.

In their minds they fight for freedom, in reality they fight for oil...

a sharp critique, but please be keen to how this can

be misappropriated by the pro-war opposition to undermine

our legitimate support of bringing the troops home

the sad dimension to the "pro-troop" sentiment is that

many try to couch this in a neutral stance that indirectly

supports the interests of the bush administration.

the bush administration does not have America, freedom, nor

the troops own interests and saftey in mind, therefore we

should support bringing them home..

I DO support the Troops. They are working class poor and joined the service to better themselves. I want them home ALIVE now! They are NOT Nazis.... they deserve our full support... work hard to BRING THEM HOME NOW. The leaders who send the troops into hell are the ones to criticise. Men and Women in the Armed Forces serve honorably. Send them to College, not to War!

SUPPORT THE TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME NOW!

lets support our troops! let's sit back and keep them in Iraq so that they can be shot at!

...it was Duty, Honor, Country.

Now if we only had honor left.

Perhaps a new phrasology: Duty, Exxon, Mobil.

These are not "our" troops. They are the troops of a corrupt government and plutocracy that owns and runs this country. They are the foot soldiers of imperialist capitalism, and they will pay with their lives to serve the interests of the rich.

I am sorry for them. I am sorry they made the choice to fight for corporate domination, but I will not support their choice to join the military. They should wake the fuck up now if they don't want to be killed or kill innocent iraqi civilians. Otherwise, they are quilty of war crimes.

I don't support these troops. They shouldn't have signed up to begin with.

If you are in the military, get out. If you oppose this war, don't fight it. There is no excuse you can make to me for your participation in genocide, and simply "following orders" is no excuse.

Resist this U.S. terrorism.

American

Most of the kids over there joined for the same reason I did. To Serve their country. They no more signed up for a war of Imperial conquest than they signed up to commit War Crimes.

Their motives by and large are good. They have just had their trust and honor betrayed by a small and venal man and those who pull his Puppet strings.

Support our troops, bring them home.

Support our troops, provide them housing.

Support our troops, provide them health care.

Support our troops, provide them socially valuable jobs.

Turn military bases into industrial centers for the production of low cost housing, schools, hospitals, daycare centers, rail lines, inner city parks, and other social and public goods that can enrich rather than snuff out life.

Support our troops and one day they will join the fight for unlimited justice for all.

Support our troops.

- - Michael Albert

There is nothing wrong with Americans asking thier troops to act like Americans and not Nazi's. We want them to know that we don't condone the killing of any innocent Iraqi children and families. I want the troops to know, if you kill babies, even if Nancy Pelosi supports you, God still knows you killed a child. I want them to look at the faces of the children they bombed to free once they are dead or in the hospital. Enough of this desensitized rhetoric, you can be a good soldier, but not if you do bad things. All killers must be held equally accountable or people will always kill with some justification and get away with it. These men are not crazy, they know what they are doing, they are randomly bombing a city which is on fire, I cannot support that action under these circumstances. If I could be assured it was just Sadam's house, maybe I'd be O.K., but I see the faces many servicemen refuse to see, and I know many service men who are still not sleeping from the faces of death in 1991.

i agree with diogenes.

the american troops have good intentions. they are good people (almost all of them)

but yes they have been betrayed

the ones who don't believe in the war but who are forced to fight should be allowed honorable discharges.

and the pro-war americans are just rednecks who were betrayed by their own ignorance and desire to taste BBQ'd sand nigger.

a tip to you, for humanity's sake, stick to beef and stop trying to eat iraqi people.

"just rednecks who were betrayed by their own ignorance and desire to taste BBQ'd sand nigger"

Just a little quote which says that you believe all 80% of America and millions of other people ijn foreign countries share this view. I'll just throw a little bit of information your way. First of all, yes, rednecks are pro war, but no they don't even think like that! I know that you are frustrated that you are a mentally incapable at this point to really share any useful facts since all that this peace crap has done is amounted to a very small minority of the population. I can tell you that even the redneck population has you outnumbered. You ar a perfect example of the attitudes of the AntiWar crowd, not saying that all are like you. I have friends who don't support the war, but they do understand why we are going so they aren't really against it either. You seem to think that if we go in to sit down with a person like Saddam, that we'll have a solutiion. Just shut the fuck up or go protest something useful like the failing educational system. Why protest in favor of Saddam?

Pro War,

You come to this forumwith a level of understanding that is unacceptable. Your arguments are unacceptable. Hell, some of the good people here at LA Indymedia spend all of their time just trying to get you morons up to speed on what is going on with the Bush Administration. Next time, please, go through some of the threads and read the debates. To repeat Fox style propoganda as if it is an argument with merit is preposterous.

Protest for Saddam? If you were informed, the only Americans to ever support Saddam are sitting in the White House. They are also the only Americans to ever support Osama. Do you understand?

You, and your buddies, are so grossly uninformed it's embarassing that you call yourself an American.

Here, here! Well said.

The people in the White House never supported Saddam. Tell me when President Bush Supported Saddam. You fucking assholes, always making up reasons why we shouldn't fight. We did support Iraq in the IRAN/IRAQ WAR, but now that is over and we have a new threat so fuck off, I'd rather live without fear from a WMD attack. If it ever happen, you would find a way to still blame it on A Republican. Your comments are politically motivated like every other hippy on here. I LOVE FOX NEWS CAUSE ITS FAIR AND BALANCED AND BILL O"REILLY AND SEAN HANNITY ARE THE BEST!!!!!!!!!!!

George I was a business partner of Saddam.

Most of Saddam's weaponry, including Chemical and Biologic, were sold to him by the U.S. (American Type Culure Corporation sold him the Anthrax, Botulinim, and Plague Cultures.

Donald Rumsfeld both shook hands with him as an American Government functionary and later did business with him.

Dick Cheney's Halliburton sold him 23.8 million dollars worth of Oil Field Equipment during the last 10 years contravening the Almighty Sanctions - which have prevented Iraq from rebuilding their water and Sanitiation systems bombed out by the U.S. and U.K.

You are an uninformed ignoramus and you prove it with every post.

"The people in the White House never supported Saddam. Tell me when President Bush Supported Saddam. You fucking assholes, always making up reasons why we shouldn't fight. We did support Iraq in the IRAN/IRAQ WAR, "

Retarded war monger answers his own question. Amazing. Further proof that these Freepers are psychos and need their asses kicked severely.

By the way, go enlist, you chickenshit chicken hawk. I put my time in during the last Gulf War. You are more than welcome to go die for oil, rather than sitting back here cheerleading. Fucking brown shirt asshole. You are beyond help and beneath contempt. Go die for oil.

So what, if we supported him back then? TIMES CHANGE! THREATS CHANGE! We made a mistake, but at least we can fix it before we get gassed!!!

You rightwing thugs are pathetic. You're to ignorant to understand anything. You just jump up and down and wave your arms whenever Bush rolls out the latest bogey man to scare you! Again, go die for oil. Get out of my country. You are a perfect piece of cannon fodder. Chickenshit chickenhawk assholes.

Quit cheerleading for this collection of big business Gucci and Armani wearing rich priviledged frat boys that dodged the draft during Vietnam. Your roll models suck, boy.

...do you base your question?

At no time has Saddam ever threatened the United States.

There is no credible evidence that he has supported terror attacks on the U.S. or it's interests.

You have been watching Faux too long and not doing enough reading.

I love Mr Hussein and think he could lead as better than Bill Clinton. By the way, where is sheepdog, we were supposed to talk about how to legalize it. One more thing, I don't like Israel and love to play pocket pool when I'm alone.

hey whoever said: "Just shut the fuck up or go protest something useful like the failing educational system. Why protest in favor of Saddam?"

our public money for education is going to war instead. so we ARE partly trying to save the educational system when we protest against this war.

and both anti-war and pro-war people condemn Saddam. protesters aren't in favor of him.

mymicz,

some would say that you are jsut as responsible for your inaction as for your action. If you are an appeaser you are in a sense saul holding the coats of the killers of christians.

Therefore it is hard to see a soldier hiding in his room and refusing to do anything as being a point of moral safety.

Our allocations of blame for murderers as such are just a way to simplify morals, however It is hard to argue that failure in Rwanda to act was not more of a crime than most conceivable results of action in iraq.

by the way

"At no time has Saddam ever threatened the United States. "

Diogenes.. that argument is no longer relevant unless you havent been listening to Sadam lately. He explicitly threatened USA and its intersts in all countries. From the dudes own mouth. Therefore that argument needs to go back on the shelf.

For the purpose of this argument it is irrelevant why he said that.

the fear that Saddam will attack the US with WMD shows how PARANOID americans are.

they don't really know why he will attack

they just know he will

"we don't know what a nigger is, but we're just gonna hate 'em anyway"

AMERICAN HYPOCRISY

TO ANY PRO-WAR ADVOCATE

I DARE YOU TO REPLY TO THIS:

The US government supported Saddam during his most murderous years. They supplied him with WMD and the technology to make his own WMD. EVEN THOUGH HE WAS A KNOWN TYRANT. Why? So that he would use them on the Iranians. Even after Halabja in 1988, the US government CONTINUED to support him.

Now in the year 2003 (whether it is morally just or not), Saddam no longer wishes to play into US global strategy. So he is ALL OF A SUDDEN branded a TYRANT ------ EVEN THOUGH HE WAS A MURDEROUS TYRANT ALL THE YEARS THE US SUPPORTED HIM!

Isn't it hypocritical that although he was even more murderous back then, he was considered an ALLY and FRIEND OF AMERICA simply because he was killing Iranians (if 5,000 kurds happened to be gassed in a single attack thats no big deal). Now he's still murderous but now the US actually acknowledges that he is a tyrant. Imagine if he was still following US wishes by fighting with Iraq, would the US be calling him a TYRANT? I DON'T THINK SO.

HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY.

Until the US apologizes to the victims of Saddam terror DURING THE YEARS THAT THEY SUPPORTED HIM, this war will only be about US PARANOIA and its attempts at gaining a FALSE sense of security.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

war advocates only want to see sand nigger blood being spilled. they try to improve the body count

2,500 Americans (WTC)
So they can feel better about themselves and feel as if they "won" the overall battle. Their oh so precious American pride was hurt on 9/11 and now they seek to get it back by killing sand niggers left rite and center

(basically this is the whole starship troopers scenario)

who threatened Iraq first?

The US? or Iraq?

The US did. only then did saddam vow to defend Iraq

if you punch me, isnt it realistic to think that i would punch you back?

scottie said

"it is hard to see a soldier hiding in his room and refusing to do anything as being a point of moral safety. Our allocations of blame for murderers as such are just a way to simplify morals, however It is hard to argue that failure in Rwanda to act was not more of a crime than most conceivable results of action in iraq."

not sure what you mean. is this supposed to be an explanation of how we can "support the troops" by putting them in the line of fire? you mean we are "supporting" their morality?

troops are humans too. i think most humans would rather have health care, housing, education and other kinds of real support rather than whatever kind of "morality support" that isn't even their own decision and puts them in terrible situations and leaves them with almost nothing.

maybe someone can explain a little more clearly how getting troops to kill and be killed "supports" them exactly.

i'm sure you pro-war people could get a lot of protesters to stop and join your side if you would just explain how food and shelter and health and education are worthless.... and death, danger and killing are what "real support" is about.

people really want this explained. why can't you explain it?

No evil bastards *cough* i mean pro-war advocates seem to have replied.

I REALLY WANT THIS EXPLAINED!!

CAN NOBODY EXPLAIN THIS?! WHYNOT?!

sick of waiting for these clowns.... i'm on my way to the federal building.. seeya

protest was a lot bigger than i thought it would be. this is very encouraging. my ma was tellin me the protests would shrink a lot now that the war started but it looks like it's just getting bigger.

The New X

by The New X • Thursday March 20, 2003 Thut 04:33 PM



the fear that Saddam will attack the US with WMD shows how PARANOID americans are.

they don't really know why he will attack

they just know he will

"we don't know what a nigger is, but we're just gonna hate 'em anyway"

AMERICAN HYPOCRISY

TO ANY PRO-WAR ADVOCATE

I DARE YOU TO REPLY TO THIS:

The US government supported Saddam during his most murderous years. They supplied him with WMD and the technology to make his own WMD. EVEN THOUGH HE WAS A KNOWN TYRANT. Why? So that he would use them on the Iranians. Even after Halabja in 1988, the US government CONTINUED to support him.

Now in the year 2003 (whether it is morally just or not), Saddam no longer wishes to play into US global strategy. So he is ALL OF A SUDDEN branded a TYRANT ------ EVEN THOUGH HE WAS A MURDEROUS TYRANT ALL THE YEARS THE US SUPPORTED HIM!

Isn't it hypocritical that although he was even more murderous back then, he was considered an ALLY and FRIEND OF AMERICA simply because he was killing Iranians (if 5,000 kurds happened to be gassed in a single attack thats no big deal). Now he's still murderous but now the US actually acknowledges that he is a tyrant. Imagine if he was still following US wishes by fighting with Iraq, would the US be calling him a TYRANT? I DON'T THINK SO.

HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY.

Until the US apologizes to the victims of Saddam terror DURING THE YEARS THAT THEY SUPPORTED HIM, this war will only be about US PARANOIA and its attempts at gaining a FALSE sense of security.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

war advocates only want to see sand nigger blood being spilled. they try to improve the body count

2,500 Americans (WTC)
So they can feel better about themselves and feel as if they "won" the overall battle. Their oh so precious American pride was hurt on 9/11 and now they seek to get it back by killing sand niggers left rite and center

(basically this is the whole starship troopers scenario)

08hipb, the reason why you dont understand it is that it contridicts with your basic view on morality. what I am saying is that if you watch murder and do nothing you are not being moraly pure.

Another example is if you watch your platoon die and do nothing.

My argument is against Many people who suggest that the USA (or the soldiers themselves as individuals) should do nothing when they see people getting killed because they think that to act and kill people is inexcusable no matter how many people are saved.

"most humans would rather have health care, housing, education and other kinds of real support rather than whatever kind of "morality support""

this is a interesting one.. you have just argued for facism... Ie that its important that the trains run on time even if we know bad stuff is happening elsewhere to make that possible.

As to your last point though. WWII.

OK ill explain it to you. we could have concentrated on housing and health during WWII instead of war but we would have been defeated and we would be living under a nice reigeme that resembles a bad version of iraq now.

War is about long term goals not about somthing which you can measure in the total effect of one or two weeks.

jsut because war causes some peopel to die today does not mean that it wont prevent more peopel from ding in the future.

anyway your argument taen to its logical conclusion would mean that the USA would have to remain undefended all the time and at the mercy of agressors because we did not dare to increace the risk to any one group of americans. wou8ldnt you feel a little embarassed when sopme little island state like Fiji came along and started telling you what to do.. or else?

These soldiers job is to do exactly what they are doing. It doesn't matter what they are fighting for their job is to fight. So stop making a mockery of our army because if it wasn't for them you would be in a raping house, with no voice and nothing for yourself. so shut the hell up with all the negative against our troops because of them you have freedom. So if it for oil or not, it should matter the men over there are our brothers husbands and dads. It makes me sick that you think that my father is over there doing something horrible. Its his damn job so stop mocking it alright!!!!! If you have a problem with it why don't you go to a different country and practice your opinions there. We'll see how long you last!!!!

The New X

the point is that he has punched back and he is punching at not just the government but us.

Once that has happened he is like a dog that has been bitten by rabies, we can shoot the dog that bit him but we also have to shoot him.

as to US support for Iraq. There are two defences.

1) We supported Iraq to counter Iran. When we had solid proof that Iraq was worse than Iran we changed position.

2) If we were not "hypocrytical" we would have had to have supported Iraqs invasion of kuwait, saudi arabia etc etc we would have supported his development of nuclear weapons and as our buddy he probably would have only used them on europe or other arab states. Is that really what you are asking for or is your point just a joke?

The purpose of the U.S. Military is to defend the United States against foreign aggression.

The men who put their life on the line for this country are not their to conquer Oil Fields for Exxon-Mobil or good ol' Arbusto. They are on duty to defend their country not to be a conquering Army.

It is the duty of an American Fighting Man to refuse an illegal order. Their job is not just fighting and dying their job is fighting and dying, if need be, to uphold the standards of decency this country once stood for.

You are a Patriot in the same way that David Duke, or Oliver, dishonor his uniform, North. In other words you are a pig.

i might not be understanding you....

but it seems to me that you are not really talking about "SUPPORTING THE TROOPS".

you say that war is sometimes necessary - otherwise we would live under tyranny. that may be true but it doesn't explain how war "supports" soldiers.

i mean, i understand theoretically how war can protect families from tyranny. on the other hand, i also understand how war could make the tyrants even more tyrannical.

but i don't understand how war "supports" soldiers. this seems like a good example of a cliche being the opposite of the truth. in a really simple obvious way. i mean WAR really uses soldiers for the benefit of some supposedly greater thing. i think that is obvious and uncontroversial in itself.

what supposedly greater thing are soldiers used FOR? well it could be for the safety of the community and the families in the community and the land and so forth. when people believe that THAT is what the soldiers lives are being endangered for, it is often possible to convince people to allow their sons to go off to war.

but even then, this is not an example of anybody HELPING the soldiers. to say you are SUPPORTING the soldiers might be required by all your friends and family and bosses, but that doesn't make it LOGICAL. you are not SUPPORTING the soldiers even if they COULD theoretically be supporting you and all the rest of us.

the point being made by the anti-war people is that in THIS war, the soldiers are being used to empower a tyrannical elite in the USA at the expense of the Iraqi people but not JUST the Iraqi people. the anti-war people are saying that in fact ONLY that tyrannical elite will benefit from this war, that in fact the war is bad for EVERYONE else.

sorry if i missed your explanation. i still would very much like to know how it is that advocating any war can be described as "supporting" soldiers, who are horribly damaged and often killed by war. even in a war that i might support.

like suppose i felt that the freedom of my people was at stake. i might then "support" war. but i wouldn't claim that sending kids off to die and kill in any way "supports" those poor kids.

(as far as Iraq is concerned, i don't think that a military victory over Iraq will make my community ANY safer. i think the opposite.)

understand?

as far as morality sometimes requiring action, i think we are in agreement generally, but not in this specific case. please explain what "SUPPORT THE TROOPS" really means.

The principle is that

A) in this case the more decicively the USA wins the less people die (on both sides but the emphasis is usually put on the US side).

B) you can in your own little way weaken the military.. for example telling soldiers not to fight.

Therefore - by weakening the US military you cause unessercary death on both sides.

It is considered in this argument that withdrawl is not an option.

In regard to this I dont see it as concievable that the US will withdraw due to you or even the vast majority of the US public applying pressure before iraq is as good as defeated.

OK?

...one does not condone a "little" evil. The action in Iraq is morally wrong.

The U.S. Allies are the best money could BUY. Which actually isn't all that impressive.

Your argument amounts to: "If Rape is inevitable lie back and enjoy it."

Sick man, sick.

*-the more decicively the USA wins the less people die -*

That means fire power and low real estate values later on.

Good opportunity for fat contracts at the expense of terror and

horror and grief beyond these entities understanding.

Just right for moving in and rebuilding For more Big Fat Contracts. And best of all,They get to pay for it. We suck them

dry at bayonet point again.

Public blood for private enrichment. For this we will pay if

we can’t stop it. I still remember Berlin, shattered, humiliated

frightened and shamed.

...why it is morally right to Fire Bomb Baghdad to get one man?

The answer is that it is not. The use of the U.S. Military as the enforcement arm of monied interests is not a moral cause.

To assert the LIE that this is about liberating the Iraqi people is over the top. But then you know that already.

The "We are going to liberate" the people of Iraq was the last ditch justification for this war after every other Lying justification had been exposed as a lie. The Bush Junta has purchased what support it has by advance parceling of Iraq's resources. They intend to install a U.S. General as the new military Dictator probably to be replaced at a "suitable time" by a Quisling Puppet. They have already announced as much.

There is no justification for the slaughter going on in Iraq. It is a war of aggression with the purpose of establishing a Geostrategic Beachhead in the Middle East from which to conquer the rest of the Region and gain a stranglehold on the resources and the power that brings.

The so-called "Shock and Awe" Strategy has as it's purpose terrorizing Iraqi civilians into surrendering into the arms of an invading country.

BA you have told a lot of whoppers in your time but even you must gag once in a while.

In the this is a complete BETRAYAL of what this country once stood for.

We are supposed to be the good guys. Not murdering thieves.

Actually that is the sort of response that people suggest. For example if someone is robbing a Supermarket they suggest that the workers do exactly what they say and that way it is less likely they will get hurt.

Of course that sort of analogy is inappropriate as it implies that the USA is in the wrong and sadam is innocent.

The analogy we would prefer is that of suggesting that the accomplices of a cornered criminal should stay out of the way in order to avoid more people getting hurt than absolutly nessercary.

A wickedly false analogy I do think.

Your first analogy was closer to the mark. This little exercise in Imperial Conquest is much like a Stick-up artist using a Tank to blow a whole in the wall of the Bank to get at the money. He may get the money but it is likely that a lot of people are going to die for him to get at it.

Of course the false analogy is the Straw Man of setting up the Premise that one would have to consider Saddam Innocent for the U.S. to be in the wrong. Not true. That is only one possibility.

Logically you could also have.

Both are Innocent.

and the true state of affairs in this case:

Neither is Innocent.

One does not have to accept a false analogy.

By the way how does one get out of the way of 800 Cruise Missiles and a Wave or Two of B-52 Bombing runs over one’s home? Become a Ghost?

Your analogies fail the smell test - unless of course one enjoys smelling shit. Count me out.

all analogies are imperfect.. I dont really think mine is particularly good but its better than the rapist analogy which is ridiculously flawed.