Violence Never Solves Anything ........

[CGoyette]

hey look to all keep it simple its really that easy.





we have let ourself become vunerable... . if we go and smash bin laden his top people and all his camps and the big finally smash the taliban for helping then ... . walla we are no longer the easy target... ... and this stuff might stop but we have to do it all.



people get mugged because they are easy targets. Lets stop all this talk about group hugs and let the world know we will become a grizzly bear who's pissed off if you attack us like this.



and for all you turn the other cheek freaks I'll bet no one in your family was killed. Get real and figure it out some times you have to fight and this is one of them... ... much more than the Gulf if you ask me or panama or VietNam and Korea... . its up there with WWII. So strap on the iron and get ready to defend your way of life. The president needs unity and America needs to get mad real mad.



God Bless America

 

[John Berger]

Originally posted by Max340



But the fact is, these people DO have the ability to reason. To think they cannot is a mistake.

I don't completely agree, Max. They are human beings, as we are, so they do possess the ability to reason. Problem is, they reason like a fox. Look to Yasser Arafat as an instructive object lesson. While he was visiting the White House during Slick's term, he appeared reasonable, but the violence by the Palestinians never ceased. It only escalated. Using reason with this particular culture at this particular time is only going to lead to more carnage. We need to smack them, and smack them hard. Bombs and bullets are not the only means to deliver this action, but they will play a significant part.

 

[NVR FNSH]

Chad,

It appears that you were responding to my post...



I got a little off topic as Mark's comments along the lines of 'agree or leave' hit a nerve. My comments about potatoe peeling were speciffically in reference to the rights afforded to me and any other US citizen.



Personally, I don't want to see any carpet bombing or nukes because it perpetuates the cycle. I think a much better statement will be made when we parade OBL in front of the TV cameras after he has been captured w/o any pubicity. Something along the lines of we know where you are, we can get you any time we want.



Brian

 

[nps]

Originally posted by NVR FNSH

I got a little off topic as Mark's comments along the lines of 'agree or leave' hit a nerve.

Brian,



Mark's comment was to be willing to defend the country with your life, or leave - NOT 'agree or leave'.



Mark's comment was reflective of how this thread was started - reflecting on the Berkeley protests and reports that the protesters claimed they would run to Canada if asked to join the military. Since the start this thread has morphed into a variety of other topics.



There are really two choices we all have; be willing to defend the country with our life, or be willing to run to a safe haven when the bombs start dropping and the bullets start to fly. Serving in the military simply shows which side of the fence one sits on. For everyone else they will have to search their own soul.



If one is willing to defend this country with ones life, regardless of having served in uniform or not, I believe that person is entitled to say anything they like and take any position they like within the protections of our Constitution and the law. I don't have to agree with it, nor listen to it, but that is my choice.



If one is unwilling to defend this country with their life they should leave immediately and not let the door hit them in the butt. Some if not most of the Berkeley protesters clearly stated that this was their position. I hope they are gone soon although I realize I am powerless to make it happen. I would support an amendment that strips the citizenship from and deports anyone making such public statements. Same goes for burning the flag.



For anyone that doesn't know in their heart and soul which way they fall, they should just keep their mouth shut.



The above is my reading of what Mark was meaning. It is also what I believe. It is a morally bankrupt person that wraps themself in the protections of the Constitution while at the same time refusing to defend those protections. But it is also reflective of the 'me' generation.



I'm trying to explain, not flame, so hope you don't take it as a flame. I am also not implying that I think I know what is in your heart and soul - only you know the answer to that for sure.



Neil

 

['956Wheel]

Hopfully the stuff shirts in Washington will have sense enough to allow the military to run the show, kind of like desert storm.



"Kill them all", I agree 100%, how will we do this?



It seems to me that the opportunity to show the rest of these fanatics should not be passed up, what I mean by this is full blown action on all countrys known to support terrorism. Not this little touchy crap but rather some serious @$$ kicking.



Jesse Jackauf (son) yes, by all means send him there to kiss whoever he wants tom (remember Arafat), then bomb the he!! out of the place.



I feel better now.



Mike

 

[Champane Flight]

What?

I didn't think anyone would back legislation to ban free speech. I guess I was wrong. To bring this thread back into perspective. I would back all 18 year old males to have to serve two years in the service of their choice. Before college...



The kids that are protesting right now are being taught by the same protesters of the Vietnam war. If they had some knowledge of the military and our country,maybe they would not be so quick to please the draft dodgers of the past. But I would never back anything that would limit our freedom of speech.



As far as the flag burning. I have in the past backed legislation to ban it and will in the future. They say it is a freedom of expression. It is an expression of hate for a people and its country. If it is done inside the USA that person or persons does not belong here!If you are in distress or distressed with your country fly your flag upside down,but never burn it.



There are however true pacifists. These people will not support or fight in any war,I have met these people. The ones I know went into battle as medics. They carried NO weapons. Were they brave??He11 yes!Were they willing to die for there country ?YES!I had one call me the other day. He asked me where I stood. I answered him"The same place I stood 33 years ago". He then asked me"If you got killed in the WTC towers,would you rather be remembered as bringing peace to the world or war"?I had to answer "peace"... ... .

 

[nps]

Re: What?

Originally posted by Champane Flight

I didn't think anyone would back legislation to ban free speech. I guess I was wrong.

CF,



Freedom of speech is not free. If you are unwilling to pay the price for it, then in my book you shouldn't get it. Nothing in life is free. I paid the price, so that's my story and I'm sticking to it.



But then again, your 2 year compulsory service suggestion isn't that much different. If they run north, what penalty would you suggest be imposed?



I hardly think comparing a medic or corpsman with a Berkeley pacifist is fair to all the brave souls that have served their country. I'm sure you'll rethink the comparison given your stated background. They've paid the price in my book.



I don't think anyone would deliberately choose war over peace - at least no one that may have to fight the war. I've got two children, a son and a daughter, currently in uniform and I don't want to send them into harms way. Having said that, some level of overt or covert violence is needed else the next attack will be bigger and even more atrocious.



I also acknowledge that many other forms of action will also be involved - diplomatic, financial, etc. So don't go off saying I want to nuke or carpet bomb a bunch of Afghans.



Peace and God Bless America

 

[Max340]

John, you describe exactly why it is dangerous to think they cannot reason. I believe you have proven my point.



NPS, While I agree that taking offensive action against terrorism is called for, the mere fact that it is called offensive action starts a debate on exactly what is defending the country. So while I agree that all should be willing to defend the country, it is a matter of debate what that definition includes. You will likely claim any military action we take as a response to an attack on the U. S. is a defensive measure, so no need to elaborate unless your defintition is different. Suffice to say that in this country we have the freedom of speach and most other actions, and to take them away or throw someone out of the country for excersizing those rights would be to go back on the values, the ideals, and ultimately the word and promise of a nation to its own people.



Yet I know some of you would do exactly that. I am not sure who is a greater threat to a great republic, those who protest against it, or those that would violate its very foundation to eliminate the protesters. Check that... I AM sure who is the greater threat... . and its not the people who simply protest... its the people who CHANGE or VIOLATE the ideals.



CF, I see no reason in this age of technology, that females should not do the same service. Had I been able to (bad eyesight) I would have done two years, although I think my independance in my late teens would have made it a hard place to be.



NPS, the Constitution specifically refers to unalienable rights. This means that everyone gets them, and simply being born on earth and being of a "Creator" is all one need do to get them. Now, did you serve in order to "buy" these rights, or protect the document that allows... . guarantees..... all mankind these rights, should they desire them? Perhaps if you are not willing to support the words of the Constitution, we should see to it that you too are kicked out? Seems rather stupid to me, but that IS what you are saying about others.

 

[BK]

This is from the INS...



Oath of Allegiance (to the USA)





The oath of allegiance is:



"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. "



In some cases, INS allows the oath to be taken without the clauses:



". . . that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by law. . . "



To me this is where the line gets drawn in the sand.....

And why those that are here, shouldnt be if they applaud, celebrate or in anyway shape or form are ok with what happened 9-11-01...

And there's much more about "moral character" in what it takes to "become an American".

 

[NVR FNSH]

Re: Re: What?

Originally posted by nps

Freedom of speech is not free. If you are unwilling to pay the price for it, then in my book you shouldn't get it. Nothing in life is free. I paid the price, so that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Hmm, this statement/attitude kinda bugs me. Since I haven't served in the military I can't speak my mind with the same protection as some idiot white supremecist that served 4 years? Makes me sad that the Constitution didn't clarify that I had to serve in order to exercise those inalienable rights... .



Brian

 

[Champane Flight]

Apple ot apples.

As I said a TRUE pacifist. My freind that was a medic was a protester,went to UNC,and was drafted,served his country. As far as dodging the draft,the penaltys that stand are in the books.



In this situation action is needed!What action?I really don't know. I do believe that the Taliban,Bin Laden,and his merry band need to be taken out. I also believe that our leaders right now are not rushing into anything(good thing) and not letting the public(news) know much about the actions(another good thing).



I don't see this as going to be a overnight operation. I do see it as being a five to six year(or more) thing. We can all expect more demonstrations as it wears on. Lets see if we all have resolve to finnish this one. It is easy to say this now,but,how about when we start taking casualtys. Stand firm... ...



Mandatory service probably should include women. And I can think of no better place than the military for a rebelious young man. Lets see,Thats what I was..... Poor Drill Ssg's.

 

[nps]

Re: Re: Re: What?

Originally posted by NVR FNSH





Makes me sad that the Constitution didn't clarify that I had to serve in order to exercise those inalienable rights... .



Brian

Brian,



I said willing to serve - emphasis on WILLING WHEN CALLED UPON.



I'll say it again - if you are unwilling to defend those rights, then I believe you don't deserve them. You don't have to agree with me.



I will assume you are not insinuating that I am that white supremacist you refer to because I spent much longer that 4 years serving. I could say that I guess your comments shows which side of the fence you are on, but don't want to flame you. So would you be willing to serve if called upon?



CF,



So I guess we have two points of disagreement - whether one should be allowed to incite draft dodging, and the penalty for failing to serve in some capacity when called upon to defend what we all hold dear. I can live with that and respect your opinion.



I would also point out that there are already existing penalties for inciting other forms of action that are harmful to the common good. So the precedence is already there for what I suggest.



My daughter had to do her mandatory three year term first if she wanted my help when she goes to college. Her boot camp and high school graduation were 5 days apart last June. She wanted me to get both of the ceremonies on video. I told her that I didn't want to miss anything at her bootcamp graduation while looking through the viewfinder of the camera. I was happy to record her high school graduation ceremony. She later said that the bootcamp graduation meant far more to her also. My son made the choice to serve on his own.



BK,



Couldn't agree with you more. It's a shame that people born on American soil don't have to take the same oath (with the bear arms and non-combatant services clauses included) at some point, or find a new home.



To a large part it is the mentality of many American born citizens to expect everything given to them because of this perception that 'unalienable rights' are free and someone else will do the dirty work for them to keep them free. Guess that is why immigrants as a whole tend to do better when they come here - because they are willing to work for what they get and they know the price of admission.



Max,



I never used the words offensive versus defensive action so I have no further comment on that subject. For everything else refer to BK.

 

[John Berger]

Re: Hugging them to death?

Originally posted by Champane Flight

We might be the big kid on the block,but the last war we really won was WW2. That was over 50 years ago!This type of rationality(Chest thumpin and saber ratteling)is what makes people believe some of these radical doctrines!!!!!

I'm glad we're the biggest kid on the block. Think about it and ask yourself who else you would rather that be, with the economic, political and military power we have at our disposal. While not perfect, we have never invaded a country to conquer it or destroy it's culture.

We would have won Vietnam had our politicians got the hell out of the way and let the military do it's job. The 60's style protests would have been fine, but the anti-war protesters were tools of our enemies; i. e. the Soviet Union and to a lesser extent, North Vietnam. Combine those forces with our political approach to conducting the war and no one should be surprised by the result.



We're starting to see the same types of protest again. I believe these people are selfish and misguided. They don't realize that they give aid and comfort to the enemy. Hopefully, their numbers will remain small. While we say we will never forget this attack, it is of paramount importance that the lessons of Vietnam were well learned and that they will be appropriately applied to the fight now enjoined.

 

[nps]

Originally posted by John Berger

We're starting to see the same types of protest again. I believe these people are selfish and misguided. They don't realize that they give aid and comfort to the enemy. Hopefully, their numbers will remain small. While we say we will never forget this attack, it is of paramount importance that the lessons of Vietnam were well learned and that they will be appropriately applied to the fight now enjoined.

John,



I couldn't agree more. I believe the protests in the late 60's and 70's cost American lives in Vietnam. Wonder how many names could have been kept off the wall had the civilian leadership not been pressured.



I don't believe the issue is about free speech. It's about inciting actions that are demonstrated to injure or harm others. You can't incite a riot, nor yell 'fire' in a movie theater.



For all the nay sayers - I do believe in the Constitution. If you also believe that the laws and our form of government all flow from the Constitution, then you should also recognize there are laws requiring everyone to serve if called upon. Just as BK pointed out, we aren't asking naturalized citizens to do more than American born citizens, just making sure they know their duty. Problem is some American born citizens forget what their duty is.



There is also precedent for the establishment of laws restricting speech in cases where the exercise of speech is dangerous to a group. So no Constitutional Crisis here.



Funny how I get hammered for exercising my speech rights by people that are defending the rights of these protestors - protestors that have in the past increased the risks faced by our brave young people in uniform - Americans that haven't forgotten what their duty is.

 

[John Berger]

Originally posted by Max340

John, you describe exactly why it is dangerous to think they cannot reason. I believe you have proven my point.

Well thanks Max, I'll take that as a left-handed compliment. As you should have noted, I didn't disagree with your assessment of the reasoning abilities of persons of Middle Eastern origin. However, terrorists do not reason the way you or I may define reasoning!! It is not in their playbook. We are at war with terrorism, not all Middle Eastern peoples. You had to add the "dangerous" descriptor, which I feel is a bit overblown. But then again reality can be dangerous and reality tells me that terrorists do not reason, unless it is a subterfuge for a much larger objective. Kinda like what Hitler did to the Soviet Union.

 

[nps]

The young and gutless

Good commentary. Sad state of affairs.



The Young and the Gutless

 

[Papa Joe]

This thread has covered a lot of territory and touched-off a number of interesting philosophical debates.



These terrorists are smart, shrewd, well-financed, and driven. Hands down, we beat them on the first three - we're smarter, more clever, and we have more money. But their drive - their will - to do what they do bothers me.



Do we have the determination to obliterate these *******s? At any cost? I'm not sure (some of you scare me), but I can tell you we had better find it..... QUICK.



How to obliterate them? IMHO, only one way... . take away their will to terrorize. If this involves sanctions, bloodshed, collateral damage/injury, under-handed tactics... ... . so be it. Whatever it requires.



And, better sooner than later. I don't want read about any of you (or your family members) dying from anthrax, plane crash, bombing, etc. by a terrorist. Or vice versa. Terrorism must be squashed, and I don't really give a damn how it's done. Not a damn.



Joe

 

[NVR FNSH]

Originally posted by NVR FNSH

Am I willing to use deadly force to defend OUR rights/liberities as Americans? Try to stop me if the need arises.

Brian

nps,

To answer your question about whether or not I'm willing to serve in the military if called upon - see above. However, I'd probably try for the OCS route (if possible). Just curious, does ACL reconstruction cause disqualification?



Just to clarify something that I really don't feel like I should have to - I seriously looked into the ROTC scholarship option when graduating High School in '88. However, when the recruiters tell you that they can't offer anything because you're a white male it kind of puts a damper on things. I also looked into the Corp at Texas A&M - both parents are Aggies but chose not to go that route based on the ROTC problem. The military at that time did not look like a good option for me. My dad was a captain in the Corp of Engineers and kind of put a stop to the enlistment idea - wanted his kids to get a college education FIRST. Why did you feel that it was necessary for your daughter to serve prior to college?



My comment about the white supremecist was not directed at you or anybody else on this site. I've met too many enlisted men/women that came out of the military with some very 'skewed' ideas (at least to my thinking) and if military service gives them a right to free speech that non-military people don't have we as a country need a lot of help. I am not saying that the military bred these people but I do think the military institution has allowed it exist in the enlisted ranks to some extent - I'm not talking about political correctness kind of garbage.



Anyhow, enough rambling for today... .



Brian

 

[nps]

Brian,



Sorry I missed that line in your previous post. Makes you a good guy in my book (that and two quarters will get you a cup of coffee) . Seems like alot of people are missing either words or meanings in posts - I'm no exception and I'm willing to admit it.



About your ACL reconstruction - don't really know - not qualified to talk about medical things. Know they put me out to pasture for arthritis. I got it pretty bad - took me a half hour longer than my neighbor to build my deck - and I can only pull a 20:30 in 3 miles.



On the other hand if you are a lawyer they will take you if you are breathing (at least used to). I did 10 years enlisted and then went to OCS via ECP. On day 4 in OCS (first PT session) a law school graduate broke his foot and was put on crutches. He graduated on those crutches.



MY daughter's service before college- well you need to know my daughter. Two things I guess - she needed a good dose of reality and she needed to establish some bearing in her life. Figured the military would give her a level of independence combined with discipline and a sense of self accomplishment. Immediately going to college would have been a waste of her time and my money.



The reality dose - she never really applied herself in high school although she got better than average grades. In her sophomore year they offered practice SATs. She was told she must take them (by me), so she practiced the ABCD answer cycle method. In her junior year the school offered a seminar on student financing and the scholarship application process. I offered to go with her to look at the options. Her response was "only poor people go to those things. " Nuff said?



The transition in her just from boot camp was astounding. Now she is attacking life with a sense of purpose I didn't think possible - and planning to attend an art college in 2 more years.



I've got one son left at home. So far he is the opposite of my daughter - has always applied himself and strives to be the best at everything he does. So I'd probably finance his way through college without first going through the military. But given his academic and athletic ability he probably wouldn't need as much help.



All my children have been raised with a strong sense of duty, direction and purpose combined with Christian principles. I don't buy into the philosophy of letting my kids take whatever choice makes them feel good at that time. All our choices in life have downstream consequences, and in many cases even the best choice sucks.



Guess what really torques me up is comments like those in the link I posted a couple back:

"Does Chen mean that other men have to be willing to die to protect his freedom? Yes. Some people are born for that purpose, he says. "There are people who are more willing to fight, who have the mindset of killing people," Chen says. "Not everybody is meant to fight. " Chen has "hopes and dreams" of becoming a filmmaker, and he doesn't want to "endanger" them, he says. "



Like Papa suggested, if we don't have the determination then we've lost before we've started. (No offense intended Papa Joe if I have misstated your meaning. )



If someone expects somebody else to sacrifice for their freedoms yet is UNWILLING to make the same sacrifice then ... ... ?



Enough rambling. This thread is getting worn out. Maybe I can stay out of it this time.



Neil

 

[NVR FNSH]

Sounds like you've done a great job raising your kids.



I read that article on another site and I'm pretty much disgusted by the quotes. I do have to question the 'reporter' though - would you expect any other responses from folks in that area? Now go to Cal Poly/Texas A&M or any other 'conservative' area and you'll get the exact opposite response.



Brian