An open letter to those protesting the war in Iraq:

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by arnisador
This seems a bit harsh.

\

Tough luck. If they are stupid enough to be Saddam's tools... Some people are not fit for survival. If you are stupid enough to jump into the line of fire, well...... so long! Live like a moron and die as one.

 

[Chicago Green Dragon]

What the protestors don't understand is that War is sometimes a neccessary evil.
Also, since it (War) has begun the protestors should be supporting our soldiers instead of causing more problems for people over here. We have it hard already over here with the threat of more terrorist action then having more created from domestic unruling efforts on the part of protestors.

Its funny how the protestors seem to scream about money being spent on the war effort and being diverted from other needed areas when they efforts and civil disobedience costs the city millions of dollars to deal with their protesting that could be spent some where else..

:soapbox:

Chicago Green
Dragon :asian:

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Just to occasion comment: the reason violence gets used as often as it does is because violence is the lazy, thoughtless, short-term solution.

Sure, there are times when you must protect yourself. Sure there will be times when mass fighting, wars, are necessary. Sure, there are times when bullying of whatever kind has to be slapped down.

But ya know, most of the time these "necessary," wars are the result of stupid, lazy people so blinded by their own hostility that they don't bother to really think, to really look for alternatives. Just look at the record...

And if that don't float yer boat, how about the military's comments on Rumsfield et al? Ignore me, by all means...but Gen. Wallace? Military historians like John Keegan? And apparently, a lot of captains, majors, lieutenants, etc? I've heard this stuff before--about Vietnam, where apparently you pretty much couldn't get the truth out of anybody above the rank of major, and everybody else said openly that the whole thing was an immense, stupid f'up.

Clearly Hussein's gonna lose. I am not going to shed any tears over his fall. But long-term--what'll we do about consequences?

Oh, well. Just woofin'.

Yeah well. You only heard the stuff from CNN. What you don't hear is how well the war is being executed on the ground; how well the US troops have adapted to killing the Fedayeens and the thugs; how the Screaming Eagle has done it again in over running the Republican Guards positions;how the troops describe the fightinng as "shooting practice";how the Marines have gathered tons of intelligence on the Fedayeen and are hunting them down at their homes; how the Brit commandoes are wrecking havoc using guerilla tactics against the Fedayeens; how the troops in Afghanistan are systematically destroying weapon caches; how terrorists cells are systematically bursted all over the world.

All you hear is gloom and doom. But the tune of it, you would thought we have lost the war against terror and the war against Saddam . Bad news sells better than good news. Ever heard of the expression, "Succeed in Silence" ?

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Chicago Green Dragon
What the protestors don't understand is that War is sometimes a neccessary evil.

Perhaps they understand but think this is not one of those times?

I find wishing harm on protesters to be downright un-American, personally. What other siginifcant rights does the US guarantee you--principally the right to speak/protest/think as you will, an dto be free from coercive and abusive govt. authority (fifth amendment, etc.). Protesting is an American tradition.

Yes, the human shields should a.) expect to die and b.) question if now is the time for a protest. Given how many other people in other nations question the need for war, it's unclear to me that protesting is itself irrational--I think reasonable people can differ as to whether a war was needed and justified.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Hey JN - Interesting bits... Shoot me some sources? Thanks!

 

[rmcrobertson]

Hate to break anybody's heart, but I don't watch CNN. I went by a) the "New York Times," b) the networks, c) "Slate", d) the BBC and NPR (I put these together to get all the Commies in one basket), and e) that hotbed of liberalism, "Newsweek."

And, FYI, I have pretty much the same attitudes towards offical statements that Ernie Pyle and Bill Mauldin did, from what I can see by reading their stuff.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
Hey JN - Interesting bits... Shoot me some sources? Thanks!

Check PM

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by arnisador
Perhaps they understand but think this is not one of those times?

I find wishing harm on protesters to be downright un-American, personally. What other siginifcant rights does the US guarantee you--principally the right to speak/protest/think as you will, an dto be free from coercive and abusive govt. authority (fifth amendment, etc.). Protesting is an American tradition.

Yes, the human shields should a.) expect to die and b.) question if now is the time for a protest. Given how many other people in other nations question the need for war, it's unclear to me that protesting is itself irrational--I think reasonable people can differ as to whether a war was needed and justified.

Hey, if they want to shout their lung out, who cares?

If they want to protect Saddam's *** and die in the process, HA! Don't expect me to cry for them.

If they want to interfere with the operation of public services, expect to be deal with according to the law.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
Check PM

Got it!
Much apreciated!:asian:

 

[Cryozombie]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
REED IRVINE is who you're relying upon for facts?

Absolutly not. I can't say that I am RELYING on anyone... I'm just passing along "interesting" (to me anyhow) articles. Besides, Im sure we agree The truth, slanted or not, is ALWAYS based on someone's perception of the situation. Unless someone is out to openly decieve someone else. In which case they may lie about the truth even if they don't see it that way.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

As for Robert Heinlein (correct spelling, incidentally), "Starship Troopers," was the focus of a debate about fascism about twenty-five years ago. I'd recommend reading his, "Farnham's Freehold," for a book that charmingly links anti-communism, nuclear war, racist ideas about black people, and some of the worst sex scenes ever written in a mishmosh of goop...

Read it. (sadly) And you must forgive my spelling, Im a PC tech... Im used to SPELLCHECK doing all my work for me.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Nice to meet ya, T'punk. (Romulan variant)

Good points, I think. However, Reed Irvine is to facts as garlic is to vampires...

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Hate to break anybody's heart, but I don't watch CNN. I went by a) the "New York Times," b) the networks, c) "Slate", d) the BBC and NPR (I put these together to get all the Commies in one basket), and e) that hotbed of liberalism, "Newsweek."

And, FYI, I have pretty much the same attitudes towards offical statements that Ernie Pyle and Bill Mauldin did, from what I can see by reading their stuff.

I suppose those sources REALLY know what is ACTUALLY going on in the field, huh?

Journalists are the least technically educated (what do you expect from "School of Journalism" ?), least informed and yet most highly self-opinioned. They are practically worthless.

 

[Chicago Green Dragon]

My problem with the protestors is not giving them the chance to voice their feelings. That is fine. That is one of the things we have here in America that make us like no other place in the world.

People have the right to voice their feelings out for how they feel.

But when they create civil disobediense, destroy public or private property. fight with the police physically. I have to draw the line.


:soapbox:

Chicago Green
Dragon :asian:

 

[Elfan]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
I suppose those sources REALLY know what is ACTUALLY going on in the field, huh?

Journalists are the least technically educated (what do you expect from "School of Journalism" ?), least informed and yet most highly self-opinioned. They are practically worthless.

What alternatives would you reccomend?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...JN, methinks you don't know who Pyle and Mauldin were.

As for the other sources, weeellp. What can I say? I mean, the other day I heard some AM host calling Walter Cronkheit (really...I'm not kidding) a traitor, and uninformed to boot.

I quite agree that a lot of what the media says/shows can't be trusted. That's obvious. However, to argue that all of it's anti-American fantasy...that's silly. If it's anything, it's too much like pro-Am propaganda.

There are, I think, two basic problems here. The first is that somehow it's become traitorous to report anything but the Official Government Line, when in fact there's supposed to be a real conflict between what government tries to hide and what reporters try to report. It's not supposed to be like it was in thee old Soviet Union, where "Pravda" and "Izvestia," were tools of State propaganda...in our system of democracy and capitalism, the whole idea is that reporters earn their money by trying to find out secrets the government doesn't think we're old enough to know. And all this guff about reporters giving "aid and comfort to the enemy?" Bushwa....hey. I made a funny.

The second issue, for me, is that I've seen these charges before. Several times. Our government--our government, not something owned by those older and wiser, our government--lied through its teeth about Vietnam. It lied through its teeth about Watergate. It lied, toothily, about Chile and ITT; about death squads in Latin America; about Iran/Contra...well, the list goes on. And every time, every time, anybody who reported what was going on got labelled a traitor or worse. Hell, Stanley Karnouw got screamed at for a pretty bland history of the Vietnam War...seemingly, no amount of kowtowing to the Powers That Be was sufficient.

I'm sorry folks don't like the facts. And we can argue about what the facts are...but to simply reject them, or accuse anybody who brings the facts to light of being a moron or a traitor...that's the crap the CPUSA used to pull, back when the facts about Stalin's little worker's paradise were coming out.

I don't know if the US government is BS-ing in this case. I suspect they are; hell, Lyndon Johnson couldn't get through a day without telling three whoppers just to cover his butt during Vietnam. But I might also mention that from my viewpoint, our reporters are not being nearly critical enough...which might suggest to many that they've pretty much got it right.

There's one other problem...all those nay-sayers, those nattering-nabobs-of-negativism (Spiro T. Agnew...you remember. The VP of the United States who always went off about lefties, and was taking cash for favors right in his office?) have an ugly habit of turning out often to be right, in the long run.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Elfan
What alternatives would you reccomend?

On military issues :

www.strategypage.com

www.hackworth.com

www.sftt.com

On international strategic issues:

www.stratfor.com

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Uh...JN, methinks you don't know who Pyle and Mauldin were.

As for the other sources, weeellp. What can I say? I mean, the other day I heard some AM host calling Walter Cronkheit (really...I'm not kidding) a traitor, and uninformed to boot.

I quite agree that a lot of what the media says/shows can't be trusted. That's obvious. However, to argue that all of it's anti-American fantasy...that's silly. If it's anything, it's too much like pro-Am propaganda.

There are, I think, two basic problems here. The first is that somehow it's become traitorous to report anything but the Official Government Line, when in fact there's supposed to be a real conflict between what government tries to hide and what reporters try to report. It's not supposed to be like it was in thee old Soviet Union, where "Pravda" and "Izvestia," were tools of State propaganda...in our system of democracy and capitalism, the whole idea is that reporters earn their money by trying to find out secrets the government doesn't think we're old enough to know. And all this guff about reporters giving "aid and comfort to the enemy?" Bushwa....hey. I made a funny.

The second issue, for me, is that I've seen these charges before. Several times. Our government--our government, not something owned by those older and wiser, our government--lied through its teeth about Vietnam. It lied through its teeth about Watergate. It lied, toothily, about Chile and ITT; about death squads in Latin America; about Iran/Contra...well, the list goes on. And every time, every time, anybody who reported what was going on got labelled a traitor or worse. Hell, Stanley Karnouw got screamed at for a pretty bland history of the Vietnam War...seemingly, no amount of kowtowing to the Powers That Be was sufficient.

I'm sorry folks don't like the facts. And we can argue about what the facts are...but to simply reject them, or accuse anybody who brings the facts to light of being a moron or a traitor...that's the crap the CPUSA used to pull, back when the facts about Stalin's little worker's paradise were coming out.

I don't know if the US government is BS-ing in this case. I suspect they are; hell, Lyndon Johnson couldn't get through a day without telling three whoppers just to cover his butt during Vietnam. But I might also mention that from my viewpoint, our reporters are not being nearly critical enough...which might suggest to many that they've pretty much got it right.

There's one other problem...all those nay-sayers, those nattering-nabobs-of-negativism (Spiro T. Agnew...you remember. The VP of the United States who always went off about lefties, and was taking cash for favors right in his office?) have an ugly habit of turning out often to be right, in the long run.

me think you need to listen to people who are in the field, who walk the walk. Not some armchair quarterbacks.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Chicago Green Dragon
But when they create civil disobediense, destroy public or private property. fight with the police physically. I have to draw the line.

Well, I agree about fighting the police and about destroying property, but Civil Disobedience has been very useful--the civil rights movements of the 1960s, India's independence, etc. There's something to be said for it.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

If the enemies of the US and these doubters and naysayers are any close to been right, Afghanistan would be a smoldering, uninhabited, radioactive wasteland. So would Iraq and a couple of countries.

 

[rmcrobertson]

That's it by way of rebuttal? Nothing about facts, or interpretation, or underlying theory?