Help me win over my husband the pacifist

[Mizmoon]

My husband is a bit older than me and remembers Vietnam well. I was too young then ... my earliest political memory is the Carter-Ford debate.

He says he may not vote at all this year. He certainly wouldn't vote for Bush, but he says he has a problem with Kerry too. This is because he thinks that if everyone had refused to fight the Vietnam War, we would never have been able to cause so much harm there. It's the old "what if they gave a war and nobody came" sort of thinking.

The crux of his objection is that Kerry has admitted to killing people, he went to war voluntarily, and he could never support a president who has killed people.

I have made a million arguments, but to no avail. Any ideas?

[LibraLabSoldier]

1. From a soldier

We are doing far more good in Iraq than they are showing on the news.
All soldiers are not killers. Our medical and veterinary services are improving the lives of Iraqi civilians. The UN sanctions harmed all Iraqis. We are trying to improve the quality of life for all Iraqis, and though the going is slow, we are succeeding. I sincerely hope for peace, but I would rather have war in my time so that my children may live in a peaceful world.

[Fleshdancer]

15. thank you for your service LibraLabSoldier

I like the idea too of fighting a needed war now so that my children won't have to, but I honestly think the war in Iraq does more harm than good for the next generation. Many people see this as a religious war and I fear bombing various countries in the Middle East is the fastest way to increase the number of terrorists hell bent on hurting our children.

I agree though that the UN sanctions did more harm than good for the millions of innocent Iraqis. Many starved because they were stuck with a horrible dictator and yet Saddam never missed a meal. Sanctions don't do much harm for the people who deserve it.

[LibraLabSoldier]

20. Dont thank me.....

Thank the guys who put their lives on the line every day. I just try to do the best job I can. I am safe back here stateside. I am no hero. I just try to give the best medical care I can to the soldiers, family members, veterans and retirees. When I get out, I plan on continuing to work for a MTF(Military Treatment Facility) so I can continue to serve the troops.

[Fleshdancer]

27. I know what you mean, my brother is one of them....

He was in Afghanistan, then Iraq. He's back for now but he'll have to go back to Afghanistan soon. We were Army brats growing up so I was raised with a healthy amount of respect for soldiers.

[LibraLabSoldier]

29. I have been thanked

many times in here. I am not doing anything heroic. The men and women fighting in Iraq, and Afghanistan are the true heros.

[madfloridian]

16. How many Iraqis have we killed and why?

Just a question.

[0007]

19. They're been saying that since World War I, after World War II is was to

be ever lasting peace. Your children will see war and your children's children's will see war.

Nothing has changed in the last 2000 years.

Bring the troops home and put the war criminals in the Hague.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Things have changed, then. "Every Marine is a rifleman".

It might be different in the army, but as far as I know, servicemen are expected to kill on command.

As for "doing good things". The best thing they could do is get the hell out of Iraq and let the professionals and/or the Iraqis run their own country.

[LibraLabSoldier]

33. A few points.

If a command is unlawful, we have the duty and right to disobey. This has been happening in Iraq. And we are teaching, training and equipping Iraqis to govern and take care of themselves. We are giving them the tools for success. I dont think we should leave before they are ready to take the reins.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Ever hear of free fire zones?

Or, carpet bombing? Or, defoliation? Or, Search and destroy? All "lawful" orders, and you'd spend a bit of time in Leavenworth if you refused them. Those guys shooting up Najaf are obeying lawful orders and making a hash of it - as usual. And, they aren't building schools.

As for waiting for them to be "ready to take the reins", when do you expect that to be? We waited for the Vietnames to be "ready to take the reins" for 15 years, at the cost of millions of lives. I'd think the Iraqis would be grateful to run their own country without our "help".

[LibraLabSoldier]

44. Stop compairing

Iraq to Vietnam. Soldiers are different, this war is different. Who was it who blew the whistle on Abu Graib? A young soldier. War crimes are being committed in Iraq, as they are in every war. They are being brought to light, and prosecuted. Military courts martial are not shams. People are going to prison for crimes the commit. Check out the Army times website. It has good information.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. The way to stop the war crimes is to get out.

Iraq is like Vietnam. Both were attacked because of a perceived threat (at least that was the rationale). Vietnam had far reaching consequences for the United States and the region - none good. To justify our presence in another country by citing school building, water purification plants, etc, is all very nice, but overlooks the other half of the equation.

Our presence there, no matter how noble may be the efforts of some, is causing monumental hatred for us throughout the region.

The Iraqi people don't want us there. It's their country.

The killing and brutality goes on - legally as far as the military is concerned.

Military courts may not be shams (things have really changed) but who are they prosecuting? PFC Schmoe who beat up or shot some civilian?
Sure, he deserves it. But, what about the guy who ordered the bombing of the wedding party? How about the brass who put a bunch of sadists in charge of Abu-Ghraib? Do you reckon they'll be seeing the world through bars? Some of the lower ranking brass may end up as fall guys, but they'll get a letter of reprimand and forced out. Justice?

How about you? Some dumb ass lieutenant comes along some night and says that "Infiltrators are out there. Shoot anything that moves." Are you going to say, "No Sir. I refuse to take the chance of killing civilians." Or, if you were a pilot and the brass said, "Here are the coordinates for your bomb strike, go to it." Are you going to say, "No sir. That factory is in a residential area, and will certainly cause civilian casualties." If so, good luck in trying to convince your courts-martial that it was an "illegal" order.

You may like to think that soldiers are humanitarians, but all of history and the current goings on in Iraq say otherwise.

[LibraLabSoldier]

53. If I were in that position,

Then yes, I would say no. If I had to spend time in a military prison rather than commit an act I knew to be immoral, then so be it. Let me tell you a little bit about me.

I wanted to be a linguist. I enlisted in 1996. I was honest with my recruiter about a past drug arrest. He enlisted me. When I was in basic, I was told I had to pick one of three jobs, since i couldnt qualify for a security clearance. I chose 13E, Field Artillery Fire direction specialist. I graduated from the course, but still could not get a clearance. I was placed involuntarily in 13B, field artillery cannon crewmember. I spent three years in this job. I was sickened that I may have to kill people that I never would see. So when it came time to re enlist, I switched to medic. I saved lives as a Medic, though none in combat. I loved the job, but went decided to change once more when reenlistment came around. I now work in a Medical laboratory in an Army hospital. Our war mission is to maintain and provide blood supplies to frontline troops. I currently have two friends (one a COL, and one a Specialist) who are in Iraq.

Just because I am stationed stateside does not mean I do not serve honorably. When stationed at Fort Sam Houston, TX, I saw the horrors of war. I saw soldiers horribly burned, missing limbs, missing eyes. I spoke to all of them. I told them sincerely how much their sacrifice meant to me, and did my job the best I could to provide them with the best medical care in my power.

This is what I still do today.

Yes, I agree with you that those in the positions of power in the military, and the Government are not being held accountable. But the troops on the ground are. And many soldiers have stood up and denounced orders as unlawful, and their senior NCOs and officers have been punished. One Msgt is being sent to prison for commandeering a sheiks SUV because he thought he could get away with it. The troops that ordered the Iraqi civilians to jump off the bridge, to include the three captains and the LTC who tried to cover it up are being prosecuted to the full extent of the UCMJ.

I cannot control the whole US Army. I do what is right and honorable, and hold those around me accountable for their actions. That is the best I can do. And I am not alone in this mindset.

Citizens have a right to speak out against this unjust war. But leaving now will cause more harm and more death.

I hope this makes you understand where i am coming from.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

77. I hope that you are never put in that position.

I enlisted in 1961. Facing the draft, and being a typical insecure adolescent, I bought the advertising and joined the Marines. It didn't take me long to realize my mistake.

In the course of the 4 interminable years I put in, the Cuba missile crisis occurred. We had junked our planes (I was in the air wing) to go overseas. We were literally locked in our barracks for 3 days to make sure that none of us might think twice about being on ground zero.

While in Japan, we were alerted to go to Laos in 1963. It was called off. Some CIA contractors came through on their way home from Vietnam and proudly showed us photos of heaps of Vietnames civilian dead.

In '65, a few weeks before I was to get out, I was asked to extend my enlistment to go to Vietnam. By that time, I had found out about the war because I was a training NCO and they were preparing us for the obviously coming conflict. I'd read several books on the subject, ironically from the base library. They showed what led up to the mess. The French, Bao Dai, Ho Chi Minh fighting on our side, the whole rotten imperialist mess. So, when that Gunny Sergeant asked I rather vociforously refused. 8 weeks later they weren't asking any more but I was out.

Don't delude yourself. When push comes to shove they will order you to kill.

Maybe you'll have the courage to refuse if it comes to that.

It may cause more harm and more death if we pull out. It sure as hell is causing more harm and death with us there. I have a bit more faith that the Iraqis are better able to figure out their own problems than the likes of Don Rumsfeld, Condy Rice, and Colin Powell. Not to mention the incompetant ass in charge of it all.

Good luck to you. I know it's hard to do, but keep questioning the military. The basic premise of the military is to win battles, wars, and the way to do that is to kill the "enemy" (whoever that happens to be this week).

[LibraLabSoldier]

83. Like i said earlier.

If I had no conscience, I would have stayed artillery, blithely killing scores of people I would never see. I couldnt sleep at night just thinking about the posibility. Do not misunderstand,if I were on a mission and were attacked, I would defend myself and my fellow soldiers. However, if ordered to fire on unarmed civilians....well, refusing the order would be easy. I may have to be prevented from explaining to who ever made the order the error of his ways at gun point...lol.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Posted in the wrong place. My apologies.

[IndianaGreen]

The UN sanctions were US and UK driven!

Let's make that clear!

[JudgeSmales]

62. Thankyou

But be careful. Noone wants to hear that we are doing any good in that war. You could get booted.

[sadiesworld]

94. Get over yourself.

Let's pretend that the American people were told the truth about Iraq. Let's pretend that people were told that Iraq presented no threat to the US and had nothing to do with 9/11. Let's then pretend that they were asked how many American lives and how much $ would they be willing to expend in order to topple SD. What would Americans have said?

0 LIVES, 0 DOLLARS. Oh, if Bushco had proceeded ANYWAY, they may have gotten away with a few soldiers lost and a few billion dollars spent, but close to 1000 dead? 1000s maimed? 200 billion and counting? A recruiting bonanza for AQ and new terrorist groups?

Try imagining this as Clinton's war...he would have long since been booted from office.

[WoodrowFan]

79. welcome to the DU (NT)

[tedzbear]

108. It might help if you stopped bombing them though.

Not to mention torturing and humiliating them.
If your medial services are doing so much good, why are all the injured rushed to Iraqi hospitals, instead of yours? Why is there raw sewage in the streets? No water in many towns? Thousands of children sick and dying of dysentery, etc.?

And where is the $8.8 billion dollars that should have turned the lights on by now that has seemingly disappeared without a trace?

As the occupying power, it was our responsibility to provide for these people, but we haven't. Unfortunately your good deeds are a drop in the bucket compared to the overall destruction that we have rained on the Iraqis.

:mad:

[tedzbear]

112. And another thing, why aren't you doing your good deeds in Africa...

...Where three million plus are dying of AIDS this year? Why all the good deeds in Iraq and not Africa? Hmmmmmmmmm... Could it have something to do with the $oil$ under the ground that these poor Iraqis are walking on?

God forbid that I dare question the nobility of an American soldier! I will be flamed at the stake for sure.

[kiahzero]

122. Because the military follows the orders of the CiC

Who, since he's a Republican asshole, didn't send the troops were they were needed, and instead started an elective war.

Don't let that simple fact get in the way of your attack, though.

[Hippo_Tron]

114. You can thank our idiot-in-chief for all of that

Kerry's going to have to seriously turn that place upside down when he gets elected.

[murielm99]

2. Ask him to look at what Kerry did when he came home

from the war. It took a great deal of courage to speak out against it.

Tell him that Kerry will get us out of Iraq. He would never start a war of agression the way * did.

Kerry will bring our allies back to us as well. That is a very important way to prevent future wars.

[Mizmoon]

4. That's one I've argued heavily

I told him Kerry was rich as hell - he could have sat on his ass, drank beer, smoked dope, and fucked beach bunnies. Instead he stood up, at great risk to himself, and did the honorable thing.

This makes him wrinkle up his face into a sour puss and say, "Yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that ..." blah blah blah

[A_Possum]

3. Kerry, having killed people, knows the truth

He knows what war is, and he knows that other people don't. He's been through this exact same thing during and after Vietnam. He doesn't say so now, aloud, because he has to get elected first, but he WILL find all the ways to get us out of Iraq that can be found (Bush having dragged us into it, we're there now and have to get out without leaving chaos.)

The war has ALREADY been "given," and people did come. It's too late now for that thinking. The important thing now is to end the party.

Tell him to read TOUR OF DUTY. If he still thinks Kerry won't be the man who has a snowball's chance of saving soldiers' lives in Iraq, then he is indeed hopeless.

[Mizmoon]

5. I will get that book for him (and me)

I hope it will help. I'm so fucking frustrated with him.

[LibraLabSoldier]

6. Thank You!!

Kerry understands what it means to be an honorable servicemember. GWB.....would never understand. Kerry will fix the problem in Iraq, and bring in our allies in numbers greater than the token forces Bush has managed to scrape together. Also, tell your husband that in the hospital where i work, there are four pacifists. They are all medics, and are serving their country honorably in time of war.

Pacifism is no excuse for inaction.

[Mizmoon]

7. ahhh .. medics

good thinking!

[Misunderestimator]

8. Bush has been the cause of tens of thousands of deaths...

And hasn't apologized for one. How many has Kerry been responsible for... and apologized for?

[Hubert Flottz]

9. A pacifist should do everything in his power to derail these ...

Neo Con warmongers, who are no doubt eyeballing the next conquest, in the name off Exxon, the real GOPer Holy Father!

[Mizmoon]

10. I agree

I know how annoying this is getting (now you understand why I'm turning to a message board for help) but he says that Kerry has not explicitly said he would end the war. He can't vote for him on the basis of a hope that he will do so ... he can only go by what the man has actually said.

He also says that not voting is not inaction, it's an action in and of itself. *sigh*

At least we're in NY where his vote is not particularly crucial.

[LibraLabSoldier]

11. There is no way

We can just pull out of Iraq, without the power vacuum being filled with warlords and hundreds of thousands of deaths. The Ba'athists will come back, and the Shi'ites will try to instill their own leaders. As long as we are there, we keep the thuggery to a minimum.

As far as the medics. I was a medic before I became a lab tech. In my case, if pressed, yes I would kill. But my buddy quotes Alan Alda from the old M*A*S*H TV show "I will bind their wounds, I will heal their wounds, and I will weep over their wounds, but I will not inflict their wounds....it would be making extra work for me in the long run"

[Q]

I've seen your...

...BS on various 'war threads'. I'm not sure you know WHAT the hell is going on in Iraq...even though you claim to be so informed. There is chaos in Iraq right now...and the THUGS are US government sanctioned.

- You have the right to your opinion...but stop trying to blow sunshine up our asses with your 'we're doing good' in Iraq rhetoric.

[LibraLabSoldier]

22. Sorry,

But i would rather believe people I know who have been there and come back with first hand knowledge than the media. You can choose to believe or disbelieve me. It doesnt matter.

[Hubert Flottz]

40. Oh he must be upset because Kerry won't lie and say he will....

put an immediate end to the conflict in Iraq, until the situation that Bush willfully created, is resolved to everyone's satisfaction!

As a pacifist does the hubby favor pulling out of Iraq and letting the mass killings begin, in an all out civil war? Does he remember the killing that took place in southeast Asia, just after America pulled out of Viet Nam? Kerry knows that the WAR in Iraq is as wrong, as the WAR in Viet Nam was! Kerry also saw what happened when we just up and pulled out of Viet Nam! Rent the movie "The Killing Fields" and let him watch that!

We have seen the kind of diplomacy Bush is capable of! Staying that insane neo con course, is a direct path to more mass murder in the Holy name of Greed! Bush has only added to world instability! "Peace on Earth" is much farther from our grasp today, than it was in 2000!

I'd give anything if I could end the death and pain in Iraq! But if we don't withdraw in a state of order from Iraq, it will be another blood bath! We broke it, so we do, have to fix it! Hopefully this time we can "Pull Out" under more honorable conditions than we did in Viet Nam!

Why would a pacifist not want to help dump a man who lied to the country and to the world, in order to start a war of aggression! Why would a pacifist not want to help end the career of a man, who has stood up and said over and over, that the UN and the Geneva Convention were irrelevant?

[LibraLabSoldier]

47. Good Post

You have said the same things I have been trying to get across. But since I am a soldier, evidently i dont have much credibility. It seems I am being accused of being a thug and killer without so much as a chance to speak.

[tkmorris]

50. Not quite

You lose credibility for the things you say, not for being a soldier. There are TONS of soldiers here, both current and past, and the vast majority get plenty of respect.

For example, who accused you of being a thug? A killer? Who denied you a right to speak? You toss off such claims like you are being victimized but all I have seen is people who disagree with your point of view.

You mention the vacuum that would exist if the US suddenly pulled up stakes in Iraq. I agree, that would most certainly be the case. When do you think that might change, and how do we bring it about? Do you believe that once an election occurs that we can leave? If not, then when can we?

[Mizmoon]

55. Because there is no evidence

in his mind that Kerry will be any different in any way. He's going to "stay the course" and it will just be four more years of war. Bush=4 more years of war and Kerry=4 more years of war. So what's the diff (he says).

And yes, he does think we should just pull out because this stabilization stuff is crap. They should be allowed to sort out their own country and we should mind our own business...

[LibraLabSoldier]

58. This is our business.....

Truthfully, we got into this war for no real cause. But to just leave now would be telling the Iraqi people that we dont care about them, and are leaving them to die.....and dooming them to a life of either another Dictator, or a repressive theocracy.

[Hubert Flottz]

72. Oh such nonsense!

"They should be allowed to sort out their own country and we should mind our own business..."

That would have worked if we'd stayed out to begin with! Reality however, is very different from what could or should have been!

BTW, I'd be finding me a different husband ASAP, if I were you! What if the war comes to your block once the world is totally destabilized and chaotic! Will your pacifist hubby sit by on his couch and watch as the American haters, that Bush has now created everywhere, decide to stop in and scalp you and your little brood?

IMHO, your hubby is just a wee bit on the slow side, but then I'm not married to a "Pacifist", so I'm not a real expert on pacifists! The civil war in Iraq would not be contained in Iraq, I'm very afraid! Armageddon(total destabilization of the middle east) I wouldn't think would be a normal pacifist's cup of tea!

I don't know if they purge CRAZY voters from the registration lists or not! I do suspect by the looks of things, that they don't!

Be Well.....

[mike_c]

135. I agree with your husband....

Time will tell. I certainly hope that future events prove us wrong, but the present looks pretty bad.

[Jim__]

12. Not voting for Kerry is equivalent to voting for Bush

Bush may very well involve us in another war - in North Korea, Iran, or even China. If you're against killing, voting for Kerry may prevent further killing, not voting for him makes further killing more likely.

Maintaining your political purity may well lead to the deaths of thousands. Get up off your sanctimony and vote to spare lives.

[LibraLabSoldier]

13. Inaction, is

after all, an action. If he wants to be a neutral pacifist, tell him to move to switzerland. Oh, and not to work at the bank.

[THUNDER HANDS]

14. that's a tough one

I could see why he wouldn't want to vote for someone who has killed somebody.

The best argument I can give is that everyone who becomes president will eventually have innocent blood on their hands. So either he has to accept this, or stop being a voter.

[Q]

17. I agree with your husband...

..everything else is simply a rationalization and justification for killing in the name of God and Country.

- We're NOT doing 'good' in Iraq...no matter how many apologists tell you so.

[LibraLabSoldier]

21. Dont believe the Hype

Believe those that have been there. We are doing good in Iraq. If we leave, it will be horrible. Inaction is cowardice. Period.

[Q]

24. We BLOW THE FUCK out of their country...

...occupy it and kill thousands of civilians. Sorry...but there is no such thing as 'doing good' in Iraq after committing so many war crimes and crimes against humanity.

- No WMD and Saddam is gone...tell us again WHY we're in Iraq?

[LibraLabSoldier]

26. Ok.

Believe what you want. If you want to be a media dupe, thats your business. Last time I checked, U S troops dont use car bombs. We dont use indescriminate IEDs. We dont kill for pleasure. Keep beating that dead horse. You know what happens to US Soldiers who commit war crimes? They are prosecuted to the full extent of the UCMJ.

[Q]

30. It's not a 'belief'...it's a fact...

...and the 'media' is doing everything they can to cover it up. To be a 'media dupe' I'd have to believe everything they say...and THEY say everything is going dandy in Iraq.

- War crimes don't get prosecuted under the Bush* government. They are covered up. Jesus...where have YOU been? What we have here is the military having mock trials and slapping a few hands. But these are crimes committed in other countries in a so-called 'time of war' and should be tried by an international court.

- The US doesn't even 'bother' counting the Iraqi civilians they slaughter with their bombs. There IS no law in Iraq except that invented by the occupiers to suit their needs.

- I hope to God that most soldiers are better informed than you.

[LibraLabSoldier]

34. Since

you seem to have all the answers, why do you bother even commenting? I go by credible sources. PEOPLE WHO HAVE ACTUALLY SERVED IN AND RETURNED FROM IRAQ!! So sue me if I would rather beleive my fellow servicemembers than doomsayers like you. When did you go to Iraq? Do you know any Iraqis? No?

[Q]

43. What rhetorical nonsense...

...what makes YOUR second-hand information any better than mind? Don't you read the reports of respected journalists that are there RIGHT NOW?

- You don't seem to understand that you can't kill thousands of civilians, occupy their country after dropping thousands of bombs on their heads and expect to install anything resembling 'democracy'. This is dangerous, delusional thinking and Bush*, PNAC propaganda. How can YOU and others so soon forget that THERE WAS NEVER A REASON to invade Iraq and thus it's an aggressive war and war crime?

- This is Vietnam all over again. Nationalism and fear used to whip Americans into a frenzy and policiians too chickenshit to get us out of a losing scenario and off the killing fields. And I shouldn't have to remind you that military/defense experts and professionals advised AGAINST invading Iraq.

- It's a dishonor to put soldiers in HARM'S WAY unless our nation is threatened. War should always be a last resort...and that wasn't the case in Iraq.

[LibraLabSoldier]

48. Listen To Me.

I have friends who have DIED in Iraq. Soldiers knew that our reason for going to Iraq was false. We knew during the push to Baghdad. But we are trying heal the wounds of this country. Soldiers have missions to follow, and things to accomplish. We are trying now to make the streets safer for Iraqis. Do you know that insurgents threaten to kill young men who dont. Young women are being raped, and people are being assassinated. Every time they blow up a police station, five hundred men are their to sign up the next day.


They want to be free. We are helping. Why is that so hard to understand?

[SammyWinstonJack]

97. Yeah

"They want to be free. We are helping. Why is that so hard to understand?" Helping by occupying their Country? Sure hope no one decides to one day "help" us in that way. OTOH, if bushco* steals his way back into office, that might be exactly what happens. Oh to be a bush*bot. Would be so much easier.

[MadHound]

105. My friend, I've read your posts here and other threads,

And it always seems that you are trying to take the moral high ground in two directions at once. One direction is as a serviceman doing good, the other as a pacificist with no desire to kill, or be used to kill. But these are mutually exclusive paths. One cannot be a pacifist, yet serve the military industrial complex, since every action taken, whether as a medic or a frontline soldier is in direct serivce to a killing machine, the most efficient that the world has seen.

You speak of how you and many others serving knew that going to war with Iraq was wrong, yet you went ahead and did what the military ordered you to. Yes, I know you would have been courtmartialed, but when it comes to issues of life and death, yours and others, is that really a valid excuse? Others have been faced with the same choice and took the consequences of the brig. And yet for that matter, being of a pacifist bent, you still joined the military. Why? It is a question that has puzzled me for a long while, and perhaps you can answer. In this day and age, knowing the history of Imperial America in the latter half of the twentieth century, how we have killed innocents and laid waste to countries to further the American way, why do you put yourself under the thrall of the military killing machine?

I know that there is a proper role for the military in any society, that a free and sovereign country needs to retain a standing army for to remain free and sovereign. But it has been proven time and again that the US is bent upon a Pax Americana, where might is right. From Vietnam to Central America to Iraq, the US has a record of immoral actions that is quite long. Why serve such an immoral task master? Perhaps if the bodies weren't so willing, we wouldn't be in Iraq today. Everybody has choices to make, and nobody can have it both ways.

[LibraLabSoldier]

113. I have made my choices.

I never claimed to be a pacifist. You just read that into my posts. Do I have a desire to kill? No. Will I defend myself if attacked? Yes. I joined the Army because I wanted to serve my country. There are pacifists in the Army. They are classified CO status, and usually work in the medical field. I joined in 1996. I do get tired of this constant babbling about how if we just left poor Iraq alone, all the killing would stop. That is garbage. So, lets just agree to something. You will never understand my reasons for joining the military. You will also never understand what our job really is, what it is we do, and the different dilemas those of us in uniform face. Someone has to be the defenders of freedom. The president is supposed to only use troops to actually liberate or defend people. "Preemptive" warfare is wrong. However, I have a duty to fulfil, and I am doing it. Sometimes people are needed to protest, and call for changes to organizations and institutions. Sometimes, the changes have to come from within.

[MadHound]

120. My pardon friend, for yes I did assume your wish for pacifism

After all, it was a small leap to make after reading of your agonizing over serving in the artillery, and quoting Alda about not inflicting wounds. In fact the stance you take is similar to my own. I will fight in self defense, but will do everything to walk away from violence.

I also feel similarly about serving one's country and it's people, for I have felt that same moral prodding. However this is where you and I part ways. There are ways of serving your country that do not call for signing one's conscience over to an organization whose penultimate purpose has become twisted and flawed, destruction rather than protection, aggressor, not defender. I have no need to read off the litany of countries that have felt American military wrath, Iraq is only the latest in a series of pre-emptive actions spanning fifty years.

Instead, come walk line with myself and other volunteer firefighters during a raving forest fire, protect your community, your country in that fashion. Medical personell are always needed, any hand is always appreciated. If you are looking for a challenge, most any area of firefighting will provide it. Or volunteer in social service areas, working in crisis counseling, or with the mentally disabled. You are interested in linquistics, you could learn ASL and interpret for the deaf. They are many opportunities to serve the public that do not involve moral quandries, where the positive done does not have to be weighed against the destruction wrought.

I ask these questions not out of a sense of moral superiority, and no insult is implied. I am genuinely curious, and am interested in your point of view, how you arrived at your choice. For I was at a similar crossroad when I was a younger man, with a sense that I owed a debt to my country. Yet looking at the destruction we as a nation had wrought, I came to a different conclusion. I have never had regrets, nor agonized about my duty. And while I respect those who do serve in the armed services, and thank them for their military protection, I am also genuinely curious about how they can weigh in their soul the good that they cause against the havoc they wreak at the behest of moraly bankrupt politicians. I understand the sociological mindset of those who served in Vietnam, yet if the lessons weren't laid bare by that immoral quagmire, the mess of Central America under Reagan and Bush I, along with the first Iraq war should have made it all very plain. Our political moral compass had gone from protect and defend to aggress and conquer, and taken the military forces with it.

This is a matter that has puzzled me for years, and cannot find an answer to. One's contribution to the good of society is neccessary, I firmly believe that. But not at the cost of your own conscience. The good that you bring about shouldn't have to be weighted against the negative that your very presence contributes to.

[LibraLabSoldier]

143. Well, to be honest

I didnt think out my decision to join the military very well. But once I was in, I knew that the only way to positively change the organization would be from within. It will be ten years when I get out. I havent had much impact. But hopefully some of the young soldiers I have come into contact with will leave the service changed for the better. I just do the best I can.

[Cheswick2.0]

100. How do we know those people exist?

You could just be making all this up. But in any case you are talking about a few people who may or may not be telling the you the truth. You must think everyone here is a naive fool.

[Vladimir]

32. Or the war crime is defined away

remember the TV station in Belgrade? Remember the maternity ward you hit? How about that train full of Albanian refugees? Or maybe that mining village you mistook for a weapons manufacturing complex? Perhaps you fail to recognise that an agressive war is a war crime in and of itself?

Yeah, war can be very very necessary. But you do yourself a disservice by defending this shit in Iraq...

[LibraLabSoldier]

36. Do I

defend the dubious reasons we went to Iraq? No. Do I defend my fellow servicemembers who are serving in Iraq? You are damn right I do. Why are you placing all the civilian deaths at the feet of US troops? Have you heard of insurgents? Do you realize that they are killing and maiming many many more civilians? And assassinating anyone who tries to make Iraq a better place for the future? Do we behead prisoners? No. So keep your silly arguements. You wouldnt know the truth if it was delivered gift wrapped to your door.

[Vladimir]

39. Its interesting you know,

under international law (for what the concept is worth), all these deaths are in fact the responsibility of the occupying forces. Look it up if you think I am talking shit. This is partly the reason why sovereignty was handed over... but it wasn't really my point. You said that what happens to US soldiers commiting war crimes is that they are persecuted. I pointed out to you that this in fact is not the case, by providing counter-exaples to your thesis. (Admittedly from the Yugoslav conflict, but since your statement was quite general this is of little import. And I was on the ground during that little exercise in liberation, so I have a wee bit of 1st hand information about it).

Incidentally, it is also interesting to note that the assasinations of collaborators has long been a standard tactic of resistance movements. This does not make it right under all circumstances, of course, but neither is it explicitly wrong...

[madfloridian]

52. We torture prisoners. And many Americans cheer.

We invaded their country, and they are rising up against us. Say it truthfully and quit the spin. We have had enough spin now.

[Crunchy Frog]

49. No, US troops don't use car bombs

that kill 2 or 3 people at a time. They use helicopter gunships, guided missiles and cluster bombs that can take out scores of people at a time, and don't discriminate between fighters and civilians.

How can you know for sure that none of our soldiers derive pleasure from killing? How do you know that the Iraqis are killing for pleasure, and not say, because their country has been invaded and occupied, or in revenge for family and friends that have been killed by our side?

As far as war crimes go, my suspicion is that the vast majority of them are successfully covered up and never see the light of day.

This is not an attack on our soldiers, who I respect. The guilt lies entirely with the administration that sent them into this war.

[Crunchy Frog]

45. Yeah, don't believe the

first hand accounts of soldiers that are printed in the media, or are family members of long term DUers. Just believe an anonymous low post DUer whose been here all of three days, claiming things that can't be substantiated in any way.

Thank you for making a war believer out of me.:eyes:

[LibraLabSoldier]

54. Gee mister

Is this that new thing i have heard about...ya know, Sarcasm?

[Crunchy Frog]

68. No Madam

I don't consider it sarcasm, I consider it to be a healthy degree of scepticism. There are many people on this board who have been here for years and have friends or family who are serving or have served in Iraq. Pardon me if I find them to be more credible than I find you.

[LibraLabSoldier]

69. Thats fair enough.

If i wanted people to blindly follow everything I said, I would go to the Welcome to the Suburbs Forum....lol. I get used to most people I talk to having no opinion at all.

[Gregorian]

18. Forgive me, but I totally agree with him. About war, that is.

Give him a hug, and tell him he's not alone. There actually are people who believe in a dream. He's right- if we didn't pick up arms for wars, there wouldn't be wars.

But to allow Bush back into office, is a vote FOR war. If he wants to decrease the amount of suffering, he must vote.

Edit- The pen is mightier than the sword.

[Fleshdancer]

23. It's pretty damn tough to argue with a Pacifist

I think this may be one of those times when you and your husband have to respectfully agree to disagree.

Could he write in a candidate or do something so that he doesn't skip out on the entire Democratic process? It's not like he's going to go to the voting booth and the Presidential election will be the only thing to vote on. He shouldn't miss out on all the state and local races just because he doesn't agree with the 2 major Presidential choices.

[gratuitous]

106. The only argument that works for me

I'm a pacifist, too, and am absolutely heartsick about what is being done around the globe in the name of the country I live in, and with my tax dollars. I know that if I dwell too long on it, I will either go on a crying jag that doesn't stop, or my blood pressure will pop the top off the meter.

But I do know that I'm in a teeny, tiny minority. There's not much that will make mine the majority view, even though I am persuaded that it is vital for the survival of humanity. That means one thing, that people who want to be pacifists are going to come from only two sources: Raised up from the cradle or who (like me) change their minds.

If your husband is dedicated to pacifism, there's only one way that non-violent resolutions to differences will gain currency, and that is if other people are persuaded to join him. Of the two major candidates, which one is more likely and which one is less likely to seek non-violent solutions to problems at home and abroad?

If he's truly not going to vote, then there's not much I can say to dissuade him from that. But if he's interested in taking direct action that will bring the world closer to his vision for our society and humanity everywhere, there's only one course of action.

[alcuno]

25. Kerry's a Catholic and Catholic's believe in a "just war theory."

There is even debate on what that commandment actually said, was it "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not murder."

People do things in their teens and twenties that they would never do were they older. The ultimate responsibility for war lies with the government and they are the ones who should be held accountable. Those citizens not in the war have the greater responsibility for the actions of the government.

It wasn't those who went to war who were at fault, it was those who did not go and did nothing to try and stop it. People in the military are bound to their commanders. The citizenry is another story. We failed the troops.

[LibraLabSoldier]

28. Thank you for the insightful post.

There is this misconception that US troops are running around Iraq like a bunch of wild west cowboys, shooting and whooping anyone who gets in our paths. This is a lie. We are trying to improve the lives of Iraqis. But as soon as we get the lights turned on, insurgents blow up the power grid. We get the water running, they blow up the pipes. Yet all the fingers are pointed at US Troops. Lets give credit where credit is due.

[alcuno]

46. I really haven't seen any fingers pointed at the troops.

Only at the higher ups. The bulk of the responsibility ALWAYS belongs with those in command of a situation and I guess that's why the prisoner abuse story angers me so much. It was the commanders, rather than taking responsibilty themselves, who pointed to those below them and said, "It's their fault." Absolutely shameful.

[madfloridian]

56. We here support the troops completely. We are against the invasion.

I think you know that.

[LibraLabSoldier]

60. So are a lot of troops.

I am against the invasion. But now that we are there, I dont think we should just leave. That would be wrong.

[madfloridian]

65. You were just saying above how much good we were doing.

That is what I disagree with. We are building a new generation of terrorists because of what we did.

I did not think we should leave, but now I do. We are losing.

[Mizmoon]

66. LibraLabSoldier

I'm sorry you're getting such a hard time on this board. I don't like it.

A few months ago a met a Naval physician who had been with a Marine unit that invaded Baghdad. He talked about the good things he tried to do for the Iraqis, like give them vaccinations and teach them about sanitation. He said almost all the Iraqis he encountered had intesital parasites and other avoidable illness and he really wanted to help them learn how to avoid them.

But he also talked about something that happened several times - his unit would get messages from the Iraqis that said they had wounded and asked to bring them in an ambulance to see him. The Marines let the Iraqis get close to them in the intrests of treating the wounded. Then the Iraqis threw open the ambulance doors and came out firing. The Marines shot and killed them all. It was a very difficult situation for him - very emotionally painful, especially since it happened more than once.

He also talked about how far behind the Iraqis were from the rest of the world ... he said they were very, very ignorant. Obviously they are not stupid people, but they were uneducated and refused to learn about things like "don't drink the same water where you wash your animals". They just didn't get it. There was too much to teach them to make them understand - for example, they didn't understand about microorganisms. He felt America would be there for about 50 years before the Iraqis were able to really take over a democracy on their own because they had so much to learn.

Just as an aside - he said women in Iraq are treated far worse than the media has let on. He said the media would have you believe that women had it pretty good there (compared to Afghanistan, for example) but he said the village women he encountered were regarded as less than nothing. The animals were worth more than they were.

I would be interested in what you thought about what he told me.

[madfloridian]

71. Iraqis had a much higher literacy rate than most any nation.

They are well-educated intelligent people. You make it sound as though they were stone age types. That is shameful.

Your points are about the same as I heard my neighbor say the other day after listening to Rush.

[Mizmoon]

81. Dude, I'm reapeat what someone who was there said

I've never been there. Have you?

[madfloridian]

85. I am not a Dude. I posted an article below. Read it.

I am sorry but anyone who knows what is going on knows that the Iraqis were a proud people, and many of the women were professionals.

The stuff you are saying is just baloney.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Judi Lynn]

115. It's a shame your friend isn't aware of the conditions which appear

to influence the severe problem with water the "ignorant" Iraqis have, isn't it? My, my, my....... Tsk. Tsk.

It would appear some of the problems they, in their profound ignorance would lay at the feet of Americans, would have started in 1991:

This is what Clarke writes about the merciless bombing of Iraq for 42 days in 1991: “The Pentagon announced it conducted 110,000 aerial sorties against the defenseless ‘cradle of civilization’, dropping 88,500 tons of bombs. The widespread bombing destroyed the economic viability of the civilian society throughout the nation. It killed tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens and others. A major part of the bombing was directed at civilians and civilian facilities. It was less accurate than the recent indiscriminate attacks in Afghanistan. U.S. bombs destroyed Iraqi water systems, electric power transmission, communications, transportation, manufacturing, commerce, agriculture, poultry and livestock, food storage facilities, markets, fertilizer and insecticide production, business centers, archeological and historical treasures, apartment houses, residential areas, schools, hospitals, mosques, churches and synagogues.

http://www.whatmatters.nu/wmemails/wmemails18.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

These "ignorant" people didn't even have the ability to rise above the severe sanctions we placed upon them, and get back to basics!

The primary document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," is dated January 22, 1991. It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens.

"Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline," the document states. "With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."

The document goes into great technical detail about the sources and quality of Iraq's water supply. The quality of untreated water "generally is poor," and drinking such water "could result in diarrhea," the document says. It notes that Iraq's rivers "contain biological materials, pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur."

The document notes that the importation of chlorine "has been embargoed" by sanctions. "Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply is critically low."

Food and medicine will also be affected, the document states. "Food processing, electronic, and, particularly, pharmaceutical plants require extremely pure water that is free from biological contaminants," it says.
(snip/...)

http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whiners and tree huggers would no doubt lament the fact Iraqis have had no way to clean their water supply in all these years. What do they know, in light of the genius shown by certain DU'ers and their friends?

Items Banned by U.S. Sanctions on Iraq include:
Agricultural pesticides, all electrical equipment, all other building materials, ambulances, baby food, badminton rackets,
bandages, blankets, boots, cannulas for intravenous drips, catheters for babies, children's bicycles, children's clothes,
chlorine and other water, purification chemicals, cleaning agents, cobalt sources for X-ray, machines, deodorants, dialysis equipment,disposable surgical gloves, drugs for angina, ECG monitors, erasers, glue for textbooks, incubators, leather
material for shoes, lipsticks, medical gauze, medical journals, medical swabs, medical syringes, medication for
epilepsy, nail polish, nasogastric tubes, notebooks, nylon cloth for filtering flour, other adult clothes, oxygen tents,
paper, pencil sharpeners, pencils, ping-pong balls, polyester & acrylic yarn rice, rubber tubes, school books, school
handicraft equipment, shampoo, shirts, shoe laces, shroud material, soap, sanitary towels, specific granite shipments,
specific umbilical catheters, steel plate stethoscopes, suction catheters for blockages, surgical instruments, textile
plant equipment, thread for children's clothes, tissues, toilet paper, tooth brushes, toothpaste, various other foodstuffs,
wool felt for thermal insulation, X-ray equipment, X-ray film.
~ Simons, 1996
(snip)

The systematic destruction of the Iraqi sewage treatment system by allied bombing during the Gulf War and
the continuation of sanctions mean that clean drinking water is impossible to obtain for many Iraqis. Waterborne
diseases have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children since the sanctions began.

IMAGES OF IRAQ - by James Longley 2002
Sanctions have restricted basic drugs so little children with cancer cannot be treated.
Diarhea clinics treat children with multiple waterborne diseases.
(snip/...)

http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/uranium.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Veterans for Peace is one of more than 100 groups that have declared their opposition to sanctions. Champagne, said the group has raised $35,000 to help pay for repair work on the first water treatment plant. The group plans to raise $80,000 more to repair three other plants. The veterans are paying their own expenses, so that all of the money donated to the project goes into rebuilding the plants. The physical work they will perform during their ten day stay in Iraq will be largely symbolic, as they are not trained in construction and are middle-aged. They state they are there mostly to show solidarity and support for ordinary working-class people.. It is hoped the trip will inspire more Gulf War veterans to join the next Iraq Water Project delegation in 2001.
(snip/...)

http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/iraq/6_1.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It may be "ignorant" Iraqi people feel somewhat limited in just what water can be used at all, considering their silly fear of even more dangerous, immediate threats like that jolly depleted uranium which has invaded their water supply. But, what do they know? They are simply not wise, as is your friend.

second, potentially more serious hazard is created when a DU round hits its target. As much as 70 percent of the projectile can burn up on impact, creating a firestorm of ceramic DU oxide particles. The residue of this firestorm is an extremely fine ceramic uranium dust that can be spread by the wind, inhaled and absorbed into the human body and absorbed by plants and animals, becoming part of the food chain.

Once lodged in the soil, the munitions can pollute the environment and create up to a hundredfold increase in uranium levels in ground water, according to the U.N. Environmental Program.

Studies show it can remain in human organs for years.

The U.S. Army acknowledges the hazards in a training manual, in which it requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and states that "contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption."
(snip/...)

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



The world is a better place for having
truly brilliant people to inform people of the
unworthy ignorance and primitive state of others.

[madfloridian]

116. Excellent post which deserves its own thread.

Good information there.

[Judi Lynn]

118. Thanks, madfloridian. If I'd read your thread earlier, one of your links

would have offered some EXCELLENT information:

The school is on the edge of a vast industrial cemetery. The pumps in the sewage treatment plants and the reservoirs of water are silent, save for a few wheezing at a fraction of their capacity. Many were targets in the American-led blitz in January 1991; most have since disintegrated without spare parts from their British, French and German builders. These are mostly delayed by the Security Council's Sanctions Committee; the term used is "placed on hold". Ten years ago, 92% of the population had safe water, according to Unicef. Today, drawn untreated from the Tigris, it is lethal. Touching two brothers on the head, the head said, "These children are recovering from dysentery, but it will attack them again, and again, until they are too weak." Chlorine, that universal guardian of safe water, has been blocked by the Sanctions Committee. In 1990, an Iraqi infant with dysentery stood a one in 600 chance of dying. This is now one in 50.
(snip/...)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,232986,00.html

What it was like in Iraq before....education, women's rights, culture.
madfloridian

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2247284

[the_outsider]

144. Please spend some time reading up on Iraq's history, it's very interesting

and could give you different perspectives.

Iraq is the birthplace of writing, the plow and the first great code of law. It's the birthplace of Abraham, father of Jews and Arabs. Agriculture may have started there, earliest evidence of animal domestication is found in Northern Iraq. It's the home of great civilizations like Sumerian, Assyrian, Akkadian and Babylonian.Baghdad was the center of the Muslim world was one of the greatest cities of the world starting from 9th century onwards. Saladin, the legendary fighter who beat the crusaders was born in Tikrit. It is indeed the cradle of civilization as we know it.

The lessons of British colonialism are also very interesting. During world war 1, Arabs were promised independence by the British.
Instead Iraq got the "mandate" status meaning it would be under British "supervision" to "prepare" for independence. Sounds familiar?
When angry Iraq rebelled, it was crushed by aerial bombardment - first such use in human history. The boundaries of modern Iraq were arbitrarily created by the British to create an inherently unstable country. A lot of the Iraqi attitude towards US and Western countried stem from strong anti-imperial sentiment created by British rule and atrocities. USA did not do much to assuage it when in the pursuit of oil, it installed and dethroned one puppet dictator after another, without doing anything significant to support true democratic, progressive forces within Iraq and middle east. Random excuses of stopping communism, stopping terrorism, stopping Iran have been used to launch wars, overthrow governments, bombard civilians and impose inhuman sanctions when the real intentions have been suspected to be a pursuit of oil.

Bush 2's latest exploits and the installation of Allawi are seen as a continuation of the same theme, not a departure. If you keep the historical context in mind, you could not blame Iraqis for not trusting American/Western intentions. Nothing good can come out of US military presence when the people you are supposedly trying to "free" would rather have nothing to do with you and harbour perfectly reasonable and deep-rooted distrust.

[DU GrovelBot]

37. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[leesa]

41. "what if they gave a war and nobody came" sort of thinking...

It's exactly what happened in Iraq. I agree with your husband's dislike of Kerry, but for somewhat different reasons.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Good for him. Let him be, it takes a lot of courage to be a pacifist.

I'm jampacked with my own reservations about Kerry. He volunteered for Vietnam, then again for the swiftboats. Those guys weren't carrying food to the poor Vietnamese over there. I have a lot of sympathy for the draftees and most of the poor enlisted guys, but officers who volunteered for combat duty in the face of what was going on there don't get much respect from me. That he came back and denounced the war is good but I damn well wish he would remember the values that drove him then, now.

I'm voting for Kerry, or should I say, I'm voting against the greater threat. But, it's taking an extra-strengh nose clamp.

[IndianaGreen]

57. If your husband is truly pacifist, then you should respect his views

as I respect the pacifism of groups such as Pax Christi.

God knows, the world needs more peacemakers and less testosterone-driven militarists!

[oasis]

59. The Bush Doctrine is the PNAC plan. Bush's war against Islam will continue

www.newamericancentury.org

[IndianaGreen]

61. PPI is a sugar-coated variant of PNAC

Let's not kid ourselves!

While Bush's election will guarantee another war in another place, Kerry's election will not get us out of the "empire-building" business.

[oasis]

64. What's your solution?

[IndianaGreen]

70. Don't put the protest signs away!

I wonder if the rising expectations that most ABB voters have about a Kerry Administration will lead to bitter disappointment down the road. Those of us that see the DLC and its PPI as Lucifer wearing a top hat and tails, know that Kerry will not deliver a lot of the things that people think he is promising. There is no money to do what he says he wants to do domestically, and we will continue to sink in the red as Iraq and the phony "War on Terror" continue to bleed our resources and lives.

A "stay the course" in Iraq will only succeed in prolonging the suffering of the Iraqi people, and further damaging what's left of our image abroad.

Don't put the protest signs away!

[oasis]

84. Getting Kerry IN the WH /Getting troops OUT of Iraq. I'll work for both.

:thumbsup:

[kiahzero]

123. Because genocide is OK, so long as we have our fingers in our ears

Excuse me while I :puke:

What happened to "never again?" Oh, that's right... "progressives." Funny definition of "progress" - "Let's go back to when rulers could do whatever the fuck they wanted within their borders... it's a great idea!'

[sampsonblk]

63. Change his mind? Why?

He is years ahead of most of us. If HE changes people's minds, maybe we won't have to go through this again.

[Mizmoon]

67. Perhaps you are right

He did enjoy my reading to him from this thread, tho.

[madfloridian]

73. Your post about the ignorant Iraqis disturbs me greatly.

I found it insulting to a well-educated people.

Here is some of what you said:
"He also talked about how far behind the Iraqis were from the rest of the world ... he said they were very, very ignorant. Obviously they are not stupid people, but they were uneducated and refused to learn about things like "don't drink the same water where you wash your animals". They just didn't get it. There was too much to teach them to make them understand - for example, they didn't understand about microorganisms. He felt America would be there for about 50 years before the Iraqis were able to really take over a democracy on their own because they had so much to learn."

[madfloridian]

74. More about the Iraqis you call so ignorant: From a 2000 Pilger article.

What our sanctions and bombing did for 12 years to an educated people after WE armed their dictator. Shame on you for putting them down.

From a John Pilger article in the March 4, 2000 Guardian.

"The change in 10 years is unparalleled, in my experience," Anupama Rao Singh, Unicef's senior representative in Iraq, told me. "In 1989, the literacy rate was 95%; and 93% of the population had free access to modern health facilities. Parents were fined for failing to send their children to school. The phenomenon of street children or children begging was unheard of. Iraq had reached a stage where the basic indicators we use to measure the overall well-being of human beings, including children, were some of the best in the world. Now it is among the bottom 20%. In 10 years, child mortality has gone from one of the lowest in the world, to the highest."

SNIP..."Baghdad is an urban version of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. The birds have gone as avenues of palms have died, and this was the land of dates. The splashes of colour, on fruit stalls, are surreal. A bunch of Dole bananas and a bag of apples from Beirut cost a teacher's salary for a month; only foreigners and the rich eat fruit. A currency that once was worth two dollars to the dinar is now worthless. The rich, the black marketeers, the regime's cronies and favourites, are not visible, except for an occasional tinted-glass late-model Mercedes navigating its way through the rustbuckets. Having been ordered to keep their heads down, they keep to their network of clubs and restaurants and well-stocked clinics, which make nonsense of the propaganda that the sanctions are hurting them, not ordinary Iraqis. "

[madfloridian]

76. In fact here is the Guardian link about your "ignorant Iraqis".

It is called "Squeezed to Death."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,232986,00.html

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

86. You call Iraqis ignorant, I correct you, and you use the f word with me.

Hmmmm.....wonder why that is.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Judi Lynn]

121. That's one hell of an article. Unforgettable. n/t

[J Williams]

75. A vote for Kerry is a vote against Bush. It's not ...

A vote for Kerry is a vote against Bush. It's not necessarily a vote for Kerry, or any Democrat for that matter. But the only choice we have now is to vote for "the lesser of two evils." We must vote for Kerry, because to leave Bush in office will hurl the world into more conflict, division, and destruction.

Why are the Democrats the "lesser of two evils?" Because during the last two decades they too have become heavily influenced by and in debt to corporate power and the power of wealth.

Democrats are content and even comfortable with the status quo, with corporate dominance, and with the tremendous privileges and advantages of wealth. In fact, that is the case now more than ever, largely because a lot of private and corporate political contributions now fund Republicans and Democrats alike.

A typical corporate tactic to make sure that regardless of which party wins, the rich win. This is why 80 percent of all political contributions to both parties come from the wealthiest one percent of the U.S. population. But of course, even though the wealthy now contribute significant amounts to Democrats as well as Republicans, the bulk of all their political contributions still go to the Republicans who more fully serve the interests of the wealthy.

But "...the political reality is that now Democrats also benefit greatly from the way things are, not only because of all the political “contributions,” enticements and incentives, but also because of the great pay, benefits, and retirement that all federal legislators enjoy. That’s why a growing number of Democrats are quite content with the status quo, and why many of them have become increasingly unwilling to confront the rich powers that be, or put up much of a fight for the average citizen, the working poor, the powerless and the disadvantaged. That’s why you hear so very little about poverty, the working poor, and the poor." (From What IS the World Coming To? by Joseph J. Adamson.)

So, while we must vote for Kerry now, our ultimate goal should be to reform our political-economic system, because the one we have doesn't work. It only creates conflict and division, and it has created the huge income disparity we now have. It is unfair, and we need to change it.

[Hubert Flottz]

78. I will have to agree!

Welcome to DU!

[LisaL]

80. I would tell him

To think about the future, not the past.
Does he think Bush will stop with Iraq?

[madfloridian]

87. Why I am I the only one defending the "ignorant Iraqis" premise?

Those statements go to the heart of the thread. I should not be the only one defending the kind of people they were before we did them in.

[Vladimir]

89. Because when faced with the accusation

that Iraqis have to be told not to drink from the water they use to wash their animals, most of us are too shocked/surprised/wondering whether we have stepped into a parallel universe to respond.

[madfloridian]

90. Thanks for that. It was so revealing. Parallel universe is right.

:hi:

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vladimir]

95. He is not the only one that could use a trip to Iraq... n/t

[madfloridian]

96. That is really some awful stuff you said because I said Iraqis were smart.

Your words to me because I defended Iraqis.

SNIP..."Are you basically saying that everything that has happened to the Iraqis for the past 15 years is the USAs fault? I am getting really tired of your babbling. You are useless. YOu do nothing but complain about things that you know nothing about. Want to know how to learn first hand what the Iraqis experiences are?

Go to Iraq. Then let me know. I love the way weak sister wanna be protestors like you spew garbage out of your face. We are trying to help the Iraqis. The insurgents are using ambulances as fighting
vehicles. Why is that, you ask? Because if we deny entrance to an ambulance, they can scream to al jezeera that we are denying their wounded. If we fire on an ambulance, we are committing a war crime.

You know something, if you are against the war, fine. Bush sent us there on a pack of lies. He sent us undermanned, under armed, and under protected, and under paid.

Go get Bush out of office. But quit putting down troops. You dont have a clue. People like you disgust me. I am waiting for when you decide that calling us liars on internet forums isnt good enough and start spitting on veterans."END YOUR QUOTE
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Iraqi people were proud and intelligent. I made none of the accusations. You are really upset because I gave them credit for their education and intelligence.

[Mizmoon]

99. For the last time I WAS TOLD THAT BY A DOCTOR

who was there and was asking another soldier who had been there about it. God forbid you ask a question around here.

In afghanistan it's a common belief that children should not eat eggs. It is an ignorant belief and they don't beleive you if you tell them otherwise. In some places in Iraq, they think it's okay to drink the same water that you've washed the animals in. Sorry if you people can't take it, but sometimes people do unhealthy things out of ignorance.

In the USA some people think you should put butter on a burn. It's because of ignorance. Deal with it.

[madfloridian]

102. "okay to drink the same water that you've washed the animals in."

That is not true of the Iraqi people. They are, I am beginning to believe, more high-class than many of us are.

That is very sad that we have people here who are so lacking in curiosity about other cultures, that they call an ancient civilization like that ignorant.

You should be ashamed.

[Mizmoon]

104. You were never there, the doctor was

I believe in the medical doctor.

[Vladimir]

107. Funny what people will say, isn't it?

I remember being told by my doctor in Yugoslavia not to shake hands with gypsies, lest I be struck down with a skin disease... Interestingly enough, I paid him no mind and guess what? My skin isn't exactly falling off..

[Mizmoon]

109. That's why I was asking the soldier who was in Iraq about it

to see if he said, "Oh yeah, and it was crazy! We kept warning them not to but they wouldn't listen."

or if he said, "Your doctor is a lunatic. They were fastidious! That's crazy."

But asking a non-politically correct question is verboten here, apparently.

[Vladimir]

111. Well it is clearly not verboten

seeing as you have indeed asked. Its just that when you ask a question in public, you shouldn't feel outraged if the public choses to butt in and tell you what it thought of the question...

[latebloomer]

98. Here I am!

I read that with utter shock. What a paternalistic, condescending attitude towards a very civilized people who have been taking care of themselves a helluva lot longer than we have!

[madfloridian]

101. Thank you so much. They were highly civilized.

And you are right, much longer than we have been.
:hi:

[stavka]

88. Agree with him....

If your state is blue, don't vote...if it is a swing state, you'll need to.

Remember, fundementally, your vote does not count, your husband is making a moral stance and should be commended for doing so.

Remind him that by paying taxes he has helped killing people his whole life.

[Swamp Rat]

103. "I'LL DIVORCE YOU if you don't vote for Kerry!!!"

Just kidding!

I agree with him on the pacifism thing, but Bush&Co are going to destroy the world if we don't stop them now. If Kerry doesn't do what we tell him after he gets in, we can throw his ass out too.

[vetwife]

110. Hope I helped on the PM .........Meant every word Dear !

[Mizmoon]

119. Your PM was very good

I appreciated it. Thank you again.

[Pastiche423]

117. Please make sure your husband reads my post too

'Mr. chamilto', I lived through the Viet Nam era as well and I agree w/you. That war touched my life intimately and the sadness, heartbreak and anger has stayed w/me to this day.

I had hoped w/all of my being that we, as a country, would have learned from our mistakes and would not repeat them.

We did not learn.

There is a dark cloud hanging over the upcoming election. Our "only" two choices are men that believe war is the answer.

My vote is my choice. I choose not to vote for war.

Iraq is Arabic for Viet Nam

[kiahzero]

124. Yeah, Kerry really believes that 'war is the answer'

:eyes:

Do you enjoy constructing straw men? Does it make you feel big to knock over your phony argument?

[Pastiche423]

125. There is nothing phony about what I said

In the fall of 2002, Saddam was not a threat in any way to our country. His country had been under sanctions for more than a decade, as well as being under extreme surveillance.

In the fall of 2002, kerry voted AYE to the IRW. He has said he voted AYE to push for inspections. Yet, we knew in 1998 that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Our own inspectors told us so.

Kerry has also said he opposed the way whistle ass went about the war. He would have done war better. IOW, HE WANTED A WAR.

Moreover, as we all know, he would still vote the same way today, knowing blah, blah, blah.

So...

If there was no threat from Iraq in 2002, why did kerry vote for it then and would still vote for it now?

If he did not believe a war was neccessary, why din't he vote nay?

[kiahzero]

126. Another lie about Kerry's position

Our inspectors did not say that "there were no WMDs in Iraq" in 1998. Inspections were ended prematurely by Richard Butler, because he didn't want to abide by the Sensitive Site Modalities. No, Iraq was not an imminent threat under any circumstances, but there was certainly enough concern to warrant continuing/finishing the inspections.

Kerry said that he opposed the way that Bush went to war, and would have used the authority better - he wouldn't have ended the inspections early to invade.

I've told you this several times, and every time, you refuse to listen - Kerry voted for the authority to keep troops in Iraq for more than 60 days because he believed that a threat of force was necessary for the inspections to be successful. Since he still believes it, he would still vote for it.

[Pastiche423]

127. What was

the "certainly enough concern to warrant continuing/finishing the inspections"?

What was happening to cause concern?

[kiahzero]

128. Here

http://www.gaiaguys.net/WARONIRAQ.htm

PITT: Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?



RITTER: It's not black-and-white, as some in the Bush administration make it appear. There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability has been verifiably eliminated. This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of these factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories.

Iraq was supposed to turn everything over to the United Nations, which would supervise its destruction and removal. Iraq instead chose to destroy - uni laterally, without UN. supervision - a great deal of this equipment. We were later able to verify this. But the problem is that this destruction took place with out documentation, which means the question of verification gets messy very quickly.

[Pastiche423]

129. lol

IOW, you have no answer to what was happening to cause concern.

WHERE WAS THE THREAT?

[kiahzero]

137. I already said there wasn't an imminent threat

I said there was still good reason to finish the inspections; the inspectors shouldn't have been pulled out in the first place. Once again, you demonstrate your ability to completely ignore what other people are saying.

[Pastiche423]

140. I am ignoring nothing

I've asked the question several times now, and still have not received an answer.

What was happening in the fall of 2002 that made inspections (which were NOT objected to) so dire?

Was there an event that caused worry? Did Saddam say something that led someone to think he might hurt the U.S.? Did our spooks hear chatter that something dreadful was up?

Why all of a sudden, after more than a decade of sanctions and surveillance, were inspections needed to the point of war?

Why did kerry vote for inspections?

[kiahzero]

146. Nothing was happening in fall 2002 that made it more dire than fall 1999

We should never have ended the inspections in 1998. The threat of force for inspections (what Kerry voted for) was necessary because of Saddam's record of toying with inspectors until he was put in a corner. Once he was given no option but to cooperate, he would (as demonstrated by the 2002-2003 inspections).

Once we had inspectors back in Iraq, it would be far easier to argue for restructuring the sanctions - it could be demonstrated that we could keep Hussein from being a threat without hurting the innocent Iraqis that were suffering under the sanctions. I'm not sure if this was Kerry's thinking behind inspections, but I know it was mine.

[Pastiche423]

149. In the fall of 2002

the war drums were pounding, whistle ass & cheney were crying WMD!, WMD!, WMD!, condi was warning of mushroom clouds and kerry was thinking of inspections - just for the hell of it.

Keep wearing your rose-colored glasses while you stay in denial. Meanwhile the anti-war voters, Independents, the swing voters and the apolitical folks will hear - kerry voted AYE for inspections just for the hell of it.

He din't vote for war; he voted for inspections, which lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of human beings.

Just for the hell of it.

And oh yeah, least I forget, his vp voted for war and has always wanted that war.

[carpetbagger]

130. What if presidents got punished for starting unnecessary wars?

If we continue to punish presidents who lead us into unnecessary wars, like when LBJ was forced out in the early 1968 primaries, it will give pause to the next president who wants to fight a war for fun.

I don't think Kerry would have started a war if Hussein had let inspectors in.

[Pastiche423]

132. "I don't think Kerry would have started a war if

Hussein had let inspector in."

Is this revisionist recent history?

Hussein DID let inspectors in.

[kiahzero]

138. No shit

That's what the poster was saying.

(Hussein lets inspectors in) -> (Kerry doesn't start war)

In other words, the poster was arguing that, since Hussein let inspectors in, Kerry would not have started the war. Of course, it's difficult for you to understand this, since you think (contrary to the facts) that the IWR was a vote to go to war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

139. Kerry voted for the war, and still supports the occupation.

As has been pointed out by many Kerry apologists, "Everyone knew that Bush was going to war no matter what the congress did". So, did Kerry, unless he was heavily sedated at the time. He then voted to give bush authorization to invade. He has since said that he would STILL vote for the war, even KNOWING what bush was going to do.

Saddam posed no threat to the USA or anyone else, yet Kerry voted to invade.

[kiahzero]

145. No, he didn't vote for the war

He voted that troops could stay beyond 60 days if Bush chose to invade. Kerry did not vote to invade.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

148. Yeah, right. He thought they were in Kuwait for the sun.

Do you really believe that Kerry thought that bush wasn't going to invade Iraq when he voted for the IWR? If so, he must have been heavily sedated at the time.

Also, he has since said, that he would STILL have voted for it, knowing what he knows now. How do you square that with the fact that he now knows that bush did invade Iraq? Or, does he think that what's going on there is a mere figment of the press's imagination?

[Pastiche423]

141. Why did kerry vote for inspections?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

134. That's why we should push Kerry to sign on to the ICC.

Tho' I can't imagine that he will. He could find himself in the dock because he signed on to the invasion, and continues to support the occupation with it's continuing war crimes.

[madfloridian]

142. The inspectors WERE in there.

Sorry, but that argument does not hold water.

[LWolf]

131. I am also a pacifist.

I am voting for Kerry.

I do not give the "a vote for Kerry is a vote against Bush" or "not voting for Kerry is a vote for Bush" campaign rhetoric any weight at all; it's crap.

I do not believe that Senator Kerry represents my values when it comes to war and peace, public education, health care, and labor. I believe he is too friendly with corporate donors to be free enough to make profound changes in our corrupt system. I do not feel that "hope is on the way."

I'm still voting for him.

There is one single, looming reason why. George W. Bush and his controllers must go. I am pro-life; I care about the life of the planet and all living things on it, including people. George W. Bush represents the most destructive choice on the menu.

I could fast to make my point, and not vote at all. But I won't; I feel the need to act. I will act to remove GWB from office. "Pacifist" does not mean "passive."

I could vote for a 3rd party member or write in my choice, to act for the change I believe in, but I won't. I don't care for the 2 party system; I'd love to see some 3rd parties gain clout. I like IRV and proportional representation. But we don't have any of those in place for 2004; we do have the shadow of Florida 2000 and election fraud hanging over us. As far as who will reside in the WH goes, it will be one of the two. I choose to use my vote to help evict GWB.

I will fight for peace, for social and economic justice, for the environment, and for my profession, public education, with every non-violent means at my disposal, and my first step is to remove the agents of hate, greed, and violence from the WH.

Without that first step, there will be no trail to cut to a better America.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

133. I'm not a pacifist, but I agree with all of your sentiments.

Well, said. I find Kerry a weak candidate who is more ambitious politician than leader. Like you, I yearn for a real progressive party and I will be switching to Green after 39 years as a Democrat. Kerry isn't the reason that I'll be holding my nose again this time, Bush is.

[LWolf]

136. I'm an evolving pacifist.

It seems to be one of the lessons for this lifetime; I started out rough. I've already been there and done that with using aggression to "beat" opponents. That was a childhood lesson. As an adult, I'm learning to move away from aggression and learn other, more subtle, more life-affirming ways to effect desired outcomes.

I was talking to a fellow peace-lover this week; we are both moms. Her son just graduated from high school and is headed to UC Berkeley, and she is stressing over the possible draft. We agreed that, as mothers, we haven't yet reached the point of total pacifism. If GWB were standing in front of us in the flesh, we'd be hard-put not to just take him out. Not logical, not intelligent; it's a visceral thing.

[LibraLabSoldier]

147. Sorry you didnt get much help.

It seems most of the people on here are just as hard headed as the Rightwingers on other forums I have been in. They refuse to accept anything from sources that cant be verified by less than three news sources. If your husband is a pacifist, give him these examples.

Not voting is the same as voting for Bush. There will be more wars, and probably a draft. His not voting for Bush can impact literaly hundreds of thousands of young men and women being sent to their death.

While it is laudable to be against the war in Iraq, doing nothing is not gonna make it go away. Kerry will minimize our involvement, and decrease our military presence much faster than GWB will.

Standing by and doing nothing in the face of violence and war is the same as condoning it.