I agree with this in 99.99999999% of the time, but you don't mean to say we should defend our troops who reflect poorly on the United States? If they rape people or kill civilians... we don't support that.

__________________
Proud to be an American...
"Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is almost always somebody screwed up." - House

If a soldier allegedly kills unarmed citizens or rapes women, then you should support the UCMJ so that the soldier can be held fully accountable. You pressure the Pentagon, legislatures, and the executive branch to have an aritcle 32 hearing and ultimately a court martial. Atacking the soldiers, based on newspaper accounts who do not tell the whole story (or if you wish, have an agenda on their own) is assuming facts that you really do not know. Do not make the same mistake as those who did in the 1960's protesting the Vietnam War.

I'm all for the Iraq war. I totally support the war and our troops.

__________________
Proud to be an American...
"Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is almost always somebody screwed up." - House

While I do not agree that "its a simple statement," this argument certainly has been drawn out. It began with you agreeing with that woman's position, which I criticized, and the whole argument devolved into semantics. I agree with your apparent interpretation of the sentence here - killing a threatening enemy is not murder and that a soldier must follow the rules of engagement.

As for that liberal and nuance thing, I don't identify myself as a liberal and I remain largely undecided on some of those issues that define one as a liberal or conservative. I just try to have an awareness of language and its implications, so that misunderstandings or false assumptions don't go unnoticed. Is that a liberal trait, to be aware of one's way of communication?

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

You are definitely in the minority in the first 2/3rds of your statement, but with the majority (incuding me) in the last third. Supporting the troops does not go hand in hand with supporting the war.

Hense the two seperate statements.

__________________
Proud to be an American...
"Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is almost always somebody screwed up." - House

I don't think rape is in the ROE, and neither is killing civies beyond collateral damage. If soldiers don't obey these rules, then they should be dealt with accordingly. But the rues should not be changed to suit the politically correct, nor should the ROE be so strict as to create undo risk to our soldiers.

It is liberal trait to assume that someone making a simple statement is attempting to justify murder. Curious to your stand on abortion doctors. Are they murderers as well?

“Killing the enemy isn’t murder,” is a short statement, it isn’t a simple statement. If it was, then there wouldn’t be all this discussion about it. Your first sentence is an irrelevant shot at liberals, and it was unprovoked. Why do you seemingly try to start partisan bickering?

Abortion doctors? I don’t see what that has to do with anything in this thread, except your attempt to start a black-and-white argument revolving around liberalism vs conservatism.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

It is both.

Eh... from your perspective...

I surrender to your infinitely greater arguing abilities, my stupid liberal nuances cannot begin to fathom the depths of your absolute wisdom. Please forgive me for expressing a different viewpoint.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

No problem. Glad that I could help.

BTW, I suggest that when you reply, that you do so by clicking the "quote" buton at the lower right of my post. That way it sets up your response automatically with "originally posted by glockmail", thus calling attention to me that you have responded.

Yes but the second statement has two opposing thoughts

and it is a Glock trait to claim everything he doesn't agree with as liberal whether or not it is an intelligent thought.

Hi there
I landed on this Forum by coincidence today. Well, stuff like this interests me and so I'll give my 2 cents too


First of all, I'm from Switzerland, in the middle of Europe. It can not be denied, there certainly is a very negative sentiment over here towards the USA. But that doesn't mean that we're barbarians! From other Forums I visited I've got the impression that Americans believe they will be hated, offended badly and slapped into the face when they travel to Europe. Sure, you will hardly find any friends that supprot the USA on a political basis, but even we have our values, one of these values is to say no to racism. So don't worry, no one will slap you into the face over here in Europe as long as you don't visit Nazi-meetings, of course:
To the OP:
I have absolutely no idea what people this lady had to deal with, but that case certainly isn't representative at all. Nearly all my friends -actually everybody I know- has problems with the US government, but non of them would EVER offend anybody only for the fact of being an American.


Now I'd like to adress to some of the hardcore-radical-Americans on these Forums:
I truly wonder how you define racism CommissionLover. I'l tell you what racism is for me:
It starts with a couple of mentaly weak people holding a great grudge. All you need is a strong leader that finds a simple explanation/cause for this grudge, and voila! your racist is born! The racist is acting purely on an emotional basis, furthermore the racist closes his mind to all rational arguments, he is not able to see things beyond he's limited boundaries he has created in his mind, just like a radical muslim/christian is unable to understand that other people can have a good life without religion.
So to qualify as an racist you need two attributes: #1: You act completely on an emotional basis and #2 your brain filteres out rational arguments automatically.
Do most of these European America-Haters qualify for Attribute #1? Yes.
Do most of these European America-Haters qualify for Attribute #2? No.

We're not racists CommissionLover. Today we hold a grudge towards America, tomorrow we might be friends again. Nationalism is an amotional thing, you'll here people ranting on both sides, but that doesnt' make anyone a racist yet.
Critisism IS NOT racism

According to your thinking you would be a racist yourself CommissionLover. You also are argumenting purly on an emotional basis without any facts of why europeans are so "incredibly evil", so by your standarts you would qualify perfectly for the title anti-european and racist. If you were born in Europe as a guy with your attitude, you'de be ranting like mad against the USA, think about it.
Glockmail wrote:
Well, France at least saved your ass once too. They played a major role in the American independance war don't forget that. It's easy to make a country look like satan, and I mean ANY country, even the USA. But of course, if you're so much focused on the idea that France is soooo soooo evil than you will probably keep that illusion in your head for the rest of your live, I guess some people just need that perfect picture of an enemy in order to have an item to through their frustration and hate at.

Btw.: You radicals have no problems ranting about nazis and racists. What are Nazis and racists? nothing else than radicals. It's exactly this intorerance, this refusal to understand other cultures, this blind patriotism that brings up racists and ultimitly world wars. So before you go ranting about nazis and racists my dear radical friends, think about who you are rantering against, because you might be offending some of your ideology pals.