What do you mean when you say you...

[MissScripture]

I am curious, and I really want people who say this to explain what they mean, because it really doesn't make sense to me, What do you mean when you say you support our troops but are agianst the war?

[hierochloe]

To me it means you want them to kick butt and not die even though you don't support the cause for which they are fighting.

[Lounge Daddy]

support our troops but against the war...
i mean that i want pictures of "torture" of terrorists ...er, i mean "freedom fighters" released during a war --- so that said freedom fighters can be used to incite further freedom fighters to attack our troops in the middle east as more middle-eastern countries begin to vote for the first time

[Snarf]

LD, if you're being serious, that's disgusting.

I see a total disconnection between a draft-dodger prissied up in a jet fighter outfit who decides who fights whom in what country from the people who are trying to earn an education or simply trying to find their place in the world.

Most American soldiers come from low-income, conservative families who naturally support the war. I disagree with them, I think they've been sadly mislead, but do I want them to get shot? Well, that'd destroy families, be a waste of life, and all in all be a travesty, so no. So sure, I support the troops.

That being said, I have a very utilitarian outlook on the war. I want as few casualties as possible, regardless of what side takes them. At the beginning of the war I said that I'd rather see 99 Americans die than 100 Iraqis, if there were some instance in which that choice could be made. At this point any sane Iraqi should realize that it's a lost cause, so I have much less sympathy now for Iraqi "freedom fighters". They're not accomplishing anything and should be dealt with accordingly. The difference between them and the Iraqi troops at the beginning of the war is that there is no longer any state-driven impetus to fight against one's will, so the Milgram connundrum is out the window.

So, I'd like to see this whole thing end with as few Iraqi and as few American casualties as possible. The whole thing was pointless, but I hope that maybe some good will come of it. I just hate to see fellow Catholics play the Machiavelli game. I would be greatly disparaged should I see the whole thing fall on America's face and cause more terrorism on the long-term scale than it prevents, but I sure wouldn't be surprised.

[Lounge Daddy]

[b]RELATED: [/b]
[u]Moore film distributor OK with terror support[/u]
[quote]The company distributing filmmaker Michael Moore's Bush-bashing movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" says it won't reject an offer of help from Middle East terrorist organization Hezbollah.

As WorldNetDaily reported, terrorists affiliated with the Iran-backed network last week offered to help promote the film in the United Arab Emirates.

The movie industry publication Screen Daily reported, "In terms of marketing the film, [distributor] Front Row is getting a boost from organizations related to Hezbollah which have rung up from Lebanon to ask if there's anything they can do to support the film."

The story then quotes Front Row Managing Director Gianluca Chacra: "We can't go against these organizations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria."

Terror-war supporting organization Move America Forward publicized the Chacra quote and reacted strongly against it.

"Michael Moore dismisses Americans who are upset with his film and the impact it has in undermining support for the war against terrorism," said Vice Chair Melanie Morgan. "At the same time, his distribution companies are concerned about offending the sensibilities of terrorists. That certainly gives rise to asking the question: Whose side are you on?" [/quote]
[url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39079"]FROM HERE[/url]

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Sep 30 2005, 02:08 AM']LD, if you're being serious, that's disgusting.

I see a total disconnection between a draft-dodger prissied up in a jet fighter outfit who decides who fights whom in what country from the people who are trying to earn an education or simply trying to find their place in the world.

[right][snapback]741791[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
???
Bill Clinton never climbed into a fighter jet

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote]As the U.S. gets hits by another hurricane, the Cindy Sheehan media circus is blowing into Washington, D.C. On Saturday she's a featured speaker at a communist-organized "anti-war" rally. On Sunday, she's scheduled to speak at a national conference of the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA). Other speakers include Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee, co-chairs of the 61-member Congressional Progressive Caucus. One PDA slogan is "Get out of Iraq now." Lee holds the distinction of being the only member of Congress to vote against the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan after terrorists based in that country hit America on 9/11.

If past coverage is any guide, the major media will deliberately ignore the involvement of communists in organizing the "anti-war" protest. They will focus instead on celebrity speakers such as actress Jessica Lange, the flamboyant George Galloway, Ralph Nader and, of course, Sheehan. But if we had anything approaching an investigative press, the communist role is something that would be exposed. It is a classic case of Marxists using front groups to manipulate innocent people.

The top leaders of International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism), the group organizing and paying the full costs of the stage, sound and setup at the rally, come out of the Workers World Party. This is a group so extreme in its adulation for anti-American dictators that honest liberals like David Corn of The Nation magazine have recoiled in dismay over how many people on the left associate with them.

The immediate aim is to defeat the U.S. in Iraq by creating the impression that the American people are tired of the war and want to withdraw U.S. troops. The long-term objective is to destroy the American way of life. [/quote]

[url="http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:VYmpnakNOccJ:www.gopusa.com/commentary/ckincaid/2005/ck_09221.shtml+Act+Now+to+Stop+War+and+End+Racism+++communist&hl=en&client=firefox-a"](partisan) GOPUSA[/url]

[Lounge Daddy]

[b]Communist party financed pro-Iraqi march in San Francisco[/b]
[quote]The Jerusalem Post (www.jpost.com) has a good analysis of the American extreme left:

    [quote]Last weekend, the Left held large antiwar marches in Washington, San Francisco and elsewhere. Major media coverage of these marches was highly respectful. This was "A Stirring in the Nation," in the words of an approving New York Times editorial, "impressive for the obvious mainstream roots of the marchers."

    There is, increasingly, much that happens in the world that the Times feels its readers should be sheltered from knowing. The marches in Washington and San Francisco were chiefly sponsored, as was last October's antiwar march in Washington, by a group the Times chose to call in its only passing reference "the activist group International Answer."

    International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) is a front group for the communist Workers World Party. The Workers World Party is, literally, a Stalinist organization. It rose out of a split within the old Socialist Workers Party over the Soviet Union's 1956 invasion of Hungary - the breakaway Workers World Party was all for the invasion.

    A.N.S.W.E.R. today unquestioningly supports any despotic regime that lays any claim to socialism, or simply to anti-Americanism. It supported the butchers of Beijing after the slaughter of Tiananmen Square. It supports Saddam and his Baathist torture-state. It supports the last official Stalinist state, North Korea, in the mass starvation of its citizens. It supported Slobodan Milosevic after the massacre at Srebrenica. It supports the mullahs of Iran, and the narco-gangsters of Colombia and the bus-bombers of Hamas.[/quote]

Although I hold in many ways liberal values (e.g. I am pro-choice, I am against the death penalty, etc...), the issues of national security override today all other considerations. The Democratic party will not get my vote and NPR will never again get my money.[/quote]

[url="http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000598.html"]LINK[/url]

[Snarf]

Uh-oh, someone's on a rampage.

Anything relevant in there? I can stomach only so much triteness, especially when it's just recycled.

I'm sure you threw in the Jerusalem Post so I'd think you have something that's not biased. Ha.

Edit: And why is the right so fascinated with Clinton? He was a bad president, yes. He had serious integrity issues. I disagree with many of his policies. But I've never seen any convincing argument that he harmed the country in any lasting way. Blaming everything on Clinton is not only chimerical, it's immature and stupid.

Edited September 30, 2005 by Snarf

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Sep 30 2005, 02:35 AM']Uh-oh, someone's on a rampage.

Anything relevant in there?  I can stomach only so much triteness, especially when it's just recycled.

I'm sure you threw in the Jerusalem Post so I'd think you have something that's not biased. Ha. 

Edit: And why is the right so fascinated with Clinton?  He was a bad president, yes.  He had serious integrity issues.  I disagree with many of his policies.  But I've never seen any convincing argument that he harmed the country in any lasting way.  Blaming everything on Clinton is not only chimerical, it's immature and stupid.
[right][snapback]741822[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
again, you mentioned "I see a total disconnection between a draft-dodger prissied up in a jet fighter outfit..."
Clinton never flew a ....

ooohhhh, lol
you are talking about GW BUSH!
[quote]...something that's not biased[/quote]
Bush being the draft dodger... right

[Snarf]

Okay, let's put it this way. Clinton is a draft dodger. Clinton hates children. Clinton invented cholera and caused the Great Chicago Fire.

Bush is still a terrible president, and a despicable human being.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote]The WWP has campaigned against the war-crimes trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. A recent Workers World editorial declared, “Iraq has done absolutely nothing wrong.”

Officially, the organizer of the Washington demonstration was International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism). But ANSWER is run by WWP activists, to such an extent that it seems fair to dub it a WWP front. Several key ANSWER officials — including spokesperson Brian Becker — are WWP members. Many local offices for ANSWER’s protest were housed in WWP offices. Earlier this year, when ANSWER conducted a press briefing, at least five of the 13 speakers were WWP activists. They were each identified, though, in other ways, including as members of the International Action Center.

The IAC, another WWP offshoot, was a key partner with ANSWER in promoting the protest. It was founded by Ramsey Clark, attorney general for President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s. For years, Clark has been on a bizarre political odyssey, much of the time in sync with the Workers World Party. As an attorney, he has represented Lyndon LaRouche, the leader of a political cult. He has defended Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic and Pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, who was accused of participating in the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Clark is also a member of the International Committee To Defend Slobodan Milosevic. The international war-crimes tribunal, he explains, “is war by other means” — that is, a tool of the West to crush those who stand in the way of U.S. imperialism, like Milosevic. A critic of the ongoing sanctions against Iraq, Clark has appeared on talking-head shows and refused to concede any wrongdoing on Saddam’s part. There is no reason to send weapons inspectors to Iraq, he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “After 12 years of brutalization with sanctions and bombing they’d like to be a country again. They’d like to have sovereignty again. They’d like to be left alone.”[/quote]

[quote]Most of the protesters, I assume, were oblivious to the WWP’s role in the event. They merely wanted to gather with other foes of the war and express their collective opposition. They waved signs (“We need an Axis of Sanity,” “Draft Perle,” “Collateral Damage = Civilian Deaths,” “floopy Bush”). They cheered on rappers who sang, “No blood for oil.” They laughed when Medea Benjamin, the head of Global Exchange, said, “We need to stop the testosterone-poisoning of our globe.” They filled red ANSWER donation buckets with coins and bills. But how might they have reacted if Holmes and his comrades had asked them to stand with Saddam, Milosevic and Kim? Or to oppose further inspections in Iraq?

One man in the crowd was wise to the behind-the-scenes politics. When Brian Becker, a WWP member introduced (of course) as an ANSWER activist, hit the stage, Paul Donahue, a middle-aged fellow who works with the Thomas Merton Peace and Social Justice Center in Pittsburgh, shouted, “Stalinist!” Donahue and his colleagues at the Merton Center, upset that WWP activists were in charge of this demonstration, had debated whether to attend. “Some of us tried to convince others to come,” Donahue recalled. “We figured we could dilute the [WWP] part of the message. But in the end most didn’t come. People were saying, ‘They’re Maoists.’ But they’re the only game in town, and I’ve got to admit they’re good organizers. They remembered everything but the Porta-Johns.” Rock singer Patti Smith, though, was not troubled by the organizers. “My main concern now is the anti-war movement,” she said before playing for the crowd. “I’m for a nonpartisan, globalist movement. I don’t care who it is as long as they feel the same.”[/quote]

[url="http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/50/news-corn.php"]LA Weekly[/url]

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote]At the rally, speaker after speaker declared, “We are the real Americans.” But most “real Americans” do not see a direct connection between Mumia, the Cuban Five and the war against Iraq. Jackson, for one, exclaimed, “This time the silent majority is on our side.” If the goal is to bring the silent majority into the anti-war movement, it’s not going to be achieved by people carrying pictures of Kim Jong-Il — even if they keep them hidden in their wallets.

As yet another WWP-in-disguise speaker addressed the crowd, Steve Cobble, a progressive political consultant, gazed out at the swarm of protesters and observed, “People are looking for something to do.” Good for them. But they ought to also look at the leaders they are following and wonder if those individuals will guide them toward a broader, more effective movement or toward the fringe irrelevance the WWPers know so well.[/quote]

by the way - the WWP is the Workers World Party... a Communist Party - obviously Anti-American and atheistic
they would love to see the face of America changed to reflect the Communist ideal [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=39813"](see this post "1963 Communist Goals")[/url]
huh, and they are trying to organise and incite protests hoping they will reflect vietnam?
suprise?
noooo

[Snarf]

All you're proving is your inability to digest material. Brevity, sir.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Sep 30 2005, 03:13 AM']All you're proving is your inability to digest material.  Brevity, sir.
[right][snapback]741832[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
ya - i am a bit scattered all over things tonight...
so ok -i am going to bed - ill be back tomorrow after work i thnk

in the mean time - show me the perpective, brother!

my real, and honest point is this:
[b]1 – the organizers of the big “anti-war” rallies are anti-Americans

2 – it is not possible to stage anti-military programs without aiding and comforting the military[/b]



as a side point also.... i am thinking the Bush vs Clinton thing should be for another topic, lol