Is the Anti-war crowd and pacifist pro-genocidal mass murdering dictatorships?

[jamesrage]

Sort of look at this as a response to "Is it two faced of the US to be against abortion but pro war?" thread.

Is the anti-war crowd and pacifist pro-genocidal mass murdering dictatorship?

Lets considering the rhetoric they sometimes spew

1."the USA had no right to invade a sovereign nation".
2. "They are no threat to us".
3. "who cares about Iraqis".

They even make lies like

1."This war is for oil".
2."This war is to avenge Big Daddy Bush for the first Gulf war"
3."This war is so Cheny's buddies in Haliburtion can get rich".
4."This war is for_____(<--INSERT ANY OTHER RETARDED ANTI-WAR EXCUSE HERE)".

They even attempt to make up more lies like "Bush lied"( even though democrats before Bush was even in office said or thought Saddam had WMDs and there is the fact Saddam gave everyone good reason he had WMDs) which is a sign of selective memory loss which is in reality is blatant support for the Iraqi Dictator.

They never offer any real solutions to winning the war is Iraq,screaming we should retreat in the form of "we should pull out of Iraq now" or "we want a pull out date" or Bush lied is not a solution."Thus showing they support mass murdering dictators.

When a soldier or Marine does something wrong they are quick to jump all over it,while if a soldier or marine does something heroic they ignore it or give it a token mention,thus a sign of further support for mass murdering dictators.

They are quick to point out how many soldiers died in Iraq or estimate how many civilians died in Iraq while never mentioning or estimating how many terrorist were killed or captured by US troops or even how many civilians the terrorist have killed,thus only showing concern for enemy victories against us and not victories of our troops.

Some of them even admire ******s like Gandhi.Gandhi who wrote a letter to the British Urging them to surrender to the nazis and in regards to the Jews who fought back in WWII “The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife,” and “They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.”.So obviously Gandhi is a ***** who obviously is pro-dictatorship

Some of them even make anti-American bull **** comparisons of our founding forefathers to the terrorist in Iraq.

Some of them even spew bull **** like "You can support the troops but not the war".Which is about like a anti-abortionist screaming you can support abortionist but not the abortions.The reason is it is a bull **** statement is why on earth would you support someone who is doing something you are against?Please do not spew that Bull **** that troops to not choose to go to war.When you sign that enlistment contract you are out of your own free will are choosing to go to any war no matter who the president is and no matter what the war is for.

And every time they scream "peace" they are talking about the "The absence of war or other hostilities." definition of the word not the "a state of tranquility or quiet: as a : a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom <keeping the peace> b : freedom from civil disturbance" of the word peace.Absence of war does not equal tranquility or keeping the peace.

peace - Definitions from Dictionary.com

 

[rivrrat]

eh?

1) It's real easy to support our troops and disagree with the mission they are forced to undertake. I fully support all of our soldiers; my beef is with the ones who sent them to the wrong country to do the wrong thing at the wrong time. It's not our soldiers fault their commander in chief is a blithering idiot.

2) If the war was all about WMDs, why haven't we... and why don't we... attack other hostile countries that we KNOW have WMDs? (*cough*North Korea*cough*)

3) When a soldier does something heroic, they are doing exactly what we all expect them to do. They are doing their job. They are acting in a manner that coincides with how we see them and what we expect. There's no reason for us to get all excited when soldiers do what they're supposed to. When they do something decidedly wrong, it's focused on because it's out of the ordinary.

4) I don't consider Iraqi "insurgents" (those Iraqis fighting to remove an occupying force from THEIR country) to be "terrorists". They are patriotic defenders of their own land and people. I don't blame them for fighting for their land and country any more than I'd blame myself for fighting for my land and country should a military force drop in here and begin occupation.

 

[Gardener]

I think you might want to send this one back to the drawing board as far as the clarity of the question being asked, but if I understand it correctly, my answer would be that to a great degree those who organize the protests DO support that which you describe. I would also offer that to a great degree those who are anti-war DON'T that which you describe.

Why the latter group allows the former to speak for them is beyond me, but the kooks leading thecharge (ANSWER etc.) are giving everybody else a bad name.

 

[jamesrage]

eh?

1) It's real easy to support our troops and disagree with the mission they are forced to undertake. I fully support all of our soldiers; my beef is with the ones who sent them to the wrong country to do the wrong thing at the wrong time. It's not our soldiers fault their commander in chief is a blithering idiot.

The troops volunteered to join the military and therefore made the choice to go to war.SO they are not forced.If they did not want to go to war they should not have sign their name on the dotted line.If you really supported the troops you would tell the traitors in office to shut the **** up about any mention of retreating.

2) If the war was all about WMDs, why haven't we... and why don't we... attack other hostile countries that we KNOW have WMDs? (*cough*North Korea*cough*)

The anti-war ******s would still be screaming for America's defeat.

3) When a soldier does something heroic, they are doing exactly what we all expect them to do. They are doing their job. They are acting in a manner that coincides with how we see them and what we expect. There's no reason for us to get all excited when soldiers do what they're supposed to. When they do something decidedly wrong, it's focused on because it's out of the ordinary.

When soldiers go above and beyond the call of duty it should be reported.When a solder or marine receives a prestigious military award it should be reported.

4) I don't consider Iraqi "insurgents" (those Iraqis fighting to remove an occupying force from THEIR country) to be "terrorists". They are patriotic defenders of their own land and people. I don't blame them for fighting for their land and country any more than I'd blame myself for fighting for my land and country should a military force drop in here and begin occupation.

Of course you think like that you are not a American.If you were an American you would be loyal to this country and you would not be screaming retreat and making bull **** comparisons of terrorist to patriotic defenders of their country. Because any one can see these terrorist are nothing more than cockroaches in human form,because if they actually cared about their country they would not be murdering innocent people.

 

[jamesrage]

I think you might want to send this one back to the drawing board as far as the clarity of the question being asked, but if I understand it correctly, my answer would be that to a great degree those who organize the protests DO support that which you describe. I would also offer that to a great degree those who are anti-war DON'T that which you describe.

Why the latter group allows the former to speak for them is beyond me, but the kooks leading thecharge (ANSWER etc.) are giving everybody else a bad name.

These anti-war protesters do not care about innocent Iraqis suffering under a brutal dictatorship.The protesters in WWII did not care about the innocent Jews,Polish,handicap and other people who suffered at the hands of the Nazis.If these anti-war ******s did care they would support our troops.