VBAM Games Forums

Berkeley California vs Marines


http://www.topix.com/city/berkeley-ca/2 ... ine-stance

http://www.dailycal.org/article/100360/ ... no_apology

http://www.moveamericaforward.org/index.php/DailyFile/


I've been following this, its nice to know that there are alot more support for the military than those against.

*gets on soapbox*

I'm from a military family, it goes way back, my great-great etc grandfather and his son served in the American Revolution in the Maryland militia and my second cousin just finished his third tour in Iraq with the USMC. I respect my country and the traditions it was founded upon and still stand for, but.....

People who say they are "against the war but support the military" make me want to counter with: "I'm against actual law enforcement, but I think cops are ok I guess".

You can't have it both ways. If you support the military, you support the war they are fighting and winning and the job they are doing. If you don't, then that's fine too, just don't lie about it. That's what this protest/counter-protest stuff shows me in the links you provided echoco.

*calms down*

-Mark

MarkG88 wrote:*gets on soapbox*
You can't have it both ways. If you support the military, you support the war they are fighting and winning and the job they are doing. If you don't, then that's fine too, just don't lie about it. That's what this protest/counter-protest stuff shows me in the links you provided echoco.

Ummm,

You really can,

It's possible to think that a hammer is a useful tool, but it can still be used to smash someone's skull in - that still doesn't make the hammer bad,

Likewise the army (and navy, etc) are useful - but they can be misused by their political masters,

It's not the armies fault - they follow orders, that's how the system is supposed to work, but if the war is wrong then it isn't their fault - it is the fault of the politicians that sent them there,

As to the war in Iraq? Who's to say - I certainly wouldn't want to leap either way, but I can see how people can find fault with the war and yet still wish to support the army,

Gareth_Perkins wrote:

MarkG88 wrote:*gets on soapbox*
You can't have it both ways. If you support the military, you support the war they are fighting and winning and the job they are doing. If you don't, then that's fine too, just don't lie about it. That's what this protest/counter-protest stuff shows me in the links you provided echoco.

Ummm,

You really can,

It's possible to think that a hammer is a useful tool, but it can still be used to smash someone's skull in - that still doesn't make the hammer bad,

Likewise the army (and navy, etc) are useful - but they can be misused by their political masters,

It's not the armies fault - they follow orders, that's how the system is supposed to work, but if the war is wrong then it isn't their fault - it is the fault of the politicians that sent them there,

As to the war in Iraq? Who's to say - I certainly wouldn't want to leap either way, but I can see how people can find fault with the war and yet still wish to support the army,

I agree and that is what I said as well. My point is, saying you support the troops when your actions (inhibiting/prohibiting recruiters like the Berkley articles referred to) is NOT supporting the troops, it's an all-volunteer force so recruiters are a big part of maintaining the present and future strength and proficiency of these forces.

As for the war being right or wrong the political masters as you put it had a debate in this country our senate signed off on 22 reasons to go to war with Iraq (WMD issues was only 1 of these 22 reasons), the House of Representatives and the Senate based the joint resolution authorizing the war in Iraq by larger margins than the 1990 resolution. So the political and legal reasons for the war have been well established. And if the people who elected those aforementioned political masters had issue with thie vote and war, they've had 4 years to make their ire noted at the ballot box.

MarkG88 wrote:As for the war being right or wrong the political masters as you put it had a debate in this country our senate signed off on 22 reasons to go to war with Iraq (WMD issues was only 1 of these 22 reasons), the House of Representatives and the Senate based the joint resolution authorizing the war in Iraq by larger margins than the 1990 resolution. So the political and legal reasons for the war have been well established. And if the people who elected those aforementioned political masters had issue with thie vote and war, they've had 4 years to make their ire noted at the ballot box.

Well, I'm in the UK so the situation is slightly different here (that said, we didn't vote Blair out either...),

But I would say that an election isn't the best way to determine the fate of one specific issue (I'm assuming that everyone in your country didn't vote for or against politicians specifically on the War in Iraq issue - and I'm assuming that the war wasn't the only issue at election time, taxes and jobs are always old favourites...),

But even if they did, just because a majority agree on a course of action doesn't make it right - that way lies mob-justice, lynchings and other such things, and we all know that these are bad things. If you strongly believe some act is wrong then just losing an election shouldn't cause you to fall into line (I get the impression in both your and my countries it just means you didn't throw enough money at the election... ). Mindless loyalty isn't a virtue!

As to the specific case of the war - some of the issues and lies that have been discovered or discredited since the war in Iraq makes me extremely suspicious of the rationalisation for the war on Iraq (and make me seriously question the remaining possibly valid reasons) - both your and my governments seem too desperate to create a pretext for the invasion for me not to be very cynical and suspicious about it,

To put that another way - if they had 22 good reasons to go to war why did the politicians need to lie about the WMD? (And let's not beat about the bush here - a lot of politicians on both sides of the Atlantic told a lot of lies on that subject, so they must have thought it necessary).

Finally so many of the supporters of the war (again, on both sides of the Atlantic) where later found to have serious ulterior motives for wanting a war that again I have to doubt some of the things they told us (and are still telling us), many folks got rich off this war...

That's not to say that I think the war was a bad idea - Saddam Hussain was an abomination and no two ways about it, he needed to be removed, likewise the Taliban was even worse (sad and deeply ironic that these two plus Al-Quaida are largely there because the West supported them, but that's not really the issue or in any way relevant). But just maybe war wasn't the optimal way to achieve it? A spate of political assassinations in Iraq could conceivably have had the same effect whilst saving our countries billions of dollars and saving hundreds of thousands of lives?

Now that we're in it? Well, perhaps whatever I personally believe about the start of the war we've got to see it through now. We've really gone too far to pull out. However I do think that to really succeed in Iraq we've got to clean up our act - we aren't the good guys here (it's just that Iraq was worse than we are), for Iraq to be a success story we've got to tidy up our corrupt ways,

Gentlemen,

I would like to say that you both have taken a very hot topic issue, and have kept the debate logical and enjoyable to read. I appreciate that the dialog is courteous, and respectful to the other party. With that said we should keep all hot topic discussions in this manner.

I believe debate and differing opinions is what keeps us thinking, rational people. On these forums we can respect discussion as long as it is kept as such.

<The more you know music>

Thanks,
-Jay

MarkG88 wrote:
You can't have it both ways. If you support the military, you support the war they are fighting and winning and the job they are doing. If you don't, then that's fine too, just don't lie about it. That's what this protest/counter-protest stuff shows me in the links you provided echoco.

-Mark

I was thinking the samething, how they made a U-turn from "we don't want you here" to "we support you but not the war" and they don't even intend to appologize

I wondered if their next step was to declare independence form the US government.

I'm biased towards the military and don't like politicians so I'm not going to comment on the war.

This reminds me of a few people I know, they dislike the military and what they do/how they do it but would talk about how terrible so and so was and that someone need to do something about it.

I would first like to say that I found the posts on this topic to have been both civil and well argued.

I am biased toward supporting our military being a veteran of the Navy myself. I was stationed out in the San Francisco area and heard the insults first hand. I personally don't buy the I support the troops but not the war state of mind. I think that many people use that phrase as a way of excusing themselves from any responsibility for coming up with a realistic alternative solution for the use of military force in this case.

I do believe that removing Sadam was worth the price of the war. I also believe that the aftermath of the war was handled very poorly. I think from what I have seen in hind sight that nobody had serious plan for what was to be done after the fighting stopped. I have talked to some people who have been over to Iraq recently and I am told that things are much better since the recent surge in troop numbers and that the Iraqis are finally starting to take care of themselves.

I think that there are many good signs for the future in Iraq. I do hope that they will be able to have a stable and relatively free society.

MarkG88 wrote:
You can't have it both ways. If you support the military, you support the war they are fighting and winning and the job they are doing. If you don't, then that's fine too, just don't lie about it. That's what this protest/counter-protest stuff shows me in the links you provided echoco.

*calms down*

-Mark

I have to disagree with you.
I can fully support the men and women of the military and the valuable role they serve in securing our society.

I firmly spoke out against the strategic, diplomatic, and political failure that an invasion and war in Iraq would ultimately become - during the ramp up, before it started, and even while it appeared to be going well, now, and I anticipate decades if not generations of mess in the region as a direct result of the war. I speak out against the war.

I am against the war as a political decision. It was a mistake, whether the legal government created it or not. I have that right.

I am against interfering with recruiting, I am for continued military spending as needed to prosecute the tasks before our troops, and I support the troops in trying to successfully caring out the flawed mission they have been given in whatever way they determine is needed.

I am against the war, I am not against the troops. I am not lying.

Edit: cause I can't type properly, apparently, and I missed the last post.

My brother was in the Corps and just missed going to Iraq. My father was in the navy during Vietnam. I just barely didn't go Navy. (That said, just to show I have history with the military also, even if it is somewhat limited.)

Removing Sadaam was not a bad result, but it was a side effect - it was not the stated aim of the war. It was NOT the political justification for the pre-emptive invasion. As holder of a degree in International Relations, this was horrendous policy move that undid decades of international prestige. It was and is a bad war as a policy decision.