraq put it, "There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate". So we are left with a conundrum.

[hetron]

MMMM, your posts never fail to give me a chuckle. The quote below is a howler:

[ QUOTE ]

It seems that our weak, Non-Iron-Fist responses to terrorism in the 80s and 90s only encouraged more attacks, and the terrorists strengthened in organization. Now we are taking them apart as best we can.


[/ QUOTE ]

Weak policy on terrorists?? WE FUNDED THEM FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! Bin Laden? Saddam Hussein? They were receiving weapons from us! As long as they were doing the CIA's dirty work we thought they were ok. They were NEVER ok! And don't give me this "the enemy of our enemy is our friend" crap. the US has enough strength to go it alone now; it was just more convenient to have others do our dirty work back then. These people should never have been funded or supported, forget about "gone soft on".

[MMMMMM]

Originally bin-Laden was only fighting the Soviet occupiers in Afghanistan. Over time, his focus and ideology morphed, and he became a really bad guy.

By weak policy on terrorists I mean our previously weak responses to various terror attacks.

[nicky g]

That's not quite right. Bin Laden and co started out by attacking the Afghanistan government, which requested provoked a Soviet interevention. You can argue the rights and wrongs of that, but the aid started before the Soviets intervened. Bin Laden et al's views on women, Jews, freedom nad all that were as abhorrent as they are now.

[MMMMMM]

Thanks for the correction, Nicky.

At that time bin-Laden didn't seem to pose a threat to us, and resisting Soviet expansionism was paramount.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I have never been comfortable with the War Powers Act. I believe it gives too much power to the Executive Branch, making the position of President much stronger than was the intention when the Constitution was drafted. The "congressional approval" stated therein, to my mind, should be nothing but a formal declaration of war.

Al Qaeda, however, has changed the rules. How does a nation declare war against a supra-national armed force? Perhaps this is the very type of situation the War Powers Act addresses. That doesn't change my discomfort, nor does that discomfort change my support for the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In other words, while this situation may not fit into our rules of governance, or be correct under those rules, it may be the rules of governance need to evolve to fit today's situations.

[B-Man]

Yes, I see the difference; change my example to that of a police officer killed in action while going after criminals and it is closer.

Either way, it is absurd to say he "got what he deserved."

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
At that time bin-Laden didn't seem to pose a threat to us, and resisting Soviet expansionism was paramount.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a poker player you know the fallacy of 'monsters under the bed" I assume. Fear is the rights greatest weapon and they use it very well. The problem is, that most of it is imaginary.

[MMMMMM]

Well, the Soviets were trying to expand. Whether that means they should have been "feared" may be another matter. However I don't think we could have just allowed them to expand militarily anywhere they desired.

[Chris Alger]

The slight difference being that it's legal for police to chase criminals but it's not legal for the U.S. to invade Afghanistan. Certainly no more legal than it was for the Russians to invade Afghanistan, when the common consensus in the U.S. was that the Russians got exactly what they deserved at the hands of the same sort of mujahideen that probably killed Tillman.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Al Qaeda, however, has changed the rules. How does a nation declare war against a supra-national armed force?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. This is no more a war than the wars we used to have when we were children with neighbouring schools.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
it's not legal for the U.S. to invade Afghanistan.

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends what definition of "legal" you are using.

Regardless, it was certainly morally and ethically correct to go after Bin Ladin and Al Queda in Afghanistan. They murdered 3,000 Americans, were we supposed to just sit there, take it, and let them prepare the next attack?

Actually, don't bother answering, because I know your true feelings. In fact, I think I saw a picture of you celebrating in the West Bank around 9/11-9/12.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Our troops deserve to die over there if the war is unjustified in your eyes?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. In fact, most people agree with this, whether or not they realize it. If the war isn't justified then those responsible for it are guilty of mass murder, aren't they? Since when are people responsible for "unjustified" killing anything but fair game? Or is this some sort of special American exception to the normal rule, and that unjustified killing by U.S. troops is not only excusable but something we should applaud as acts of "heroism?"

[MMMMMM]

A soldier, being "fair game", is now equated with "deserving to die"???

If a war is unjust, all the soldiers "deserve to die"??? Now I'm curious, Chris, what your views on the death penalty are (in light of this bizarre comment)?

[MMMMMM]

Al-Qaeda declared war on us though, Superleeds...just because we can't technically declare war against a non-nation doesn't mean that non-nation can't declare war against our nation. They could and they did. So we are at war with them, even if technically, they are the only ones who can "declare" it.

[superleeds]

Absolut Crap.

Al-Qaeda's war is just as phoney as the US's on Terrorism

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Al-Qaeda's war is just as phoney as the US's on Terrorism

[/ QUOTE ]

Do a little reading about past al-Qaeda statements and intentions.

bin-Laden adjures his followers to "kill and plunder Americans wherever they can be found"

9/11 and other lesser attacks

How can you say their war against the USA and the West is phony? I don't get it. They keep on attacking. If it's phony, they're doing a damn on good imitation of fighting a war, and killing a lot of people. I don't understand where you are coming from on this one, unless you are just quibbling over the precise definition of "war".

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
The slight difference being that it's legal for police to chase criminals but it's not legal for the U.S. to invade Afghanistan

[/ QUOTE ]

Not legal according to whom? According to Chris? According to the Taliban? According to Bin Laden? LOL you never cease to amaze me Chris. How about outlining the specific statute violated which made it illegal? Cat got your tongue? No surprise there, it is easy to state something is illegal yet another to state how.

[Chris Alger]

According to Article 51 of the UN Charter. See Say What You Want, But This War Is Illegal (http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/mandelillegal.htm)

[Chris Alger]

When I say "deserve to die" I mean according to the logic of "deserving" as defined by the soldiers themselves. According to them, presumably, those they shoot "deserve to die." However, if the soldiers are fighting an unjust war, then not only to their targets not "deserve" to die at their hand, the soldiers themselves are appropriate targets of those the soldiers are trying to kill. Since I think the whole war is unjustified, no one killed during it's course on any side "deserves" to die in the sense that the world is better off with them dead.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
How can you say their war against the USA and the West is phony? I don't get it.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's called rhetoric. Just because they use it, that doesn't make it war.

[ QUOTE ]
They keep on attacking.

[/ QUOTE ]
One incidence on US soil in the last 10+ years. And a handful of operations on foreign soil hardly constitutes a relentless enemy continuely bombarding the poor put upon west.

[ QUOTE ]
If it's phony, they're doing a damn on good imitation of fighting a war, and killing a lot of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do know what happens in real wars really, don't you?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand where you are coming from on this one, unless you are just quibbling over the precise definition of "war".

[/ QUOTE ]

It's important. Propaganda is a powerful tool and I can see the US Propaganda machine is doing a fine job on you.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree that there is no contradiction. Does this mean that in a country where the commander in chief of the army is a military figure, he should be able to start wars at whim? The army is in charge of conducting the fighting of wars, not of starting or declaring them, so being commander in chief in itself does not give one that right.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mr G, why do you insist on only reading a small portion of a post when further reading of the same post will refute your rebuttal of said post. No matter whether or not you (a foreigner to boot) would like to imagine that our President cannot begin a war without the consent of Congress this does not make it so. See my explanation of the War Powers Act of 1973 for any further explanation.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
According to Article 51 of the UN Charter. See Chrs Algers Imaginary Legal Statute (http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/mandelillegal.htm)

[/ QUOTE ]

You might be the only American living radical enough to believe we needed "permission" of the UN Security council to defend our country. Besides that your link went to a left wing newspaper article not to any known statute under which the US is obligated to comply.

I ask you again, please link to a legal (LOL I know how much you like that term) statute under which we are required by the US constitution to comply with that we violated. (Not a newspaper editorial)

Here is the real Article 51:

"Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. "

You will notice it reads entirely differently than the leftist interpretation provided by your link. I know you never completred your legal training but even you should understand this simple article.

[daryn]

as far as i know, no d-head profs and other students supported gonzalez.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
When I say "deserve to die" I mean according to the logic of "deserving" as defined by the soldiers themselves. According to them, presumably, those they shoot "deserve to die."

[/ QUOTE ]

If I were a soldier, I would not think the enemy soldiers necessarily "deserved to die", although it might be my duty to kill them. However, an enemy tyrannical leader--a Saddam, or a Hitler--would in my view "deserve to die".

[Chris Alger]

The UN Charter is a high treaty that supercedes Congressional statutes as a matter of law.

1. The war against Afghanistan was not "self-defence" against an "armed attack" by Afghanistan or the Taliban any more than the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was "self-defense" against the threat of a hostile regime in Kabul. It's stated purpose was to capture suspected al Qaeda criminals and to overthrow the Taliban. The former was attempted in violation of the laws and principles of extradition, which we demand that others comply with to the letter. For example, if Castro started bombing Miami on the grounds that it harbored anti-Cuban terrorists (which it does), you'd be the first to scream bloody murder. When we do the same thing, you call it heroism.

As for overthrowing the Taliban, military efforts toward this end were outright aggression and worse than terrorism.

2. Article 51 authorizes collective self-defence only "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." The security council took such action in accordance with various resolutions on international terrorism, therefore any right of the U.S. to bomb Kabul in "self-defense," a laughable proposition by itself, had expired.

3. U.S. forces are not in Afgahanistan presently "defending the U.S." against "armed attack." There are exterminating the political and military opposition to a regime our government favors.

[nicky g]

"Mr G"
I like it /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

"foreigner to boot"

Call the police!

"No matter whether or not you (a foreigner to boot) would like to imagine that our President cannot begin a war without the consent of Congress this does not make it so. See my explanation of the War Powers Act of 1973 for any further explanation. "

See the bit in my post where I said "by itself." I wasn't arguing against your entire post, and nowhere in mine did I state that the President could never go to war without the consent of congress. But your argument that the President could start wars simply by dint of being commander in chief of the armed forces does not stand, IMO. The war powers act does indeed give him limited powers to go to war in limited circumstances; the fact that he is commander in chief does not. Nor does your argument about the UN stand up, but we've had that discussion before.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
But your argument that the President could start wars simply by dint of being commander in chief of the armed forces does not stand, IMO. The war powers act does indeed give him limited powers to go to war in limited circumstances; the fact that he is commander in chief does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr G., again you are incorrect. The Presidents' powers as Commander in Chief to utilize troops has already passed constuitutional muster. Perhaps the news on your side of the pond is several decades old. Check for Supreme Court decisions regarding this subject.