• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iraq veteran, activist Tomas Young dies at 34

I don't know, that's why I posed the question.

Fair enough. I've seen people come back from Iraq unhurt who support the war and those who don't. It seems to be a mixed bag. Much probably depends on where they did their tour.
 
I remember my mom telling me, after I had already been to Iraq both in the initial invasion and then very early in the occupation, that if I went back again and died there, she'd protest it. Otherwise, she could be on board. I couldn't stop laughing: "Mom, either it's a good action or it's not, whether I die or not has nothing to do with it. I know you're gonna be emotional as hell, cause that's who you are, but at least try to be rational before you go off the rails!"

Many families "go off the rails" over war dead. It happens.
 
Never said he didn't fulfill his oath or serve with honor or not. Just that every serviceman that enters the military knows that there is a chance they will find them selves in harms way. Maybe never, maybe as soon as they get out of basic.

As someone who actually went into 'harm's way'- sweet, sanitized for never been's protection, way for referring to a hell on earth- I can say there is a huge difference between knowing the risks and hoping against all hope the fearless leaders who strike photo-op poses on carriers use at least as much thought in why brave young folks are sent into 'harm's way' as into the sell to the citizens who will never go but seem quite certain about it all.

It seems far too often the leaders fall so short compared to those who never see another sunrise after going into 'harm's way'.

Gotta love that term... Harm's Way....
 
I don't know, that's why I posed the question.

I assumed when I first heard of him that his injuries probably did have a lot to do with his position. I have not heard his cause of death. I was curious if he finally killed himself or if perhaps he overdid his meds by accident or something.
 
Er.... no. Once they are out, certainly. But so long as servicemembers are in, they don't get 1st Amendment rights to the extent that they use their position and experience to further political sentiment. You cannot, for example, attend a political rally in uniform, use your identity as a selling point when advocating a cause, or use your government email address to solicit donations for a candidate or party. You also are not authorized to publicly go around criticizing your chain of command in any manner likely to lead to damage to good order and discipline.

You give up part of your 1st Amendment rights when you sign the dotted line. It's part of the deal.

What?

1st Amendment = saying anything Good or Bad. If you remove someone's 1st Amendment Rights you're denying them the right to say 'Hey - I like these new BDU's' as well. Keep it straight.

What you're saying here isn't '1st Amendment Rights' are denied - what you're saying here is 'If what you feel and do is in direct opposition to our bottom line (etc) then we have the right to nix you.

And that is true for just about ANY business or branch of government - is it not? Yes, It is.

So - yes - they do have the Right to complain - they do OFTEN [there are proper channels to do so] - but sometimes, depending on how they do this, they do so at the risk of violating code (etc) and accept consequences when it happens. Like in just about anything in which one person is contractually obligated to a greater entity.

-- I don't get what's so confusing about that.
 

Yup. You go through annual training on it, it's on the AFN commercials, all that good stuff.

1st Amendment = saying anything Good or Bad. If you remove someone's 1st Amendment Rights you're denying them the right to say 'Hey - I like these new BDU's' as well. Keep it straight.

The First Amendment is usually meant to speak directly to political or religious speech (that's the language of the text). However, your first Amendment rights aren't removed. They are restricted.

And it's a dang good thing they are, too. In this country we are very serious that we do NOT want a politicized military.

What you're saying here isn't '1st Amendment Rights' are denied - what you're saying here is 'If what you feel and do is in direct opposition to our bottom line (etc) then we have the right to nix you.

:shrug: if by "first amendment right" you mean "I can wear my uniform to a political rally" or "I can use my status as a soldier to advocate for a particular candidate or party", then, yes. That is illegal.

And that is true for just about ANY business or branch of government - is it not? Yes, It is.

Well, no. No other employer that I am aware of can throw you in jail for that sort of thing.

So - yes - they do have the Right to complain - they do OFTEN [there are proper channels to do so]

Sure. You can request mast. That is why I pointed out that the form that is banned is that which is A) public and B) likely to lead to damage of good order and discipline. Being blatantly disrespectful is also illegal.

- but sometimes, depending on how they do this, they do so at the risk of violating code (etc) and accept consequences when it happens

:shrug: sure. And when you knowingly break the law, that is what you should expect.
 
As someone who actually went into 'harm's way'- sweet, sanitized for never been's protection, way for referring to a hell on earth- I can say there is a huge difference between knowing the risks and hoping against all hope the fearless leaders who strike photo-op poses on carriers use at least as much thought in why brave young folks are sent into 'harm's way' as into the sell to the citizens who will never go but seem quite certain about it all.

It seems far too often the leaders fall so short compared to those who never see another sunrise after going into 'harm's way'.

Gotta love that term... Harm's Way....
Nice circular speech.
 
Good riddance to bad rubbish.


What? Brother could say whatever the **** he wanted, dude signed on the line, and was paralized in the line of duty. We sign on the line for the right for people to have the freedom to say what they want. Even if we don't agree with them. This guy, earned more than most the right to say what he wanted, whether you and I agree with him or not.
 
What? Brother could say whatever the **** he wanted, dude signed on the line, and was paralized in the line of duty. We sign on the line for the right for people to have the freedom to say what they want. Even if we don't agree with them. This guy, earned more than most the right to say what he wanted, whether you and I agree with him or not.

I didn't say he couldn't. Whether he deserved respect for his service and had the right to say what he wanted is immaterial. You know as well as I that sometimes there are enemies that are deserving of respect, but they are enemies none the less.

When he chose to side with evil and those who don't want evil to be fought and destroyed, he made himself the enemy of good people. Period.
 
Would you care to expand on that? Or were you just going for "shock value"?

After returning from war, he choose to side with evil. He spoke out against the fight against evil and further demonstrated a "national selfishness" that made him an enemy to good people. It was his choice. He had earned the right to that choice. But, that does not, in any way, make him right or any less of an enemy to good.
 
I didn't say he couldn't. Whether he deserved respect for his service and had the right to say what he wanted is immaterial. You know as well as I that sometimes there are enemies that are deserving of respect, but they are enemies none the less.

When he chose to side with evil and those who don't want evil to be fought and destroyed, he made himself the enemy of good people. Period.


evil what now? they aren't the enemy, they are our countrymen and women who happen to disaree with you. Many of them are kooks granted, but I still signed on the line to protect my fellow countrymen, regardless of thier politics.. This guy, paralyzed and ultimately died, from a bullet in iraq by an actual enemy and did so protecting your so called "good people" and people you disagree with.
 
After returning from war, he choose to side with evil. He spoke out against the fight against evil and further demonstrated a "national selfishness" that made him an enemy to good people. It was his choice. He had earned the right to that choice. But, that does not, in any way, make him right or any less of an enemy to good.
I would not characterize the people I oppose politically as evil. They are not.

If we allow ourselves to get to the point of absolutism in our politics then we're only a step away from the abyss. I sincerely hope you can allow yourself to take a step back and reevaluate.
 
I would not characterize the people I oppose politically as evil. They are not.

If we allow ourselves to get to the point of absolutism in our politics then we're only a step away from the abyss. I sincerely hope you can allow yourself to take a step back and reevaluate.

All socialist are evil because socialism is evil. Subjugation and slavery are evil, therefore, socialism must be evil.
 
evil what now? they aren't the enemy, they are our countrymen and women who happen to disaree with you. Many of them are kooks granted, but I still signed on the line to protect my fellow countrymen, regardless of thier politics.. This guy, paralyzed and ultimately died, from a bullet in iraq by an actual enemy and did so protecting your so called "good people" and people you disagree with.

Perhaps they were once our countrymen, but by adopting the very thing that we fought against, they became traitors.

BTW, the evil I was first referring to was Saddam and his regime. That was the evil we fought. Them and those radical idiots who planned, carried out and harbored the organization Al Queda. Since was against the war in Iraq, then he promoted evil. It is sad that he fell so far from grace that even one of Satan's most vile creations, a socialist, would mention his name in anything but fear.

It is impossible for socialist to be my countrymen, they would have to be human to be that.
 
Last edited:
I just generally find anti-war activists to be hopelessly naive idealists. I don't particularly mind humble naivety or even humble idealists, but I really abhor self righteous idealists- and almost by definition, if you're an activist, you're self righteous.
 
I just generally find anti-war activists to be hopelessly naive idealists. I don't particularly mind humble naivety or even humble idealists, but I really abhor self righteous idealists- and almost by definition, if you're an activist, you're self righteous.




"likeing" and protecting ones countrymen are irrelevant to each other.
 
Perhaps they were once our countrymen, but by adopting the very thing that we fought against, they became traitors.

BTW, the evil I was first referring to was Saddam and his regime. That was the evil we fought. Them and those radical idiots who planned, carried out and harbored the organization Al Queda. Since was against the war in Iraq, then he promoted evil. It is sad that he fell so far from grace that even one of Satan's most vile creations, a socialist, would mention his name in anything but fear.

It is impossible for socialist to be my countrymen, they would have to be human to be that.


What evil did he promote? I never heard any of what he said. perhaps you can enlighten me.


I've come around to think the war in iraq was a mistake. We are great at invasions and crushing the enemy, not so good at the occupation aspect. One that takes so long that eventually you'll get an obama and a pre-mature withdrawal and a worse thing rising than what was there.


We need to not be the ones in other countries anymore., let muslims fight muslim wars.
 
What evil did he promote? I never heard any of what he said. perhaps you can enlighten me.


I've come around to think the war in iraq was a mistake. We are great at invasions and crushing the enemy, not so good at the occupation aspect. One that takes so long that eventually you'll get an obama and a pre-mature withdrawal and a worse thing rising than what was there.


We need to not be the ones in other countries anymore., let muslims fight muslim wars.

Those who do not fight evil condone it and promote it. Those who attempt to stop others from fighting evil are thus evil themselves, supporting and promoting it.

No, the was was not wrong. It was handled incorrectly. There is a big difference. The leadership did not have the courage to fight it properly. Know your enemy, attack his weaknesses with your strength.

The only thing that protects a human's mind when in hell, like a war zone, is the armor of contempt. That armor is built upon faith that what you are doing is absolutely right. Break that faith and you strip away the armor, breaking the mind and filling VA clinics with PTSD victims.

I hold socialist in contempt, not just for wars past, but wars future. You can choose to bow down in slavery because the slavers are your "countrymen", I won't. ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.
 
Those who do not fight evil condone it and promote it. Those who attempt to stop others from fighting evil are thus evil themselves, supporting and promoting it.

Again, what "evil" did he promote?

No, the was was not wrong. It was handled incorrectly. There is a big difference. The leadership did not have the courage to fight it properly. Know your enemy, attack his weaknesses with your strength.

If they couldn't handle it properly, they shouldn't have sent us. they saw that as our "weekness" and attacked us on 911, today we have the beginning of a pan arabic caliphate, just as they planned and told us in 1991.

The only thing that protects a human's mind when in hell, like a war zone, is the armor of contempt. That armor is built upon faith that what you are doing is absolutely right. Break that faith and you strip away the armor, breaking the mind and filling VA clinics with PTSD victims.


Wait, you think PTSD is caused by a lack of faith, not the ****ing 7.62 wizzing past your head and the bombs going off? really? no really?


I hold socialist in contempt, not just for wars past, but wars future. You can choose to bow down in slavery because the slavers are your "countrymen", I won't. ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.


lol, how do you not bow down? please to explain.
 
Those who do not fight evil condone it and promote it. Those who attempt to stop others from fighting evil are thus evil themselves, supporting and promoting it.

No, the was was not wrong. It was handled incorrectly. There is a big difference. The leadership did not have the courage to fight it properly. Know your enemy, attack his weaknesses with your strength.

The only thing that protects a human's mind when in hell, like a war zone, is the armor of contempt. That armor is built upon faith that what you are doing is absolutely right. Break that faith and you strip away the armor, breaking the mind and filling VA clinics with PTSD victims.

I hold socialist in contempt, not just for wars past, but wars future. You can choose to bow down in slavery because the slavers are your "countrymen", I won't. ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

This is one of the craziest, most unhinged rants I've ever read. Pure, weapons-grade lunacy.
 
Back
Top Bottom