Politically Correct rebellion

[Morning Glory]

ugh, I hate how everyone is all PC rebellion. like it's cool to hate the president, but they all still support our troops and say god bless america. no one has the balls to say fuck our troops I don't support killing in my name and in the name of freedom, and that this country is a lie and that it's built on fear and greed and racism.

ok ok, I don't want to get into a whole politcal thing. but have you noticed that? that people are only into radicalism when it's the in thing to do, like when it's "safe" to say it, but not to speak out against real issues.

[TheDeathKnight]

Three issues:

1. America is pretty cool compared to most other places.
So I have no problem with patriotic people who support their country.

2. The troops are just kids who were stupid, and signed up because they didn't have other choices. So I have no problem with people who want to express their support for those kids who are stuck in a really dangerous place and having a pretty shitty time.

3. If this country is such a lie, based on greed and racism, then perhaps try living in a communist country for a bit, or any other country you prefer. I'm not throwing down the "love it or leave it" card. I'm just saying to try living elsewhere, before you think America is so shitty. Tell people in Mexico that America is shitty. I'm sure there are plenty of Mexicans who would be happy to trade with you.

I agree that this country has problems.
It happens to have a stupid leader at the moment, and that affects things a lot.
Our leaders, and politicians, should get the brunt of our anger.
Why?
Because they are the source of policy...

I'm not going to say "fuck the troops".
Half of them did not want to go, and the other half did not know any better.
They are just victims of policy, just like anyone else.
So yes, I think it is appropriate for people to bash Bush, and congress.

But America is pretty cool, and our troops deserve respect for doing a really shitty job.

[Tequila Zaire]

As opposed to "hardcore" rebellion? Truth is I'm not seeing the diffrence between what you're complaing about and your behaviour with your words. I don't mean that as an insult but this does come off as a bit odd. Those who don't play it "safe" tend to do so for reasons other than those they raise. They tend to do it so they can feel they are not part of the mainstream, unique, truthful, honorable, or whatever other buzzword they like to live by in some strange quest for a singular vision to life.

What's the diffrence between people being "PC" rebellious and those being rebellious for the simple sake of BEING rebellious? Some like to say it's a phase or a simple set of ideals to hide behind...but that seems a bit dismissive.

Guess the real question should be...is the true rebellious spirit still alive? Can we expect that idealized rebellious nature of music, movies, and boosk to really survive a day to day grind? The U.S. is the ONLY major nation to survive its revolution and have it's rebels not fade out like fools. It's been a bumpy ride to say the least but you gotta admit it's a tough act to follow...a guy like say George Washington was the rebel of his age and even had an entire "cult" form around him. He is also the first man of his age to turn down absolute power. They may not be the punk rock rebels that are oh so fashionable but what do we use to rate a rebel? does it have to be style over substance like Castro or does a rebel have to be SO hardcore that his actions and identity go unknown by all? How can you even BE a rebel if the mainstream is unaware of you and "hates" you?

After all...a rebel always needs something to rebel agaisnt so what do you do when the rebels of old become the mainstream? Look at the 60's and 70's generation...they were the rebels of their age by and large...and love it or hate it we'll be in their same place soon enough...so are WE going to complain that future rebels aren't rebellious enough or so rebellious we can't identify with them so we dismiss them?

The word itself seems to lose it's value when you have mainstream pop bands use it as titles for eveything from song titles to clothes sytles.

[TheDeathKnight]

Anyone who is a thinker, a philosopher, will realize that this world has problems.

So it's natural for thinkers to want to do something about the problems they see.

So imagine you are a smart person, back in the 1400's.
And you realize that your wife is really smart, and equal to yourself.
What good would it do to protest for women't rights, back in 1400?
It would take until the 1900's before women have the right to vote,
and work, and get equal pay and treatment... It took hundreds of years...

I know there are injustices and problems in the world.
I just think that individual "rebellion" is a waste of energy.
I'm not saying you have to go along with the way things are.
I just think it's a waste of your anger and productivity, to rage
against the machine... The machine is big, slow, and metal...
It can't change direction overnight.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

Supporting our troops may just be a PC cop out for some people, but for a lot of people there are good reasons to support our troops. "Our troops" is not some abstract ideal for me, they are Chuck, Omar and Rachel. They are people I can put a name to.

I kinda understand what your saying, but they way it's said looses a lot. I get irritated every time I see "Support our troops" and George Bush= in the same context. Supporting the troops may just be moral support, but a stupid $4 sticker that says support our troops doesn't do much for them. If everyone who bought a support our troops, or one of those american flag stickers had sent a that same money to support the troops they might be able to enjoy some luxuries out there. If everyone who supports our troops had written thier senator to say, "hey the $100 bush took from my taxes could be better spent on our troops" or, "quit approving money for the war that doesn't support our troops" or even "why are we spending billions on a missile defense system that doesn't work instead of rebuilding the country we promised to rebuild?" then supporting the troops might actually mean something.

Rebelion doesn't have to be black leather jackets and blue hair (although honestly, who doesn't like those things? ) and it doesn't have to be saying 'fuck the troops' especially if you don't bear any ill will to most of the troops. It is just a matter of saying something in a forum that might be heard. Part of the ACLU's success (imho) is that they made it easy for even the laziest of us to fire off letters to our congress so they recieve tons of notices on a subject.

Telling us we are hypocrites while doing nothing is very 80s, but not very effective. Lead by example. Write your senator and post what you wrote. Post actual information on the points you make. And still buy a pair of combat boots, cause they never stop being cool.

[VoldtaEngler]

PC Rebellion...

[Morning Glory]

I think that you misunderstood my point. what i'm saying is that the people that are speaking out against president bush never seemed to have a problem or open thier mouths about the faults in the Clinton administration, many of which are the exact same situations and actions they critisize bush for. could it be because they didn't have all the hollywood celebrities and people like micheal moore all over the TV to make it cool to talk trash about the president? it seems like people jumping on the bandwagon more than sincerity. you don't have to agree with my politics, the point was simply to show many people that are "rebelous" will only express such high idealism when they have nothing to lose for it.when it comes down to it, they may take shots at the boss behind his back, but they wouldn't be willing to say it to his face for fear of losing thier job, which they hate anyway. I'm not asking people to join the green party or whatever, just that they actually stand up for thier beliefs because they truly believe in them, not just when it is convenient to do the right thing.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

Oh, that.

Well, people liked Clinton even when he was wrong. This had less to do with Hollywood celeberties telling people what to think and more to do with the man himself. He came off like a movie star to the whole world. Clinton could screw you, smile and make you think it's all ok. Also, he didn't fuck with my lifestyle as much.

Bush doesn't make friends. He plays the us vs them card so once you find out you are 'them' well of course you jump on the band wagon against him. For example, Clinton did not really do anything to help gays in the military, but becuase he didn't demonize them a lot of people just didn't notice. The man lied, but at least he put some effort into it. Because of the way Bush comes off, a lot of people feel like they have to talk trash about him. Not because Charlie Sheen says it's cool, but because 'The Man' says you can't.

Least that's my take.

[devilmutt]

hey deathknight, as one of the "troops" you speak of who is currently on a deployment i would just like to let you know how much we enjoy being called stupid kids with no other choices...

[devil13]

I think that you misunderstood my point. what i'm saying is that the people that are speaking out against president bush never seemed to have a problem or open thier mouths about the faults in the Clinton administration, many of which are the exact same situations and actions they critisize bush for. could it be because they didn't have all the hollywood celebrities and people like micheal moore all over the TV to make it cool to talk trash about the president? it seems like people jumping on the bandwagon more than sincerity. you don't have to agree with my politics, the point was simply to show many people that are "rebelous" will only express such high idealism when they have nothing to lose for it.when it comes down to it, they may take shots at the boss behind his back, but they wouldn't be willing to say it to his face for fear of losing thier job, which they hate anyway. I'm not asking people to join the green party or whatever, just that they actually stand up for thier beliefs because they truly believe in them, not just when it is convenient to do the right thing.

What???? yea and the same people that support Bush spoke out against Clinton, so???? remember Clinton was impeached for a BJ. Bush just sent us into war based on false info, sent our econamy down the toilet (we were well on our way of being out of debt under Bill), and still hasnt captured Bin Laden. there is more that I could go into but I think Ive made my point.

[Tequila Zaire]

What???? yea and the same people that support Bush spoke out against Clinton, so???? remember Clinton was impeached for a BJ. Bush just sent us into war based on false info, sent our econamy down the toilet (we were well on our way of being out of debt under Bill), and still hasnt captured Bin Laden. there is more that I could go into but I think Ive made my point.

Under the Clinton years Enron happened, domestic terrorist attacks spiked, sleeper cells penetrated the boarders, and military and defense budgets were sliced to the point of allowing major attacks to occur from nutjobs like those behind Oklahoma City. His administration also royally fucked its own in places like Ruby Ridge, Waco, and dozens of other federal screw ups. Under his watch the economy only looked as though it was good...in reality those in the know had stated again and again it was gonna burst...his administration was just as fucked up and the fact that he "didn't lead us to war" is the only good thing to say about it. He was the puppet for the rich and famous who was so cocky he lied about a fucking blowjob on national television...

He was and is White Trash and represents the part of America I really really really wish was ripped from the communal gene pool throuh mass executions.

Enron was not under Bush's watch...neither was the horrid intel...all that had been brewing since 93 when CIA budgets began to not only be cut...but made the agency USELESS by the late 90's. In any other age Clinton would not have reached a second term but he gave the voters and his supporters what he wanted and they sucked his dick along the way to get there...the famous got into washington...the rich played famous...and the crooks hit in the plain light of day...

The only diffrence now? It's the OTHER bastards turn...same dance though, same players, and same wortheless fucks who played both sides in the last and this administration.

But I gotta laugh about it...cause if I don't...I may just actually lose all hope and head for the proverbial tower with the high powered rifle taking as many of their progeny and breed as I can with me.

[devil13]

didnt need the long rant but I guess you didnt get my point.
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
I think that you misunderstood my point. what i'm saying is that the people that are speaking out against president bush never seemed to have a problem or open thier mouths about the faults in the Clinton administration.
and my reply was: yea and the same people that support Bush spoke out against Clinton, so????
and my reply to you TZ is so what. I didnt say Clinton was a saint by any means. I just said that he was impeached.

Dubya still isnt even half the man his father was, who by the way put Saddam in power during the Reagan years when he was the head of the CIA. and I backed that war and the troops (including my own family members who where there) in desert storm. his father did what he thought was the right thing at the time and the right thing for our troops. he also listened to his military leaders (who by the way are the same people Dubya didnt listen to) and to his advisors on everything from when, how to start Desert Storm to when to pull out and bring our troops home. Dubya on the other hand couldnt even run a baseball team. hell why dont you ask anyone (who isnt a bible in one hand and a shotgun in the other redneck) from Texas what did Dubya do whille he was Gov. there. and talk about your flip flops Dubya has plenty of his own. I could keep going but I need to get to sleep. yea I hate Dubya and still support the troops. so what. I also hate most politicians. the troops are the ones who are willing to die for your freedoms politicians are the ones who send them to die so how could anyone say fuck the troops??????? I say

[Nightmare Pin]

ugh, I hate how everyone is all PC rebellion. like it's cool to hate the president, but they all still support our troops and say god bless america. no one has the balls to say fuck our troops I don't support killing in my name and in the name of freedom, and that this country is a lie and that it's built on fear and greed and racism.

ok ok, I don't want to get into a whole politcal thing. but have you noticed that? that people are only into radicalism when it's the in thing to do, like when it's "safe" to say it, but not to speak out against real issues.

didn't you hear? Its no longer cool to question the establishment.

As far as supporting the troops goes....uh...yeah so they're Kids doing what they're told to do and not asking questions....i don't respect that and i don't respect what they are doing (killing and killing and killing, has anyone looked at the Iraqi Casulties recently?) I don't think it is ok to shoot people dead without asking questions at home or abroad. For every American family that cries its eyes out at their son or daughters funeral, a hundred Iraq families are crying their eyes out because of the loss of their son or daughter. I know that doesn't mean a lot to some of you but I don't consider American life to be more valuable then anyone elses.

Hey but i certainly don't wish any them ill either, I hope they get their asses safely back home to their friends and families again ASAP.

[Tequila Zaire]

didnt need the long rant but I guess you didnt get my point.

Wasn't really aiming to comment on your point specifically but more on the tone some use the Clinton years as this magically time of peace and prosperity. In recent years their has been this insanely false perception that his administration did more right than wrong and those who know question every step the current administration takes did not do so in that era. That's the problem and that's the core that makes it so hard to take their current critiques so seriously. It's a sick tennis match people love to play blind too cause they are either on the losing side...or worse make gains by doing so.

[Tequila Zaire]

didn't you hear? Its no longer cool to question the establishment.

No it's still cool...just not cool to do so like a blind idiot using weak arguments and catch phrases like "Not in my name" or the abysmal "Vote or Die".

As far as supporting the troops goes....uh...yeah so they're Kids doing what they're told to do and not asking questions....i don't respect that and i don't respect what they are doing (killing and killing and killing, has anyone looked at the Iraqi Casulties recently?)

Being a soldier has never been about questioning orders...it's not a democracy. They also do far more than just killing, however none of that gets press and none of that strikes their critics as particularly interesting as it could actually make them more complex and their situation far more difficult to understand. It's much easier to see them as robotic killing machines since it allows these people to feel morally superior to these people...it's that whole "I wouldn't do that"
mentality that is usually bullshit given the daily actions of these same people. As far as Iraqi casualties go...boo fucking hoo...none cared during the pre-war years and people only use them now to make the side they dislike look bad so it's more exploitative than actual care...keep in mind that not all those casualties are innocent and many of them were not killed by U.S. troops...but hey who really fucking cares in this situation right? It's all about how one spins it.

I don't think it is ok to shoot people dead without asking questions at home or abroad. For every American family that cries its eyes out at their son or daughters funeral, a hundred Iraq families are crying their eyes out because of the loss of their son or daughter. I know that doesn't mean a lot to some of you but I don't consider American life to be more valuable then anyone elses.

That's a fine sentiment...but the reasoning is way way way off. It's simply not that cut and dry. You leave out the fact people shoot each other dead in Iraq and the U.S. for a variety of reasons both before, during, and after the invasion...so to lump ALL those deaths together is misguided and paints to incorrect a picture. Was it easier to stomach people kidnapped and killed quietly as opposed to a car bomb? Was it easier to say (Like Egypt for example) "That's how one must rule Iraq" in regards to Saddams "methods". Isn't it more obscene to preach freedom and a better world and to let things continue to be fucked up than to actually do something even if it will be painful and hard? The world community loves that tag line. The sentiment is nice that American Life is no more valuable than others...however it's pretty clear it is. Every nation values it's citizens before those of other nations or variations on that. We're not exactly crying over Rawanda as it occured but oh how we make fucking movies about it 10 years after the bones have bleached in the sun. It's jsut hard to take those sentiments all that seriously when in all truth that mentality has caused as much harm as the more agressive ones practised today.

Hey but i certainly don't wish any them ill either, I hope they get their asses safely back home to their friends and families again ASAP.

Many do, but at the same time it's the job you sign up for as a soldier. Death is not that far away and neither is conflict. While few ever wish an army of any nation ill...it's the job they have to be put in harms way. The current image problems the Military has is the same one they've been fighting since Korea that would later explode in Vietnam...the hate has ben refocused away from the Troops in this conflict unlike vietnam and that's well and good but their is a trend to not question the sympathy people have for the "enemy" and I don't mean the Iraqi people but ACTUAL terrorists, inssurgents, mercenaries, etc. I don't mean the "If you're not with us you're against us" kind...I'm talking about the ones who no matter how you cut it that's what they are. The sad thing is they know that and use it to cause harm. It's a practice that even local street gangs use these days and sad to see so easily bought into.

[Nightmare Pin]

They also do far more than just killing, however none of that gets press and none of that strikes their critics as particularly interesting as it could actually make them more complex and their situation far more difficult to understand.

Soldiers doing civic duties are not the same as soldiers during wartime. They are the same people but their jobs are essentially different. I think soldiers on civic duties and rescue operations etc. deserve all our respect. I will not however excuse their activities abroad by saying, "well they protected the eastern fisheries nicely last year"!

As far as Iraqi casualties go...boo fucking hoo...none cared during the pre-war years and people only use them now to make the side they dislike look bad so it's more exploitative than actual care...keep in mind that not all those casualties are innocent and many of them were not killed by U.S. troops...but hey who really fucking cares in this situation right? It's all about how one spins it.

I think you'll find that plenty of people actually do care. Your cynicism distorts the fact that there are millions of compassionate people in the world, especially those who have lost loved ones. Perhaps you have only shed crocodile tears but there are plenty of genuinely sympathetic people in the world.
As for the, "they didn't care before" argument, this is arbitrary at best, firstly plenty of educated and concerned people did care and secondly who gives a fuck? If the Iraq war has focused peoples attention on unnecessary civilian casualties abroad instead of the local school bus which overturned last week then who cares? They are still real people who are still really dying.

Ahh…but not all of them were innocent? And what should your average Joe who suddenly finds the worlds largest super power dropping bombs on his country do? I for one would sure as fuck pick up a rifle and I consider those average Joes that did pretty "innocent" under the circumstances (obviously the hardline militants are a seperate issue). Afterall, Its one thing if Bush bombs Saddams palace and covertly assignation your president its another if he bombs your children in their Schools, your Hospitals and Mosques or better yet at a wedding. In any case what would have happened if there had been no resistance? What would have happened is that Iraq would have been quietly turned over to the US. corporations.

So yes, there are "terrorist" personal in Iraq, and...a very large number of these "terrorists" were sitting at home with families of their own before a couple of B52s dropped a bomb on their local ‘you name it’. Are these people deserving of death? No I don't think so, especially when Bush’s sole motivation for the war was to reprimand the country's resources in the first place. Remember the Iraqi army was defeated, do you expect me to believe that the hundreds of thousands of insurgents who died were all wearing ski-masks and plotting the demise of the US. until Bush invaded? What do you expect when a Christian superpower occupies an Arab and Muslim country….you expect to be greeted with open fucking arms? Especially since the Abu Ghraib scandals….

Anyway, admittedly I’d be stretching it if I said my heart goes out to all the Islamic terrorists out there, they are scum, end of story. But its pretty easy to choose some innocents from the minimum number of 21795 Iraq civilians (Max 24735) that have died since the war started, the 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths of 2003 ALONE, the approximately 1000 listed child fatalities linked to cluster bombs and leftover munitions according to OXVAM or the hundred or so innocent children who die everyday from malnutrition or illness.

“Oh wait…we’ll take responsibility for the cluster bomb deaths (since the Iraqi don’t even have cluster bombs) but children were dying prematurely in Iraq long before America went in there.”… true but the reason the infant mortality rate is higher now than before USA troops landed there (“malnutrition amongst Iraqi children has almost doubled from 4 per cent in 2002 to roughly 8 per cent since the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq”) is because they bombed the fuck out of all the water and sewage systems and the money that was supposed to be invested in repair (by American corporations of course) is being spent on defence because well….the country is nearing civil war.

How about the 900 or so American children who have lost parents to the war? Ah but you think that to lump all these deaths together is misguided? How so?…we are all human beings and these people were all innocent victims of the Iraq war. Is this all just spin? I think the numbers speak for themselves, if you want to see spin look at the case of Pat Tillman!

Isn't it more obscene to preach freedom and a better world and to let things continue to be fucked up than to actually do something even if it will be painful and hard? The world community loves that tag line.

That really depends…I’d certainly prefer to see some hippies sitting around and smoking Ganja than a bunch of testosterone fuelled pricks doing something “painful” in Iraq. I’d go with Ginsberg rather than Rumsfeld any day.

We're not exactly crying over Rawanda as it occured but oh how we make fucking movies about it 10 years after the bones have bleached in the sun. It's jsut hard to take those sentiments all that seriously when in all truth that mentality has caused as much harm as the more aggressive ones practised today..

Yeah damn those hippies, they left cigarette butts at Woodstock. Chomsky can criticize the war in Vietnam all he likes but writing a paper on it isn’t nearly as harmful as dropping a bomb on it.

...the hate has ben refocused away from the Troops in this conflict unlike vietnam and that's well and good but their is a trend to not question the sympathy people have for the "enemy" and I don't mean the Iraqi people but ACTUAL terrorists, inssurgents, mercenaries, etc. I don't mean the "If you're not with us you're against us" kind...I'm talking about the ones who no matter how you cut it that's what they are. The sad thing is they know that and use it to cause harm. It's a practice that even local street gangs use these days and sad to see so easily bought into.

Um…I know this isn’t a political forum so I’ll just wrap things up. I don’t sympathise with radical insurgents. But you have to put things in perspective You create more “enemies” and destroy more “friendlys” by leaving bombs on their doorsteps. There are some nasty pieces of work out there but the situation in Iraq does not measure up at all. Saddam did not have WMD and no real link has been found between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Has there been any non-commercial benefits from this war yet? Will there ever be?

I understand where you’re coming from to an extent but you seem to be missing the human element entirely. Sorry if this sounds like a personal attack but its something that is very close to my heart.

[Tequila Zaire]

Soldiers doing civic duties are not the same as soldiers during wartime. They are the same people but their jobs are essentially different. I think soldiers on civic duties and rescue operations etc. deserve all our respect. I will not however excuse their activities abroad by saying, "well they protected the eastern fisheries nicely last year"!

You can't pick and choose what to like and dislike about a profession then judge them on entirely diffrent moral planes. It may be easier to stomach that way but essentially you end ripping apart people and never understanding them or accpeting the fact no one, especially soldiers, are one thing and one thing alone. Every profession has it's dark side but given the nature of what a soldier is...one can't be so put off by it that it's easily dismissed.

I think you'll find that plenty of people actually do care. Your cynicism distorts the fact that there are millions of compassionate people in the world, especially those who have lost loved ones.

I'm sure a violin plays for them all and a beautiful orchestral score plays for their actions. It's not cynicism that drives this it's the hardened reality that compassion is said more than it is given and that people highly enjoy talking about how compassionate they are about the suffering without actually getting their hands bloodied with it's less than charming reality. Losing a loved one has nothing to do with compassion or even sympathy, it's daily and common. Millions may be copassionate and even saintly but an equal or stronger number are not and those cause most of the problems....so I'd rather focus on their nature and what drives them since ultimately they lead to the need for compassion...sadly enough.

Perhaps you have only shed crocodile tears but there are plenty of genuinely sympathetic people in the world.

If I'm to shed a tear for every horror in this world I'd be blind by now. Tears have no value, only action does...that's what changes things not well wishes, ideas, and fancy notions of a better world.

As for the, "they didn't care before" argument, this is arbitrary at best, firstly plenty of educated and concerned people did care and secondly who gives a fuck? If the Iraq war has focused peoples attention on unnecessary civilian casualties abroad instead of the local school bus which overturned last week then who cares? They are still real people who are still really dying.

It's about priority, what's more important and immediate? What can be bettered or worsened by action given without hesitation? It's easier to deal with a local disaster than one a half a world away. That's at the core of many problems people have with foreign intervention after all...many would rather have such attention focused domestically than in Iraq...but that too have value and needed worry. As far as civilian casualties go...that's too broad a term since their is no standing army in Iraq now...anyone hurt by so much a pin prick is a casualty of war.

Ahh…but not all of them were innocent? And what should your average Joe who suddenly finds the worlds largest super power dropping bombs on his country do? I for one would sure as fuck pick up a rifle and I consider those average Joes that did pretty "innocent" under the circumstances (obviously the hardline militants are a seperate issue).

Those are the ones I was focused on...and made that clear as to who I was talking about. As far as average joe being bombed on goes...nature of war, every city on the planet has experienced similar and none can seek or should seek sympathy for it. Once you take up arms and decide to get involved well you cross a line you better be damn sure you understand the consequences of...seems too few do.

Afterall, Its one thing if Bush bombs Saddams palace and covertly assignation your president its another if he bombs your children in their Schools, your Hospitals and Mosques or better yet at a wedding. In any case what would have happened if there had been no resistance? What would have happened is that Iraq would have been quietly turned over to the US. corporations.

What if's are all over the place in this...raising them as questions won't priduce the answers people want though. Raise the statistics and show all the dead children you'd like it's not gonna sway opinion about what is more valuable to them. The problem with what if thinking is that it simplifies actions and events that obviously were not so cut and dry as to follow such paths.

So yes, there are "terrorist" personal in Iraq, and...a very large number of these "terrorists" were sitting at home with families of their own before a couple of B52s dropped a bomb on their local ‘you name it’. Are these people deserving of death? No I don't think so, especially when Bush’s sole motivation for the war was to reprimand the country's resources in the first place. Remember the Iraqi army was defeated, do you expect me to believe that the hundreds of thousands of insurgents who died were all wearing ski-masks and plotting the demise of the US. until Bush invaded? What do you expect when a Christian superpower occupies an Arab and Muslim country….you expect to be greeted with open fucking arms? Especially since the Abu Ghraib scandals….

Come now...sitting at home with their family? I made it quite clear who I was targeting in my above statement...those without question of what they do. Men, women, hell even children who are used and trained for the soul purpose of being terrorists, mercenaries, hired thugs...in and out of Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of dead insurgents? overstating the numbers there a bit...though if you study the very nature of such conflicts you'll see Inssuregents are quite a big problem all over that and other continents. Throw a war and everyone comes to play even if they have no real connection with the politics at hand. The whole War or Oil thing is something I've never bought into for the simple fact the system before the war was for the very same thing...damning one side without sheding light on the other seems false and misleading in terms of wanting to be honest on the issue. Insurgents are also not locals...they are fighters who come in from outside the nation in conflict. If a guy is pissed about being bombed on and takes up arms...you can label him what you want, domestic terrorist, militaman, trouble maker, whatever. Catogarizing him with mercaneries and foreign fighters only ties into that insane sense of misplaced sympathy for the enemy...and again...the enemy not being some poor bastards who happens to be stuck in the crossfire but those who actually go out of their way to make sure this and other conflicts continue without end and train for that soul purpose. I don't mean enemy in the sense of Enemy of the U.S...but the enemy of us all cause if you think some of these bastards would think twice about killing you, me, or some average joe of his own blood...you're mistaken. That bugs me a hell of a lot more than stealing oil...hell I WISH that's what it was all about. Doubt any where looking for open arms with the invasion but at the same time it's clear those with political aims domestically and in allied nations want this to be a disaster and so do those they appeal to since it would justify their world view...so as cynical as it may sound...those most against this seem to want as high a bodycount as possible.

[Tequila Zaire]

Anyway, admittedly I’d be stretching it if I said my heart goes out to all the Islamic terrorists out there, they are scum, end of story. But its pretty easy to choose some innocents from the minimum number of 21795 Iraq civilians (Max 24735) that have died since the war started, the 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths of 2003 ALONE, the approximately 1000 listed child fatalities linked to cluster bombs and leftover munitions according to OXVAM or the hundred or so innocent children who die everyday from malnutrition or illness.

Yes...let us all "think of the children". It's sick how easily their misery can be exploited even when the aim is to draw attention to their plight. Can't say it works for me persoanlly (seen enough kids suffering in my trips to Mexico and South America) but hey...if it gets western citizens to donate whatever is needed to help the kids of the region so be it.

“Oh wait…we’ll take responsibility for the cluster bomb deaths (since the Iraqi don’t even have cluster bombs) but children were dying prematurely in Iraq long before America went in there.”… true but the reason the infant mortality rate is higher now than before USA troops landed there (“malnutrition amongst Iraqi children has almost doubled from 4 per cent in 2002 to roughly 8 per cent since the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq”) is because they bombed the fuck out of all the water and sewage systems and the money that was supposed to be invested in repair (by American corporations of course) is being spent on defence because well….the country is nearing civil war.

The problem with many of these studies is they base their pre-war information gathered during Saddam's rule and now heavily corrupted U.N. info...so while I don't feel they are lying about how fucked up things are now...I don't buy anything they say about pre-war conditions. Too much was censored by Saddams government and even more was supressed...so every statistic simply has to come into question. Look at how we check, double check, and investigate claims IN THIS COUNTRY when it comes to such statistics...you expect me to buy those of Pre-War Iraq? It just seems to much to ask of anybody and clearly designed to make the U.S. in this case look bad at the expense of those actually suffering...which anyone is free to do...but at some point enery should be directed to improving conditions not figuring out new ways to make another powerful white man look bad...that's too easy anyhow.

How about the 900 or so American children who have lost parents to the war? Ah but you think that to lump all these deaths together is misguided? How so?…we are all human beings and these people were all innocent victims of the Iraq war. Is this all just spin? I think the numbers speak for themselves, if you want to see spin look at the case of Pat Tillman!

Once you lump all the deaths together for the shock value of a big number and the ideal we're all just humans you run into the danger of making it far more abstract than it should be. It simply takes away the humanity of it by focusing on the tragedy of it...and that does no good for anybody.

That really depends…I’d certainly prefer to see some hippies sitting around and smoking Ganja than a bunch of testosterone fuelled pricks doing something “painful” in Iraq. I’d go with Ginsberg rather than Rumsfeld any day.

Both disturb me to be honest and would prefer not to get friendly with either...cause really if that's all I got to choose from...then I'm a heart beat away from helping to wipe out humanity out of a simple favor to all existence.

Yeah damn those hippies, they left cigarette butts at Woodstock. Chomsky can criticize the war in Vietnam all he likes but writing a paper on it isn’t nearly as harmful as dropping a bomb on it.

It's just too extreme to think in such absolutes as those that follow either path...one wants EXTREME action the other wants EXTREME talk over anything else...both fuck up humanity...one physically the other mentally.

The trick is getting them to wipe out each other. What a glorious day that will be.

Um…I know this isn’t a political forum so I’ll just wrap things up. I don’t sympathise with radical insurgents. But you have to put things in perspective You create more “enemies” and destroy more “friendlys” by leaving bombs on their doorsteps. There are some nasty pieces of work out there but the situation in Iraq does not measure up at all. Saddam did not have WMD and no real link has been found between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Has there been any non-commercial benefits from this war yet? Will there ever be?

We'll have to see what time bring for those questions to be answered ...and I'd be lying if I said I'm losing sleep over finding out. Political talk comes up here every so often so no worries, as long as you come at iit with intelligence and respect as you have...all is well and good. The point of a good debate these days is for both sides to walk away with questions to think about...no definative answers.

I understand where you’re coming from to an extent but you seem to be missing the human element entirely. Sorry if this sounds like a personal attack but its something that is very close to my heart.

It's not a personal attack at all...we simply see Humanity in much diffrent ways. It's the whole one sees black where the other sees white kinda thing. I have no ill will for Iraq or blind patriotism for the U.S., I just don't buy into the major newbites and issues coming out of each of them...all the stuff that's nsaid and buried attracts my attention more...cause...for me at least...that's where the more accurate picture is painted. Neither side comes off looking to good there so It's no real shock that few want to view it. I wouldn't be bold to call it "the truth" but more along the lines of "the reasons"...and not every reason is a good one...but they at least let you know where someone or something is coming from.

It's just a sick beast that devours us all in some way anyhow...as years pass I let it not bother me as much. It's just not a priority or importance at the end of the day. Worrying about politicians and the messes they cause it too much of a headache with too many easily entertained by it and while it's easier to be cynical about it...their is more benefit to being less bothered by it and more focused on ones own life cause that's the only way to do or change anything really. Attending protests, political rallies, starting anti-whatever websites, are just expected distractions...if these millions really had any sympathy for others they'd brighten to the fact their sympathy is going both ways and all they really do is sit on the sidelines and whatch it happen...they're the grand weeping audience.

But like I said, not losing sleep over it. Really all I can do is laugh to myself when they ask me to mimic their insane reactionary bullshit cause at the end of it all...they'll be the ones needing sympathy soon enough.

[TheDeathKnight]

hey deathknight, as one of the "troops" you speak of who is currently on a deployment i would just like to let you know how much we enjoy being called stupid kids with no other choices...

Sorry if any offense was taken at my comments.
I appreciate the troops, and I appreciate the shitty job they have to do.
It's some hardcore shit, and not very fun at all.

But they *are* young, and they *are* given orders to do what they do.
They are tool of the government, like it or not.

Even if you chose to join, chose to go over there, and wanted to
go over there, and wanted to fight, I still think that the majority
of the troops signed up because they did not have other options.
I am not an expert, and I am not there, with your fellow troops.
So I can not say for sure if I am right. So correct me if I am wrong...

But it sure seemed that way to me, when I was in high school...
The kids who could not get into college, and who did not have
a good job waiting for them after graduation, often joined
the armed forces. And so thinking of those kids, I know that
they joined, hoping for job training, money for education, etc...
They did not join because they wanted to kill Iraqis, or die
for their country. Joining the military does not mean you
support everything the goverment does. You just have to
do what you are told.

And I still think it is a good option, and you have heard me on
here telling Brightstar to join up. I think it is a good way to get
out of a shitty home life, a good way to get educated, learn new
skills, etc... And it's a tough job, and I respect it. But I do not think
I am totally wrong to say that a lot of military people are very
young, and joined up because they did not have a lot of other
options. Be mad all you want about that impression, but it is
not without a basis in reality....