War is ugly.....life can be ugly.....I wish it were better.....but war is sometimes necessary....cause MAN is sometimes evil! Simple!
i disagree. the solutions to stopping man from being evil wont be found in bullets and bombs and drones. its the same argument used for the war on terrorism. the idea proposed is that terrorism can be stopped through force, militarism, violence, bombs and aggression. And thats just not the case.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,088
War is ugly.....life can be ugly.....I wish it were better.....but war is sometimes necessary....cause MAN is sometimes evil! Simple!
i disagree. the solutions to stopping man from being evil wont be found in bullets and bombs and drones. its the same argument used for the war on terrorism. the idea proposed is that terrorism can be stopped through force, militarism, violence, bombs and aggression. And thats just not the case.
Exactly- and history will prove that to be true over and over. War for religion, war for others resources, war on terrorism war on drugs. Fail, fail, fail, fail. War is evil and more war means more evil. War is like feeding the monster. This doesn't mean some things don't need to be broken down. But dismantling a broken system is not the same as war. If another country is doing something we find reprehensible, cutting off trade with that country and encouraging others to do the same will do more good than bombs.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
War is ugly.....life can be ugly.....I wish it were better.....but war is sometimes necessary....cause MAN is sometimes evil! Simple!
i disagree. the solutions to stopping man from being evil wont be found in bullets and bombs and drones. its the same argument used for the war on terrorism. the idea proposed is that terrorism can be stopped through force, militarism, violence, bombs and aggression. And thats just not the case.
Exactly- and history will prove that to be true over and over. War for religion, war for others resources, war on terrorism war on drugs. Fail, fail, fail, fail. War is evil and more war means more evil. War is like feeding the monster. This doesn't mean some things don't need to be broken down. But dismantling a broken system is not the same as war. If another country is doing something we find reprehensible, cutting off trade with that country and encouraging others to do the same will do more good than bombs.
While I agree with the majority of what you say, and feel its correct, cutting off trade, or an embargo, is also I would propose, a form of war and violence. Bin Laden in speeches and in print, spelled out why the muslim world had declared a fatwa on america, and why the 9/11 attacks happened. Actually he talked about this years prior, to people like John Miller and Peter Arnett, american journalists.
In it, Bin Laden, felt America didnt care about the muslim world or the middle east. There is quite a bit of evidence to support his conclusion.
One is this exchange with Leslie Stahl an american journalist, and Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Clinton
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
that statement is very indicative of the american position in this whole thing. And its one of the main reasons laid out, in print and in interviews, that Bin Laden gave for why 19 men flew planes into buildings on 9/11. Essentially Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, one of the most powerful women in the world, is stating the death of 500,000 iraqi children as a result of a u.s. embargo is ok, and justified. Makes complete sense why other countries would hate us. The death of 500,000 U.s. children would never be seen as justified or ok. But Albright, speaking for Clinton and the U.S. feels the death of just as many Iraqis is justified.
---
The reason I voted for Ron Paul, was his solution to a country "misbehaving", was to treat that country with dignity, respect, and engage in dialogue and diplomacy.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,088
i disagree. the solutions to stopping man from being evil wont be found in bullets and bombs and drones. its the same argument used for the war on terrorism. the idea proposed is that terrorism can be stopped through force, militarism, violence, bombs and aggression. And thats just not the case.
Exactly- and history will prove that to be true over and over. War for religion, war for others resources, war on terrorism war on drugs. Fail, fail, fail, fail. War is evil and more war means more evil. War is like feeding the monster. This doesn't mean some things don't need to be broken down. But dismantling a broken system is not the same as war. If another country is doing something we find reprehensible, cutting off trade with that country and encouraging others to do the same will do more good than bombs.
While I agree with the majority of what you say, and feel its correct, cutting off trade, or an embargo, is also I would propose, a form of war and violence. Bin Laden in speeches and in print, spelled out why the muslim world had declared a fatwa on america, and why the 9/11 attacks happened. Actually he talked about this years prior, to people like John Miller and Peter Arnett, american journalists.
In it, Bin Laden, felt America didnt care about the muslim world or the middle east. There is quite a bit of evidence to support his conclusion.
One is this exchange with Leslie Stahl an american journalist, and Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Clinton
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
that statement is very indicative of the american position in this whole thing. And its one of the main reasons laid out, in print and in interviews, that Bin Laden gave for why 19 men flew planes into buildings on 9/11. Essentially Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, one of the most powerful women in the world, is stating the death of 500,000 iraqi children as a result of a u.s. embargo is ok, and justified. Makes complete sense why other countries would hate us. The death of 500,000 U.s. children would never be seen as justified or ok. But Albright, speaking for Clinton and the U.S. feels the death of just as many Iraqis is justified.
---
The reason I voted for Ron Paul, was his solution to a country "misbehaving", was to treat that country with dignity, respect, and engage in dialogue and diplomacy.
Thank you for offering a different view point on this- one well worth considering. Also this:
"The reason I voted for Ron Paul, was his solution to a country "misbehaving", was to treat that country with dignity, respect, and engage in dialogue and diplomacy",
... is good food for thought. Thanks.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
Democracy Dies in Darkness- Washington Post
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,088
While I agree with the majority of what you say, and feel its correct, cutting off trade, or an embargo, is also I would propose, a form of war and violence. Bin Laden in speeches and in print, spelled out why the muslim world had declared a fatwa on america, and why the 9/11 attacks happened. Actually he talked about this years prior, to people like John Miller and Peter Arnett, american journalists.
In it, Bin Laden, felt America didnt care about the muslim world or the middle east. There is quite a bit of evidence to support his conclusion.
One is this exchange with Leslie Stahl an american journalist, and Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Clinton
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
that statement is very indicative of the american position in this whole thing. And its one of the main reasons laid out, in print and in interviews, that Bin Laden gave for why 19 men flew planes into buildings on 9/11. Essentially Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, one of the most powerful women in the world, is stating the death of 500,000 iraqi children as a result of a u.s. embargo is ok, and justified. Makes complete sense why other countries would hate us. The death of 500,000 U.s. children would never be seen as justified or ok. But Albright, speaking for Clinton and the U.S. feels the death of just as many Iraqis is justified.
---
The reason I voted for Ron Paul, was his solution to a country "misbehaving", was to treat that country with dignity, respect, and engage in dialogue and diplomacy.
Thank you for offering a different view point on this- one well worth considering. Also this:
"The reason I voted for Ron Paul, was his solution to a country "misbehaving", was to treat that country with dignity, respect, and engage in dialogue and diplomacy",
... is good food for thought. Thanks.
...and it didn't take a whole lot of thinking, musicismylife78, to come up with this thought about that piece of yours' and Mr. Paul's wisdom regarding "dignity, respect, and engage in dialogue and diplomacy":
I know I've experienced this here before on AMT and may others have as well. When two or more of us disagree strongly on something here, what gets posted often becomes a war of words. Rarely is anything resolved this way and, in fact, the discussion almost always breaks down to the point of useless bantering. When I and someone else here make an effort to be more respectful of each other, the dialogue becomes more useful and everyone involved is more apt to learn something or at least take the time to verify our own thinking.
I think we can learn a lot from that quote above and wouldn't it be great if our world leaders would do the same!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
War is ugly.....life can be ugly.....I wish it were better.....but war is sometimes necessary....cause MAN is sometimes evil! Simple!
i disagree. the solutions to stopping man from being evil wont be found in bullets and bombs and drones. its the same argument used for the war on terrorism. the idea proposed is that terrorism can be stopped through force, militarism, violence, bombs and aggression. And thats just not the case.
True. You can't stop someone's feelings of anger and resentment by dropping bombs on their country.
"Ed thanks the audience and says it has been a pleasure playing for them tonight. He goes on to talk about the “Wounded Warriors” project. He talks about the friends of his that are soldiers and says, “We can be anti-war but pro soldier. People try to turn it around and say it is unpatriotic. But it is clear that we are anti-unnecessary war and we want our soldiers to be taken care of and supported. He mentions all the soldiers that are wounded. He says that for every one soldier that is killed over seas another ten commit suicide."
Well, that is the thing I mostly disagree with when Ed talks politics. Talking about "unnecessary war" is saying that there is *necessary war*. That's my conclusion from his words. So, if this conclusion is right, I can say that being "anti-soldier" is a way of PEACE and being "pro soldier" is a way of promoting WAR. I mean, a soldier needs a reason to be a soldier right?* - I do not see any difference in WAR, when WAR is WAR because it is always WAR. "What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!" Does Eddie mean it? I start to doubt it. Defending this campaign against people who claim it is "unpatriotic" is something I do not understand. Because - and I already said it somewhere else in this forum (with different words, I know) - patriotism CAUSES WAR. - - - *There was a smart guy in german literature from last century, Kurt Tucholsky, who said this (not only under the impression of WW II): "Soldaten sind Mörder" - "Soldiers are murderers".
I was there when Eddie talked about this. So while I can see where you are drawing your conclusions from, what you are quoting from is just somebody's jotted down recollection. But to understand his points, I think you'd have to hear his message outright (and I apologize if this thread already posted a link to his live delievered message.)
Ed talked about how patriotism shouldn't be used to cheer the United States on as if it were a football team.
Me personally, I think that you have to understand that "soldier" is just a title, and underneath that title are so many young men, boys, just starting out on life. How many people had their thoughts together about what they wanted to do or be right out of high school?
It was a very sensitive discussion, and Ed walked that thin line, i thought, rather eloquently, in expressing his dismay about war while also being totally sensitive & respectful to the awful plight of the young men and women who were involved in it.
I think most people would agree that Ed thinks all wars are unnecessary...but again...he had to walk that thin line in between, which he did well. Saying that all wars are unnecessary really undercuts the sacrifices that the young men & women gave & did.....so he was merely being sensitive to all that, ya know?
"Ed thanks the audience and says it has been a pleasure playing for them tonight. He goes on to talk about the “Wounded Warriors” project. He talks about the friends of his that are soldiers and says, “We can be anti-war but pro soldier. People try to turn it around and say it is unpatriotic. But it is clear that we are anti-unnecessary war and we want our soldiers to be taken care of and supported. He mentions all the soldiers that are wounded. He says that for every one soldier that is killed over seas another ten commit suicide."
Well, that is the thing I mostly disagree with when Ed talks politics. Talking about "unnecessary war" is saying that there is *necessary war*. That's my conclusion from his words. So, if this conclusion is right, I can say that being "anti-soldier" is a way of PEACE and being "pro soldier" is a way of promoting WAR. I mean, a soldier needs a reason to be a soldier right?* - I do not see any difference in WAR, when WAR is WAR because it is always WAR. "What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!" Does Eddie mean it? I start to doubt it. Defending this campaign against people who claim it is "unpatriotic" is something I do not understand. Because - and I already said it somewhere else in this forum (with different words, I know) - patriotism CAUSES WAR. - - - *There was a smart guy in german literature from last century, Kurt Tucholsky, who said this (not only under the impression of WW II): "Soldaten sind Mörder" - "Soldiers are murderers".
I was there when Eddie talked about this. So while I can see where you are drawing your conclusions from, what you are quoting from is just somebody's jotted down recollection. But to understand his points, I think you'd have to hear his message outright (and I apologize if this thread already posted a link to his live delievered message.)
Ed talked about how patriotism shouldn't be used to cheer the United States on as if it were a football team.
Me personally, I think that you have to understand that "soldier" is just a title, and underneath that title are so many young men, boys, just starting out on life. How many people had their thoughts together about what they wanted to do or be right out of high school?
It was a very sensitive discussion, and Ed walked that thin line, i thought, rather eloquently, in expressing his dismay about war while also being totally sensitive & respectful to the awful plight of the young men and women who were involved in it.
I think most people would agree that Ed thinks all wars are unnecessary...but again...he had to walk that thin line in between, which he did well. Saying that all wars are unnecessary really undercuts the sacrifices that the young men & women gave & did.....so he was merely being sensitive to all that, ya know?
Well said Rollings...I was there too (sorry I didnt get a change to locate you gals) and agree with what you said.
Those Who Say "I Support the Troops" Should Just Stop, Out of Respect for the Troops …a letter from Michael Moore
Thursday, January 3rd, 2013
I don't support the troops, America, and neither do you. I am writing this as I have just learned of the suicides of two more of our active duty reservists who live here in the Traverse City, Michigan area. That brings the total number of soldier suicides (that I know of) in the past year, in this rural area, to four.
I am tired of the ruse we are playing on these brave citizens in our armed forces. And guess what -- a lot of these soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines see right through the bull**** of those words, "I support the troops!," spoken by Americans with such false sincerity -- false because our actions don't match our words. These young men and women sign up to risk their very lives to protect us -- and this is what they get in return:
1. They get sent off to wars that have NOTHING to do with defending America or saving our lives. They are used as pawns so that the military-industrial complex can make billions of dollars and the rich here can expand their empire. By "supporting the troops," that means I'm supposed to shut up, don't ask questions, do nothing to stop the madness, and sit by and watch thousands of them die? Well, I've done an awful lot to try and end this. But the only way you can honestly say you support the troops is to work night and day to get them out of these hell holes they've been sent to. And what have I done this week to bring the troops home? Nothing. So if I say "I support the troops," don't believe me -- I clearly don't support the troops because I've got more important things to do today, like return an iPhone that doesn't work and take my car in for a tune up.
2. While the troops we claim to "support" are serving their country, bankers who say they too "support the troops" foreclose on the actual homes of these soldiers and evict their families while they are overseas! Have I gone and stood in front of the sheriff's deputy as he is throwing a military family out of their home? No. And there's your proof that I don't "support the troops," because if I did, I would organize mass sit-ins to block the doors of these homes. Instead, I'm having Chilean sea bass tonight.
3. How many of you who say you "support the troops" have visited a VA hospital to bring aid and comfort to the sick and wounded? I haven't. How many of you have any clue what it's like to deal with the VA? I don't. Therefore, you would be safe to say that I don't "support the troops," and neither do you.
4. Who amongst you big enthusiastic "supporters of the troops" can tell me the approximate number of service women who have been raped while in the military? Answer: 19,000 (mostly) female troops are raped or sexually assaulted every year by fellow American troops. What have you or I done to bring these criminals to justice? What's that you say -- out of sight, out of mind? These women have suffered, and I've done nothing. So don't ever let me get away with telling you I "support the troops" because, sadly, I don't. And neither do you.
5. Help a homeless vet today? How 'bout yesterday? Last week? Last year? Ever? But I thought you "support the troops!"? The number of homeless veterans is staggering -- on any given night, at least 60,000 veterans are sleeping on the streets of the country that proudly "supports the troops." This is disgraceful and shameful, isn't it? And it exposes all those "troop supporters" who always vote against social programs that would help these veterans. Tonight there are at least 12,700 Iraq/Afghanistan veterans homeless and sleeping on the street. I've never lent a helping hand to one of the many vets I've seen sleeping on the street. I can't bear to look, and I walk past them very quickly. That's called not "supporting the troops," which, I guess, I don't -- and neither do you.
6. And you know, the beautiful thing about all this "support" you and I have been giving the troops -- they feel this love and support so much, a record number of them are killing themselves every single week. In fact, there are now more soldiers killing themselves than soldiers being killed in combat (323 suicides in 2012 through November vs. about 210 combat deaths). Yes, you are more likely to die by your own hand in the United States military than by al Qaeda or the Taliban. And an estimated eighteen veterans kill themselves each day, or one in five of all U.S. suicides -- though no one really knows because we don't bother to keep track. Now, that's what I call support! These troops are really feeling the love, people! Lemme hear you say it again: "I support the troops!" Louder! "I SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!" There, that's better. I'm sure they heard us. Don't forget to fly our flag, wear your flag lapel pin, and never, ever let a service member pass you by without saying, "Thank you for your service!" I'm sure that's all they need to keep from putting a bullet in their heads. Do your best to keep your "support" up for the troops because, God knows, I certainly can't any longer.
I don't "support the troops" or any of those other hollow and hypocritical platitudes uttered by Republicans and frightened Democrats. Here's what I do support: I support them coming home. I support them being treated well. I support peace, and I beg any young person reading this who's thinking of joining the armed forces to please reconsider. Our war department has done little to show you they won't recklessly put your young life in harm's way for a cause that has nothing to do with what you signed up for. They will not help you once they've used you and spit you back into society. If you're a woman, they will not protect you from rapists in their ranks. And because you have a conscience and you know right from wrong, you do not want yourself being used to kill civilians in other countries who never did anything to hurt us. We are currently involved in at least a half-dozen military actions around the world. Don't become the next statistic so that General Electric can post another record profit -- while paying no taxes -- taxes that otherwise would be paying for the artificial leg that they've kept you waiting for months to receive.
I support you, and will try to do more to be there for you. And the best way you can support me -- and the ideals our country says it believes in -- is to get out of the military as soon as you can and never look back.
And please, next time some "supporter of the troops" says to you with that concerned look on their face, "I thank you for your service," you have my permission to punch their lights out (figuratively speaking, of course).
(There is something I've done to support the troops -- other than help lead the effort to stop these senseless wars. At the movie theater I run in Michigan, I became the first person in town to institute an affirmative action plan for hiring returning Iraq/Afghanistan vets. I am working to get more businesses in town to join with me in this effort to find jobs for these returning soldiers. I also let all service members in to the movies for free, every day.)
Sorry, but he comes off as pompous with that. I don't need him declaring that others aren't sincere in their good thoughts and goodwill. Who is he to say so?
I have visited the local VA, and have also given what I can - monetarily and foodwise - to veteran organizations and veterans themselves.
Many, many others have done the same, and more.
Moore sounds like he's on a ridiculously high horse, megaphone in hand, talking down to us - the little misguided people.
Sorry, but he comes off as pompous with that. I don't need him declaring that others aren't sincere in their good thoughts and goodwill. Who is he to say so?
I have visited the local VA, and have also given what I can - monetarily and foodwise - to veteran organizations and veterans themselves.
Many, many others have done the same, and more.
Moore sounds like he's on a ridiculously high horse, megaphone in hand, talking down to us - the little misguided people.
Many people just don't get it though. If guys like this didn't keep hammering away at the general public that essentially have their heads up their asses... awareness is never generated.
You don't need his preaching from privilege, but you must admit- many do. He's doing more good than bad.
Sorry, but he comes off as pompous with that. I don't need him declaring that others aren't sincere in their good thoughts and goodwill. Who is he to say so?
I have visited the local VA, and have also given what I can - monetarily and foodwise - to veteran organizations and veterans themselves.
Many, many others have done the same, and more.
Moore sounds like he's on a ridiculously high horse, megaphone in hand, talking down to us - the little misguided people.
Many people just don't get it though. If guys like this didn't keep hammering away at the general public that essentially have their heads up their asses... awareness is never generated.
You don't need his preaching from privilege, but you must admit- many do. He's doing more good than bad.
"And please, next time some "supporter of the troops" says to you with that concerned look on their face, "I thank you for your service," you have my permission to punch their lights out (figuratively speaking, of course)."
Those Who Say "I Support the Troops" Should Just Stop, Out of Respect for the Troops …a letter from Michael Moore
Thursday, January 3rd, 2013
I don't support the troops, America, and neither do you. I am writing this as I have just learned of the suicides of two more of our active duty reservists who live here in the Traverse City, Michigan area. That brings the total number of soldier suicides (that I know of) in the past year, in this rural area, to four.
I am tired of the ruse we are playing on these brave citizens in our armed forces. And guess what -- a lot of these soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines see right through the bull**** of those words, "I support the troops!," spoken by Americans with such false sincerity -- false because our actions don't match our words. These young men and women sign up to risk their very lives to protect us -- and this is what they get in return:
1. They get sent off to wars that have NOTHING to do with defending America or saving our lives. They are used as pawns so that the military-industrial complex can make billions of dollars and the rich here can expand their empire. By "supporting the troops," that means I'm supposed to shut up, don't ask questions, do nothing to stop the madness, and sit by and watch thousands of them die? Well, I've done an awful lot to try and end this. But the only way you can honestly say you support the troops is to work night and day to get them out of these hell holes they've been sent to. And what have I done this week to bring the troops home? Nothing. So if I say "I support the troops," don't believe me -- I clearly don't support the troops because I've got more important things to do today, like return an iPhone that doesn't work and take my car in for a tune up.
2. While the troops we claim to "support" are serving their country, bankers who say they too "support the troops" foreclose on the actual homes of these soldiers and evict their families while they are overseas! Have I gone and stood in front of the sheriff's deputy as he is throwing a military family out of their home? No. And there's your proof that I don't "support the troops," because if I did, I would organize mass sit-ins to block the doors of these homes. Instead, I'm having Chilean sea bass tonight.
3. How many of you who say you "support the troops" have visited a VA hospital to bring aid and comfort to the sick and wounded? I haven't. How many of you have any clue what it's like to deal with the VA? I don't. Therefore, you would be safe to say that I don't "support the troops," and neither do you.
4. Who amongst you big enthusiastic "supporters of the troops" can tell me the approximate number of service women who have been raped while in the military? Answer: 19,000 (mostly) female troops are raped or sexually assaulted every year by fellow American troops. What have you or I done to bring these criminals to justice? What's that you say -- out of sight, out of mind? These women have suffered, and I've done nothing. So don't ever let me get away with telling you I "support the troops" because, sadly, I don't. And neither do you.
5. Help a homeless vet today? How 'bout yesterday? Last week? Last year? Ever? But I thought you "support the troops!"? The number of homeless veterans is staggering -- on any given night, at least 60,000 veterans are sleeping on the streets of the country that proudly "supports the troops." This is disgraceful and shameful, isn't it? And it exposes all those "troop supporters" who always vote against social programs that would help these veterans. Tonight there are at least 12,700 Iraq/Afghanistan veterans homeless and sleeping on the street. I've never lent a helping hand to one of the many vets I've seen sleeping on the street. I can't bear to look, and I walk past them very quickly. That's called not "supporting the troops," which, I guess, I don't -- and neither do you.
6. And you know, the beautiful thing about all this "support" you and I have been giving the troops -- they feel this love and support so much, a record number of them are killing themselves every single week. In fact, there are now more soldiers killing themselves than soldiers being killed in combat (323 suicides in 2012 through November vs. about 210 combat deaths). Yes, you are more likely to die by your own hand in the United States military than by al Qaeda or the Taliban. And an estimated eighteen veterans kill themselves each day, or one in five of all U.S. suicides -- though no one really knows because we don't bother to keep track. Now, that's what I call support! These troops are really feeling the love, people! Lemme hear you say it again: "I support the troops!" Louder! "I SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!" There, that's better. I'm sure they heard us. Don't forget to fly our flag, wear your flag lapel pin, and never, ever let a service member pass you by without saying, "Thank you for your service!" I'm sure that's all they need to keep from putting a bullet in their heads. Do your best to keep your "support" up for the troops because, God knows, I certainly can't any longer.
I don't "support the troops" or any of those other hollow and hypocritical platitudes uttered by Republicans and frightened Democrats. Here's what I do support: I support them coming home. I support them being treated well. I support peace, and I beg any young person reading this who's thinking of joining the armed forces to please reconsider. Our war department has done little to show you they won't recklessly put your young life in harm's way for a cause that has nothing to do with what you signed up for. They will not help you once they've used you and spit you back into society. If you're a woman, they will not protect you from rapists in their ranks. And because you have a conscience and you know right from wrong, you do not want yourself being used to kill civilians in other countries who never did anything to hurt us. We are currently involved in at least a half-dozen military actions around the world. Don't become the next statistic so that General Electric can post another record profit -- while paying no taxes -- taxes that otherwise would be paying for the artificial leg that they've kept you waiting for months to receive.
I support you, and will try to do more to be there for you. And the best way you can support me -- and the ideals our country says it believes in -- is to get out of the military as soon as you can and never look back.
And please, next time some "supporter of the troops" says to you with that concerned look on their face, "I thank you for your service," you have my permission to punch their lights out (figuratively speaking, of course).
(There is something I've done to support the troops -- other than help lead the effort to stop these senseless wars. At the movie theater I run in Michigan, I became the first person in town to institute an affirmative action plan for hiring returning Iraq/Afghanistan vets. I am working to get more businesses in town to join with me in this effort to find jobs for these returning soldiers. I also let all service members in to the movies for free, every day.)
Yours,
Michael Moore
You lost me at Michael Moore. It might as well be a letter from Sean Hannity. They are two sides of the same coin.
If there were no soldiers the governments of the world would create soldiers once they found something to start a war over, so to talk about there being no war if there is no soldiers is kind of nonsensical. It's not a chicken and the egg conundrum. War very clearly comes before soldiers, not the other way around.
I do believe that there are necessary wars and unnecessary wars. Of course, a necessary war would always be one that is started by some power that must not be able to win control over others because it would mean that innocent people would suffer in some way, and that the freedom of others would be compromised. It would be nice to say that the actions of those who want to take away the freedom and welfare of others are unnecessary, so that means it's an unnecessary war, but I don't think that makes logical sense.
I don't view WWII as unnecessary at all. And certainly any nation fighting a war to defend someone from invading and taking over is a necessary war. And I would actually say that MOST civil wars are necessary. Of course we want to pick sides in all cases... It's interesting to think of the Nazis as thinking WWII was as necessary as the allies thought it was, or that the supporters of crazy war lords in Africa think that a civil war that their actions initiate feels necessary to them... And, unbelievably, there are probably still people who thought that the US invasion on Iraq was necessary too... But probably not anyone in the government. I think they knew perfectly well that that was an unnecessary war - they just didn't care.
In the end, someone or some people think a war is necessary in ALL cases of war. :think: ... My brain is not working very well this week. I am not even sure if I just contradicted myself in this post.
Anyway, what it really comes down to is that whether or not a war is necessary is NOT a matter of fact, but opinion.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
You lost me at Michael Moore. It might as well be a letter from Sean Hannity. They are two sides of the same coin.
When I first read the "I Support The Troops" letter, I actually missed that it was written by Michael Moore. I was enjoying the piece. Then I got to the end, saw the author, and figured that most people would discredit it based on who wrote it.
I happen to enjoy Michael Moore's work, but it's usually pretty biased, so I understand people having their hackles raised every time they see his name. Doesn't mean his points should be completely discounted.
I've seen plenty of people who fit Moore's description of troop supporters, myself included. In fact, I'll say I support the troops just to avoid conflict with pro-military types. Ironic, eh?
Michael Moore is from an area where joining the military is a viable option for creating a 'career'. I totally get that. I come from a town where I'm sure more students take the ASVAB than the SAT exam. Joining the military is part of the culture.
Once upon a time, you could join the military, see the world and get some college money. All without killing a single soul. This is the military my dad ended up in. But, it is not today's military.
Today, kids are signing up to kill, but they get food, shelter and clothing in return. When you come from a place with no economy, it's easy to see joining the military as a viable option. Hey, why not translate your low economic status into national heroism?
I'd like to see us provide kids with a better option for a future.
And, I don't want to pick apart any positive of Moore's, but creating an affirmative action plan for hiring veterans only creates an incentive to become a veteran. I know people(pacifists) in the Puget Sound region frustrated with needing military experience to become police officers or firefighters. I don't think it's a good idea to spread this trend.
Comments
i disagree. the solutions to stopping man from being evil wont be found in bullets and bombs and drones. its the same argument used for the war on terrorism. the idea proposed is that terrorism can be stopped through force, militarism, violence, bombs and aggression. And thats just not the case.
Exactly- and history will prove that to be true over and over. War for religion, war for others resources, war on terrorism war on drugs. Fail, fail, fail, fail. War is evil and more war means more evil. War is like feeding the monster. This doesn't mean some things don't need to be broken down. But dismantling a broken system is not the same as war. If another country is doing something we find reprehensible, cutting off trade with that country and encouraging others to do the same will do more good than bombs.
While I agree with the majority of what you say, and feel its correct, cutting off trade, or an embargo, is also I would propose, a form of war and violence. Bin Laden in speeches and in print, spelled out why the muslim world had declared a fatwa on america, and why the 9/11 attacks happened. Actually he talked about this years prior, to people like John Miller and Peter Arnett, american journalists.
In it, Bin Laden, felt America didnt care about the muslim world or the middle east. There is quite a bit of evidence to support his conclusion.
One is this exchange with Leslie Stahl an american journalist, and Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Clinton
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
that statement is very indicative of the american position in this whole thing. And its one of the main reasons laid out, in print and in interviews, that Bin Laden gave for why 19 men flew planes into buildings on 9/11. Essentially Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, one of the most powerful women in the world, is stating the death of 500,000 iraqi children as a result of a u.s. embargo is ok, and justified. Makes complete sense why other countries would hate us. The death of 500,000 U.s. children would never be seen as justified or ok. But Albright, speaking for Clinton and the U.S. feels the death of just as many Iraqis is justified.
---
The reason I voted for Ron Paul, was his solution to a country "misbehaving", was to treat that country with dignity, respect, and engage in dialogue and diplomacy.
Thank you for offering a different view point on this- one well worth considering. Also this:
"The reason I voted for Ron Paul, was his solution to a country "misbehaving", was to treat that country with dignity, respect, and engage in dialogue and diplomacy",
... is good food for thought. Thanks.
...and it didn't take a whole lot of thinking, musicismylife78, to come up with this thought about that piece of yours' and Mr. Paul's wisdom regarding "dignity, respect, and engage in dialogue and diplomacy":
I know I've experienced this here before on AMT and may others have as well. When two or more of us disagree strongly on something here, what gets posted often becomes a war of words. Rarely is anything resolved this way and, in fact, the discussion almost always breaks down to the point of useless bantering. When I and someone else here make an effort to be more respectful of each other, the dialogue becomes more useful and everyone involved is more apt to learn something or at least take the time to verify our own thinking.
I think we can learn a lot from that quote above and wouldn't it be great if our world leaders would do the same!
True. You can't stop someone's feelings of anger and resentment by dropping bombs on their country.
this is an alright theory of international relations and how things are, although its more descriptive the predictive.
Question...the day Saddam Hussein used Sarin gas on his people, we didnt go bombing him. You say he's not evil?
Question....If Iran nukes Israel, and takes out half of it, what do you do?
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
All people need to do more on every level!
I was there when Eddie talked about this. So while I can see where you are drawing your conclusions from, what you are quoting from is just somebody's jotted down recollection. But to understand his points, I think you'd have to hear his message outright (and I apologize if this thread already posted a link to his live delievered message.)
Ed talked about how patriotism shouldn't be used to cheer the United States on as if it were a football team.
Me personally, I think that you have to understand that "soldier" is just a title, and underneath that title are so many young men, boys, just starting out on life. How many people had their thoughts together about what they wanted to do or be right out of high school?
It was a very sensitive discussion, and Ed walked that thin line, i thought, rather eloquently, in expressing his dismay about war while also being totally sensitive & respectful to the awful plight of the young men and women who were involved in it.
I think most people would agree that Ed thinks all wars are unnecessary...but again...he had to walk that thin line in between, which he did well. Saying that all wars are unnecessary really undercuts the sacrifices that the young men & women gave & did.....so he was merely being sensitive to all that, ya know?
Well said Rollings...I was there too (sorry I didnt get a change to locate you gals) and agree with what you said.
Thursday, January 3rd, 2013
I don't support the troops, America, and neither do you. I am writing this as I have just learned of the suicides of two more of our active duty reservists who live here in the Traverse City, Michigan area. That brings the total number of soldier suicides (that I know of) in the past year, in this rural area, to four.
I am tired of the ruse we are playing on these brave citizens in our armed forces. And guess what -- a lot of these soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines see right through the bull**** of those words, "I support the troops!," spoken by Americans with such false sincerity -- false because our actions don't match our words. These young men and women sign up to risk their very lives to protect us -- and this is what they get in return:
1. They get sent off to wars that have NOTHING to do with defending America or saving our lives. They are used as pawns so that the military-industrial complex can make billions of dollars and the rich here can expand their empire. By "supporting the troops," that means I'm supposed to shut up, don't ask questions, do nothing to stop the madness, and sit by and watch thousands of them die? Well, I've done an awful lot to try and end this. But the only way you can honestly say you support the troops is to work night and day to get them out of these hell holes they've been sent to. And what have I done this week to bring the troops home? Nothing. So if I say "I support the troops," don't believe me -- I clearly don't support the troops because I've got more important things to do today, like return an iPhone that doesn't work and take my car in for a tune up.
2. While the troops we claim to "support" are serving their country, bankers who say they too "support the troops" foreclose on the actual homes of these soldiers and evict their families while they are overseas! Have I gone and stood in front of the sheriff's deputy as he is throwing a military family out of their home? No. And there's your proof that I don't "support the troops," because if I did, I would organize mass sit-ins to block the doors of these homes. Instead, I'm having Chilean sea bass tonight.
3. How many of you who say you "support the troops" have visited a VA hospital to bring aid and comfort to the sick and wounded? I haven't. How many of you have any clue what it's like to deal with the VA? I don't. Therefore, you would be safe to say that I don't "support the troops," and neither do you.
4. Who amongst you big enthusiastic "supporters of the troops" can tell me the approximate number of service women who have been raped while in the military? Answer: 19,000 (mostly) female troops are raped or sexually assaulted every year by fellow American troops. What have you or I done to bring these criminals to justice? What's that you say -- out of sight, out of mind? These women have suffered, and I've done nothing. So don't ever let me get away with telling you I "support the troops" because, sadly, I don't. And neither do you.
5. Help a homeless vet today? How 'bout yesterday? Last week? Last year? Ever? But I thought you "support the troops!"? The number of homeless veterans is staggering -- on any given night, at least 60,000 veterans are sleeping on the streets of the country that proudly "supports the troops." This is disgraceful and shameful, isn't it? And it exposes all those "troop supporters" who always vote against social programs that would help these veterans. Tonight there are at least 12,700 Iraq/Afghanistan veterans homeless and sleeping on the street. I've never lent a helping hand to one of the many vets I've seen sleeping on the street. I can't bear to look, and I walk past them very quickly. That's called not "supporting the troops," which, I guess, I don't -- and neither do you.
6. And you know, the beautiful thing about all this "support" you and I have been giving the troops -- they feel this love and support so much, a record number of them are killing themselves every single week. In fact, there are now more soldiers killing themselves than soldiers being killed in combat (323 suicides in 2012 through November vs. about 210 combat deaths). Yes, you are more likely to die by your own hand in the United States military than by al Qaeda or the Taliban. And an estimated eighteen veterans kill themselves each day, or one in five of all U.S. suicides -- though no one really knows because we don't bother to keep track. Now, that's what I call support! These troops are really feeling the love, people! Lemme hear you say it again: "I support the troops!" Louder! "I SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!" There, that's better. I'm sure they heard us. Don't forget to fly our flag, wear your flag lapel pin, and never, ever let a service member pass you by without saying, "Thank you for your service!" I'm sure that's all they need to keep from putting a bullet in their heads. Do your best to keep your "support" up for the troops because, God knows, I certainly can't any longer.
I don't "support the troops" or any of those other hollow and hypocritical platitudes uttered by Republicans and frightened Democrats. Here's what I do support: I support them coming home. I support them being treated well. I support peace, and I beg any young person reading this who's thinking of joining the armed forces to please reconsider. Our war department has done little to show you they won't recklessly put your young life in harm's way for a cause that has nothing to do with what you signed up for. They will not help you once they've used you and spit you back into society. If you're a woman, they will not protect you from rapists in their ranks. And because you have a conscience and you know right from wrong, you do not want yourself being used to kill civilians in other countries who never did anything to hurt us. We are currently involved in at least a half-dozen military actions around the world. Don't become the next statistic so that General Electric can post another record profit -- while paying no taxes -- taxes that otherwise would be paying for the artificial leg that they've kept you waiting for months to receive.
I support you, and will try to do more to be there for you. And the best way you can support me -- and the ideals our country says it believes in -- is to get out of the military as soon as you can and never look back.
And please, next time some "supporter of the troops" says to you with that concerned look on their face, "I thank you for your service," you have my permission to punch their lights out (figuratively speaking, of course).
(There is something I've done to support the troops -- other than help lead the effort to stop these senseless wars. At the movie theater I run in Michigan, I became the first person in town to institute an affirmative action plan for hiring returning Iraq/Afghanistan vets. I am working to get more businesses in town to join with me in this effort to find jobs for these returning soldiers. I also let all service members in to the movies for free, every day.)
Yours,
Michael Moore
I have visited the local VA, and have also given what I can - monetarily and foodwise - to veteran organizations and veterans themselves.
Many, many others have done the same, and more.
Moore sounds like he's on a ridiculously high horse, megaphone in hand, talking down to us - the little misguided people.
Many people just don't get it though. If guys like this didn't keep hammering away at the general public that essentially have their heads up their asses... awareness is never generated.
You don't need his preaching from privilege, but you must admit- many do. He's doing more good than bad.
That's generating awareness?
You lost me at Michael Moore. It might as well be a letter from Sean Hannity. They are two sides of the same coin.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I do believe that there are necessary wars and unnecessary wars. Of course, a necessary war would always be one that is started by some power that must not be able to win control over others because it would mean that innocent people would suffer in some way, and that the freedom of others would be compromised. It would be nice to say that the actions of those who want to take away the freedom and welfare of others are unnecessary, so that means it's an unnecessary war, but I don't think that makes logical sense.
I don't view WWII as unnecessary at all. And certainly any nation fighting a war to defend someone from invading and taking over is a necessary war. And I would actually say that MOST civil wars are necessary. Of course we want to pick sides in all cases... It's interesting to think of the Nazis as thinking WWII was as necessary as the allies thought it was, or that the supporters of crazy war lords in Africa think that a civil war that their actions initiate feels necessary to them... And, unbelievably, there are probably still people who thought that the US invasion on Iraq was necessary too... But probably not anyone in the government. I think they knew perfectly well that that was an unnecessary war - they just didn't care.
In the end, someone or some people think a war is necessary in ALL cases of war. :think: ... My brain is not working very well this week. I am not even sure if I just contradicted myself in this post.
Anyway, what it really comes down to is that whether or not a war is necessary is NOT a matter of fact, but opinion.
That's original.
When I first read the "I Support The Troops" letter, I actually missed that it was written by Michael Moore. I was enjoying the piece. Then I got to the end, saw the author, and figured that most people would discredit it based on who wrote it.
I happen to enjoy Michael Moore's work, but it's usually pretty biased, so I understand people having their hackles raised every time they see his name. Doesn't mean his points should be completely discounted.
I've seen plenty of people who fit Moore's description of troop supporters, myself included. In fact, I'll say I support the troops just to avoid conflict with pro-military types. Ironic, eh?
Michael Moore is from an area where joining the military is a viable option for creating a 'career'. I totally get that. I come from a town where I'm sure more students take the ASVAB than the SAT exam. Joining the military is part of the culture.
Once upon a time, you could join the military, see the world and get some college money. All without killing a single soul. This is the military my dad ended up in. But, it is not today's military.
Today, kids are signing up to kill, but they get food, shelter and clothing in return. When you come from a place with no economy, it's easy to see joining the military as a viable option. Hey, why not translate your low economic status into national heroism?
I'd like to see us provide kids with a better option for a future.
And, I don't want to pick apart any positive of Moore's, but creating an affirmative action plan for hiring veterans only creates an incentive to become a veteran. I know people(pacifists) in the Puget Sound region frustrated with needing military experience to become police officers or firefighters. I don't think it's a good idea to spread this trend.
And true.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."