Posted: 3/19/2003 9:25:27 AM EDT
|
The whole 'I support the troops but not the war' is a liberal obfuscation. Our guys want to do the job they were hired to do! Though they hope they are applied justly... If the liberals had a clue they couldn't bring themselves to say they supported the troops. They are hiding behind rehtoric so they won't be outted as communists/socialist/idiots. I can't stand to hear them say 'I support the troops' because they really don't... Can you imagine what would happen to the libs if they called it like they felt it? If they acctually admitted they didn't support the troops (just as they do not support the war) they would have the skin flayed from their bodies. The dems would loose their last remaining seats of political power... 'I support the troops but not the war!' Yeah right! Does anyone else get their feathers ruffled when they hear them spouting that crap? (Sorry if I missed an earlier post about this topic...) |
|
There are lots of liberals who refuse to 'support the troops' and see the all-volunteer army as mercenaries for corporate interests. It's Alice in Wonderland time as we have seen liberal Congressmen calling for a draft. But this article by a noted punk-ass bitch sums it up. He compares the US these days to-what else?-Nazi Germany. [b]Don't Support Our Troops Win or Lose, War on Iraq is Wrong[/b] by Ted Rall NEW YORK--Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential frontrunner, opposes war with Iraq. Despite this stance, he suggests that Americans should set aside their political differences once the Mother of All Bombs starts blowing up munitions dumps and babies in Baghdad. "When the war begins, if the war begins," says Kerry, "I support the troops and I support the United States of America winning as rapidly as possible. When the troops are in the field and fighting--if they're in the field and fighting--remembering what it's like to be those troops--I think they need a unified America that is prepared to win." Fellow presidential candidate Howard Dean, who calls Bush's foreign policy "ghastly" and "appalling," is the Democrats' most vocal opponent of a preemptive strike against Iraq. But once war breaks out, he says, "Of course I'll support the troops." This is an understandable impulse. As patriots, we want our country to win the wars that we fight. As Americans, we want our soldiers--young men and women who risk too much for too little pay--to come home in one piece. But supporting our troops while they're fighting an immoral and illegal war is misguided and wrong. An Unjust Cause Iraq has never attacked, nor threatened to attack, the United States. As his 1990 invasion of Kuwait proved, Saddam is a menace to his neighbors--Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel--but he's their problem, not ours. Saddam's longest-range missiles only travel 400 miles. Numerous countries are ruled by unstable megalomaniacs possessing scary weaponry. North Korea has an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the western United States and, unlike Iraq, the nuke to put inside it. Pakistan, another nuclear power run by a dangerous anti-American dictator, just unveiled its new HATF-4 ballistic missile. If disarmament were Bush's goal, shouldn't those countries--both of which have threatened to use nukes--be higher-priority targets than non-nuclear Iraq? Iraq isn't part of the war on terrorism. The only link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is the fact that they hate each other's guts. And no matter how often Bush says "9/11" and "Iraq" in the same breath, Saddam had nothing to do with the terror attacks. That leaves freeing Iraqis from Saddam's repressive rule as the sole rationale for war. Is the U.S. in the liberation business? Will Bush spread democracy to Myamnar, Congo, Turkmenistan, Cambodia, Nigeria, Cuba, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan or Laos, just to name a few places where people can't vote, speak freely or eat much? You be the judge. I wouldn't bet on it. Of course, it would be great if Iraqis were to overthrow Saddam (assuming that his successor would be an improvement). But regime change is up to the locals, not us. George W. Bush is leading us to commit an ignominious crime, an internationally-unsanctioned invasion of a nation that has done us no harm and presents no imminent threat. Germans in the 1930s We find ourselves facing the paradox of the "good German" of the '30s. We're ruled by an evil, non-elected warlord who ignores both domestic opposition and international condemnation. We don't want the soldiers fighting his unjustified wars of expansion to win--but we don't want them to lose either. Our dilemma is rendered slightly less painful by the all-volunteer nature of our armed forces: at least we aren't being asked to cheer on reluctant draftees. Presumably everybody in uniform knew what they might be in for when they signed up. "I'm horrified by this war," a friend tells me, "but once it starts we have to win and win quickly." For her, as for Kerry and Dean, our servicemen are people performing a job. They go where the politicians send them. The thing is, we don't really have to win. Losing the Vietnam War sucked, but not fighting it in the first place would have been smarter. Losing to Third Worlders in PJs led Americans to decades of relative humility, self-examination and taking the moral high ground in conflicts such as Haiti and Kosovo. Our withdrawal from Nam was mainly the result of antiwar protests and public disapproval that swayed our elected representatives. It also saved a lot of money that would otherwise gone to save more "domino" dictatorships from godless communism. Most Americans who didn't actively protest the war at least sat on their hands during Vietnam. We should do the same during Bush's coming unjust war of aggression. Members of our armed forces don't deserve insults, but their role in this war doesn't merit support. Cheering them as they leave and holding parades when they return would certainly be misinterpreted by citizens of other countries as popular support for an inglorious enterprise--and it would make it easier for Bush to send them off again, to Iran or Libya or wherever. Let's keep our flags under wraps. I want our troops to return home safely. I want them to live. Like a good German watching my countrymen march into Poland and Belgium and Luxembourg and France, I don't want them to win and I don't want them to lose. |
| the libs and the french seem to pretty much have the same mentality..."we are against this...its wrong" then when they realize its gonna happen reguardless its more along the lines of "well...we're not gonna take part...but you have our support" as to save face. what a fuggin joke. |
|
[b]Spam DU day[/b] Hell that's everyday for me. I have a pretty good post count over there now. After being ousted 6 times (about 25 posts each) I finally found the balance. They have the Hitler Youth "alert" flag, where your fellow posters can dime you out if you ruffle their feathers. You don't get out of the woods until you have made about 100 posts, then you can speak your mind within reason. It's great fun |
|
Rall is a freak in need of an attitude adjustment (choose your pleasure). HOWEVER, I can see him comin' a mile away... You know what I mean? He applies one dimensional logic to a three dimensional world. Those people ASSUME a bunch of static precepts and do not realize the dynamic nature of the world... obvious but necessary point: just because we are going to crush the Iraqi dictator does NOT mean we aren't going to deal with North Korea (or where ever else). I will take a post I saw here as accurate (though i haven't had time to research it, so I will defer this point if it is discredited): Telling South Korea that we can and will leave is THE NEWS of the day even compared to the war. Does anyone else get the repercussions of this? This is HUGE! This is a monumental FU to all of the Asian nations... I don't mena this in a bad way! I mean this to say, it puts ALL of the Asian nations on notice - FIX YOUR PROBLEM OR WE WILL! I had to wrap an extra layer of duct tape around my head for this one... (yes, I listen to Glenn Beck) |
|
I don't necessarily think it is dishonest to say you're against the war, but you support the troops. It is really a less clear way of saying that you support the people who give service to this country, but disagree with a particular application of military force. Hell, what if we decided to use the Army (never mind the legality for this discussion) to search suspected criminals' houses without warrants? You could say you suport the troops, but do not believe they should be used for that purpose. Now, it may be true that some of the people saying this may in fact NOT really support the troops and may be just saying so to avoid some heat, and it is despicable if that is what they are doing. But, really, who would want to get far enough into the mind of one of these dopes to find out? My girlfriend's brother is a big peace-nik who I expect to have visiting this weekend. If we are at war, the conversations may get a bit, um... interesting. |
|
Quoted: Now, it may be true that some of the people saying this may in fact NOT really support the troops and may be just saying so to avoid some heat, and it is despicable if that is what they are doing. Maybe I am a pessimist... But, I truly believe that is the tactic. Does anyone believe Dasshole when he says he supports the troops? That man will only and ever support himself and his reelection... |
|
[RANT ON!] And... when the analysts or politicians or whoever stands up and says we didn't do the best diplomatic job that we could have done... I want to scream, vomit, throw stuff at the TV or punch myself in the head to stop the torment! HOW CAN THEY SAY THIS!!?????!! No we didn't go beg and kiss ass... BUT, can ANYONE tell me that would have worked? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! Yes, we must be respectful of the world but not to the point humiliating emasculation! Everyone knows Saddam is a freako and a threat, HOW/WHY can they pretend that isn't true? Why does the world forget reality and sink into a quagmire of semantics? Am I missing something? "Well, the Saddam situation is difficult and we must work hard to make sure we have explored every avenue to help him reach a peacful understanding." (This is not a REAL quote... This is an amalgam of many quotes...) Does that not stand you on your head? Why can't Ari have a bag of nerf balls behind his podium and whenever some idiot asks something so completely stupid/obvious/loaded/insulting he gets to peg them in the head and move to the next reporter... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Now, it may be true that some of the people saying this may in fact NOT really support the troops and may be just saying so to avoid some heat, and it is despicable if that is what they are doing. Maybe I am a pessimist... But, I truly believe that is the tactic. Does anyone believe Dasshole when he says he supports the troops? That man will only and ever support himself and his reelection... J, you could be totally right about the people who are actually saying this. I don't listen to enough of them long enough to develop a strong opinion about whether they really mean it, or not. I do believe that [i]some[/i] of the people against the coming military action have honest differences with what we're doing, so I respect them. I think they are completely wrong [:D], but I also think that not all of them are politically motivated or anti-American. |
|
Quoted: I also think that not all of them are politically motivated or anti-American. I agree! I can understand a person honestly dissenting... And, I wouldn't consider denigrating them for it! I would even defend them with my life if need be! This is America[:D]!!! I guess I was just RANTING way too much. I get frustrated because I feel 'lied to' and cheated and I look around at others who do not seem to notice. |
|
Quoted: Saying "Liberal liars" is like saying "poodle dogs". It is redundant. Yes sir. That was kinda stupid... I was just too mad to see/think straight! My wife says we should get some of those 'fun noodles' from WalMart and whack the crap out of people that have their heads rectally implanted. [^] |