ETA: To make it clear I am saying against a war, not some one who stands out side holding signs with pictures of bloody kids and guys with bags on their heads, I am not talking about rallys in the street. I am simply talking about no finding cause for a war, since you see no cause to not approve of it.

Why? Are you questioning your patriotism because you've joined cindy sheehan's ranks?

Quoted:

which war?

No.

Unless a dem gets us into a poop sandwich we can not get out of

Too broad of a statement.  There are just wars and unjust wars.

Quoted: which war?

Any war, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, WW1, WW2 any war.

Yes you can.

Just look at Quakers and the Amish just for starters.

They don't believe in violence of any kind.  And war is violence to the max.

By the way, I may be in error here, but didn't a Quacker earn the MOH during World War II?  He was a Medic if I recall.  He refused to pick up a weapon of any kind.  But he was no coward.

Quoted: Quoted: which war? Any war, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, WW1, WW2 any war.

no then yes, no, no, no, no, depends

Quoted: Too broad of a statement.  There are just wars and unjust wars.

That my point, why do you have to support anything the goverment says is the right thing and throws our soldiers to do their deeds, just or unjust.

I am very against any war in Iran simply due to the loss of life it could cost us. I don't think our soliders lifes are worth the blood of those in the middle east. If Iran is such a problem let their neighbors deal with it. Save us the lost of blood to protect our own people.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: which war? Any war, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, WW1, WW2 any war. no then yes, no, no, no, no, depends

So only if the war is politically benficial?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: which war? Any war, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, WW1, WW2 any war. no then yes, no, no, no, no, depends So only if the war is politically benficial?

Yeah, politics tend to muck up my life, example, Hitler ruling the world.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

Those that think that condemning our soldiers and hoping they die are a form of protest, can suck on an exhaust pipe however.

Negative.  If you're Anti-war that means you're a no-good hippy.  I don't care who the enemy is - just give me my weapon and point me in the right direction.

Quoted: Quoted: Too broad of a statement.  There are just wars and unjust wars. That my point, why do you have to support anything the goverment says is the right thing and throws our soldiers to do their deeds, just or unjust. I am very against any war in Iran simply due to the loss of life it could cost us. I don't think our soliders lifes are worth the blood of those in the middle east. If Iran is such a problem let their neighbors deal with it. Save us the lost of blood to protect our own people.

Casualty numbers or possible casualties should not be the basis for deciding whether or not to go to war.

The war to kick saddam out of power? Yes, that was necessary.  The current war against the insurgents in Iraq is supposed to help make sure we don't have to deal with another Saddam in Iraq in the future.  Also a worthwhile goal.

Quoted: Quoted:

Sure, especially before the war starts.  Especially in the voting booth.  But once the war begins, the nature of anti-war protesting starts changing, because once the country's at war and you're advocating we give up and quit before victory, you are essentially advocating defeat.

You may not see it that way, might think you're nobly trying to save peoples' lives from a war you don't agree with and opposed, but in reality you've become an ally of the enemy; another factor in weakening the resolve of the US to win.

That's one of the big lessons from Vietnam. Peaceniks love Vietnam because it was the first time they ever brought an end to a war.  Our enemies love Vietnam for exactly the same reason, popular opposition helped them defeat a much more powerful country.

Quoted: Negative.  If you're Anti-war that means you're a no-good hippy.  I don't care who the enemy is - just give me my weapon and point me in the right direction.

So the civil war, you would have no problem killing a borther simply because he wanted to be left alone?

Quoted: Sure, especially before the war starts.  Especially in the voting booth.  But once the war begins, the nature of anti-war protesting starts changing, because once the country's at war and you're advocating we give up and quit before victory, you are essentially advocating defeat. You may not see it that way, might think you're nobly trying to save peoples' lives from a war you don't agree with and opposed, but in reality you've become an ally of the enemy; another factor in weakening the resolve of the US to win. That's one of the big lessons from Vietnam. Peaceniks love Vietnam because it was the first time they ever brought an end to a war.  Our enemies love Vietnam for exactly the same reason, popular opposition helped them defeat a much more powerful country.

Agree fully with you have some class and don't go around waving rainbow flags and sticking flowers in gun barrels, you show support to those who are in it, if you march through the streets all that will do is cause loss of life, it wont end a war. Youll only get soldiers who feel they have no reason to be on foreign soil and will have little sense of duty left and in the end could easily get them killed. Show support and you have troops who are willing to go through hell and back for the cause and come back alive. They have pride in what they are doing, and just or unjust they deserve pride since they aren't the ones to choose their war.

Or atleast thats how I see it.

Quoted: Quoted: Negative.  If you're Anti-war that means you're a no-good hippy.  I don't care who the enemy is - just give me my weapon and point me in the right direction. So the civil war, you would have no problem killing a borther simply because he wanted to be left alone?

I HATE BORTHERS, I'd kill em all if I had a chance.

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with the war, HOWEVER, if how and what they are doing encourages the enemy and destroys the morale of our guys. all the while being used as propaganda you are WRONG.

Sure. Just depends on your choice of terms, methods and rhetoric.

Can you be anti-war but still a Good American?  

No.

Yes. One of the best things about being American is being able to disagree with policies and actions that you don't believe in. How you conduct yourself during those disagreements is a much better standard for determining one's value as an American.

Fortunatly, we live in a country whose citizens have bought such freedom with their lives.

Quoted: Sure. Just depends on your choice of terms, methods and rhetoric.

+1

Pray for war..........kill for peace

let's hope so

Quoted: Quoted: Sure. Just depends on your choice of terms, methods and rhetoric. +1

Agreed. A much more difficult question is when is open protest justified. Anytime you openly protest a war you are helping the enemy and hurting your own troops. However, it is certainly possible that there could be a war in which using protest to end the fighting helps your troops more that it hurts them by in turn helping the enemy. Iraq is clearly not an example of this, but one day it is possible such a war could be fought. Knowing where to draw the line would be extremely difficult.

I am VERY ANti-War.


I am just smart enough to realize that it still happens however.

Sgat1r5

Most sane people are anti war, especially those who have to do the actual fighting.

That said there is a HUGE difference between being against war and being an anti war activists. There is an even bigger difference between being against war and undermining the war effort and openly or covertly supporting the enemy.

World War II is a good example. I don't think anybody wanted that war or especially wanted to risk their lives in it. But the alternatives weren't any better so basically people did what had to be done.

Can't say I personally have warm fuzzies about the current war. Too many aspects of it just drive me completely nuts and I've got too many family members and friends currently "at risk" over there.

But even with the mistakes that have been made and the fact that I "personally" feel our guys are being put in harms way for a mostly ungrateful population I would never consider stepping over to the Cindy Shithead and Mickey Moore crowd.

In a word: Yes.

I am against war. But they happen and we must deal with them and we must ALWAYS ensure we are victorious. If people werent a$$hats we wouldnt have wars, but people suck for the most part and we need to respond to those people with as much force as they deserve.

As much as I am against war, I am for doing it right. Total all out war. Like my sigline quotes.

Quoted: Most sane people are anti war, especially those who have to do the actual fighting. That said there is a HUGE difference between being against war and being an anti war activists. There is an even bigger difference between being against war and undermining the war effort and openly or covertly supporting the enemy. World War II is a good example. I don't think anybody wanted that war or especially wanted to risk their lives in it. But the alternatives weren't any better so basically people did what had to be done. Can't say I personally have warm fuzzies about the current war. Too many aspects of it just drive me completely nuts and I've got too many family members and friends currently "at risk" over there. But even with the mistakes that have been made and the fact that I "personally" feel our guys are being put in harms way for a mostly ungrateful population I would never consider stepping over to the Cindy Shithead and Mickey Moore crowd.

Becomming one of my favorite members more and more.

+10,000 to your post sir.

Absolutely.  Disagree with the war if you feel that way, nothing wrong with that.  But always support the troops no matter what.  The second you start to "protest" it by seeking out a fallen soldier/marine's funeral and saying things like "thank God for IED's", you have crossed the line and should be dealt with....that being treason and all.

Quoted: Quoted: Most sane people are anti war, especially those who have to do the actual fighting. That said there is a HUGE difference between being against war and being an anti war activists. There is an even bigger difference between being against war and undermining the war effort and openly or covertly supporting the enemy. World War II is a good example. I don't think anybody wanted that war or especially wanted to risk their lives in it. But the alternatives weren't any better so basically people did what had to be done. Can't say I personally have warm fuzzies about the current war. Too many aspects of it just drive me completely nuts and I've got too many family members and friends currently "at risk" over there. But even with the mistakes that have been made and the fact that I "personally" feel our guys are being put in harms way for a mostly ungrateful population I would never consider stepping over to the Cindy Shithead and Mickey Moore crowd. Becomming one of my favorite members more and more. +10,000 to your post sir.

Yup, he's all over it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sure. Just depends on your choice of terms, methods and rhetoric. +1 Agreed. A much more difficult question is when is open protest justified. Anytime you openly protest a war you are helping the enemy and hurting your own troops. However, it is certainly possible that there could be a war in which using protest to end the fighting helps your troops more that it hurts them by in turn helping the enemy. Iraq is clearly not an example of this, but one day it is possible such a war could be fought. Knowing where to draw the line would be extremely difficult.

The soviet invasion of afghanistan comes to mind.
As does our own country's little jaunt in the Balkans.
Just ol' Slick Willy covering up a few "stains" on his name

yes

not all wars are righteous

Friday August 19, 2005
THE LEFT'S WAR CONTRACT: To be antiwar can mean one of two things: you may be opposed to all war or you might just be opposed to a war in particular. A Democratic party fitting the first definition would never win another national election in this country again. Ever.

Thus many on the left who make up the base of the Democratic party have gone to great lengths to say they support the use of U.S. military force under appropriate circumstances (like, say, Afghanistan) and that their objections are confined to this president and the war in Iraq.

But if you take some of the arguments this group (which spans the "netroots" crowd at Daily Kos all the way to the New York Times op-ed page) has marshalled against President Bush and recast them in generic terms, you'll see they read like a list of "out clauses" tucked inside a "We Support the Use of U.S. Military Force" contract:

   The Chickenhawk Clause: No administration official may be involved in planning or supporting a war effort unless they have served in the military. (This clause applies to members of the public as well).

   The Shared Sacrifice Clause: Wars may not be conducted unless a vast majority of the public share in some sort of common sacrifice which will most likely take the form of increasing the tax burden on the public.

   The Elite Sacrifice Clause: Wars may not be conducted unless 1) all military age children among the highest ranking civilian and military officials in the country are forced to serve and 2) a certain (but as yet undefined) percentage of combat deaths must come from soldiers with "privileged" backgrounds.

   The Grieving Parent Clause: Mothers and fathers of soldiers killed in action are given "absolute" moral authority. Therefore wars may be fought only until the mother or father of a soldier killed in action objects to either the policy or the leadership of the administration.

   The Presidential Vacation Clause: During the course of any conflict where U.S. soldiers are in harm's way, presidents are not allowed to take vacation but instead must remain at the White House "burning the midnight oil" to demonstrate military personnel are a priority.

   The War Profiteering Clause: The Pentagon is allowed to hire private contractors to assist in military logistics and reconstruction projects provided that 1) no member of the administration has ever had any contact with the company and 2) the company is not allowed to make a profit.

Of course, one of the primary requirements for the left to support U.S. military force is winning the approval of the UN Security Council. Taken together these requirements would seem to make it almost impossible for the left to support U.S. military action under any circumstance. Or will all these rules not apply when Hillary or some other Democrat is sitting in the White House? - T. Bevan 9:45 am

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/blog_8_19_05_0945.html

IMO Anti-War\Good American have nothing to do with each other

the liberals gave war protesting a bad name when they went after bush SOLELY because he was
a successful republican.  When clinton was using the military unilaterally or bombing innocent people
they had no problem with it, that is what makes some one "not a good American"

Certain wars aren't justified and/or neccescary. But don't call yourself anti-war, thats hippy bile-shiite. I just say I was against the decision to go to war with (insert name of people doing shit we don't like). I'm not aginst the war or the effort, I believe that once we go to war, we need to win, we can't let or cred take another hit like Vietnam. However certain wars weren't justified, like the Civil War, it wasn't about freeing the slaves, it was the North wanting to ssay "Whos yo daddy?" to the south. I believe that history will show that the right thing was done, but it wasn't justified at the time. Another war would have to be the intervention in Bosnia. with Muslim attitudes towards us, we shouldv'e given money to the Serbs. I don't care who started it, by the time we were in there, neither side was worthy or our aid. You should be against the decision, not the effort.

Quoted: Pray for war..........kill for peace

From an Ordie?

Before we begin, sure.

Once engaged, no way. To communicate a lack of support hurts our troops and our cause.

Analogy: We're at the cash machine late at night. Some guys get out of a van behind us and start some shit. I'm squaring off to fight them and you're pulling my sleeve, saying "No, let's just go. Come on, it's not worth it!" It makes it harder for me to fight, and empowers the thugs to continue the attack. You should stand by my side, and square off as a team, if you want to win.

If you don't want to win because of conflicting politics, that says it all about your loyalty.

Hmmmmmmmm..interesting.....Simple really.  

All left wing geeks like cindy sheehan should be taken into the street and shot in the head.End of problem.  

It's very possible to be against a certain war and still be a good American.  But good Americans who oppose a particular war make sure to do so in a way that doesn't hamstring or make vulnerable the soldiers fighting it.  IMHO, if you oppose a war, the time to be vocal about it is before it starts.  Then, after it's over, vote against those who waged it.  But demonstrating against it while it's going on is very bad for the soldiers fightijng it and I don't think a good American would do that.

it's rhetorical, all these people who say no disrespect the very freedom this country is founded on. If it were up to them the u.s. wouldn't be a place for people to think for themselves obviously.
It's a good thing these people aren't in charge of a country, there would be 1 more dictatorship country in the world.

I'm a white Christian gun toting male.  The exact opposite of Hillary Clinton.

You'd really have a hard time finding someone more conservative and patriotic than me.

I'm against the war because we only kicked ass for a few weeks.  Since then it's been that "nation building" crap.

Politically correct nation building is NOT THE JOB OF American troops.

Don't make our troops a helpless target for car bombs.

We offer peace and freedom.  What do those arabs want?  The opposite!  They're scum!!  Figure that out BEFORE you invade.

Very anti war.  Even WWII was an unjust war.  It was unjust that we were attacked and had to defend ourselves from the likes of Hitler, Hirohito, and Mussolini.   It was just to insure that they never had an opportunity to do it again.  All war seems to start from the premise that you have something I want and I am going to take it no matter what.   That can never be justified.

Even though I am against all war, doesn't mean that I don't support a war effort to defend ourselves and our allies, form those who seek their death.  The only sure way to insure peace through the ages seems to be the capacity to inflict more damge on your enemy than they can ever inflict on you.  Throw a rock at me. I nuke you.  I am against "measured respone".  Doing so has just lengthened the time needed to win and added needless casualties.  ie. Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq.

Quoted: Negative.  If you're Anti-war that means you're a no-good hippy.  I don't care who the enemy is - just give me my weapon and point me in the right direction.

I guess we need to worry about you when they ban guns completely and utilize the military to quell the 'rebellion', eh?

Quoted: Hmmmmmmmm..interesting.....Simple really.   All left wing geeks like cindy sheehan should be taken into the street and shot in the head.End of problem.

...and this guy subscribes to Stalinism yet calls himself a good american, I'm sure...

The day you can't be an American and still disagree with your government, including its decision to wage war, then let me off and I'm not an American any longer.

Quoted: The day you can't be an American and still disagree with your government, including its decision to wage war, then let me off and I'm not an American any longer.

Amen, brother.  Truer words have never been spoken.