NearTheSea
|
posted on March 20, 2003 05:51:20 PM new
Thought Helen might like this 
http://www.komotv.com/kenschram/story.asp?ID=23766
SEATTLE - I find it tough to accept.
Think about all the people who claim to support the troops, but are opposed to the war.
Is that confusion, or hypocrisy?
Maybe it's both.
How can people deplore the use of bombs, but maintain they stand behind those who drop them?
They demonstrate against the bullets that fly from Marine rifles, then turn around and proclaim they'll be there for the person whose finger pulls the trigger.
I find this line of illogic an attempt to purify lingering social images of soldiers returning from Vietnam; a politically correct posture meant to ease people's conscience more then it's meant to show they actually stand behind the men and women in uniform.
I'm certain a soldier taking cover behind some Iraqi sand dune doesn't grasp the subtle difference between some people's disdain for what he does, and the fact that he is the one doing it.
I don't know if those opposed to invading Iraq are deluding themselves into believing that by saying they support the troops, they're giving themselves some kind of absolution.
Here's what I do know: You can't have it both ways.
With the first bullets having been fired; with the first bombs having been dropped, you can't claim to oppose the war and still support the Americans fighting it.
Not without at least a tinge of hypocrisy, or being so confused as to understand little about yourself, or the world around you.
By Ken Schram
Want to share your thoughts with Ken Schram? You can e-mail him at [email protected]
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on March 20, 2003 06:49:33 PM new
You don't have to agree with something to support it Near. If your son came home and said he wanted to be a rock star, you might not like it but you'd still support him.
|
LuckyGiftsandTreasures
|
posted on March 20, 2003 06:54:14 PM new
I live 36 miles North of Seattle and I could never figure out Seattle or King county that is why I live in another county
|
NearTheSea
|
posted on March 20, 2003 07:04:41 PM new
Lucky Seattle is in King Co. ( I think! )
I live probably 15? miles out of Seattle and still in King County
Kraft, I bolded the Vietnam Soldiers returning myself... I too, think people are making this 'politically correct' ie; I support the troops, but No war in Iraq, to avoid that part of history they want to forget.
I'm glad I don't have a son, who wants to be a rock star
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on March 20, 2003 07:08:05 PM new
I was thinking the same thing Near. That was cruel of me to use the son/rock star scenerio. Yikes! 
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 20, 2003 07:35:07 PM new
Is this the twilight zone? LOL!!!
Helen
|
REAMOND
|
posted on March 20, 2003 09:08:41 PM new
Jerry Falwell and his ilk use the same "reasoning" that the anti-war protesters use.
I do not hate homosexuals, I hate what they do
But we all know how they really feel about homosexuals and the things they do against homosexuals.
|
NearTheSea
|
posted on March 20, 2003 10:36:44 PM new
Helen,
No, you are in the Outer Limits.
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
|
donny
|
posted on March 20, 2003 10:56:33 PM new
People should be able to realize that often situations and feelings are more than simple black/white for/against positions. We're all adults so surely we must have had some experiences in life that would have given us more complexity in our understandings.
Or not.
Kraftdinner's analogy is a good one. We can love someone and at the same time be disappointed in their choices, and even believe very strongly that their choices are the wrong ones, without being confused or hypocrites.
Falwell is a hypocrite, I don't believe he loves anyone, homosexual or not.
|
gravid
|
posted on March 20, 2003 11:22:07 PM new
I think many people are in the military from the best of motives - but once there you have no control over how you will be used.
Don't hate any of them at all but I think it can be a bad decision if it puts you in the position you have to carry out orders you feel are illegal or immoral. Realistically your life will be hell if you refuse.
|
reamond
|
posted on March 21, 2003 07:41:03 AM new
"We can love someone and at the same time be disappointed in their choices, and even believe very strongly that their choices are the wrong ones, without being confused or hypocrites"
Really? So do you lay down in the driveway and not let him go to band practice ? How about going to his concert and carrying a sign that says "Being a Rock Star is Wrong".
These protesters are no different than Falwell. They either hate the American way of life or are so blinded by their hatre3d of Bush that they want his failure no matter what it costs this country.
|
gravid
|
posted on March 21, 2003 12:24:19 PM new
reamond - You seem to NEED to be hated. Is it that frightening to think someone might not agree with you that is not a completely contemptable enemy? Is your world really so narrow that all are saints or villains?
|
KatyD
|
posted on March 21, 2003 12:42:32 PM new
blinded by their hatre3d of Bush that they want his failure no matter what it costs this country.
I suspect it is this latter rather than the former. They didn't have a problem with Clinton taking out Milosovic, and HE didn't even have any WOMD's.
KatyD
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on March 21, 2003 02:15:07 PM new
To help you understand reamond, think about freedom of speech where you will defend someones right to speak freely even though it may be against your own views.
|
LuckyGiftsandTreasures
|
posted on March 22, 2003 11:29:58 AM new
I applaud the writers of all the posts protesting the pre-emptive strikes against Iraq and Yugoslavia. I've added Yugoslavia because everything they write applies to that war, too.
President Clinton didn't even try to get U.N. approval for the attack on Yugoslavia or for any of his other military actions. So much for the U.N. Just proves that Clinton is smarter than Bush. Iraq's oil and Yugoslavia's vast mineral resources are simply the spoils of war. Some $80 billion worth of Yugoslavia's mineral wealth has been appropriated by the U.S. in the past four years. Germany's steel industry now has new supplies of coal from the vast Yugoslavian fields. It was enough to "bomb them back to the stone age."
Casualties? You bet. All wars produce casualties. Even our humanitarian efforts produce casualties. Remember Mogadishu in 1994? Eighteen Americans dead, 80 wounded. More than 300 humanitarian aid recipients killed. Who knows how many wounded?
I think we should begin protesting these terrible humanitarian efforts, too. The wars in Iraq and Yugoslavia are terrible things, especially for the children. We should all applaud the thousands of brave people who have pounded the pavement, carried the signs and shouted the slogans protesting the wars in Yugoslavia and Iraq. The very fact that they have protested two identical wars by a Democratic president and a Republican president should put to rest any talk of a political agenda. No hypocrisy here.And While we are at it let's have mass protests of British occupation of Ireland
|
MAH645
|
posted on March 22, 2003 05:19:28 PM new
Reamond,Well said sometimes I think thats really what it all about.They are part of the ME generation.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 22, 2003 05:31:18 PM new
blinded by their hatred of Bush that they want his failure no matter what it costs this country.
That is 90% of it, imo. 
KatyD - Only one anti-war poster has even addressed that issue....and he admitted he felt more comfortable when Clinton did the same thing OR if Clinton was in charge. [paraphrasing what he said] But I believe he's currently on a forced vacation.
|
KatyD
|
posted on March 22, 2003 05:58:56 PM new
Linda, I was one of those that supported Clinton in his military actions in the Bosnia conflict. It was the right and just thing to do. The only difference was he didn't go to the UN Security Council first to get "permission"..rightly so because if I remember correctly, there was already dissent at the UN about what to do about the problem. So it turned out to be a shrewd decision on Clinton's part.
KatyD
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 22, 2003 06:12:21 PM new
KatyD- So did I.
What I have the biggest problem with are those who demanded Bush go to the UN, get Congressional approval....so he did...when they didn't expect/ask/require the same of Clinton.
And as you say...Clinton knew he would face the same UN problems. Hind sights 20/20. I believe Bush thought he was doing the right thing...that it would help with the division we were facing in our nation.
Bush haters are glad the UN supported their position even if it's detrimental to our government. Where I'm coming from is a lot of those here are protesting this war because of Bush and would most likely be support the exact same actions if Clinton were again ordering them.
|
KatyD
|
posted on March 22, 2003 06:28:23 PM new
Yes, Linda, I've come to the same conclusion. It's not about the "war"..it's about Bush. Lord knows I was pretty pizzed off when the Supreme Court "made" him President. I still don't think he received the majority of the votes. But at some point in time, you just have to play with the hand you were dealt. He's president now, and no amount of bitching and moaning about it is going to change a damn thing. And every time I hear a protester tell a reporter that they're protesting this war because Bush was "illegally" made president (and almost ALL of them say this if given the time and chance)it only underscores that the fact that they are still stuck in a timewarp from November of 2000, and Iraq is just a convenient excuse for what they're really against, which is Bush.
Along the same topic, I remember back in 1998 for a period of a week when Clinton kept promising that he was going to bomb Saddam's ass if he didn't straighten out his act. Every day, it was "one more chance" or I'm sending the bombers. It drove me nuts! I believe that at one point he did have them on their way and turned them around after one more promise at diplomacy. I think that was when he allowed that nitwit Kofi Annan go over to "talk" to Saddam, and ended up giving up the store. The whole crisis took longer than a week. I don't remember any "peace" protestors out on the street carrying anti-war signs against Clinton promising to kick Saddam's ass. In retrospect, if he HAD bombed the crap out of them, we might not be here today.
KatyD
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 22, 2003 06:42:13 PM new
KatyD - Blame....yes there's always enough of that to go around... on both sides.
To me this is a subject where I really thought we [the US] would be more united, especially considering the last three administrations have felt Saddam needed to be removed. Obviously I was wrong.
|
KatyD
|
posted on March 22, 2003 06:53:29 PM new
Oh I think most everybody wants Saddam removed. They just don't want Bush to be the one to do it.
KatyD
|
