Does The Left Honestly Support Our Troops?

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I disagree. If a sizeable number of citizens who are willing to sacrfice the good of their country for their own political ends, try to frame the administration in power for anything they can pin on them, and declare defeat anytime there is the smallest military setback or any military goal can be identified that has not yet been met, there is really the likelihood of damage to the war effort. In what you say above, you are making the unrealistic assumption that everyone is honest and has good intentions.

So you had the same standard from 1992-2000? You felt the same way about Republicans during Bosnia? Kosovo?
Somehow Brandon I think you are a fair weather patriot when it comes to this standard. Only as long as YOU support the war.

What was my position on the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo? What did I say, and how did I behave?

Please provide some post of mine in which I did what you assert, or else withraw the accusation.

Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I disagree. If a sizeable number of citizens who are willing to sacrfice the good of their country for their own political ends, try to frame the administration in power for anything they can pin on them, and declare defeat anytime there is the smallest military setback or any military goal can be identified that has not yet been met, there is really the likelihood of damage to the war effort. In what you say above, you are making the unrealistic assumption that everyone is honest and has good intentions.

So you had the same standard from 1992-2000? You felt the same way about Republicans during Bosnia? Kosovo?
Somehow Brandon I think you are a fair weather patriot when it comes to this standard. Only as long as YOU support the war.

What was my position on the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo? What did I say, and how did I behave?

Please provide some post of mine in which I did what you assert, or else withraw the accusation.

An assertion? Geez.. Brandon.. Now a statement with a question mark is an assertion?

Or do you think an Opinion is an assertion where I said "I THINK"...

You accused me of making an assertion. Quite funny really... A little defensive aren't you? I am curious what I "asserted."

Somehow Brandon I think you are a fair weather patriot when it comes to this standard. Only as long as YOU support the war.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I guess that we should attempt to work with the UN, and, if that fails, do it ourselves as we did when there was ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. I certainly don't think we should just sit back and watch the most abhorrent acts of evil occur. Since we are strong and wealthy, we have a greater responsibility than most to act when there is suffering on such a massive scale.

I would agree with all but one little part of that. As far as I've ever been able to tell, there wasn't any ethnic cleansing going on in Kosovo. What WAS going on was that Slick Clinton needed something to take Chinagate and the Juanita Broaddrick story off the front pges of American newspapers.

If a sizeable number of citizens who are willing to sacrfice the good of their country for their own political ends, try to frame the administration in power for anything they can pin on them, and declare defeat anytime there is the smallest military setback or any military goal can be identified that has not yet been met, there is really the likelihood of damage to the war effort. In what you say above, you are making the unrealistic assumption that everyone is honest and has good intentions.

"I THINK" is not an accusation at all. It is my opinion. I don't have to defend my opinions to you. But if you really want to see what you have done in the past let me show you.

I can't find a response by you to this....

gungasnake wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I guess that we should attempt to work with the UN, and, if that fails, do it ourselves as we did when there was ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. I certainly don't think we should just sit back and watch the most abhorrent acts of evil occur. Since we are strong and wealthy, we have a greater responsibility than most to act when there is suffering on such a massive scale.

I would agree with all but one little part of that. As far as I've ever been able to tell, there wasn't any ethnic cleansing going on in Kosovo. What WAS going on was that Slick Clinton needed something to take Chinagate and the Juanita Broaddrick story off the front pges of American newspapers.

Gunga certainly seems to meet the standard you set out here but you didn't question him at all or even respond.

Brandon9000 wrote:

If a sizeable number of citizens who are willing to sacrfice the good of their country for their own political ends, try to frame the administration in power for anything they can pin on them, and declare defeat anytime there is the smallest military setback or any military goal can be identified that has not yet been met, there is really the likelihood of damage to the war effort. In what you say above, you are making the unrealistic assumption that everyone is honest and has good intentions.

In fact for ALL the attacks against Clinton on this board for Kosovo and Bosnia I can't seem to find a single one by you defending Clinton and going after those attacking him for it. Care to prove me wrong? Your lack of ever doing such a thing is all I need to form my opinion.

I agree with MA that president Clinton was asked about ML [Monica Lewinsky] solely for the purpose of inducing a lie.

I didn't agree with most of Clinton's policies, but he was the rightful president - period. The provisions for impeachment are in the Consitution for a reason, and there are conditions under which impeachment is appropriate. However, using impeachment to continue an election you lost is, in my view, very close to treason, at least by my definition. While it was going on, I argued bitterly against it with many of my friends who were for it.

Brandon, as usual you are way too sensitive and defensive. When you can come up with something that's not condescendingly pandering to the right, let me know. I'm waiting with baited breath.

I have stated that it is unpatriotic to criticize a war currently in progress to such an extent as to actually undermine the effort. This is my opinion.

The fact that I do not defend an ex-president's former war on this board, does not in any way indicate that I would myself criticize him during a war he initiated to the extent of weakening the war effort.

In fact, you have suggested that I probably did this in past wars and only apply my philosophy to wars I personally agree with.

If you were a fair person, you would not suggest I am guilty of something you have no evidence whatever of me doing, and cannot find a single post anywhere in which I'm doing it.

It so happens that I supported Clinton's wars wholeheartedly, especially Kosovo. It may be that he took some military action that I am simply unaware of and would not have approved of, but I know of no such case, and if I did, I would never criticize it to the extent that it might give aid and comfort to the enemy.

When the Kosovo war was in progress, in fact, I defended it very strongly on the boards I was on at the time. I am not required in the least to defend prior wars against others who criticize them in order to adhere to my philosophy that one should not make a truly damaging criticism of wars in prohgress. However, it so happens that I did a lot of Clinton defending when he was in office, even though I disagreed with many of his domestic policies. In fact I sent him two letters telling him that his critics were wrong, and received a response to one of them. Yes, I do have a few posts defending him on this board. Here is the first one I could find:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I agree with MA that president Clinton was asked about ML [Monica Lewinsky] solely for the purpose of inducing a lie.

I didn't agree with most of Clinton's policies, but he was the rightful president - period. The provisions for impeachment are in the Consitution for a reason, and there are conditions under which impeachment is appropriate. However, using impeachment to continue an election you lost is, in my view, very close to treason, at least by my definition. While it was going on, I argued bitterly against it with many of my friends who were for it.

You can find this post here: Source

Your idea that you are justified in accusing another member of doing something for which you can find not one single example simply shows that you have very low standards of debating behavior.

Now, either find a post in which I am actually criticizing an American war in progress, or the people running it, to the extent of likely weakening the war effort, or admit that it's some baloney you just made up.

Lightwizard wrote:

Brandon, as usual you are way too sensitive and defensive. When you can come up with something that's not condescendingly pandering to the right, let me know. I'm waiting with baited breath.

Do you believe that it is appropriate to criticize another poster for a position he has never taken, and that he is too sensitive if he asks for evidence of this non-existent behavior? I don't really care whether you say yes or no, because the proper answer will be obvious to any fair person.

McG wrote:

I agree that patriotism does not equate out to blindly following the administration, but at the same time always criticizing and blaming does not equate patriotism either.

So, what's the middle ground? Just be silent? If, indeed, one is to love one's country, and one's country is supposedly founded on the idea that the actions of its government should represent the will of its people, how is it patriotic to remain silent?

baldimo wrote:

Think of the moral support this gives those fighting against our troops.

blatham wrote:

Ought German citizens to have supported their troops in 1945? All the troops? Regardless of their tasks and their behavior?

Would Japanese citizens in the same period have been morally wrong to protest the nation's forces? To speak out against, had they known, the treatment of Americans held and tortured? Is that an instance of 'not supporting the troops'?

baldimo wrote:

It figures you would bring in the past of non-democratic countries on the war rampage. Our country and those countries have nothing in common. It is only in the minds of people such as yourself that there is a link. Try to think a little bit more highly of your fellow citizens before talking so much poop.

It really is that hard for you to imagine that anything the military face of our nation might do could be morally and/or practically wrong, isn't it?

foxfyre wrote:

There will be decades to come when we can hash out whether the war should have been fought but that should happen before we commit orafter our men and women are no longer in harms way. It should not happen when their lives are on the line out there.

So what if, while they are there, and we are offering our support by withholding our objections to the war, another war begins? What then? Must we wait until all fronts are quiet and/or abandoned before we voice our criticism? Seems to me that an awful lot of people could die in that time.

Brandon wrote:

I sort of thought that some of the loyal opposition might agree to start acting responsibly, and voluntarily express their anti-war, anti-Bush opinions in a form that is not damaging to our performance in the war.

What form of expression would you recommend?

The fact that I do not defend an ex-president's former war on this board, does not in any way indicate that I would myself criticize him during a war he initiated to the extent of weakening the war effort.

Who said you did criticize any war? I didn't.

I only asked if you went after those that did.

Brandon9000 wrote:

...If a sizeable number of citizens who are willing to sacrfice the good of their country for their own political ends, try to frame the administration in power for anything they can pin on them, and declare defeat anytime there is the smallest military setback or any military goal can be identified that has not yet been met, there is really the likelihood of damage to the war effort....

1. So you had the same standard from 1992-2000? You felt the same way about Republicans during Bosnia? Kosovo?


2. Somehow Brandon I think you are a fair weather patriot when it comes to this standard. Only as long as YOU support the war.

parados wrote:

The standard as set out by Brandon.

Brandon9000 wrote:

...If a sizeable number of citizens who are willing to sacrfice the good of their country for their own political ends, try to frame the administration in power for anything they can pin on them, and declare defeat anytime there is the smallest military setback or any military goal can be identified that has not yet been met, there is really the likelihood of damage to the war effort....

All uses of "standard" refer back to Brandon's standard.

1. So you had the same standard from 1992-2000? You felt the same way about Republicans during Bosnia? Kosovo?


2. Somehow Brandon I think you are a fair weather patriot when it comes to this standard. Only as long as YOU support the war.

(Numbering of statements is mine)

Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:

The standard as set out by Brandon.

Brandon9000 wrote:

...If a sizeable number of citizens who are willing to sacrfice the good of their country for their own political ends, try to frame the administration in power for anything they can pin on them, and declare defeat anytime there is the smallest military setback or any military goal can be identified that has not yet been met, there is really the likelihood of damage to the war effort....

All uses of "standard" refer back to Brandon's standard.

1. So you had the same standard from 1992-2000? You felt the same way about Republicans during Bosnia? Kosovo?


2. Somehow Brandon I think you are a fair weather patriot when it comes to this standard. Only as long as YOU support the war.

(Numbering of statements is mine)

I disagee...if a sizeable number of (corrupt politicians) are willing to sacrifice the good of their country for their own (economic and) political ends, try to frame the administration in power (by lies and deceit),and declare(victory)anytime there is the smallest military(victory)or any military goal can be identified that (can not be met),there is really the likelihood of damage to the war effort

...If a sizeable number of citizens who are willing to sacrfice the good of their country for their own political ends, try to frame the administration in power for anything they can pin on them, and declare defeat anytime there is the smallest military setback or any military goal can be identified that has not yet been met, there is really the likelihood of damage to the war effort....

My stated opinion is that one should not criticize a war that one's country is currently in, or the people who are running it, in such a way and to the point of undermining the war effort.

I disagree. If a sizeable number of citizens who are willing to sacrfice the good of their country for their own political ends, try to frame the administration in power for anything they can pin on them, and declare defeat anytime there is the smallest military setback or any military goal can be identified that has not yet been met, there is really the likelihood of damage to the war effort. In what you say above, you are making the unrealistic assumption that everyone is honest and has good intentions.

Amigo wrote:

I disagee...if a sizeable number of (corrupt politicians) are willing to sacrifice the good of their country for their own (economic and) political ends, try to frame the administration in power (by lies and deceit),and declare(victory)anytime there is the smallest military(victory)or any military goal can be identified that (can not be met),there is really the likelihood of damage to the war effort

You are not hereby disagreeing with me, since both your proposition and mine could be true simultaneously. Is your thinking always this muddy?

Brandon,

How about we be honest and go post your ENTIRE statement and not just the ellipsed shortened version..

You said

Quote:

I disagree. If a sizeable number of citizens who are willing to sacrfice the good of their country for their own political ends, try to frame the administration in power for anything they can pin on them, and declare defeat anytime there is the smallest military setback or any military goal can be identified that has not yet been met, there is really the likelihood of damage to the war effort. In what you say above, you are making the unrealistic assumption that everyone is honest and has good intentions.

We will leave off what you disagreed with for now.
Your standard is that anytime citizens disagree substantially with an administration about a war then they are undermining the war effort.

I asked.
1.) Did you think that the GOP undermined war effort under Clinton? Certainly they pointed out failures etc. So do you think the GOP met your standard of undermining a war effort? In no way did I use the term YOU in respect to criticism of the war in this question. I only asked about your feelings to such criticism.

2.) Is in direct response to your "honest and good intentions" claim. If you oppose the war then you would probably think criticism IS honest and well intentioned. Since you claim you have never opposed a war while holding your standard this is still a hypothetical. Again it has nothing to do with you criticizing but your response to others doing so. I contend your standard of what kind of criticism would undermine a war effort would change if you opposed the war. Politics are in the eye of the beholder. The opposition is only political if you are on the other side.