I thought Iraq didn't have any WMD

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

How irrelevant can you get?

Not irrelevant at all. August's statement was a direct reaction to Vienna's seeming claim that August was willing to sacrifice other's lives but not his own.

You are not special, wearing a uniform doesn't make it suddenly OK to peddle lines that are well established as totally false
In fact it makes it worse as you are showing utter contempt for the soldiers by still supporting a pile of lies that killed and maimed lots of them

While I disagree with August on this, as long as he believes that he has the truth he is showing contempt for no one.

What have you got against them?
If you liked them you wouldn't have been in favour of the sillyness in Iraq.

His point was that he was one of them. You seem to be going back and forth on that.

Not irrelevant at all.

Did he go to Iraq in that episode of sillyness?
If not then any previous service is entirely irrelevant.

While I disagree with August on this, as long as he believes that he has the truth he is showing contempt for no one.

Do you really think anyone can honestly still believe that nonsense long after the authors of the rubbish have said it was bull?
Is it more likely that they are clutching at sttaws because it chokes them up that they were played as suckers and supported the waste of the troops.

His point was that he was one of them.

Not there, his point was that he had friends a family who were in Iraq.
That puts him on par with Cindy Sheehan and simply means that his views must be taken on their merit alone so if it is a crap view he holds then he holds a crap view.
Sheehans views are not suddenly right just because her son was in Iraq are they, some of her views hold water, some are rubbish and some are just very confused.
So on an equal measure Augusts views on this topic are just pure rubbish as they don't stand.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Did he go to Iraq in that episode of sillyness?
If not then any previous service is entirely irrelevant.

Not at all. I wasn't in Iraq, but I was in Vietnam. If you've never served you have no idea what it feels like to be accused of not being willing to risk your own life when you have done exactly that. I have friends who weren't in Iraq this time around, but were in Kuwait for the Gulf War. August signed up, and he would have gone wherever they sent him. His service is no less valid than anyone else's. It's not irrelevant at all.

Do you really think anyone can honestly still believe that nonsense long after the authors of the rubbish have said it was bull?
Is it more likely that they are clutching at sttaws because it chokes them up that they were played as suckers and supported the waste of the troops.

I tend to agree with you. Even if he is clutching at straws, his self-defense in the face of "as long as it's not your own life" is still relevant.

Sheehans views are not suddenly right just because her son was in Iraq are they, some of her views hold water, some are rubbish and some are just very confused.

No, nor would they have been right if she herself had served. That said, no one accused her of being willing to risk someone else's life but not her own. That accusation is the same as accusing someone of cowardice. Whatever I may think of August's arguing skills or tactics, I am certain that he is not coward, and that he would have willingly served in Iraq had circumstances dictated.

So on an equal measure Augusts views on this topic are just pure rubbish as they don't stand.

I agree, but that's not what his defence was about, or your charge of irrelevance. If you think his service is irrelevant to his argument, fine. I agree. But that's not why he brought it up. He brought it up because he was accused of what amounts to cowardice, and that grates on anyone who has served, whether he saw actual combat or not.

Not at all. I wasn't in Iraq, but I was in Vietnam.

But this isn't about Vietnam or Lebanon or Grenada or anywhere else, this is specificly about the bullexcrement used to justify the war in Iraq so it only counts for that conflict.

That accusation is the same as accusing someone of cowardice.

No it isn't.
Take a serviceman/ex serviceman who opposed the 2nd Boer war and supported the Great war or viceversa, which stand is he the coward for?
Take a serviceman who opposed both wars, which then.
Each must be dealt with on its merits and cowardice doesn't even rate on the meter of a decent arguement.
The only possible angle approaching "cowardice" here is a abject fear of facing the reality about the politicians lies.
That happens to be a common thing throughout history where people have to face the question of "what the hell was that all about?" after the conflict.
All too often some people slide into some myth as a comfort as they can't face the reality of it.

[Catfish]

repeating post #84: War made easy.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No it isn't.

"as long as it isn't your life, right?"

Yes it is.

Take a serviceman...

Now you're being irrelevant. Your example has nothing to do with the "your life" comment.

Yes it is.

Did he volunteer to go to Iraq?
Did he sign up for a shift with Blackwater?
If not then no it isn't as previous service is not relevant to sending troops to Iraq over a bunch of lies.

Now you're being irrelevant. Your example has nothing to do with the "your life" comment.

No as they would be conflict specific examples which is why they work as the whole topic is conflict specific.

To claim that "as long as it isn't your life" totally ignores that point and just goes to show that you have either no understanding of the sacrifices of a soldier (and thus take those sacrifices for granted) or you choose to dishonor the sacrifices.

It is the people who still carry on the lies about the conflict that are the ones dishonouring the sacrifices.