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

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.