What happened to the "Homefront". - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Bill O'Rights · 08-06-2005, 11:41 PM

Every day, on my way to and from work, I see countless cars with magnetic ribbons on their cars, declaring the owners support of "the troops". This angers me. Not because I do not support our troops. I do. It angers me because the only thing that these people are really supporting is the distributors of magnetic bumper stickers which, by the way, I notice are made in China. Nice.

During WW2 every family received ration books with stamps and coupons for food items such as meats, butter, fat, oils, cheese, canned, bottled, and frozen fruits and vegetables, juices, coffee, and such processed foods as soups, baby food and catsup. In addition to food, rationing encompassed clothing, shoes, coffee, gasoline, tires, and fuel oil. The government further encouraged civilians to collect fabric, scrap metal, and old tires for recycling. "Victory Gardens" were planted to conserve food. With not a single person unaffected by the war, rationing meant sacrifices for all.
Americans were urged to conserve and recycle metal, paper and rubber. War Bonds were sold to provide war funds, and the American people also united through volunteerism. Communities joined together to hold scrap iron drives. This was the "Homefront".

I recently found myself wondering how the American people would receive such practices today. How loudly would John and Jane Q. Public scream if, when they pulled up to the pump, they had to limit their gas purchase to 10 gallons for the week...to support the current war effort? How would YOU react to being told that you had to put half the contents of your grocery cart back, because it was needed for the boys in Iraq?

Destrox · 08-07-2005, 05:05 AM

I have never supported this war, and never will. I have friends over there, and I still think of it to be a complete waste of lives. But this discussion isnt about that.

Would I support rationing? Not a chance in hell if it was forced upon me.

If they were to ask us to do such things in what we can spare, sure I'd have no problem at all with that. But as it is I allready only buy what I need, and if they feel that they can tell me what I need and do not need because some other person half way across the world that signed their own life away to our military needs it too, well, it doesnt work that way. What if I run a business that is 100% depended on vehicles, and this business is a public service allready. Who are they to say that those in Iraq need this fuel more then I do? Both are doing a public service, both require fuel, so because they signed away their life means they are more important then my self?

Selfish? Highly Possible... but thats just how it is. I didnt choose for this war to happem, I never vowed a pledge saying I'll support whatever stupid actions happen from our so called leader. By all means I'm not going to give up what little I allready have because someone else feels they need it more then I do.

Ustwo · 08-07-2005, 06:07 AM

I recall reading that much of the rationing and scrap metal drives etc were totally un-needed in WWII but it was thought it was a good way to 'get the public involved'.

Reguardless Bill, you have way to much time on your hands as the situations are so completely different that attempting to compare them takes a lot of imagination.

People are very selfish right now but mostly due to our success. Had the War been a real war in effort, had we had a string of 9/11's most people would do what it took.

Grasshopper Green · 08-07-2005, 06:07 AM

I don't support the war in Iraq. I do support the war in Afghanistan, which is what I'm basing my reply on.

It's hard for anyone who didn't go through that sort of rationing to understand all the implications. We are a rich society, and anyone on this forum counts in that because they obviously have access to the internet, which is not included in a list of essentials for survival. I'm spoiled; I admit it. I would find it difficult to put back things at the store, to use less gas, and worry about a garden (I just don't like it). However, if the boys in Afghanistan TRULY needed it in order for them to do their jobs and get home safely, I would give things up. Grudgingly I'm sure, but I could do it. I think a dose of this kind of reality would be good for American society in general.

Psycho Dad · 08-07-2005, 06:54 AM

If I were to have to answer a yes or no if I support the current war in Iraq, I would have to say yes. Not because I support war but because my son tells me he is proud of the work he and his fellow Marines as well as all the soldiers and sailors and airmen are doing there. He takes pride in the Iraqis he has helped train to protect their own country and he is happy when the ordinary Iraqi thanks him for his being there and the help that those like him have brought. But I suppose that someone will argue that me having a son there makes me biased. However I will take the bias he gives me over the bias that the commercialized media provides any day. I just wish he didn't have to be there to give it to me.

As far as rationing fuel and other items... I'd think it good for us to go without for a change. To say that we are a rich society is inaccurate, we are a SPOILED society. We as a society have no concept of basic needs it seems.

And I realize I am as bad as anyone. I have so many things that I take for granted that I wouldn't even imagined existing whilst growing up. A gas guzzling SUV with heated seats and six disc CD changer. A cell phone that I can use nearly anywhere that is so small I sometimes have to look closely for when I "need" it. Not only a powerful computer that fits in a small box, but one that is connected by a piece of caoxial cable to millions of other computers all over the world with more information and entertainment than I could ever have time to access let alone use.

I think some rationing, some doing without and some serious rethinking of what we think we have to have and what we really need would give us a pretty good humbling.

Blackthorn · 08-07-2005, 07:43 AM

I've often wondered about those magentic stick ons that declare your support for our troops and I'd come to the same conclusion as BoR. The proceeds from the sale of those things are going to the opportunists who are lining their pockets with the money spent on them. True enough that some of them may represent noble causes but the cynic in me believes it is more than likely the former rather than the later.

Make no mistake about it: Iraq is a dangerous place to be. Even if you don't follow the mainstream media you cannot help but know that the insurgents are oportunistically attacking with deadly force. Insurgents is a name that makes me nuts. Let's face it they are TERRORISTS and calling them insurgents connotates an air of legitimacy about them and what they are doing. There is nothing legitimate about them or their cause and until there is a more regionally enforced level of support for stopping these TERRORISTS Iraq will continue to be a yellow bug light attracting them to the possiblity of serving Alah by attacking anything that looks like it came from the West.

Countries like Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Armenia, and even our "friends" the Saudi's have to unite and cooperate in order to stop the free flow of a seemingly endless supply of extremists who are willing to die to for their cause. Nice concept, regional cooperation against terror, but we all know that we'll land a man on Mars before the governments of those countries come together and cooperate against Muslim Extremism. I personally believe that while their goverments may publically condemn the actions of the terrorists they are privately enjoying the limited successes that they have when they do strike.

If you allow yourself to be completely influenced by the myopic views of CNN or other outlets for mainstream media you would naturally come to the conclusion that Iraq is a country spiraling into chaos. It must be incapable of enforcing peace and stability and the Iraqis themselves must be living in fear that if they venture out of their homes they will become the next victim. That is simply not the case although this view is easily supported by the daily accounts of violence in Iraq and by the running body count that seems to carry the same significance as a Yankee vs. Red Sox box score. Just this past week it was TERRORISTS: 14 -- US MARINES: 0. They win if you trivialize the individual losses by keeping score and evaluating the war on only those terms. They win if you dishonor the ultimate sacrifice paid by the more than 1800 American military personnel by reducing this war to a game of numbers.

The brutal regime of Saddam Hussein and his well documented Stalinist legacy of oppression, murder, and explotation now thankfully fades to black. Areas outside of the Sunni Triangle (which refers to a roughly triangular area of Iraq to the northwest of Baghdad inhabited mainly by Sunni Muslims of the same ethnicity as your good friend and former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and most of his Ba'ath Party) are now starting to experience luxuries previously only afforded those in Hussein's the inner cirlce. Things we take for granted every day like electricity and clean water are now available to more people and the number of those afforded that luxury grow every day. The lights are now staying on longer and in more parts of the country than at any time in the past 25 years. Roads are being rebuilt and other public infrastructure improvements are taking hold. Schools are opening and young girls are returning to the student population. Business and economic activity on a local level is returning with a vigor not seen in 25 years. The free"er" press is starting to publish many more forms of print publication than have existed at any time in the history of Iraq.

I support the war in Iraq. I support the U.S. military personnel who are executing this mission. I am enormously thankful for their dedication, their excellence, their service to this country and their honor for extending the reach of freedom to the people of Iraq. I support RATIONING of any items that would offer a more expedient end to this conflict and the safe return of those who continue to serve.

I know no one personally who has paid the ultimate sacrifice during THIS war. I do feel a deep sense of compassion for their families. This week alone there were 14 US Marines who were from my area that were killed with five of those having roots in my home city. I cannot begin to imagine the grief and sadness that is left behind for the families and friends of the fallen in wake of their loss. There is nothing that can take away the pain left behind as a horrible consequences of their sacrifice.

Their sacrifice was NOT made in vain. Their sacrifice was made with the highest honor that comes from serving the greater good. There is honor in knowing that their sacrifice has lead to tens of millions of people and future generations having the ability to live in freedom. I pray that their families take solace in knowing that their loved ones gave their lives serving a cause that is far greater than we can currently see. Their honor will in no way remove the pain that comes from empty chairs at empty tables. I pray that a sense of peace comes to those left behind in knowing that their cause was just. I, as a free American, am eternally greatful for their sacrifice.

The following article comes from the USMC web site and details a first hand look at the front lines in Iraq. I was fortunate enough to hear several of the interviews conducted during this visit and it was astounding to me how positive each of the stories came through.

Link

Quote:

Radio hosts visit Iraq, Kuwait for firsthand look
Submitted by: American Forces Press Service
Story Identification #: 200552114058
Story by Mr. John D. Banusiewicz

WASHINGTON (April 30, 2005) -- U.S. service members' dedication was the universal impression carried home this week by a group of radio personalities following a weeklong visit with Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines serving on the front in the global war on terror.

The group -- consisting of talk-show hosts, a reporter and even a classic-rock disc jockey -- traveled to Baghdad and Fallujah in Iraq and to three bases in Kuwait on a trip organized by the Defense Department.

Dave Kelso, from Oklahoma City classic rock station KLXO, said the trip's effect on him was "nothing less than a molecular restructuring."

"The thing I was happiest to learn was that duty, honor and country are not lost concepts," he said. "The level and depth of dedication of our people in uniform is something that will live with me forever."

The fast-paced tour included a look at various aspects of the logistical effort required to keep Operation Iraqi Freedom running and Kelso said the enormity of the task was overwhelming. "Anyone would need three heads to fully comprehend the size and scope of the operation," he said.

Another radio host said seeing U.S. forces in action reinforced his opinion of service members. "I've always been kind of a pro-military guy," said Jerry Agar, whose talk show airs on KMBZ in Kansas City, Mo.

"I've always supported what we've been doing in the Middle East," he said. "But this makes me feel much more committed to that in terms of not only seeing the work, but seeing the dedication of the Soldiers and having met some of the Iraqi people who are involved in this and having a closer look at what was done to that country. It just increases my resolve."

Nationally syndicated Talk Radio Network host Rusty Humphries said the trip gave him more well-rounded insight.

"I already had a pretty good feel for the political aspects of the Iraq war and the 'big picture' of it," he said. "What I didn't have was the Soldiers' perspective -- what it was that they went through on a day-to-day basis and their difficulties."

Humphries said he embarked on the trip unsure of what he'd find in the area of troop morale.

"I looked for people who have low morale," he said. "I went over there looking for that just to find out what it was that they were unhappy with. Among the hundreds of people I met, I found only two people with what I'd call low morale. I found everybody else very positive, with very good morale. Did they want to be home with their wives and kids? Absolutely. But they knew why they were there, and they're doing it."

The opportunity to meet service members in Iraq and Kuwait also had deep personal meaning, Humphries said. "My father was killed in Vietnam in 1969," he said. "This was my first real experience to see what he had gone through. I want to thank everyone for putting their lives on the line for the country. They're true American heroes."

For Steve Gill, whose morning talk show airs on WWTN in Nashville, Tenn., the trip triggered fond memories.

"As the son of an Air Force fighter pilot, I grew up in the military, and to be around it again and to hear the sound of those fighter jets -- that 'sound of freedom' that I grew up with -- that alone was worth the trip," he said.

Having spoken with hundreds of service members, Gill said he was impressed with the quality of people serving in today's military. "The incredible young men and women who serve us so well and do extraordinary things in extraordinarily difficult conditions just reaffirm everything that I think the American people share in the pride of what these young men and women are doing," he said.

Gill said the chance to experience wearing 40 pounds of body armor in the oppressive conditions under which U.S. forces operate, as well as having the opportunity to go out on patrols, gave him new insight.

"To feel exactly what it is -- not just to look at it on TV from a distance -- I think is something that will bring fabric and understanding to what we do with these stories for a long time to come," he said.

The experience showed him the American people aren't getting the whole story from the mainstream media, Gill added.

"First of all, there is not enough pride and respect (in the media) for what these young men and women are doing," he said. Referring to a beer commercial in which returning service members are applauded as they make their way through an airport, Gill said that too often people see such scenes, appreciate the sentiment, but then move on.

"We ought to show that same applause that we saw in that commercial every day, 24/7," he said. "And after seeing this for a week, hopefully that's one of the things we can convey back to our listeners."

Gill noted that positive developments in Iraq, such as the increasing regularity with which citizens are tipping off authorities on the whereabouts of terrorists, often goes underreported in the media.

"There is huge progress being made in Iraq," he said, citing the aftermath of a helicopter being shot down while the radio hosts were in the country. "In 24 hours, the people of Iraq turned in those responsible," Gill said. "They were apprehended. Six months ago, that wouldn't have happened."

After a first-hand look at Fallujah, purged of terrorists in November, Gill said the rebuilding effort there "will help to set up what freedom really means in a tangible way to these people."

And progress in Iraq, he said, is a direct result of the dedication of U.S. service members. "Hopefully the American people will start to get a sense that this progress is only being made because of the commitment of these young men and women," he said.

Scottie Semler, Gill's producer, said she was most surprised by the degree of stability she saw in Iraq outside Baghdad's heavily fortified International Zone. Acknowledging that danger still exists, she said her overall impression is that "it is safe."

"Our men and women have done their job," she said. "They have been able to secure places where maybe six months to a year ago you couldn't have walked out alone. But today, you can. You still might have that risk of being shot at, but guess what? You'd have that anywhere, whether it be the streets of Washington, D.C., or New York City."

Because of service members' sacrifices, she added, "we now have freedom in a country that has never seen freedom like this ever before."

Mike McConnell hosts a talk show on WLW in Cincinnati, Ohio, and a nationally syndicated program on Saturdays. He said he was favorably impressed with amenities available to the troops. "The quality of life for the troops was far greater than I'd imagined," he said, as was the morale level.

"Morale was as high or higher than any average American worker in any setting," he noted. "The words 'pride' and 'proud,' as used by the president and the secretary of defense, were redefined for me, as even -- or especially -- those working in areas seen to be mundane felt, rightly, that success was not possible without them."

Noting progress in Iraq, McConnell said the way ahead for U.S. forces is clear to him. "The exit strategy would be that when the Iraqis are ready to take over, we leave -- and not until," he said. "And that works for me."

Paul Brandus, a reporter for news station WTOP in the nation's capital, said the trip showed him that the respect he already had for service members is well-deserved.

"The pre-existing view I think that was reinforced was the respect I have for the American soldier - the gratitude and appreciation I have for the very difficult job they're doing under what can only be described, in some cases, as life-threatening conditions," he said.

Though the trip wasn't long enough to make him an expert, Brandus said, it did open his eyes to the progress Iraq is making. "I do sense that things are better than they were six months ago," he said. "I'm not sure if that constitutes a trend or not, but I think they're moving in the right direction. I wish them well.

"They've got a long way to go, too, and if they take more responsibility for their own country, then we can get our guys out, and hopefully they can move down the path of democracy," he added.

Brandus said he doesn't expect that evolution to make Iraq the same as the United States. "But as long as they're stable and reasonably prosperous, I think that's good enough, and I think that will set a good example for the rest of the Middle East," he said.

If you are still reading this then have a look here: Link

Jinn · 08-09-2005, 09:28 AM

Absolutely not. No fucking way with a capital Fucking. I didn't ask for this unnecessary war, and there's no way I'm going to ration MY things because Bush t is ordering my buddies to war. If anything, I'd hoard. I would have rationed during the days of WW2, however. The difference lies for me in the status of the "occupation." In World War II, it was a WAR. We had an identified enemy who we were banding together to fight. We had a homefront and we had an enemy front. Now, we have a forced occupation of a country. I don't buy "Bin Laden" as the face of the enemy, and I don't see a "war" being fought besides the guys on the ground deterring insurgents. I support my troops, and I have many friends from high school who are out there right now... but they're not fighting a war.

(a bit political, sorry..)

Ustwo · 08-09-2005, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Absolutely not. No fucking way with a capital Fucking. I didn't ask for this unnecessary war, and there's no way I'm going to ration MY things because Bush t is ordering my buddies to war. If anything, I'd hoard. I would have rationed during the days of WW2, however. The difference lies for me in the status of the "occupation." In World War II, it was a WAR. We had an identified enemy who we were banding together to fight. We had a homefront and we had an enemy front. Now, we have a forced occupation of a country. I don't buy "Bin Laden" as the face of the enemy, and I don't see a "war" being fought besides the guys on the ground deterring insurgents. I support my troops, and I have many friends from high school who are out there right now... but they're not fighting a war.

(a bit political, sorry..)

So you are saying you would support them with words but not actions, and in fact would go out of your way to harm them if rationing became needed?

Jinn · 08-09-2005, 09:37 AM

In the "survival of the fittest" environment created by rationing, I would be more concerned about the comfort of myself and those I care about than those in a distant country. So yes, that would "harm them" and "help me" but I feel no remorse doing so in a situation I did not create.

As far as words rather than actions, no. I would become more vehement in my disagreement with the current administraton, and likely be active (action) in removing our troops or our Commander in Chief, whichever came first. It is not close enough to home to drag me out of my lull of complacency -- yet. A ration or a draft, that would be enough.

Ustwo · 08-09-2005, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

In the "survival of the fittest" environment created by rationing, I would be more concerned about the comfort of myself and those I care about than those in a distant country. So yes, that would "harm them" and "help me" but I feel no remorse doing so in a situation I did not create.

As far as words rather than actions, no. I would become more vehement in my disagreement with the current administraton, and likely be active (action) in removing our troops or our Commander in Chief, whichever came first. It is not close enough to home to drag me out of my lull of complacency -- yet.

So you would 'support' them by creating dissension at home while at the same time withholding supplies.

What would you do differently if you didn't 'support' the troops?

Jinn · 08-09-2005, 09:55 AM

You're lumping the government with the soldiers. My supporting them means that I wouldn't let them continue to die and starve for an unncessary cause. That doesn't mean I have to support the government's "solution" of rationing the citizens because the leader fucked up.

If I didn't support the TROOPS, I'd continue to let them die for a fruitless and worthless cause.

Ustwo · 08-09-2005, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

You're lumping the government with the soldiers. My supporting them means that I wouldn't let them continue to die and starve for an unncessary cause. That doesn't mean I have to support the government's "solution" of rationing the citizens because the leader fucked up.

I guess where I come from 'support' and 'actively harm' are two different things.

I think its sad that you hate GWB so much that you would let others suffer to make him look bad. Its a mind set I can't understand. I'm trying to place myself into that mindset and I can't do it. This country gets to determine policy almost every 2 years (the house/senate are just as important as the president) and while I can understand taking it out on the leaders you don't like there, I can't see it after the votes are cast.

Quote:

f I didn't support the TROOPS, I'd continue to let them die for a fruitless and worthless cause.

No that would be if you hated the troops, it has nothing to do with support. Supporting the troops means making sure they have what they need, reguardless if you like the policy or not. You can try to get them back home and surrender and thats fine if you think thats a wise policy, but in the mean time they are still there, and while military defeat may bring them home sooner, witholding supplies means there will be more comming home in body bags.

Redlemon · 08-09-2005, 10:07 AM

Jinn · 08-09-2005, 10:12 AM

It's not black-and-white. Just because I support myself above supporting them does not mean I do not support them. That's like saying that I can't contribute to a charity if I'm holding any money back for me. I'm going to look after my own safety above theirs, certainly. That has absolutely nothing to do with my support or your purported lack thereof. I do not dislike GWB himself, but his policies make me pull out my hair in frustration. If they're out of food, that is poor accounting/planning on his part -- not mine. I shouldn't be unpatriotic or "not support the troops" if I choose to look after myself firsthand in the horrible military decision that made them lacking in supplies in the first place. If I have things left, they can have them. Support is CHARITY, nothing else.

edit: I should add that I don't mean to inflame you, because you're one of the posters who I frequently agree with, issues of politics aside.

Psycho Dad · 08-09-2005, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

but they're not fighting a war.

I disagree:

That was the vehicle that my son was fighting this war that you don't understand in. Believe me it is very real and it is a war.

Grasshopper Green · 08-09-2005, 03:21 PM

Very powerful pics, Psycho Dad. Thanks for sharing them. While I don't support the war in Iraq, I very much support the troops who are over their risking their lives and giving up their personal freedoms.

flstf · 08-09-2005, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

I recently found myself wondering how the American people would receive such practices today. How loudly would John and Jane Q. Public scream if, when they pulled up to the pump, they had to limit their gas purchase to 10 gallons for the week...to support the current war effort? How would YOU react to being told that you had to put half the contents of your grocery cart back, because it was needed for the boys in Iraq?

Put half the groceries back, of course. Almost anything to help those who have put themselves in harm's way for us.

If I understand it correctly, most folks did not support us getting into WWII either.

StanT · 08-09-2005, 04:05 PM

I would support rationing if it were necessary to support the action in Afganistan. I would not support it for Iraq.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

This country gets to determine policy almost every 2 years (the house/senate are just as important as the president) and while I can understand taking it out on the leaders you don't like there, I can't see it after the votes are cast.

Supporting the troops means making sure they have what they need, reguardless if you like the policy or not. You can try to get them back home and surrender and thats fine if you think thats a wise policy, but in the mean time they are still there, and while military defeat may bring them home sooner, witholding supplies means there will be more comming home in body bags.

There wasn't a referendum on Iraq on my last ballot. Just a choice between two really lousy presidential candidates. The congressional candidates on my ballot weren't much better.

I find the war in Iraq unconscionable. While I realize that the troops that are there had no choice in the matter, I can not and will not voluntarily support an action that I feel is morally wrong.

Ustwo · 08-09-2005, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanT

I would support rationing if it were necessary to support the action in Afganistan. I would not support it for Iraq.

There wasn't a referendum on Iraq on my last ballot. Just a choice between two really lousy presidential candidates. The congressional candidates on my ballot weren't much better.

I find the war in Iraq unconscionable. While I realize that the troops that are there had no choice in the matter, I can not and will not voluntarily support an action that I feel is morally wrong.

Yes so its ok if troops go without for a war you don't 'support' but you 'support' them for a war you do like.

So you don't really support the troops as much as support the wars you care for?

This is really a quite simple question.

IF the troops are in Iraq, and they needed supplies they could only get by rationing, AND you wouldn't be willing to ration, THEN you do not support the troops at all. You support wars you like.

Stiltzkin · 08-09-2005, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psycho Dad

If I were to have to answer a yes or no if I support the current war in Iraq, I would have to say yes. Not because I support war but because my son tells me he is proud of the work he and his fellow Marines as well as all the soldiers and sailors and airmen are doing there. He takes pride in the Iraqis he has helped train to protect their own country and he is happy when the ordinary Iraqi thanks him for his being there and the help that those like him have brought. But I suppose that someone will argue that me having a son there makes me biased. However I will take the bias he gives me over the bias that the commercialized media provides any day. I just wish he didn't have to be there to give it to me.

As far as rationing fuel and other items... I'd think it good for us to go without for a change. To say that we are a rich society is inaccurate, we are a SPOILED society. We as a society have no concept of basic needs it seems.

And I realize I am as bad as anyone. I have so many things that I take for granted that I wouldn't even imagined existing whilst growing up. A gas guzzling SUV with heated seats and six disc CD changer. A cell phone that I can use nearly anywhere that is so small I sometimes have to look closely for when I "need" it. Not only a powerful computer that fits in a small box, but one that is connected by a piece of caoxial cable to millions of other computers all over the world with more information and entertainment than I could ever have time to access let alone use.

I think some rationing, some doing without and some serious rethinking of what we think we have to have and what we really need would give us a pretty good humbling.

Even though I don't support the war at all, I still agree with all of this.

wombatman · 08-09-2005, 05:32 PM

Ustwo, it is fully possible to support troops without supporting the fighting of a war. I think Saddam being ousted will ultimately be a wonderful thing, but I think the pretenses for this war was the biggest pile of crap seen in a long time. It's not as black and white as you would have it be. You do realize that as we speak, some soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan lack the basic armor they should have to fight this "war," right? You know, the soldiers raiding junkyards to put metal on the sides of vehicles and asking Rumsfield where the resources they should have were while he sidestepped the questions?

As for rationing, what kind of horrible planning would it take that we would actually reach that point? We are arguably the most powerful nation on the entire planet. We are stretched all over the world. Could we not pull back resources from some of our other bases and pour them into Iraq to actually try and finish this fight? Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I think they're all valid questions.

StanT · 08-09-2005, 05:36 PM

This has probably reached a "Politics" level of discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yes so its ok if troops go without for a war you don't 'support' but you 'support' them for a war you do like.

So you don't really support the troops as much as support the wars you care for?

This is really a quite simple question.

IF the troops are in Iraq, and they needed supplies they could only get by rationing, AND you wouldn't be willing to ration, THEN you do not support the troops at all. You support wars you like.

Again, I don't recall a referendum for the war in Iraq. I will not voluntarily support anything that I find unconscionable. I "support" the war in Iraq every time I pay my taxes. I'm sure any rationing would be equally involuntary.

I expect my government to go about financing a war with exactly the same diligence that they use in starting one. Looks like both were inept in this case.

uncle phil · 08-09-2005, 06:00 PM

i spent a couple of years in the "other" iraq, which we called viet-nam. as now, we were there for the wrong reason, but this "conflict" seems to be cloaking itself under the mantle of the "war on terrorism." i will do whatever is in my power to support troops involved in armed combat, but i will also question why they are being asked to establish a battle-line on the wrong front. to the best of my knowledge, osama bin laden and his henchmen have yet to be spotted anywhere near iraq; afghanistan and pakistan are where we should be, and where i believe our true enemy is strategizing its next assault...

VitaminH · 08-09-2005, 06:52 PM

Found that pic somewhere quite awhile ago. Anyways, I think I'd ration should it become necessary (as if we'd really have a choice) as a means to ensure our guys over there are getting what they need. I do NOT however by any means take a "pro war" stance on Iraq.

Gilda · 08-09-2005, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

How would YOU react to being told that you had to put half the contents of your grocery cart back, because it was needed for the boys in Iraq?

I think that if the problem were not having enough resources to support the war, a better solution than rationing would be to end the war and bring the troops home, thus preventing the need for rationing and having the bonus of keeping them from getting killed.

Gilda

Suave · 08-09-2005, 11:31 PM

I'm not American, but since this is hypothetical... I would tell the government to go fuck themselves. I don't support the war in Iraq, I didn't support the war in Afghanistan, and I would not ration my shit so that some redneck can dick around in someone else's country. In WWII, it was a matter of the defence and security of previously peaceful nations; now it's just a dumbfuck administration on a crusade of ignorance.

ObieX · 08-09-2005, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

I think that if the problem were not having enough resources to support the war, a better solution than rationing would be to end the war and bring the troops home, thus preventing the need for rationing and having the bonus of keeping them from getting killed.

Gilda

This one works for me.

Ustwo · 08-10-2005, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanT

This has probably reached a "Politics" level of discussion.

Again, I don't recall a referendum for the war in Iraq. I will not voluntarily support anything that I find unconscionable. I "support" the war in Iraq every time I pay my taxes. I'm sure any rationing would be equally involuntary.

I expect my government to go about financing a war with exactly the same diligence that they use in starting one. Looks like both were inept in this case.

Since this is a hypothetical question, we will NOT need rationing for Iraq, your last statement must be in regards to some other information. We are not going broke by fighting in Iraq.

There may have been no referendum to start a war in Iraq, but there sure was a big election in 2004. If the popular support was not there GWB would not be president. As shocking as it is to so many of you there are those of us who support this effort 100%.

On the other hand I thought the fighting in Bosnia was stupid and symbolic. I don’t recall voting for it either. We caused a lot of destruction and left an unstable situation (exit plan anyone?) which will ignite again as there have been no fundamental changes. Despite this I would not fuck over the troops because of it. There is a time for debate, and a place for it, and I am not willing to fuck over the men fighting because I didn’t get to ‘vote’ for the war. Do what you want politically at home, but if more men were to come home in body bags because of your unwillingness to make minor sacrifices if needed, what does that make you?

Ustwo · 08-10-2005, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

I think that if the problem were not having enough resources to support the war, a better solution than rationing would be to end the war and bring the troops home, thus preventing the need for rationing and having the bonus of keeping them from getting killed.

Gilda

So the best solution is to surrender, and fuck over the Iraqi people?

If this happens, I hope you will remember your stance when they start to fill the mass graves again.

tecoyah · 08-10-2005, 06:01 AM

Moved to politics....as was inevitable

Jinn · 08-10-2005, 06:44 AM

Quote:

IF the troops are in Iraq, and they needed supplies they could only get by rationing, AND you wouldn't be willing to ration, THEN you do not support the troops at all. You support wars you like.

This quote shows your absolute bias and lack of understanding for what SUPPORT means. Support is not something you do becuase you have to. Likewise, support is charity. Beggars cannot be choosers. I can support someone without sending them rations. I can send them money, I can pray for them, I can hope they come safe. I can lobby and protest to my representatives to bring them home. Those are support -- if they want help and support, they cannot determine what channels it comes via. I can wholly support something without bending to their every whim and desire. If my father were suddenly destitute and asking for my help.. I could give him clothes, and shelter, and food.. but if he asked for booze -- do I *have* to give it to him? If I don't give him booze, do I suddenly not support him? I think not.

I can SUPPORT MY TROOPS without rationing.

Bill O'Rights · 08-10-2005, 07:12 AM

Wow!
This did not go in the direction that I had intended. What I wanted to know was, not so much whether, or not, you support the actual war, or the current administration...but rather whether, or not, you really support the troops that are fighting it. And if you do support the troops...how much? To what measure are you willing to go? Only as far as it causes inconvenience, or discomfort?

Ustwo? You mentioned up above there somewhere that it would've taken a string of 9-11's to get people motivated to do what it takes. Why? Have we waited to long? Is the memory of that day so distant? There was, after all, only one Pearl Harbor. And although the magnitude of December 7, 1941 was greater, wasn't the effect the same? Weren't we attacked by an external force?

wombatman? You mentioned that our soldiers, that we support with bumber stickers, have to raid local junkyards in order to obtain the armor plating that they need for thier vehicles. This raises another question. In WWII, it was common to "donate" the bumpers of your car, to scrap metal drives, in order to manufacture the machines of war. These bumpers were commonly replaced with cardboard signs informing others to "Drive Carefully. I donated my bumpers to the war effort." Instead of putting magnetic stickers on them, shouldn't we be donating our bumpers (yes, I know they're really plastic) to the war effort?

tecoyah? Thanks for beating me to the punch in moving this. Had I seen, in time, how far it had degraded...I'd have done so much earlier.

Look guys, I know that I'm reaching with a lot of this. That I'm really comparing apples to oranges. But, does anyone see what I'm trying to do here?

Charlatan · 08-10-2005, 07:23 AM

The way I see it, Americans would absolutely make the sacrifices if rationing were neccessary.

However, there is no way to compare what America is doing now to where it was in 1941. At the time America had to catch up to the Axis powers in terms of arming themselves for war. This required a concerted effort for a nation that needed to re-tool and build up for total war.

America today already has the resources to win just about anything they decided to do. The lack of body armour and armour plating has nothing to with raw resources it has to do with funding.

I say this without even touching on the issue of why the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Stompy · 08-10-2005, 07:31 AM

I don't support the troops. No one put a gun to their head and forced them to join the military.

I think it's also funny how 9/11 is mentioned in this thread when the war has nothing to do with 9/11

Just goes to show how people are suckered into giving support for such things.

I often hear people use the cliche, "if it wasn't for them, you wouldn't be here." Hm.. no. Maybe in WW2 when the war was actually relevant to something, but... the troops in Iraq aren't defending OUR freedoms and liberties. The events goin on there have absolutely nothing to do with us whatsoever.

In fact, they're helping bastardize our freedoms and liberties by following their orders (which they have to do, I guess, but again - no one forced them to join!). They need to turn their guns the other way if they really wanna protect us.

It's blind patriotism.

As for the bumper stickers... very trendy. I shake my head and laugh when I see one.

But yeah, as for the troops... they made their choice and they have to deal with the consequences. If I'm expected to be responsible and deal with the choices I make in life, how are they any different?

Ustwo · 08-10-2005, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Wow!
Ustwo? You mentioned up above there somewhere that it would've taken a string of 9-11's to get people motivated to do what it takes. Why? Have we waited to long? Is the memory of that day so distant? There was, after all, only one Pearl Harbor. And although the magnitude of December 7, 1941 was greater, wasn't the effect the same? Weren't we attacked by an external force?

First off Bill I think your thread went right where it mattered which is who REALLY supports the troops and who just gives lip service. I think that came out pretty clearly

But what I meant by the 'string of 9-11's' is that if we were in a situation where rationing WAS needed, Americans as a whole would do so, and do so willingly. Iraq is something of a bad example because it is not such a drain on resources that rationing would be needed. We are not running out of anything and since the war has become a political fight at home with those who want us to surrender and those who want us to win, it makes it difficult to separate emotions.

So despite some bitter posters, if it were REALLY needed American's would do what we had to do to win, and if rationing became part of it, we would.

Charlatan · 08-10-2005, 09:00 AM

Wow... I think Ustwo and I just agreed on something.

host · 08-10-2005, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackthorn

I've often wondered about those magentic stick ons that declare your support for our troops and I'd come to the same conclusion as BoR. The proceeds from the sale of those things are going to the opportunists who are lining their pockets with the money spent on them. True enough that some of them may represent noble causes but the cynic in me believes it is more than likely the former rather than the later.

Make no mistake about it: Iraq is a dangerous place to be. Even if you don't follow the mainstream media you cannot help but know that the insurgents are oportunistically attacking with deadly force. Insurgents is a name that makes me nuts. Let's face it they are TERRORISTS and calling them insurgents connotates an air of legitimacy about them and what they are doing. There is nothing legitimate about them or their cause and until there is a more regionally enforced level of support for stopping these TERRORISTS Iraq will continue to be a yellow bug light attracting them to the possiblity of serving Alah by attacking anything that looks like it came from the West......

.....If you allow yourself to be completely influenced by the myopic views of CNN or other outlets for mainstream media you would naturally come to the conclusion that Iraq is a country spiraling into chaos. It must be incapable of enforcing peace and stability and the Iraqis themselves must be living in fear that if they venture out of their homes they will become the next victim. That is simply not the case although this view is easily supported by the daily accounts of violence in Iraq and by the running body count that seems to carry the same significance as a Yankee vs. Red Sox box score. Just this past week it was TERRORISTS: 14 -- US MARINES: 0. They win if you trivialize the individual losses by keeping score and evaluating the war on only those terms. They win if you dishonor the ultimate sacrifice paid by the more than 1800 American military personnel by reducing this war to a game of numbers.

The brutal regime of Saddam Hussein and his well documented Stalinist legacy of oppression, murder, and explotation now thankfully fades to black. Areas outside of the Sunni Triangle (which refers to a roughly triangular area of Iraq to the northwest of Baghdad inhabited mainly by Sunni Muslims of the same ethnicity as your good friend and former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and most of his Ba'ath Party) are now starting to experience luxuries previously only afforded those in Hussein's the inner cirlce. Things we take for granted every day like electricity and clean water are now available to more people and the number of those afforded that luxury grow every day. The lights are now staying on longer and in more parts of the country than at any time in the past 25 years. Roads are being rebuilt and other public infrastructure improvements are taking hold. Schools are opening and young girls are returning to the student population. Business and economic activity on a local level is returning with a vigor not seen in 25 years. The free"er" press is starting to publish many more forms of print publication than have existed at any time in the history of Iraq............

........The following article comes from the USMC web site and details a first hand look at the front lines in Iraq. I was fortunate enough to hear several of the interviews conducted during this visit and it was astounding to me how positive each of the stories came through.

Link

If you are still reading this then have a look here: Link

Blackthorn, the links which you posted are, IMO, Bush/Rumsfeld propaganda financed by our tax dollars. They are inappropriate, if your intent is to offer them to strengthen your argument, because they expose the administration for what it is....deceptive, arrogant, controlling, misleading, and obsessed with censorship. A "puff piece", US armed forces news service report, displayed on a USMC website, is not a news report. Your second "link" is to a self promotional, "Bush touted", pentagon created site, with "messages", posted "spontaneaously" by the public, in "support of the troops", that are censored or deleted by government censors......

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041100879.html
Is Bush Vulnerable on Iraq?

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, August 5, 2005; 1:15 PM

......Remember how President Bush earlier this summer asked Americans to log on to AmericaSupportsYou.mil , a Department of Defense Web site, and register support for the troops?

At the time , I did some word searches and it didn't look to me like the site was posting many -- if any -- comments that suggested that the soldiers might be victims of bad policy decisions.

There are now more than 60,000 viewable messages -- out of a reported 128,000 received -- on the site.

I encouraged my colleagues at washingtonpost.com to look into this, and yesterday, Robert MacMillan and Mary Specht reported: "The Defense Department has removed messages containing political commentary from a Web site designed for people to show their support for U.S. forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . .

"Last month the Wall Street Journal reported that two antiwar messages had disappeared from the site, but at the time the site had no posted policy on political statements."

Now the site has taken down some overtly pro-Bush messages as well, and a policy posted on the site last week now warns that political speech will be barred.

Still unclear: What was the nature of the 60,000-plus messages that never made it to the site in the first place?.........

This "disclaimer" was recently added under the posting template at the site, and may explain the unavailability of more than 60,000 of the messages that the site claims were posted to "support the troops". Why are opinions expressed that advocate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, or that protest the illegality of pre-emptive war of aggression and invasion of a severeign nation, not considered "support" of our troops?

Quote:

NOTE: We are providing this service as an opportunity to send a message of support to servicemembers. This is not a forum for political opinions, and verbal attacks against organizations, groups or individuals will not be posted. Profanity and violations of operational security, privacy, and propriety will not be posted. These messages are viewed individually and edited or deleted based on content.

Your description of

Quote:

The brutal regime of Saddam Hussein and his well documented Stalinist legacy of oppression, murder, and explotation now thankfully fades to black.

does nothing to address the complicity of the Reagan and Bush '41 regimes in the arming of Saddam with chemical and biological weapons stocks, and the provision of technical advice regarding their production and offensive deployment, and the sale by the U.S of crop dusting bell helicopters used by Saddam, to "gas his own people", and the continuation of the presence of US military advisors and full US diplomatic relations with Saddam's Iraq, as well as a policy of continued sales of sensitve military, and "dual purpose" technology to Iraq, for years after Saddam's "crimes" were committed.

We've covered and documented all of the above described "holes" in your argument, at these links, and it is rare for TFP Politics participants to post in in such a one sided and misinformed manner, because it is difficult to come to terms with Reagan/Bush support of Iraq, with the aggravation of Reagan secretly and illegally selling thousands of anit-tank and other weapons to Iran, during the same period of time.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=39

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=30

There has been no increase of electrical energy production in Iraq, in the past year, if the numbers cited
in this article two weeks ago are compared ot the LA Times report of Sept., 2004. What has all the money spent to increase electrical generation in Iraq, accomplished?

Quote:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8736966/
By Suleiman al-Khalidi
Updated: 6:31 a.m. ET July 28, 2005

AMMAN - Iraq's electricity supply has risen above pre-war levels to 5,350 megawatts (MW) despite sabotage, boosted by hydroelectric power and more imports from Iran, Syria and Turkey, the minister in charge said on Thursday.

"Now electricity has reached a record after we broke 5,350 megawatts a few days ago for the first time since the war," Electricity Minister Mohsen Shalash told Reuters......

Quote:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091304K.shtml
Iraq Power Grid Shows U.S. Flaws
By T. Christian Miller
Los Angeles Times

Sunday 12 September 2004

........Even today, the U.S. has not reached the goal set by L. Paul Bremer III, the former head of the U.S.-led occupation authority, to produce 6,000 megawatts of power a day by June 1. By comparison, California has about 50% more people than Iraq but produces up to eight times as much electricity, about 45,000 megawatts at peak summer demand.

Iraq's electrical production tops out at 5,300 megawatts - higher than peak generation in the closing days of Saddam Hussein's regime, but far below the estimated 7,200 megawatts needed to fulfill the rapidly growing demand. .........

Blackthorn, you dismiss the reporting of CNN, where do you receive the information on current and historical politcal events that leads you to the conclusions about Saddam and Iraq, and the Bush administration, that you've posted?

Gilda · 08-10-2005, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

So the best solution is to surrender, and fuck over the Iraqi people?

If this happens, I hope you will remember your stance when they start to fill the mass graves again.

I said nothing about surrendering or the Iraqi people. The question in the OP didn't ask about either. It asked about how I would react to a certain situation, and I responded directly to that question.

I believe the best way to support our troops is to bring them home so that they are out of harm's way and thus end the need for the extraordinary expenditure that the war requires.

In the future, I'd appreciate your not putting words in my mouth concerning issues I didn't address.

Gilda

Blackthorn · 08-11-2005, 10:34 AM

I consider the US Military personnel involved in this mission to be very accurate source of information. Like I said in the post above I listened to many of the interviews with front line troops who are there in Iraq and their reports were vastly different from the body count that's reported by cnn, et al.

The US Military and specifically the US Marines Corp is not a propoganda machine for the Bush administration. If anyone believes that to be true then you fall into the category of those who refuse to let facts get in the way of your opinions.

I'm going back to the fun forums...Ya'll be nice now.

daswig · 08-14-2005, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

I recently found myself wondering how the American people would receive such practices today. How loudly would John and Jane Q. Public scream if, when they pulled up to the pump, they had to limit their gas purchase to 10 gallons for the week...to support the current war effort? How would YOU react to being told that you had to put half the contents of your grocery cart back, because it was needed for the boys in Iraq?

Why was rationing necessary during WWII? It was because the war effort severely strained our national resources. Does pursuing the war in Iraq tax our national resources? If not, why would there be need to ration things? Are we having trouble fueling our military vehicles in Iraq?

View Poll Results: Would you make sacrifices for the war effort?
I support the war in Iraq, and would support rationing	22	23.40%
I support the war in Iraq, but I'm not rationing	3	3.19%
I do not support the war, but would support rationing	20	21.28%
I do not support the war, nor would I support rationing	40	42.55%
Bill...you've got way too much time on your hands	9	9.57%
Voters: 94. You may not vote on this poll

08-06-2005, 11:41 PM	#1 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	What happened to the "Homefront". Every day, on my way to and from work, I see countless cars with magnetic ribbons on their cars, declaring the owners support of "the troops". This angers me. Not because I do not support our troops. I do. It angers me because the only thing that these people are really supporting is the distributors of magnetic bumper stickers which, by the way, I notice are made in China. Nice. During WW2 every family received ration books with stamps and coupons for food items such as meats, butter, fat, oils, cheese, canned, bottled, and frozen fruits and vegetables, juices, coffee, and such processed foods as soups, baby food and catsup. In addition to food, rationing encompassed clothing, shoes, coffee, gasoline, tires, and fuel oil. The government further encouraged civilians to collect fabric, scrap metal, and old tires for recycling. "Victory Gardens" were planted to conserve food. With not a single person unaffected by the war, rationing meant sacrifices for all. Americans were urged to conserve and recycle metal, paper and rubber. War Bonds were sold to provide war funds, and the American people also united through volunteerism. Communities joined together to hold scrap iron drives. This was the "Homefront". I recently found myself wondering how the American people would receive such practices today. How loudly would John and Jane Q. Public scream if, when they pulled up to the pump, they had to limit their gas purchase to 10 gallons for the week...to support the current war effort? How would YOU react to being told that you had to put half the contents of your grocery cart back, because it was needed for the boys in Iraq? __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt. Last edited by Bill O'Rights; 08-06-2005 at 11:49 PM..

08-07-2005, 05:05 AM	#2 (permalink)
Destrox Metal and Rock 4 Life Location: Phoenix	I have never supported this war, and never will. I have friends over there, and I still think of it to be a complete waste of lives. But this discussion isnt about that. Would I support rationing? Not a chance in hell if it was forced upon me. If they were to ask us to do such things in what we can spare, sure I'd have no problem at all with that. But as it is I allready only buy what I need, and if they feel that they can tell me what I need and do not need because some other person half way across the world that signed their own life away to our military needs it too, well, it doesnt work that way. What if I run a business that is 100% depended on vehicles, and this business is a public service allready. Who are they to say that those in Iraq need this fuel more then I do? Both are doing a public service, both require fuel, so because they signed away their life means they are more important then my self? Selfish? Highly Possible... but thats just how it is. I didnt choose for this war to happem, I never vowed a pledge saying I'll support whatever stupid actions happen from our so called leader. By all means I'm not going to give up what little I allready have because someone else feels they need it more then I do. __________________ You bore me.... next.

08-07-2005, 06:07 AM	#3 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I recall reading that much of the rationing and scrap metal drives etc were totally un-needed in WWII but it was thought it was a good way to 'get the public involved'. Reguardless Bill, you have way to much time on your hands as the situations are so completely different that attempting to compare them takes a lot of imagination. People are very selfish right now but mostly due to our success. Had the War been a real war in effort, had we had a string of 9/11's most people would do what it took. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

08-07-2005, 06:07 AM	#4 (permalink)
Grasshopper Green ...is a comical chap Location: Where morons reign supreme	I don't support the war in Iraq. I do support the war in Afghanistan, which is what I'm basing my reply on. It's hard for anyone who didn't go through that sort of rationing to understand all the implications. We are a rich society, and anyone on this forum counts in that because they obviously have access to the internet, which is not included in a list of essentials for survival. I'm spoiled; I admit it. I would find it difficult to put back things at the store, to use less gas, and worry about a garden (I just don't like it). However, if the boys in Afghanistan TRULY needed it in order for them to do their jobs and get home safely, I would give things up. Grudgingly I'm sure, but I could do it. I think a dose of this kind of reality would be good for American society in general. __________________ "They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king" Formerly Medusa

08-07-2005, 06:54 AM	#5 (permalink)
Psycho Dad Mulletproof Location: Some nucking fut house.	If I were to have to answer a yes or no if I support the current war in Iraq, I would have to say yes. Not because I support war but because my son tells me he is proud of the work he and his fellow Marines as well as all the soldiers and sailors and airmen are doing there. He takes pride in the Iraqis he has helped train to protect their own country and he is happy when the ordinary Iraqi thanks him for his being there and the help that those like him have brought. But I suppose that someone will argue that me having a son there makes me biased. However I will take the bias he gives me over the bias that the commercialized media provides any day. I just wish he didn't have to be there to give it to me. As far as rationing fuel and other items... I'd think it good for us to go without for a change. To say that we are a rich society is inaccurate, we are a SPOILED society. We as a society have no concept of basic needs it seems. And I realize I am as bad as anyone. I have so many things that I take for granted that I wouldn't even imagined existing whilst growing up. A gas guzzling SUV with heated seats and six disc CD changer. A cell phone that I can use nearly anywhere that is so small I sometimes have to look closely for when I "need" it. Not only a powerful computer that fits in a small box, but one that is connected by a piece of caoxial cable to millions of other computers all over the world with more information and entertainment than I could ever have time to access let alone use. I think some rationing, some doing without and some serious rethinking of what we think we have to have and what we really need would give us a pretty good humbling. __________________ Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

08-09-2005, 09:28 AM	#7 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	Absolutely not. No fucking way with a capital Fucking. I didn't ask for this unnecessary war, and there's no way I'm going to ration MY things because Bush t is ordering my buddies to war. If anything, I'd hoard. I would have rationed during the days of WW2, however. The difference lies for me in the status of the "occupation." In World War II, it was a WAR. We had an identified enemy who we were banding together to fight. We had a homefront and we had an enemy front. Now, we have a forced occupation of a country. I don't buy "Bin Laden" as the face of the enemy, and I don't see a "war" being fought besides the guys on the ground deterring insurgents. I support my troops, and I have many friends from high school who are out there right now... but they're not fighting a war. (a bit political, sorry..) __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

08-09-2005, 09:37 AM	#9 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	In the "survival of the fittest" environment created by rationing, I would be more concerned about the comfort of myself and those I care about than those in a distant country. So yes, that would "harm them" and "help me" but I feel no remorse doing so in a situation I did not create. As far as words rather than actions, no. I would become more vehement in my disagreement with the current administraton, and likely be active (action) in removing our troops or our Commander in Chief, whichever came first. It is not close enough to home to drag me out of my lull of complacency -- yet. A ration or a draft, that would be enough. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

08-09-2005, 09:55 AM	#11 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	You're lumping the government with the soldiers. My supporting them means that I wouldn't let them continue to die and starve for an unncessary cause. That doesn't mean I have to support the government's "solution" of rationing the citizens because the leader fucked up. If I didn't support the TROOPS, I'd continue to let them die for a fruitless and worthless cause. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

08-09-2005, 10:07 AM	#13 (permalink)
Redlemon Devoted Donor Location: New England	__________________ I can't read your signature. Sorry.

08-09-2005, 10:12 AM	#14 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	It's not black-and-white. Just because I support myself above supporting them does not mean I do not support them. That's like saying that I can't contribute to a charity if I'm holding any money back for me. I'm going to look after my own safety above theirs, certainly. That has absolutely nothing to do with my support or your purported lack thereof. I do not dislike GWB himself, but his policies make me pull out my hair in frustration. If they're out of food, that is poor accounting/planning on his part -- not mine. I shouldn't be unpatriotic or "not support the troops" if I choose to look after myself firsthand in the horrible military decision that made them lacking in supplies in the first place. If I have things left, they can have them. Support is CHARITY, nothing else. edit: I should add that I don't mean to inflame you, because you're one of the posters who I frequently agree with, issues of politics aside. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel Last edited by Jinn; 08-09-2005 at 10:15 AM..

08-09-2005, 03:21 PM	#16 (permalink)
Grasshopper Green ...is a comical chap Location: Where morons reign supreme	Very powerful pics, Psycho Dad. Thanks for sharing them. While I don't support the war in Iraq, I very much support the troops who are over their risking their lives and giving up their personal freedoms. __________________ "They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king" Formerly Medusa

08-09-2005, 05:32 PM	#21 (permalink)
wombatman Insane	Ustwo, it is fully possible to support troops without supporting the fighting of a war. I think Saddam being ousted will ultimately be a wonderful thing, but I think the pretenses for this war was the biggest pile of crap seen in a long time. It's not as black and white as you would have it be. You do realize that as we speak, some soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan lack the basic armor they should have to fight this "war," right? You know, the soldiers raiding junkyards to put metal on the sides of vehicles and asking Rumsfield where the resources they should have were while he sidestepped the questions? As for rationing, what kind of horrible planning would it take that we would actually reach that point? We are arguably the most powerful nation on the entire planet. We are stretched all over the world. Could we not pull back resources from some of our other bases and pour them into Iraq to actually try and finish this fight? Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I think they're all valid questions.

08-09-2005, 06:00 PM	#23 (permalink)
uncle phil comfortably numb... Super Moderator Location: upstate	i spent a couple of years in the "other" iraq, which we called viet-nam. as now, we were there for the wrong reason, but this "conflict" seems to be cloaking itself under the mantle of the "war on terrorism." i will do whatever is in my power to support troops involved in armed combat, but i will also question why they are being asked to establish a battle-line on the wrong front. to the best of my knowledge, osama bin laden and his henchmen have yet to be spotted anywhere near iraq; afghanistan and pakistan are where we should be, and where i believe our true enemy is strategizing its next assault... __________________ "We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done." - Robert S. McNamara ----------------------------------------- "We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches... We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles." - Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message" ----------------------------------------- never wrestle with a pig. you both get dirty; the pig likes it.

08-09-2005, 06:52 PM	#24 (permalink)
VitaminH An embarrassment to myself and those around me... Location: Pants	Found that pic somewhere quite awhile ago. Anyways, I think I'd ration should it become necessary (as if we'd really have a choice) as a means to ensure our guys over there are getting what they need. I do NOT however by any means take a "pro war" stance on Iraq. __________________ "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte

08-09-2005, 11:31 PM	#26 (permalink)
Suave Twitterpated Location: My own little world (also Canada)	I'm not American, but since this is hypothetical... I would tell the government to go fuck themselves. I don't support the war in Iraq, I didn't support the war in Afghanistan, and I would not ration my shit so that some redneck can dick around in someone else's country. In WWII, it was a matter of the defence and security of previously peaceful nations; now it's just a dumbfuck administration on a crusade of ignorance. __________________ "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

08-10-2005, 06:01 AM	#30 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Moved to politics....as was inevitable __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

08-10-2005, 07:12 AM	#32 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Wow! This did not go in the direction that I had intended. What I wanted to know was, not so much whether, or not, you support the actual war, or the current administration...but rather whether, or not, you really support the troops that are fighting it. And if you do support the troops...how much? To what measure are you willing to go? Only as far as it causes inconvenience, or discomfort? Ustwo? You mentioned up above there somewhere that it would've taken a string of 9-11's to get people motivated to do what it takes. Why? Have we waited to long? Is the memory of that day so distant? There was, after all, only one Pearl Harbor. And although the magnitude of December 7, 1941 was greater, wasn't the effect the same? Weren't we attacked by an external force? wombatman? You mentioned that our soldiers, that we support with bumber stickers, have to raid local junkyards in order to obtain the armor plating that they need for thier vehicles. This raises another question. In WWII, it was common to "donate" the bumpers of your car, to scrap metal drives, in order to manufacture the machines of war. These bumpers were commonly replaced with cardboard signs informing others to "Drive Carefully. I donated my bumpers to the war effort." Instead of putting magnetic stickers on them, shouldn't we be donating our bumpers (yes, I know they're really plastic) to the war effort? tecoyah? Thanks for beating me to the punch in moving this. Had I seen, in time, how far it had degraded...I'd have done so much earlier. Look guys, I know that I'm reaching with a lot of this. That I'm really comparing apples to oranges. But, does anyone see what I'm trying to do here? __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt. Last edited by Bill O'Rights; 08-10-2005 at 07:16 AM..

08-10-2005, 07:23 AM	#33 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The way I see it, Americans would absolutely make the sacrifices if rationing were neccessary. However, there is no way to compare what America is doing now to where it was in 1941. At the time America had to catch up to the Axis powers in terms of arming themselves for war. This required a concerted effort for a nation that needed to re-tool and build up for total war. America today already has the resources to win just about anything they decided to do. The lack of body armour and armour plating has nothing to with raw resources it has to do with funding. I say this without even touching on the issue of why the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-10-2005, 07:31 AM	#34 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	I don't support the troops. No one put a gun to their head and forced them to join the military. I think it's also funny how 9/11 is mentioned in this thread when the war has nothing to do with 9/11 Just goes to show how people are suckered into giving support for such things. I often hear people use the cliche, "if it wasn't for them, you wouldn't be here." Hm.. no. Maybe in WW2 when the war was actually relevant to something, but... the troops in Iraq aren't defending OUR freedoms and liberties. The events goin on there have absolutely nothing to do with us whatsoever. In fact, they're helping bastardize our freedoms and liberties by following their orders (which they have to do, I guess, but again - no one forced them to join!). They need to turn their guns the other way if they really wanna protect us. It's blind patriotism. As for the bumper stickers... very trendy. I shake my head and laugh when I see one. But yeah, as for the troops... they made their choice and they have to deal with the consequences. If I'm expected to be responsible and deal with the choices I make in life, how are they any different? __________________ I love lamp. Last edited by Stompy; 08-10-2005 at 07:35 AM..

08-10-2005, 09:00 AM	#36 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Wow... I think Ustwo and I just agreed on something. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-11-2005, 10:34 AM	#39 (permalink)
Blackthorn Beware the Mad Irish Location: Wish I was on the N17...	I consider the US Military personnel involved in this mission to be very accurate source of information. Like I said in the post above I listened to many of the interviews with front line troops who are there in Iraq and their reports were vastly different from the body count that's reported by cnn, et al. The US Military and specifically the US Marines Corp is not a propoganda machine for the Bush administration. If anyone believes that to be true then you fall into the category of those who refuse to let facts get in the way of your opinions. I'm going back to the fun forums...Ya'll be nice now. __________________ What are you willing to give up in order to get what you want?