Does The Left Honestly Support Our Troops?

Body armour is just one issue. Vehicle armour is another.
Throwing ill- prepared and equipped Home Guard units into an insurgent war is another.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-04/12-23-04/a02wn494.htm

HOUSTON -- Members of a second National Guard unit that prepared for duty in Iraq at the Army's Fort Bliss compound have come forward with allegations that they were not adequately trained. The soldiers said in interviews, e-mails and official documents that they were sent to war earlier this year with chronic illness, broken guns and trucks with blown transmissions.
The unit's M-60 machine guns reportedly were in such bad condition when the soldiers deployed in February that one sergeant -- in a section of a post-training summary sent to his commanders that was titled "gun maintenance" -- wrote: "Perhaps we should throw stones?"
The allegations come a month after another National Guard unit alleged that its training at Fort Bliss was so poor that soldiers feared incurring needlessly high casualties when they arrive in Iraq early next year.
Although the military has defended its troop preparedness, the willingness of units to go public with allegations suggests growing concern among National Guard and reserve members.
In the summary document obtained by the Los Angeles Times, the sergeant reported that some soldiers had arrived in Iraq without ever having fired some of the weapons they would use in war. Military commanders at the Fort Bliss complex, which straddles the Texas-New Mexico line, had misread mobilization orders, costing the soldiers a month of training, the sergeant wrote.
"We have been called away from our homes and families for hostile operations. We are owed a chance to be trained properly and given the tools to obtain that objective," the sergeant wrote.
Fort Bliss spokeswoman Jean Offutt said Wednesday that the base has trained and deployed -- and in many cases redeployed-- 40,000 soldiers in the past three years.
"We have had very few issues," she said. "This is quite a surprise. But I understand there will always be some units who have things that they need to talk about or work on."

This report is a year old so I'm sure that conditions have improved. My point is that throwing badly equipped and trained men into battle to avoid the repercussions of a draft shows a lot less support for our troops than anything that McG says the liberals are guilty of.

a friend of ours has a son who is stationed in Baghdad at this moment. he's due to return in December, unless his tour of duty gets extended again. his mom is no war supporter, but it's offensive to imply that she doesn't support the troops because she disagrees with the policy that put her son in Iraq.

the right is fond of scorecards when it comes to voting records. a telling scorecard for me would be the number of children, grandchildren, nieces, and nephews of Congressmen who are currently serving in the Armed forces. that would speak louder to me than rhetoric about supporting troops.

No, but you obviously support them regardless of how egregious their acts may be. A rather incongruous perspective if you ask me.

Yes. Next question.

Next Question:

Does the right really support our troops?

Certain members on the right tend to give Bush carte blanche support.
Forget the troops, they don't go that far down the line of command. If Bush supports something ipso facto, so do they.

When did Baldimo become part of the Bush administration?

Ironic humor, Boss . . . i knew what he meant . . .

Providing support for the mission and the troops is a better support for the troops then anything else. I don't understand how one can do one and not the other and still claim support for the people.

Baldimo said:

That's a silly game blatham.

It's what he's capable of. Simple mind equals simple pleasures.

Everybody who pays taxes is supporting the troops, whether they like it or not.

True. I could not resist it however.

McG...your premise here is truly dangerous. As soon as you equate 'patriotism' with uncritical support of political policies and decisions, and equate 'support of the troops' with equally uncritical or silenced sentiment/speech regarding what they are up to, you head straight into the territory of totalitarianism.

I have seen to many on the left question the way the military operates, the way the soldiers behave, the way the civilian administration operates within the bounds of the MCOJ to believe that everyone of them support the US military in any form other than offering the token "How dare you question my patriotism!".

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.

The author states

Read this without the partisan glasses on. What is he saying?

How would you chose to define the phrase "support our troops"?

The article is not about patriotism. Read the second paragraph.

It's a debate of whether one can support what the troops are doing and root for them to succeed.

This was brought up in another thread some months ago (can't remember the title), but I remember being impressed with one member in particular (Freeduck), who said that it was difficult, given her opposition to the reasons we went into Iraq in the first place.

I honestly don't think I could support our troops if I opposed the war. That doesn't mean I would denegrate them in any way and no one here is saying anyone does that.

It's just hard to see how one can say they 'support our troops' if they don't believe in the mission in which they're presently engaged.

Patriotism and support. Perhaps two different things.

JW, without that LOL, you're posts are pretty good :wink:.

I pretty much agree with what you say, and that brings me back to an earlier question, why write such an article? Why post such a thread? Suppose everyone who is against the war said they don't support the troops (leaving aside for a moment the fact that "support" is largely subject to interpretation), what then? I just don't see why it matters.

As the author states, Freeduck, it's a matter of honesty.

Hey McG, sometimes I wipe my rear with my bare hand. Why does it matter? It's a matter of honesty.

Why do you honestly need to know who supports the troops in the way that you define "support"?

It is a false dilemma.