"Colin Campbell" <activated_...@gmail.com (remove underscore)> wrote in
messagenews:63h91416b9laqe9n0genf5cfmk8ujnga07@4ax.com...





On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:21:31 -0400, Zomby-W...@cox.net wrote:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:13:03 +0000, ZerkonX <Z...@X.net> wrote:

Part of  'psyops' is to equate policy with military personnel. "Support
Our Troops" is a lie. "Support Our Policy" is the actual demand. Troops
are used, quite literally, as 'human shields'.

Bullshit, one can vehemently disagree with policy & still support the
Troops -- and I mean direct support not just flappin your jaws.

In a way he does have something of a point.  Most of the people who
claim to 'support the troops but oppose the war' do not really support
the troops - they just say that because it sounds good.

B.S.

- nilita- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Michael,

Michae...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:404f9338-0ccc-48fb-9f83-21e3717190ed@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

What you have listed below is a prescription to lose every military
engagement ever fought and you have missed some of the biggest factors
for our failure in Vietnam.

1.) We failed to engage or consider engaging the real enemy.
North Vietnam was both the surrogates for both USSR and China.

Well this is why people like yourself really need to go and review some of
the "real truths" about Vietnam, and re-jigg your historical knowledge base.

eg go watch the Doco you're commenting on, before commenting would be a good
start Michael.

remember this in my post?
Two points made in the doco are
7.. Belief and seeing are both often wrong.
8.. Be prepared to reexamine your reasoning.

It applies to you perfectly.

There's a line in the doco from a nth viernamese general ... goes something
like "didn't you know anything about history, we have been fighting the
Chinese for 1000 years. we were fighting for our survival as a nation."

Michael, be prepared to re-examine your reasoning!! :-)

2.) We failed to use the level of force required (in the areas where
it was required) to win.
Taking the battle to North early in the war could have ended it
all right away.

One can never end something the right way, when they never started it the
right way. The whole "premise" for the war was flawed from the start ... and
that continued to the bitter end. That's why it was so "bitter".

Same goes for Iraq .... just another pattern repeat untill someone "gets the
lessons".

3.) The political leaders directing the war were more concerned with
how US strategy would be perceived in the Media (and how it would
affect their electability) then in how it would help the military
defeat the enemy.
Ironic that this is exactly what certain people in Washington
are doing today.

Wrong again ... but I won't belabour the point.

eg

7.. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and
frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale
military
involvement . before we initiated the action.

NOTE : .... "before" ... and full and frank discussion vs hyped up bullshit
about WMD that never existed in the first place.

Ever played "shadows on the wall" Michael ..... as a child we all knew it
was make believe .... grown-ups often degenerate with age. ;-)

Sorry your precious dearly held beliefs seem so easily rattled. [ albeit
understandable ] I suggest you DON'T watch the doco or anything else like
it. Not good for your health and overall balance.

Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 9:30 pm, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:

Michae...@gmail.com wrote:

On Apr 23, 6:59 pm, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:

Michae...@gmail.com wrote:

While I appreciate Immortalist dissection of the argument (something
that he is very adept at doing). I find it hard to read such an
article without primarily seeing it political/social implication.

It seems obvious (at least to me) that Laurence is judging the
mentioned participants (soldiers) by the social connotation with which
he associates the events they participated it.

Putting aside my own view of the value that these participants efforts
afforded our country, I would say the concept of hero is based more
upon the action performed in view of the risk involved and the reward
that was promised.

I.E. Someone who risks their life doing that which they (and society
as a whole) thinks is right with little regard to reward that it
provides is a hero.

By this definition every soldier who served honorably when faced with
the enemy (or the possibility of the enemy) is a hero.

Yep. By your definition every soldier in every army throughout history
is a hero. American soldiers, Nazi soldiers, Huns, Vikings...all equally heros.

Not every soldier. Every soldier who performed the legal directives
given to him by his leaders in an honorable way.

This is where we differ. Performing an immoral act, regardless of how "legal"
it is, is not ever honorable and not ever heroic.

I assume you are also providing your own definition of what morality
is?

Yes, just as we all do...every one of us. As you will now demonstrate...

Just because an action is distasteful does not mean it is immoral.

See...your own personal definition of morality.

And who in the fuck ever said distasteful and immoral were
equivalent...they are not...you are either a moron or attempting to obfuscate.

I claim that killing innocent Iraqi people is immoral...murder.
I claim that the *continued* killing of innocent people is immoral...murder.

I like dogs, but if a dog threatened my children (or was

perceived to threaten my children), I would remove it as a threat by
any means necessary. The level and imminence of the threat would be a
factor in my actions.

I perceive that your argument is based around that idea that the US
has no moral authority to act in its own defense in other parts of the
world unless we are reacting to actions already committed by others.

Son, you perceive incorrectly. The U.S. may defend itself. The U.S. may
not make up fictitious and hysterical reasons to invade other countries.

I disagree. I would much rather have the US be proactive in
preventing threats then waiting to punish those who committed them.

Especially since I and those I love could very well be dead in your
scenario.

Son, you're a fuckin rightwing warmongering moron.

;-)



The U.S. military has done a good job of brainwashing that morality is
irrelevant and only "legal" is relevant.

A legacy, "lesson learned", from the Vietnam era.

Heroes or Dupes?
by Laurence M. Vance

Americans love their war heroes. It doesn’t matter where the war was fought,
why it was fought, how it was fought, or what the war cost. Every battlefield
is holy; every cause is just; every soldier is a potential hero. But what is
it that turns an ordinary soldier into a war hero? Since it obviously depends
on the criteria employed, is it possible that American war heroes are not
heroes at all? Could it be that, rather than being heroes, they are instead
dupes?

Democrats who loathe John McCain because he is a Republican and Republicans
who consider him to be a lukewarm conservative are united in their belief
that, whatever his politics, McCain is a genuine war hero because he spent
five years as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese. But one does not have to be
a prisoner of war to be considered a war hero. The Department of Defense
maintains a website that highlights "the military men and women who have gone
above and beyond the call of duty in the Global War on Terror." Every soldier
who died fighting in the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, otherwise known as
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, is also considered to
be a war hero.

After McCain graduated from the Naval Academy in 1958, he became a naval
aviator. During the Vietnam War he rained down death and destruction on the
people of Vietnam during twenty-three bombing missions. After being shot down,
he was imprisoned instead of receiving the death sentence his bombs delivered
to the Vietnamese. So why is he considered a war hero? If he got what he
deserved, there would be 58,257 names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in
Washington D.C. instead of 58,256. Pilots like McCain who drop napalm from the
safety of their cockpit are lauded as heroes by the government, the media, and
Americans ignorant enough or gullible enough to swallow the myth that there
can be heroism in the performance of evil. McCain was even well received by
the Vietnamese government in 2000 when he traveled to Vietnam in pursuit of a
bilateral trade agreement.

Begun in September of 2006, the DOD "Heroes’ Archive" contains the names of
116 U.S. soldiers who performed some heroic deed fighting in Iraq or
Afghanistan. Of the four soldiers currently featured, two were awarded the
Bronze Star, one was awarded the Purple Heart and the Distinguished Service
Cross, and the fourth was awarded the Bronze Star, the NATO Medal, the Afghan
Campaign Medal, and the Outstanding Service Medal. Now, unlike General
Petraeus, at least these soldiers earned their metals during real combat. Yet,
the fact remains, as Catholic Eastern Rite priest Charles McCarthy has
recently stated, "Murder decorated with a ribbon is still murder."

Both IraqWarHeroes.org and AfghanistanWarheroes.org are "dedicated to our
deceased Heroes that have served in Iraq & Afghanistan." The list of "deceased
Heroes" contains the names of 4,591 U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq and
Afghanistan. I don’t know where these sites are getting their information
from. The "Casualties in Iraq" page at Antiwar.com shows a total of 4,528
deaths. But regardless of the exact number, the point is that every soldier
who died fighting in the war on terror is said to be a hero. It doesn’t matter
if they were killed by enemy fire, roadside bombs, friendly fire, disease,
accident, or carelessness – they are all heroes. But since the war in Iraq is
senseless, immoral, and criminal does it really matter how these soldiers
died? Again, I refer the reader to Father McCarthy:

Authentic heroism is freely taking a grave risk in order to try to do good.

Evil does not become a scintilla less evil because a person put his or her
life in jeopardy to do it and is subsequently designated a hero.

This means that whatever we call U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq, we should not
call them heroes.

Some of these "heroes" are mercenaries. The "large Armies of foreign
Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny" that our
Founding Fathers protested against in the Declaration of Independence are now
fighting for the United States in Iraq. Since 9/11, the United States has
granted citizenship to over 32,000 foreign soldiers. All it takes now is one
year of service in the military to be granted citizenship.

Many of these "heroes" are killers for hire. For them, the enlistment bonuses,
the tuition assistance, the student loan repayment plans, the assignment
incentive pay, the career training, the thirty days of vacation each year, the
free medical and dental care, and the generous retirement benefits are enough
to erase any concerns about the morality of traveling thousands of miles away

from U.S. soil to kill people they have never met or seen, and that posed no

threat to America or Americans.

Most of these "heroes," however, are dupes. They think they are fighting for
our freedoms when instead they are helping to destroy our freedoms. They think
they are retaliating for 9/11 when instead they are paving the way for another
terrorist attack. They think they are preventing terrorism when instead they
are making terrorists. They think they went to Iraq to fight al-Qaeda when
instead al-Qaeda came to Iraq because of them. They think they are protecting
Israel when instead they are contributing to increased hatred of Israel. They
think that our cause is just when instead it violates every just war principle
ever formulated. They think they are fighting injustice when instead they are
committing a crime against the Iraqi people. They think they are defending the
United States when instead they are helping to destroy it.

One of the saddest cases of a duped hero is that of Marine Staff Sergeant
Marcus Golczynski. He died fighting in Iraq on March 27 of last year while
assigned to the Marine Forces Reserve’s Third Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment,
Fourth Marine Division, in Nashville, Tennessee. He had been in the Marine
Reserves for twelve years, and was thirty years old when he died.

About a week before he died, Golczynski sent home this e-mail:

I want all of you to be safe. And please don’t feel bad for us. We are

...

read more »

(btw, the DRV, "North" Vietnam, was not a surrogate.)

Riiiiight. The Soviet and Chinese advisors, money and weaponry were all
mirages.

Son, obtaining support did not make the DRV a surrogate.

For your education, son, a surrogate is one who acts on another's behalf.
The DRV was acting on their own behalf, for their own national independence.

HTH,
;-)

(OTOH, "South" Vietnam definitely was a puppet and surrogate for the U.S.,
and would *never* have existed at all without the U.S. propping it up)

In <pan.2008.04.26.12.53...@X.net>, on 04/26/2008
at 12:34 PM, Zerkonx <Z...@X.net> said:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:17:14 -0400, Professor Irwin Corey wrote: >> A
well learned lesson. Early in this Iraq war I read there is a
building
in Washington for 1200 employees whose job is psyops. Psyops is
producing propaganda lies for both the enemy and the American people.
Actually, that's what they WANT you to believe
What they WANT you to believe is that this is something 'new' forced by
'new' demands.

That's correct. The right wign kooks no long have the commies to fight
forever, so they have created a new group; a bunch arab desert dweller
that have to be fought for the next 100 years... Not to mention the need
to capture their natural resources, so American companies can still steal
from the world's people.

The right wing kooks are begging for the chance to use nuclear weapons
too.

Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
We should have knocked out their ability to re-
supply early on. This meant bombing North Vietnam.

ha ha ha!!!

...the fate of a losing side...explainin...endless explainin...who to blame...
...how they were cheated (yes CHEATED!!) out of victory...if they could
only have one more chance...

ya fuckin Crybaby Vet moron

Run along junior and play somewhere else. Saddam had nothing to do with
9-11, and was no threat to the US. It was all a right wing kook lie --
that you love, or you would not be here whining.

In <8795140c-9c1a-4169-8225-9d92b2a07...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, on
04/28/2008
at 08:25 AM, Michae...@gmail.com said:

On Apr 26, 10:55 am, gfnaj...@nospam.net wrote:
In <pan.2008.04.26.12.53...@X.net>, on 04/26/2008
at 12:34 PM, Zerkonx <Z...@X.net> said:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:17:14 -0400, Professor Irwin Corey wrote: >> A
well learned lesson. Early in this Iraq war I read there is a
building
in Washington for 1200 employees whose job is psyops. Psyops is
producing propaganda lies for both the enemy and the American people.
Actually, that's what they WANT you to believe
What they WANT you to believe is that this is something 'new' forced by
'new' demands.

That's correct. The right wign kooks no long have the commies to fight
forever, so they have created a new group; a bunch arab desert dweller
that have to be fought for the next 100 years... Not to mention the need
to capture their natural resources, so American companies can still steal
from the world's people.

The right wing kooks are begging for the chance to use nuclear weapons
too.
Let me guess you think the US was behind 9/11 also. Just want to see
which ward of the mental institute you escaped from.

Son, stop your right wign kook nonsense. There was no thread from Iraq.
bush and his cabal lied to make a war there. They thought it would easy
and good for the coming 2004 election.

Learn to deal with reality, not the right wing replacement for the god
awful commies that you characters wanted to fight forever.

In <c4eb62aa-d78f-47f2-8433-9938aec06...@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, on
04/28/2008
at 08:19 AM, Michae...@gmail.com said:

On Apr 26, 6:20 am, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:
Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 9:30 pm, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:

Michae...@gmail.com wrote:

On Apr 23, 6:59 pm, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:

Michae...@gmail.com wrote:

While I appreciate Immortalist dissection of the argument (something
that he is very adept at doing). I find it hard to read such an
article without primarily seeing it political/social implication.

It seems obvious (at least to me) that Laurence is judging the
mentioned participants (soldiers) by the social connotation with which
he associates the events they participated it.

Putting aside my own view of the value that these participants efforts
afforded our country, I would say the concept of hero is based more
upon the action performed in view of the risk involved and the reward
that was promised.

I.E. Someone who risks their life doing that which they (and society
as a whole) thinks is right with little regard to reward that it
provides is a hero.

By this definition every soldier who served honorably when faced with
the enemy (or the possibility of the enemy) is a hero.

Yep. By your definition every soldier in every army throughout history
is a hero. American soldiers, Nazi soldiers, Huns, Vikings...all equally heros.

Not every soldier. Every soldier who performed the legal directives
given to him by his leaders in an honorable way.

This is where we differ. Performing an immoral act, regardless of how "legal"
it is, is not ever honorable and not ever heroic.

I assume you are also providing your own definition of what morality
is?

Yes, just as we all do...every one of us. As you will now demonstrate....

Just because an action is distasteful does not mean it is immoral.

See...your own personal definition of morality.

And who in the fuck ever said distasteful and immoral were
equivalent...they are not...you are either a moron or attempting to obfuscate.

I claim that killing innocent Iraqi people is immoral...murder.
I claim that the *continued* killing of innocent people is immoral...murder.

I like dogs, but if a dog threatened my children (or was

perceived to threaten my children), I would remove it as a threat by
any means necessary. The level and imminence of the threat would be a
factor in my actions.

I perceive that your argument is based around that idea that the US
has no moral authority to act in its own defense in other parts of the
world unless we are reacting to actions already committed by others.

Son, you perceive incorrectly. The U.S. may defend itself. The U.S. may
not make up fictitious and hysterical reasons to invade other countries..

What does someone have to do before you will acknowledge that they are a
threat to you? US has the moral authority and duty to eradicate
terrorist organizations that are bent on doing us harm. Since these
cowards hide in the shadows we have a duty to drag them out of the
shadows (or burn them in their caves). The Bush doctrine has clearly
stated that if you harbor terrorist we will treat you like a terrorist.
While certainly not all of the people who have died are guilty of
terrorism, I wonder how you propose destroying the enemy without be
willing to use deadly force against them? There will be innocent
casualties, but that is the cost of war. Or would you rather that we
fight this war on American shores so that the innocent casualties were
American?

I disagree. I would much rather have the US be proactive in
preventing threats then waiting to punish those who committed them.

Especially since I and those I love could very well be dead in your
scenario.

Son, you're a fuckin rightwing warmongering moron.

;-)

The U.S. military has done a good job of brainwashing that morality is
irrelevant and only "legal" is relevant.

A legacy, "lesson learned", from the Vietnam era.

Heroes or Dupes?
by Laurence M. Vance

Americans love their war heroes. It doesn t matter where the war was fought,
why it was fought, how it was fought, or what the war cost. Every battlefield
is holy; every cause is just; every soldier is a potential hero. But what is
it that turns an ordinary soldier into a war hero? Since it obviously depends
on the criteria employed, is it possible that American war heroes are not
heroes at all? Could it be that, rather than being heroes, they are instead
dupes?

Democrats who loathe John McCain because he is a Republican and Republicans
who consider him to be a lukewarm conservative are united in their belief
that, whatever his politics, McCain is a genuine war hero because he spent
five years as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese. But one does not have to be
a prisoner of war to be considered a war hero. The Department of Defense
maintains a website that highlights "the military men and women who have gone
above and beyond the call of duty in the Global War on Terror." Every soldier
who died fighting in the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, otherwise known as
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, is also considered to
be a war hero.

After McCain graduated from the Naval Academy in 1958, he became a naval
aviator. During the Vietnam War he rained down death and destruction on the
people of Vietnam during twenty-three bombing missions. After being shot down,
he was imprisoned instead of receiving the death sentence his bombs delivered
to the Vietnamese. So why is he considered a war hero? If he got what he
deserved, there would be 58,257 names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in
Washington D.C. instead of 58,256. Pilots like McCain who drop napalm from the
safety of their cockpit are lauded as heroes by the government, the media, and
Americans ignorant enough or gullible enough to swallow the myth that there
can be heroism in the performance of evil. McCain was even well received by
the Vietnamese government in 2000 when he traveled to Vietnam in pursuit of a
bilateral trade agreement.

Begun in September of 2006, the DOD "Heroes Archive" contains the names of
116 U.S. soldiers who performed some heroic deed fighting in Iraq or
Afghanistan. Of the four soldiers currently featured, two were awarded the
Bronze Star, one was awarded the Purple Heart and the Distinguished Service
Cross, and the fourth was awarded the Bronze Star, the NATO Medal, the Afghan
Campaign Medal, and the Outstanding Service Medal. Now, unlike General
Petraeus, at least these soldiers earned their metals during real combat. Yet,
the fact remains, as Catholic Eastern Rite priest Charles McCarthy has
recently stated, "Murder decorated with a ribbon is still murder."

Both IraqWarHeroes.org and AfghanistanWarheroes.org are "dedicated to our
deceased Heroes that have served in Iraq & Afghanistan." The list of "deceased
Heroes" contains the names of 4,591 U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq and
Afghanistan. I don t know where these sites are getting their information
from. The "Casualties in Iraq" page at Antiwar.com shows a total of 4,528
deaths. But regardless of the exact number, the point is that every soldier
who died fighting in the war on terror is said to be a hero. It doesn t matter
if they were killed by enemy fire, roadside bombs, friendly fire, disease,
accident, or carelessness they are all heroes. But since the war in Iraq is
senseless, immoral, and criminal does it really matter how these soldiers
died? Again, I refer the reader to Father McCarthy:

Authentic heroism is freely taking a grave risk in order to try to do good.

Evil does not become a scintilla less evil because a person put his or her
life in jeopardy to do it and is subsequently designated a hero.

This means that whatever we call U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq, we should not
call them heroes.

Some of these "heroes" are mercenaries. The "large Armies of foreign
Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny" that our
Founding Fathers protested against in the Declaration of Independence are now
fighting for the United States in Iraq. Since 9/11, the United States has
granted citizenship to over 32,000 foreign soldiers. All it takes now is one
year of service in the military to be granted citizenship.

Many of these "heroes" are killers for hire. For them, the enlistment bonuses,
the tuition assistance, the student loan repayment plans, the assignment
incentive pay, the career training, the thirty days of vacation each year, the
free medical and dental care, and the generous retirement benefits are enough

...

read more »

On Apr 26, 10:55 am, gfnaj...@nospam.net wrote:
In <pan.2008.04.26.12.53...@X.net>, on 04/26/2008
at 12:34 PM, Zerkonx <Z...@X.net> said:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:17:14 -0400, Professor Irwin Corey wrote: >> A
well learned lesson. Early in this Iraq war I read there is a
building
in Washington for 1200 employees whose job is psyops. Psyops is
producing propaganda lies for both the enemy and the American people.
Actually, that's what they WANT you to believe
What they WANT you to believe is that this is something 'new' forced by
'new' demands.

That's correct. The right wign kooks no long have the commies to fight
forever, so they have created a new group; a bunch arab desert dweller
that have to be fought for the next 100 years... Not to mention the need
to capture their natural resources, so American companies can still steal
from the world's people.

The right wing kooks are begging for the chance to use nuclear weapons
too.

Let me guess you think the US was behind 9/11 also. Just want to see
which ward of the mental institute you escaped from.

On Apr 26, 6:20 am, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:
Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 9:30 pm, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:

Michae...@gmail.com wrote:

On Apr 23, 6:59 pm, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:

Michae...@gmail.com wrote:

While I appreciate Immortalist dissection of the argument (something
that he is very adept at doing). I find it hard to read such an
article without primarily seeing it political/social implication.

It seems obvious (at least to me) that Laurence is judging the
mentioned participants (soldiers) by the social connotation with which
he associates the events they participated it.

Putting aside my own view of the value that these participants efforts
afforded our country, I would say the concept of hero is based more
upon the action performed in view of the risk involved and the reward
that was promised.

I.E. Someone who risks their life doing that which they (and society
as a whole) thinks is right with little regard to reward that it
provides is a hero.

By this definition every soldier who served honorably when faced with
the enemy (or the possibility of the enemy) is a hero.

Yep. By your definition every soldier in every army throughout history
is a hero. American soldiers, Nazi soldiers, Huns, Vikings...all equally heros.

Not every soldier. Every soldier who performed the legal directives
given to him by his leaders in an honorable way.

This is where we differ. Performing an immoral act, regardless of how "legal"
it is, is not ever honorable and not ever heroic.

I assume you are also providing your own definition of what morality
is?

Yes, just as we all do...every one of us. As you will now demonstrate...

Just because an action is distasteful does not mean it is immoral.

See...your own personal definition of morality.

And who in the fuck ever said distasteful and immoral were
equivalent...they are not...you are either a moron or attempting to obfuscate.

I claim that killing innocent Iraqi people is immoral...murder.
I claim that the *continued* killing of innocent people is immoral...murder.

I like dogs, but if a dog threatened my children (or was

perceived to threaten my children), I would remove it as a threat by
any means necessary. The level and imminence of the threat would be a
factor in my actions.

I perceive that your argument is based around that idea that the US
has no moral authority to act in its own defense in other parts of the
world unless we are reacting to actions already committed by others.

Son, you perceive incorrectly. The U.S. may defend itself. The U.S. may
not make up fictitious and hysterical reasons to invade other countries.


What does someone have to do before you will acknowledge that they are a
threat to you? US has the moral authority and duty to eradicate
terrorist organizations that are bent on doing us harm. Since these
cowards hide in the shadows we have a duty to drag them out of the
shadows (or burn them in their caves). The Bush doctrine has clearly
stated that if you harbor terrorist we will treat you like a terrorist.
While certainly not all of the people who have died are guilty of
terrorism, I wonder how you propose destroying the enemy without be
willing to use deadly force against them? There will be innocent
casualties, but that is the cost of war. Or would you rather that we
fight this war on American shores so that the innocent casualties were
American?



I disagree. I would much rather have the US be proactive in
preventing threats then waiting to punish those who committed them.

Especially since I and those I love could very well be dead in your
scenario.

Son, you're a fuckin rightwing warmongering moron.

;-)



The U.S. military has done a good job of brainwashing that morality is
irrelevant and only "legal" is relevant.

A legacy, "lesson learned", from the Vietnam era.

Heroes or Dupes?
by Laurence M. Vance

Americans love their war heroes. It doesn t matter where the war was fought,
why it was fought, how it was fought, or what the war cost. Every battlefield
is holy; every cause is just; every soldier is a potential hero. But what is
it that turns an ordinary soldier into a war hero? Since it obviously depends
on the criteria employed, is it possible that American war heroes are not
heroes at all? Could it be that, rather than being heroes, they are instead
dupes?

Democrats who loathe John McCain because he is a Republican and Republicans
who consider him to be a lukewarm conservative are united in their belief
that, whatever his politics, McCain is a genuine war hero because he spent
five years as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese. But one does not have to be
a prisoner of war to be considered a war hero. The Department of Defense
maintains a website that highlights "the military men and women who have gone
above and beyond the call of duty in the Global War on Terror." Every soldier
who died fighting in the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, otherwise known as
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, is also considered to
be a war hero.

After McCain graduated from the Naval Academy in 1958, he became a naval
aviator. During the Vietnam War he rained down death and destruction on the
people of Vietnam during twenty-three bombing missions. After being shot down,
he was imprisoned instead of receiving the death sentence his bombs delivered
to the Vietnamese. So why is he considered a war hero? If he got what he
deserved, there would be 58,257 names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in
Washington D.C. instead of 58,256. Pilots like McCain who drop napalm from the
safety of their cockpit are lauded as heroes by the government, the media, and
Americans ignorant enough or gullible enough to swallow the myth that there
can be heroism in the performance of evil. McCain was even well received by
the Vietnamese government in 2000 when he traveled to Vietnam in pursuit of a
bilateral trade agreement.

Begun in September of 2006, the DOD "Heroes Archive" contains the names of
116 U.S. soldiers who performed some heroic deed fighting in Iraq or
Afghanistan. Of the four soldiers currently featured, two were awarded the
Bronze Star, one was awarded the Purple Heart and the Distinguished Service
Cross, and the fourth was awarded the Bronze Star, the NATO Medal, the Afghan
Campaign Medal, and the Outstanding Service Medal. Now, unlike General
Petraeus, at least these soldiers earned their metals during real combat. Yet,
the fact remains, as Catholic Eastern Rite priest Charles McCarthy has
recently stated, "Murder decorated with a ribbon is still murder."

Both IraqWarHeroes.org and AfghanistanWarheroes.org are "dedicated to our
deceased Heroes that have served in Iraq & Afghanistan." The list of "deceased
Heroes" contains the names of 4,591 U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq and
Afghanistan. I don t know where these sites are getting their information
from. The "Casualties in Iraq" page at Antiwar.com shows a total of 4,528
deaths. But regardless of the exact number, the point is that every soldier
who died fighting in the war on terror is said to be a hero. It doesn t matter
if they were killed by enemy fire, roadside bombs, friendly fire, disease,
accident, or carelessness they are all heroes. But since the war in Iraq is
senseless, immoral, and criminal does it really matter how these soldiers
died? Again, I refer the reader to Father McCarthy:

Authentic heroism is freely taking a grave risk in order to try to do good.

Evil does not become a scintilla less evil because a person put his or her
life in jeopardy to do it and is subsequently designated a hero.

This means that whatever we call U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq, we should not
call them heroes.

Some of these "heroes" are mercenaries. The "large Armies of foreign
Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny" that our
Founding Fathers protested against in the Declaration of Independence are now
fighting for the United States in Iraq. Since 9/11, the United States has
granted citizenship to over 32,000 foreign soldiers. All it takes now is one
year of service in the military to be granted citizenship.

Many of these "heroes" are killers for hire. For them, the enlistment bonuses,
the tuition assistance, the student loan repayment plans, the assignment
incentive pay, the career training, the thirty days of vacation each year, the
free medical and dental care, and the generous retirement benefits are enough
to erase any concerns about the morality of traveling thousands of miles away

from U.S. soil to kill people they have never met or seen, and that posed no

threat to America or Americans.

Most of these "heroes," however, are dupes. They think they are fighting for
our freedoms when instead they are helping to destroy our freedoms. They think
they are retaliating for 9/11 when instead they are paving the way for another
terrorist attack. They think they are preventing terrorism when instead they
are making terrorists. They think they went to Iraq to fight al-Qaeda when
instead al-Qaeda came to Iraq because of them. They think they are protecting
Israel when instead they are contributing to increased hatred of Israel. They
think that our cause is just when instead it violates every just war principle
ever formulated. They think they are fighting injustice when instead they are
committing a crime against the Iraqi people. They think they are defending the
United States when instead they are helping to destroy it.

One of the saddest cases of a duped hero is that of Marine Staff Sergeant
Marcus Golczynski. He died fighting in Iraq on March 27 of last year while
assigned to the Marine Forces Reserve s Third Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment,
Fourth Marine Division, in Nashville, Tennessee. He had been in the Marine
Reserves for twelve years, and was thirty years old when he died.

About a week before he died, Golczynski sent home this e-mail:

I want all of you to be safe. And please don t feel bad for us. We are

...

read more »

We should have knocked out their ability to re-
supply early on. This meant bombing North Vietnam.

On Apr 28, 12:51 pm, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:

Michae...@gmail.com wrote:

We should have knocked out their ability to re-
supply early on. This meant bombing North Vietnam.

ha ha ha!!!

...the fate of a losing side...explainin...endless explainin...who to blame...
...how they were cheated (yes CHEATED!!) out of victory...if they could
only have one more chance...

ya fuckin Crybaby Vet moron
;-)


We lost because of our leadership.

I just wish our side had the same resolve.

all we need to do is lay down our weapons and open our arms and they
will greet us as brothers.

On Apr 28, 12:51 pm, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:
Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
We should have knocked out their ability to re-
supply early on. This meant bombing North Vietnam.

ha ha ha!!!

...the fate of a losing side...explainin...endless explainin...who to blame...
...how they were cheated (yes CHEATED!!) out of victory...if they could
only have one more chance...

ya fuckin Crybaby Vet moron
;-)

There is no such thing as cheating with regards to War. We lost because
of our leadership. I don't begrudge the enemy doing everything it could
do to win, I just wish our side had the same resolve.

On Apr 28, 11:44 am, gfnaj...@nospam.net wrote:
Son, stop your right wign kook nonsense. There was no thread from Iraq.
bush and his cabal lied to make a war there. They thought it would easy
and good for the coming 2004 election.

No of course not. They all love us over there don't they. I'm sure
all we need to do is lay down our weapons and open our arms and they will
greet us as brothers. (of course they like to kill their brothers but
that is neither here nor there).


Learn to deal with reality, not the right wing replacement for the god
awful commies that you characters wanted to fight forever.

In <c4eb62aa-d78f-47f2-8433-9938aec06...@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, on
04/28/2008
at 08:19 AM, Michae...@gmail.com said:

On Apr 26, 6:20 am, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:
Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 9:30 pm, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:

Michae...@gmail.com wrote:

On Apr 23, 6:59 pm, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:

Michae...@gmail.com wrote:

While I appreciate Immortalist dissection of the argument (something
that he is very adept at doing). I find it hard to read such an
article without primarily seeing it political/social implication.

It seems obvious (at least to me) that Laurence is judging the
mentioned participants (soldiers) by the social connotation with which
he associates the events they participated it.

Putting aside my own view of the value that these participants efforts
afforded our country, I would say the concept of hero is based more
upon the action performed in view of the risk involved and the reward
that was promised.

I.E. Someone who risks their life doing that which they (and society
as a whole) thinks is right with little regard to reward that it
provides is a hero.

By this definition every soldier who served honorably when faced with
the enemy (or the possibility of the enemy) is a hero.

Yep. By your definition every soldier in every army throughout history
is a hero. American soldiers, Nazi soldiers, Huns, Vikings...all equally heros.

Not every soldier. Every soldier who performed the legal directives
given to him by his leaders in an honorable way.

This is where we differ. Performing an immoral act, regardless of how "legal"
it is, is not ever honorable and not ever heroic.

I assume you are also providing your own definition of what morality
is?

Yes, just as we all do...every one of us. As you will now demonstrate....

Just because an action is distasteful does not mean it is immoral.

See...your own personal definition of morality.

And who in the fuck ever said distasteful and immoral were
equivalent...they are not...you are either a moron or attempting to obfuscate.

I claim that killing innocent Iraqi people is immoral...murder.
I claim that the *continued* killing of innocent people is immoral...murder.

I like dogs, but if a dog threatened my children (or was

perceived to threaten my children), I would remove it as a threat by
any means necessary. The level and imminence of the threat would be a
factor in my actions.

I perceive that your argument is based around that idea that the US
has no moral authority to act in its own defense in other parts of the
world unless we are reacting to actions already committed by others.

Son, you perceive incorrectly. The U.S. may defend itself. The U.S. may
not make up fictitious and hysterical reasons to invade other countries..

What does someone have to do before you will acknowledge that they are a
threat to you? US has the moral authority and duty to eradicate
terrorist organizations that are bent on doing us harm. Since these
cowards hide in the shadows we have a duty to drag them out of the
shadows (or burn them in their caves). The Bush doctrine has clearly
stated that if you harbor terrorist we will treat you like a terrorist.
While certainly not all of the people who have died are guilty of
terrorism, I wonder how you propose destroying the enemy without be
willing to use deadly force against them? There will be innocent
casualties, but that is the cost of war. Or would you rather that we
fight this war on American shores so that the innocent casualties were
American?

I disagree. I would much rather have the US be proactive in
preventing threats then waiting to punish those who committed them.

Especially since I and those I love could very well be dead in your
scenario.

Son, you're a fuckin rightwing warmongering moron.

;-)

The U.S. military has done a good job of brainwashing that morality is
irrelevant and only "legal" is relevant.

A legacy, "lesson learned", from the Vietnam era.

Heroes or Dupes?
by Laurence M. Vance

Americans love their war heroes. It doesn t matter where the war was fought,
why it was fought, how it was fought, or what the war cost. Every battlefield
is holy; every cause is just; every soldier is a potential hero. But what is
it that turns an ordinary soldier into a war hero? Since it obviously depends
on the criteria employed, is it possible that American war heroes are not
heroes at all? Could it be that, rather than being heroes, they are instead
dupes?

Democrats who loathe John McCain because he is a Republican and Republicans
who consider him to be a lukewarm conservative are united in their belief
that, whatever his politics, McCain is a genuine war hero because he spent
five years as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese. But one does not have to be
a prisoner of war to be considered a war hero. The Department of Defense
maintains a website that highlights "the military men and women who have gone
above and beyond the call of duty in the Global War on Terror." Every soldier
who died fighting in the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, otherwise known as
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, is also considered to
be a war hero.

After McCain graduated from the Naval Academy in 1958, he became a naval
aviator. During the Vietnam War he rained down death and destruction on the
people of Vietnam during twenty-three bombing missions. After being shot down,
he was imprisoned instead of receiving the death sentence his bombs delivered
to the Vietnamese. So why is he considered a war hero? If he got what he
deserved, there would be 58,257 names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in
Washington D.C. instead of 58,256. Pilots like McCain who drop napalm from the
safety of their cockpit are lauded as heroes by the government, the media, and
Americans ignorant enough or gullible enough to swallow the myth that there
can be heroism in the performance of evil. McCain was even well received by
the Vietnamese government in 2000 when he traveled to Vietnam in pursuit of a
bilateral trade agreement.

Begun in September of 2006, the DOD "Heroes Archive" contains the names of
116 U.S. soldiers who performed some heroic deed fighting in Iraq or
Afghanistan. Of the four soldiers currently featured, two were awarded the
Bronze Star, one was awarded the Purple Heart and the Distinguished Service
Cross, and the fourth was awarded the Bronze Star, the NATO Medal, the Afghan
Campaign Medal, and the Outstanding Service Medal. Now, unlike General
Petraeus, at least these soldiers earned their metals during real combat. Yet,
the fact remains, as Catholic Eastern Rite priest Charles McCarthy has
recently stated, "Murder decorated with a ribbon is still murder."

Both IraqWarHeroes.org and AfghanistanWarheroes.org are "dedicated to our
deceased Heroes that have served in Iraq & Afghanistan." The list of "deceased
Heroes" contains the names of 4,591 U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq and
Afghanistan. I don t know where these sites are getting their information
from. The "Casualties in Iraq" page at Antiwar.com shows a total of 4,528
deaths. But regardless of the exact number, the point is that every soldier
who died fighting in the war on terror is said to be a hero. It doesn t matter
if they were killed by enemy fire, roadside bombs, friendly fire, disease,
accident, or carelessness they are all heroes. But since the war in Iraq is
senseless, immoral, and criminal does it really matter how these soldiers
died? Again, I refer the reader to Father McCarthy:

Authentic heroism is freely taking a grave risk in order to try to do good.

Evil does not become a scintilla less evil because a person put his or her
life in jeopardy to do it and is subsequently designated a hero.

This means that whatever we call U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq, we should not
call them heroes.

Some of these "heroes" are mercenaries. The "large Armies of foreign
Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny" that our
Founding Fathers protested against in the Declaration of Independence are now
fighting for the United States in Iraq. Since 9/11, the United States has
granted citizenship to over 32,000 foreign soldiers. All it takes now is one
year of service in the military to be granted citizenship.

Many of these "heroes" are killers for hire. For them, the enlistment bonuses,
the tuition assistance, the student loan repayment plans, the assignment
incentive pay, the career training, the thirty days of vacation each year, the
free medical and dental care, and the generous retirement benefits are enough

...

read more »