24 dead american soldiers

musicismylife78

I dont know what to do to make you happy frankly.

I turned on my computer. Scanned the news, and came across the headline that 25 american soldiers died yesterday. i was upset about it. I posted my brief response to that. I dont think I was wrong in doing that. Its what the CNN headline said, and as far as I know its truthful. It hasnt been disputed.

Although its nice to have a fellow pacifist here on the board, I find it rather annoying that from the beggining, your response to my post wasnt "gee thats horrible that people died today but I wish you would also talk about Iraqis"

No from the first post, your tone was acusatory. You seemed to suggest you knew me and my intensions.

As I said before you know as well as I do, the nightly news wont focus ont he iraqi deaths. Because as I said we dont do body counts of Iraqis. Thats wrong.

I reacted to a headline, I am against this war because of the lives lost on both sides. I dont really know how much more clear I could have been.

musicismylife78

you also seem to think I show bias and favortism. Its like you wont admit your wrong. I told you I posted in the past expressing horror at the lost Iraqi lives. And that I protested against the lost iraqi lives. What more can I do to make you happy? What do you want?

Just because I dont post anger over the deaths of Iraqis in every SINGLE of my posts doesnt mean anything.

You were wrong to attack me.

know1

Cheguevara6 wrote:

you also seem to think I show bias and favortism. Its like you wont admit your wrong. I told you I posted in the past expressing horror at the lost Iraqi lives. And that I protested against the lost iraqi lives. What more can I do to make you happy? What do you want?

Just because I dont post anger over the deaths of Iraqis in every SINGLE of my posts doesnt mean anything.

You were wrong to attack me.

Boo Hoo.

When I see anyone anywhere give "American" lives as a reason for anything about Iraq - whether that's in support of continuing the occupation or for bringing troops home - I find it sad because they are either ignorant or a racist or both.

know1

You said you read the news and reacted.

What I'm saying is that you might do portray your position a little more effectively if you'll do less reacting and more thinking.

musicismylife78

and when I see someone so blind they dont recognize they made a mistake and judge someone falsely, I also consider that disturbing, gross, and sick.

Anyone, pacifists included, who isnt upset by 25 american soldiers dead, is a sadist, and someone who obviously isnt a pacifist but rather a supporter of the deaths of innocent people. I dont know any pacifist who fits that definition. Gandhi and MLK didnt think the deaths of Americans was justified. And they also were for recognizing the deaths of other people in other countries as well.

Anyone who thinks the death of 25 american soldiers is not something profoundly disturbing, then that person obviously as I said enjoys the suffering of others and enjoys death and misery. I have no compassion for those people. None whatsoever. People like Bush, Cheney, and apparently also someone here too!

know1

Cheguevara6 wrote:

and when I see someone so blind they dont recognize they made a mistake and judge someone falsely, I also consider that disturbing, gross, and sick.

Anyone, pacifists included, who isnt upset by 25 american soldiers dead, is a sadist, and someone who obviously isnt a pacifist but rather a supporter of the deaths of innocent people. I dont know any pacifist who fits that definition. Gandhi and MLK didnt think the deaths of Americans was justified. And they also were for recognizing the deaths of other people in other countries as well.

Anyone who thinks the death of 25 american soldiers is not something profoundly disturbing, then that person obviously as I said enjoys the suffering of others and enjoys death and misery. I have no compassion for those people. None whatsoever. People like Bush, Cheney, and apparently also someone here too!

So then why do you have compassion for people who volunteered to go and kill people - i.e. the military?

musicismylife78

Why are you a pacifist if you delight in the death of american troops. I am against ALL KILLING. ALL KILLING. You dont seem to be the same. Thats NOT A PACIFIST! Hate to break it to you buddy. I know lots of pacifists, and you my friend arent one. A pacifist cares about the death of all humans. You only care about Iraqis. And while I mourn the deaths of Iraqis, Americans are dying too. Both deserve recognition and both deaths are wrong.

What pacifist delights in the death of Americans? What pacifist thinks only people in foreign lands are deserving of mourning when mass death occurs?

know1

Here's the deal.

Even though I opposed the war (and all wars), I'm at least open to the possibility that the situation today might be best served by the military continuing to occupy.

I mean, if someone is so opposed to war that they would blindly demand that troops come home even if that would increase the frequency of deaths in Irag, then they're not really a pacifist in my book.

It's OK to have opposed the war, but recognize that the situation that presents itself now might require military action to minimize killing.

blackredyellow

Cheguevara6 wrote:

and when I see someone so blind they dont recognize they made a mistake and judge someone falsely, I also consider that disturbing, gross, and sick.

Anyone, pacifists included, who isnt upset by 25 american soldiers dead, is a sadist, and someone who obviously isnt a pacifist but rather a supporter of the deaths of innocent people. I dont know any pacifist who fits that definition. Gandhi and MLK didnt think the deaths of Americans was justified. And they also were for recognizing the deaths of other people in other countries as well.

Anyone who thinks the death of 25 american soldiers is not something profoundly disturbing, then that person obviously as I said enjoys the suffering of others and enjoys death and misery. I have no compassion for those people. None whatsoever. People like Bush, Cheney, and apparently also someone here too!

I think the point that know1 is trying to make is more about you saying to bring them home. from your original post, you seemed to use the example of 25 US troops dying to support the idea of bringing them home.

The next question is that does bringing the troops home right now help prevent more overall deaths or cause more?

A logical argument can be made that by bringing the troops home now that more people will die then if we keep them there.

musicismylife78

the same reason Gandhi had compassion for those who harmed him and his people and the same reason MLK didnt say to his followers to go and murder all whites and to inflict pain onto whites. He said to have compassion for your enemy. Jesus also said that. So did Gandhi. Thats a pacifist. You my friend arent one. Your something else thats for sure, but you aint a pacifist.

Pacifism is about having compassion for your enemies and loving your enemy. The idea that love conquers all.

So hating and wanting to kill american troops does nothing. Its counterproductive.

Bacis Pacifism 101 here buddy. This aint Marxist theorietics here, its basic info. Obviously you claim to be things your not

know1

Cheguevara6 wrote:

Why are you a pacifist if you delight in the death of american troops. I am against ALL KILLING. ALL KILLING. You dont seem to be the same. Thats NOT A PACIFIST! Hate to break it to you buddy. I know lots of pacifists, and you my friend arent one. A pacifist cares about the death of all humans. You only care about Iraqis. And while I mourn the deaths of Iraqis, Americans are dying too. Both deserve recognition and both deaths are wrong.

What pacifist delights in the death of Americans? What pacifist thinks only people in foreign lands are deserving of mourning when mass death occurs?

I am against all killing as well. I have never said that I delighted in the death of anyone. I'm not sure where you got this.

know1

Cheguevara6 wrote:

the same reason Gandhi had compassion for those who harmed him and his people and the same reason MLK didnt say to his followers to go and murder all whites and to inflict pain onto whites. He said to have compassion for your enemy. Jesus also said that. So did Gandhi. Thats a pacifist. You my friend arent one. Your something else thats for sure, but you aint a pacifist.

Pacifism is about having compassion for your enemies and loving your enemy. The idea that love conquers all.

So hating and wanting to kill american troops does nothing. Its counterproductive.

Bacis Pacifism 101 here buddy. This aint Marxist theorietics here, its basic info. Obviously you claim to be things your not

Umm...you're way off base here. I do have compassion for all and do not want anyone murdered. I've said before that I wouldn't even defend myself if attacked.

Apparently your reading comprehension is quite poor. When I ask the question: How can YOU have compassion for those who volunteered to go kill people - it does NOT mean that I delight in them being killed.

musicismylife78

i dont think what u.s. soldiers are doing is right, but I dont applaud at their deaths like you seem to do. 25 dead in iraq is wrong on either side.

I just read the news, obviously to you I have to each article, post my feelings about Iraqis. Too much labor involved for me. I posted my reaction and obviously you disagree. American lives are worthless. Be a man or woman and admit it. I told you my truth, tell me your truth! You dont have compassion for American deaths.

sapperskunk

Cheguevara6 wrote:

Why are you a pacifist if you delight in the death of american troops. I am against ALL KILLING. ALL KILLING. You dont seem to be the same. Thats NOT A PACIFIST! Hate to break it to you buddy. I know lots of pacifists, and you my friend arent one. A pacifist cares about the death of all humans. You only care about Iraqis. And while I mourn the deaths of Iraqis, Americans are dying too. Both deserve recognition and both deaths are wrong.

What pacifist delights in the death of Americans? What pacifist thinks only people in foreign lands are deserving of mourning when mass death occurs?

Che, I'm not interested in getting in this fight, I would like to say that I'm impressed about your concern over human life. If it's legit?

Here's a fun quote from the real Che Guevara. It kind of makes your "I'm a pacifist" statement dilluted when you so passionatley support someone like that.

"Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!"

musicismylife78

i told you how I have compassion. Because thats the definition of pacifist. Obviously your history lessons were spent smoking in the bathroom. Pacifists have compassion for their enemies. Plain and simple. Thats how I have compassion

gimmesometruth27

everyone always says "if we leave, then there will be chaos". from what i read in the paper everyday, it sounds like what is going on there everyday is chaos.

know1

Cheguevara6 wrote:

i dont think what u.s. soldiers are doing is right, but I dont applaud at their deaths like you seem to do. 25 dead in iraq is wrong on either side.

I just read the news, obviously to you I have to each article, post my feelings about Iraqis. Too much labor involved for me. I posted my reaction and obviously you disagree. American lives are worthless. Be a man or woman and admit it. I told you my truth, tell me your truth! You dont have compassion for American deaths.

I do not applaud anyone's death ever. You have apparently come up with that on your own.

(you seem to have too much anger to be a pacifist anyway...)

know1

Cheguevara6 wrote:

i told you how I have compassion. Because thats the definition of pacifist. Obviously your history lessons were spent smoking in the bathroom. Pacifists have compassion for their enemies. Plain and simple. Thats how I have compassion

So why won't you answer the question that if it could be shown that bringing home American troops would increase the frequency of killing, would you still call for it?

musicismylife78

so why did you insert yourself in the fight then?

MLK cheated on his wife. Mother Theresa felt those who could be "saved" by her had to accept jesus, and they had to refuse anastesia (sorry bad spelling).

No person is perfect and I never claimed che was. But his willingness to give his life for his cause is admirable. And I think his vision of a socialist future is also admirable.

But I condemn his violent tendencies.

Again, today this board seems to be filled with ignorant people. Just because I have his name as a screename doesnt mean I think he is a god.

know1

Cheguevara6 wrote:

so why did you insert yourself in the fight then?

MLK cheated on his wife. Mother Theresa felt those who could be "saved" by her had to accept jesus, and they had to refuse anastesia (sorry bad spelling).

No person is perfect and I never claimed che was. But his willingness to give his life for his cause is admirable. And I think his vision of a socialist future is also admirable.

But I condemn his violent tendencies.

Again, today this board seems to be filled with ignorant people. Just because I have his name as a screename doesnt mean I think he is a god.

I got in this discussion because, even though at the core I agree with you that the war was wrong and I oppose all wars, I am not closed minded to the fact that situations change and for the set of circumstances we have today, it might be the best course of action to let the military continue to occupy and keep the amount of killing lower.

You repeated refuse to say whether you would support leaving the military there if it could be shown the frequency of killing would be lower.

That, to me, shows that your agenda isn't really about pacifism.