Does The Left Honestly Support Our Troops?

It isn't a matter of supporting or not support a war JL. But once we're in a war, there are two honorable options as I see it---quit and let the other guy win by default--this presumes that you think the other guy should win I think--or get behind our guys and give them the best possible shot at the best possible outcome which means absolute victory with honor.

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.

0 Replies

Again, that is the false dilemma. Choices are greater and nuanced options much more available than this simplistic formulation suggests. Doesn't it bother you fox that you almost always head to the simple formulation? It ought to.

This is not a war with a final winner and a final loser who signs a document and succumbs to territorial occupation and civic reorganization. What on earth might 'victory' mean in this situation?

Is it more moral to continue with a military campagin when the view up ahead looks like a lot of people will be killed and maimed to no real or likely consequence...if it looks like the whole thing was a big bloody mistake in the first place?

In any case, you aren't going to change your mind on this issue as you are not going to change your mind on almost every issue you take your partisan position on. So the rest of us will keep pushing to end this idiotic and immoral war and to denounce the persons and ideologies that sit behind it.

0 Replies

I feel no responsibility for troop morale. The responsibility for that lies with the person who gave them the bullshit mission.

0 Replies

So FD & Blatham take the non-option which is to denounce, criticize, demean, defame--other adjectives apply but you get my drift--thus prolonging what in your view is an 'immoral war' and thus prolonging the death and carnage I believe that you deplore.

Or you propose packing up and going home leaving innocent allies defenseless against truly immoral murderers who will take their revenge. In so doing you declare the effort futile. You telegraph that all who have fought and died believing it possible that there could be a free and prosperous Iraq, a more peaceful middle East, and a safer world to have died in vain. You announce that you in no way or form support the troops.

B's ad hominem aside, on this there is nothing partisan in my point of view whatsoever. It is a point of view and it is held so far by a majority of Americans, many of whom do not believe the war should have been fought, but who believe that now we are in it, we should win it and who do support the troops toward that end.

Now if there are other alternatives, spell them out.

0 Replies

Our denouncments don't prolong the war a single day. Get realistic, Fox. Our opinions on a message board have nothing to do with the reality of the situation in Iraq.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

How about a response to Piffka's post, Fox?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So FD & Blatham take the non-option which is to denounce, criticize, demean, defame--other adjectives apply but you get my drift--thus prolonging what in your view is an 'immoral war' and thus prolonging the death and carnage I believe that you deplore.

Curious as to what you mean by this. Are you saying this is the alternative to "supporting the troops"?

Quote:

You announce that you in no way or form support the troops.

I thought that was what you wanted us to do. According to the author of the article, and McG, if we don't support the war then we don't support the troops and we ought to just say so. "It's a matter of honesty." But then you say, well, we ought to support the troops. But that would mean that I support the war, and I can't do that. So how many ways do you want it?

It sounds to me like you want me to change my mind about the war and put my pom-poms on. And the reason behind this is that my opinion about the war makes the troops feel bad.

Quote:

B's ad hominem aside, on this there is nothing partisan in my point of view whatsoever. It is a point of view and it is held so far by a majority of Americans, many of whom do not believe the war should have been fought, but who believe that now we are in it, we should win it and who do support the troops toward that end.

Yes, I would love the war to be over and for Iraq to be successful, but in my view that's not possible to achieve through violence. As we can see, the only thing achieved by violence (and occupation) is more violence. It is our very presence there which makes the country unstable. How can I support the mission when the effect of it is to prolong the war?

0 Replies

If criticism of the war at home demoralizes the troops at the front, then that is not a reason to curb the criticism, that's a reason to educate the troops. After all, in practical terms, it's easier to train a relatively small number of military personnel (who are already in the habit of being trained) than to restrain the unruly political passions of tens of millions of civilians back home. Moreover, focusing on the military, rather than the civilians, will have less of a restrictive effect on the "marketplace of ideas."

In any event, I find it hard to believe that the members of the armed forces are glum and pouty because there's a vigorous debate going on about the wisdom of American policy in the middle east. If that's the case, however, we need to find a way to make them happy warriors again. Maybe getting them involved in arts and crafts projects, or gardening, or putting on amateur theatricals will distract them from the distant, uncomfortable reminders of a democratic process. Or perhaps something as simple as a directive from the commander-in-chief, ordering everyone in the ranks to "cheer up," might do the trick.

0 Replies

It isn't my thread FD. I think those antiwar people have as much right to their opinion as I do, and that include Piffka. Most of my relatives in the service are also officers.

Those boots on the ground in harms way tell me strenuously disagree with states such as Cyclops and Joe made.

My interest here is to give the guys the best shot to stay alive, get the job done, and come home. Defeat via capitulation is not a viable option for them and I won't support that.

My advice is for those who think the troops are all mostly jackbooted thugs don't really care what happens to them. Fortunately this group is too small to have much impact.

Those who think the war is immoral and unjustified are entitled to their opinion, but they would support the troops by just shutting up until the guys are out of harms way. Then carp and complain and condemn to your hearts content.

0 Replies

The troops won't GET out of harms way without pressure for the guys in charge, who don't give a DAMN about them, to bring them home.

I'll be damned if I'll 'shut up' until YOU decide it is okay for me to complain.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

That's a stupid statement Cyc.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Those who think the war is immoral and unjustified are entitled to their opinion, but they would support the troops by just shutting up until the guys are out of harms way. Then carp and complain and condemn to your hearts content.

So folks can only support the troops in a way that you define as support. Nice.

Opposing freedom of expression means that you hate America.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It isn't my thread FD.

Don't recall indicating that it was.

Quote:

Those boots on the ground in harms way tell me strenuously disagree with states such as Cyclops and Joe made.

And what about the ones who agree with me? The ones who also think that the mission is bullshit. Who supports them?

Quote:

My interest here is to give the guys the best shot to stay alive, get the job done, and come home. Defeat via capitulation is not a viable option for them and I won't support that.

Well, regardless of whether you want it to be an option, it is an option. In every fight, losing is a possibility. Maybe you are saying that what we are doing is so important that we should be willing to give up everything, up to and including bleeding this country dry of money, youth, and future influence in order to secure some semblance of undefined victory.

Quote:

Those who think the war is immoral and unjustified are entitled to their opinion, but they would support the troops by just shutting up until the guys are out of harms way. Then carp and complain and condemn to your hearts content.

The ones who should be shutting up are the ones who talked us into this war and talked them into harms way in the first place. The ones who think that soldiers enjoy war and killing and can't wait to go kick some Arab ass, the ones who think there's no need to care for them when they come back, the ones who think there's no need to prevent predatory lending practices that target soldiers and their families and bill them into bankruptcy, and the ones who won't acknowledge their deaths and thus their sacrifice. The ones who should shut up are the ones who keep starting arguments about who supports the troops in order to score political points.

0 Replies

FD writes

Quote:

And what about the ones who agree with me? The ones who also think that the mission is bullshit. Who supports them?

It's still a volunteer duty. They didn't have to join.

They knew when they went in that they could be deployed anywhere in the world and that they did not have the option of picking and choosing what war they would fight in when they signed on. If they agree with you, they won't reenlist. Until their tour of duty is up, we owe it to them to put them at as little risk as necessary and that includes giving them our full support and no providing aid, encouragement, and comfort to their enemy.

I don't see any reason to repeat what I have already said. I think you're wrong on this issue, but those guys are putting their life on the line to help ensure a world in which you have the privilege of being wrong.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't see any reason to repeat what I have already said. I think you're wrong on this issue, but those guys are putting their life on the line to help ensure a world in which you have the privilege of being wrong.

Nor do I. I think you're wrong on this issue. And because you and those like you are wrong, those guys are putting their lives on the line for somebody else's bottom line. There is nothing worse than fighting and dying for nothing. I respect the soldiers and I think their lives mean something and I resent the fact that it takes so little, apparently, to send them off to war. And if I shut up, I'm letting them down. If I shut up, I allow folks like you to make this a world in which nobody speaks up unless they agree with the powers that be.

0 Replies

McG

Quote:

That's a stupid statement Cyc.

No, YOUR statement is stupid. Why? Because you offer no analysis or even insight into WHY my statement is wrong. Therefore it adds nothing productive at all to the conversation.

But that's not something you really focus on these days, is it?

Fox

Quote:

It's still a volunteer duty. They didn't have to join.

Bullsh*t. Ever hear of the words 'stop-loss?'

Many of the troops over there who are 'reenlisting' in such big numbers are being given the option of

A: Re-enlisting and getting a money bonus

or

B: Getting stop-lossed, being forced back and getting zero bonus.

Many of the troops who are there are no longer voluntary. The military is using their power to compell these men and women to continue fighting past their own wishes to do so, because it can.

Therefore, our army is no longer all-volunteer.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You don't quite grasp what the Stop Loss provision is, Cyclop, but it has been in place for 30 years and the soldiers also know about that when they sign up. I read somewhere that only about 7000 guys are affected by it anyway. It is still a 100% volunteer army because they still don't have to sign up in the first place.

0 Replies

Yep. Let's stop-loss those critical job specialties. Radio reported that one of those job specialties was "truck driver." Yep. Hard to find someone who knows how to drive a truck....

Sorry for the off-topic post.

0 Replies

Foxfyre

Foxfyre wrote:

You don't quite grasp what the Stop Loss provision is, Cyclop, but it has been in place for 30 years and the soldiers also know about that when they sign up. I read somewhere that only about 7000 guys are affected by it anyway. It is still a 100% volunteer army because they still don't have to sign up in the first place.

Foxfyre, I continue to be amazed by the amount of monkey doo doo you toss around here.

Have you ever listened in to the high pressure military recruiters operating in areas of the poor. They know full well that these poor immature kids have little options for education or jobs. The military promises them pie in the sky it has no intention of honoring---and these young naive kids believe it. Why, because they've been convinced their government would never lie to them.

How sad it is when they learn the truth, if they live through the learning process.

It's been well documented that today's recruiting process is a shocking panic response that, in many cases, is dishonest and disgusting, and has forced the military to recall its recruiters for retraining. This happened only because they got caught on film.

BBB

0 Replies

Fox

You are quite wrong about Stop-loss. A much larger percentage of our troops are suffering from pressure under this program than you may be aware of.

Most of the soldier who sign up for the army frankly are not equipped to understand the true ramifications of the deal they signed up for. You may say, 'tough sh*t,' and you would be right in a way, but it is still a crappy way to keep people in the army.

Stop-loss means that people are being held to go to combat against their will.

The Draft means that people are being held to go to combat against their will.

Both are perfectly legal, but that doesn't make them right. In neither case is the person volunteering; they are compelled. That is not the same thing.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Does The Left Honestly Support Our Troops?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know