Why do people think "Patriotism" is "Hate-riotism"? (America)

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Alceste

If your domestic security strategy is "if we keep feeding them soldiers in Iraq they won't be hungry for civilians in Boston" I can't see how that qualifies as "supporting the troops".

This is sooo true that it's not even funny.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Alceste

...and that's even BEFORE the state began to hire private data processing firms to spy on you, collect your emails, record your phone calls and hand it all over to Big Brother without your knowlege.

Yes, but I feel so much more secure knowing that all my private data and communications are nowadays in the hands of nice, sweet, neocons and the tolerant religious right, who together form the backbone of the Republican Party.

[Reverend Rick]

Originally Posted by Alceste

After all, it is the job of domestic law enforcement to avert such things.

Are you serious? So local law enforcement in America has control who boards an airplane in England? Local law enforcement can control a nuclear device arriving in a harbor inside a shipping container?

Most of the time they are nipped in the bud, and that's even BEFORE the state began to hire private data processing firms to spy on you, collect your emails, record your phone calls and hand it all over to Big Brother without your knowlege.

That is so paranoid. How can we listen to everyone all the time? If my conversations help catch a blood thirsty terrorist, fantastic. Just what do you have to hide from the government anyway? Law abiding honest folks are not worried about their conversations being listened to. Any reasonable person who has a clue about electronics should be aware that their conversations may not be private. Even if the government did not do this, private individuals could. Privacy is an illusion at best.

Could you clarify why you think the war is keeping you safe at home? Are you saying the "terrorists" (formerly known as "freedom fighters" when they were fighting off Russians instead of Americans) are now so happy to have some nearby Americans to kill they won't bother traveling all the way to the US? If your domestic security strategy is "if we keep feeding them soldiers in Iraq they won't be hungry for civilians in Boston" I can't see how that qualifies as "supporting the troops".

Feeding them soldiers is a little harsh. Giving them an opportunity to engage us would be more correct. Let me ask you a question, who should engage the terrorists, highly trained fighting forces or women and children living in our country?

Supporting the troops is standing behind their mission telling them what they are doing is the right thing. Giving them proper equipment and training to do their job.

A person could use your logic and say if we bring the troops home you are not supporting the American people. Do you see how twisted that is?

Saying I disagree with what you are doing do you dumb SOB, why did you enlist? is not supporting the troops.

Saying I am going to bring you home in the middle of your project because it was a complete waste of the tax payers dollars is not supporting them. Do you see how demoralising that is?

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

Feeding them soldiers is a little harsh. Giving them an opportunity to engage us would be more correct. Let me ask you a question, who should engage the terrorists, highly trained fighting forces or women and children living in our country?

Well to be perfectly honest, with hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq, I can't help thinking perhaps the overall death rate would be lower if you were "engaging the terrorists" on your own soil. Your government would be more responsible with its use of chemical weapons and civilian abduction / torture operations. So, yeah, I think "engaging the terrorists" at home would be better than engaging them in somebody else's back yard. Who says that if you do your crime fighting in your own dang country it can't still be highly trained fighting forces doing the grunt work?

Supporting the troops is standing behind their mission telling them what they are doing is the right thing. Giving them proper equipment and training to do their job.

No, that's called "brainwashing the troops". I will leave that job to boot camp. For me, supporting a "soldier" is no different than supporting a "human being". Ie. nurture her capacity for critical thinking, value her right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and don't pressure her to engage in criminal behavior, ie. violating the human rights of others as outlined in the Geneva convention.

A person could use your logic and say if we bring the troops home you are not supporting the American people. Do you see how twisted that is?

Yes I see how twisted that is, but I disagree that someone could use my logic to come up with it. They would have to use somebody else's.

Saying I disagree with what you are doing do you dumb SOB, why did you enlist? is not supporting the troops.

Saying I am going to bring you home in the middle of your project because it was a complete waste of the tax payers dollars is not supporting them. Do you see how demoralising that is?

No, I don't. I do see how it is demoralising to be used as disposable fodder for a fascist war machine, lied to, ordered to use chemical weapons, torture and degradation on your fellow human beings, have your tour of duty repeatedly extended because recruitment can't keep up with the demand for troops, and go without adequate protection because the majority of the public funding is going to private mercenary forces rather than US soldiers... Don't you?

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Alceste

have your tour of duty repeatedly extended because recruitment can't keep up with the demand for troops, and go without adequate protection because the majority of the public funding is going to private mercenary forces rather than US soldiers... Don't you?

This is becoming less and less a volunteer force, isn't it?

[Reverend Rick]

Originally Posted by Alceste

No, I don't. I do see how it is demoralising to be used as disposable fodder for a fascist war machine, lied to, ordered to use chemical weapons, torture and degradation on your fellow human beings, have your tour of duty repeatedly extended because recruitment can't keep up with the demand for troops, and go without adequate protection because the majority of the public funding is going to private mercenary forces rather than US soldiers... Don't you?

Actually, The situation that I see is, we cannot afford to stay in Iraq much longer because we cannot continue to borrow money from the Chinese to pay the Saudis for oil. The world demand for oil is increasing as the supply is not getting any larger. Amplify that with oil speculators and the falling dollar, we have a situation where if we stay, we will have 8 dollar a gallon gasoline, if we leave Iraq, we will have 8 dollar a gallon gasoline as well no matter what we do.

We refuse to allow oil companies to build more refineries in our country and we refuse to drill domestically. Republicans want business as usual and Democrats want to spend the same amount of money on alternate fuel sources and health care that we equally cannot afford.

The bottom line is, we as Americans are going to have to end our love affair we have with our cars. Driving is going to be a luxuary not a necessity in the future. It matters little who is the next President, we are all going to be worse off in the future.

The economy is going to affect rich folks as well. They might not worry about meeting basic requirements for survival, but their affluence is going to be greatly reduced in the future.

Life as we know it is going to change, but that is what we all want right?

As we look back over the years, we are going to see that we all had it pretty good during the Bush administration. Change is not always for the better.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

Actually, The situation that I see is, we cannot afford to stay in Iraq much longer because we cannot continue to borrow money from the Chinese to pay the Saudis for oil.

You're changing the subject, Rick. You didn't respond to it when I brought it up, and you're not responding when Alceste brought it up.

How do you justify fighting "the terrorists" in Iraq, a country that was not involved in 9/11 at all, and in the process killing over 4,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians? It's irrelevant that we can't afford to continue. How do you justify the reasoning that says it's ok to drag a third party into our "war on terrorism" just so that we don't have to fight on U.S. soil?