Does The Left Honestly Support Our Troops?

McGentrix wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Guess this country just breeds traitors, by the right-wingnut definition.

That's not it at all. It's just that now we are in the information age and we have to endure it more than we did in the past. It's more noticeable and more grotesque now than in past wars.

Thus speak McGentrix and Baldimo with their vast experience of past wars.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Guess this country just breeds traitors, by the right-wingnut definition.

That's not it at all. It's just that now we are in the information age and we have to endure it more than we did in the past. It's more noticeable and more grotesque now than in past wars.

Thus speak McGentrix and Baldimo with their vast experience of past wars.

I can read and I have had several people in my unit come back from Iraq and Afghanistan and have heard from them.

Are you going to deny that the NV used the anti-war protestors as a moral support expecially with people like Jane Fonda being sympathic to their cause?

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Guess this country just breeds traitors, by the right-wingnut definition.

That's not it at all. It's just that now we are in the information age and we have to endure it more than we did in the past. It's more noticeable and more grotesque now than in past wars.

Well put McG.

For people who tout and demand their God given right of freedom of speech. You guys seem to want to stifle it when the whim suits you.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Guess this country just breeds traitors, by the right-wingnut definition.

That's not it at all. It's just that now we are in the information age and we have to endure it more than we did in the past. It's more noticeable and more grotesque now than in past wars.

Well put McG.

For people who tout and demand their God given right of freedom of speech. You guys seem to want to stifle it when the whim suits you.

Really? Criticizing someones speech is now the same stifling it? Huh. I didn't realize that.

Seems you wish to stifle my criticism of your speech. Is that what you want? You want to be able to say whatever you wish without being criticised? Well, too bad.

0 Replies

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I think the issue is really one of undermining the will of the troops and civilians to fight while a war is in progress and people are dying. Surely there must be a way to criticize the wisdom of the war in the first place without "sabotaging" the war effort.

As I said in my post, if the will of the troops is being undermined by criticism at home, that's not a failure of democracy, that's a failure on the part of the military. It is far easier to train troops than to restrain civilians. The way to prevent criticism from "sabotaging" the war effort, therefore, is to make sure that we have military personnel who are unaffected by that criticism. And if that means training them so that they don't wilt like hothouse lillies at the merest whiff of unpopular opinion, then that's what needs to be done.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Guess this country just breeds traitors, by the right-wingnut definition.

That's not it at all. It's just that now we are in the information age and we have to endure it more than we did in the past. It's more noticeable and more grotesque now than in past wars.

Well put McG.

For people who tout and demand their God given right of freedom of speech. You guys seem to want to stifle it when the whim suits you.

Really? Criticizing someones speech is now the same stifling it? Huh. I didn't realize that.

Seems you wish to stifle my criticism of your speech. Is that what you want? You want to be able to say whatever you wish without being criticised? Well, too bad.

You have left me speechless

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

This is directed at each and every one of you on this thread. Be you conservative, liberal, right, left----whatever! A thought crossed mind yesterday whilst reading some of the threads on A2K---don't post much as I am more in to "watching". My son had checked out a book from the library on the Civil War. I thought how similar the divisions are now in our country. Do we really want to be this divided? Do we really want to allow articles like the one that set this thread off to divide us? Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Air America Radio, the author of the slandering article that leads this thread, etc. only serve to label, smear and spew hatred. They aren't revealing any hidden truths and they certainly don't corner the market on intelligence. They are the "cheerleaders" or "pep squads" for their respective political parties. There is nothing respectable about them. They get paid to do what they do and they do it quite well. They go "fishing" daily on the air waves and through the various outlets of media and they catch millions of those who find it so easy to listen to their drivel.

My Papaw used to refer to the television as the "idiot box". I laugh at it now because of how accurate he was to call it so. He passed before we were blessed with 24 hour news channels, the internet, satellite radio, etc.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I think the issue is really one of undermining the will of the troops and civilians to fight while a war is in progress and people are dying. Surely there must be a way to criticize the wisdom of the war in the first place without "sabotaging" the war effort.

As I said in my post, if the will of the troops is being undermined by criticism at home, that's not a failure of democracy, that's a failure on the part of the military. It is far easier to train troops than to restrain civilians. The way to prevent criticism from "sabotaging" the war effort, therefore, is to make sure that we have military personnel who are unaffected by that criticism. And if that means training them so that they don't wilt like hothouse lillies at the merest whiff of unpopular opinion, then that's what needs to be done.

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.

If the cacophany of voices at home is loud enough, and if everything the adminstration does is seized upon as a crime or a conspiracy, and if every goal not achieved yet and every setback by the military are pounced on as evidence of failure, then the soldiers really don't have to be hot house lillies to be affected.

0 Replies

I echo your frustration with TV "news".

I'll just say this. We seem to forget that the American public has an unerring grasp of what is a "just " war, and what isn't.

No amount of gloss could keep the public from pulling the plug on that pig-in-a-poke named Viet Nam.

No amount of spin is going to keep the American public from pulling the plug on the Iraqui mis-adventure. Eventually they'll insist on transfering our expenditures on (to) the war on terror.

The only societies that can't influence the war departments are totalitarian...and we're not there...yet

0 Replies

As an aside, what actions can the right use to show their support of the troops? Little yellow ribbons, oh my!

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

As an aside, what actions can the right use to show their support of the troops? Little yellow ribbons, oh my!

Yes, the whole idea is pretty funny, isn't it?

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

I echo your frustration with TV "news".

I'll just say this. We seem to forget that the American public has an unerring grasp of what is a "just " war, and what isn't.

No amount of gloss could keep the public from pulling the plug on that pig-in-a-poke named Viet Nam.

No amount of spin is going to keep the American public from pulling the plug on the Iraqui mis-adventure. Eventually they'll insist on transfering our expenditures on (to) the war on terror.

The only societies that can't influence the war departments are totalitarian...and we're not there...yet

Yep. One thing I love about America is that, try as some might, we don't want to be an empire -- at least the people don't. We have an inate sense that starting a fight is not ok but defending ourselves in one is. That's why the sellers of this war tried so hard to mention 9/11 in every breath that breathed the word Iraq. They could never have convinced the public to go there without evidence of some provocation.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

panzade wrote:
I echo your frustration with TV "news".

I'll just say this. We seem to forget that the American public has an unerring grasp of what is a "just " war, and what isn't.

No amount of gloss could keep the public from pulling the plug on that pig-in-a-poke named Viet Nam.

No amount of spin is going to keep the American public from pulling the plug on the Iraqui mis-adventure. Eventually they'll insist on transfering our expenditures on (to) the war on terror.

The only societies that can't influence the war departments are totalitarian...and we're not there...yet

Yep. One thing I love about America is that, try as some might, we don't want to be an empire -- at least the people don't. We have an inate sense that starting a fight is not ok but defending ourselves in one is. That's why the sellers of this war tried so hard to mention 9/11 in every breath that breathed the word Iraq. They could never have convinced the public to go there without evidence of some provocation.

That must be why Bush said a million times that we were going to Iraq to resolve the WMD issue, but never claimed a causal link between Iraq and 9/11.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
panzade wrote:
I echo your frustration with TV "news".

I'll just say this. We seem to forget that the American public has an unerring grasp of what is a "just " war, and what isn't.

No amount of gloss could keep the public from pulling the plug on that pig-in-a-poke named Viet Nam.

No amount of spin is going to keep the American public from pulling the plug on the Iraqui mis-adventure. Eventually they'll insist on transfering our expenditures on (to) the war on terror.

The only societies that can't influence the war departments are totalitarian...and we're not there...yet

Yep. One thing I love about America is that, try as some might, we don't want to be an empire -- at least the people don't. We have an inate sense that starting a fight is not ok but defending ourselves in one is. That's why the sellers of this war tried so hard to mention 9/11 in every breath that breathed the word Iraq. They could never have convinced the public to go there without evidence of some provocation.

That must be why Bush said a million times that we were going to Iraq to resolve the WMD issue, but never claimed a causal link between Iraq and 9/11.

Yep... He never found those either, did he?

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
panzade wrote:
I echo your frustration with TV "news".

I'll just say this. We seem to forget that the American public has an unerring grasp of what is a "just " war, and what isn't.

No amount of gloss could keep the public from pulling the plug on that pig-in-a-poke named Viet Nam.

No amount of spin is going to keep the American public from pulling the plug on the Iraqui mis-adventure. Eventually they'll insist on transfering our expenditures on (to) the war on terror.

The only societies that can't influence the war departments are totalitarian...and we're not there...yet

Yep. One thing I love about America is that, try as some might, we don't want to be an empire -- at least the people don't. We have an inate sense that starting a fight is not ok but defending ourselves in one is. That's why the sellers of this war tried so hard to mention 9/11 in every breath that breathed the word Iraq. They could never have convinced the public to go there without evidence of some provocation.

That must be why Bush said a million times that we were going to Iraq to resolve the WMD issue, but never claimed a causal link between Iraq and 9/11.

Yep... He never found those either, did he?

I am not sure I understand your point. What is your point? I am not attempting to prove and disprove every possible proposition, only one - that Free Duck's characterization of the reason given for going to Iraq was false.

0 Replies

With all due respect. Cheney claimed a causal link and as far as I'm concerned he's GW's shill.

The interview is somewhere in these threads.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
panzade wrote:
I echo your frustration with TV "news".

I'll just say this. We seem to forget that the American public has an unerring grasp of what is a "just " war, and what isn't.

No amount of gloss could keep the public from pulling the plug on that pig-in-a-poke named Viet Nam.

No amount of spin is going to keep the American public from pulling the plug on the Iraqui mis-adventure. Eventually they'll insist on transfering our expenditures on (to) the war on terror.

The only societies that can't influence the war departments are totalitarian...and we're not there...yet

Yep. One thing I love about America is that, try as some might, we don't want to be an empire -- at least the people don't. We have an inate sense that starting a fight is not ok but defending ourselves in one is. That's why the sellers of this war tried so hard to mention 9/11 in every breath that breathed the word Iraq. They could never have convinced the public to go there without evidence of some provocation.

That must be why Bush said a million times that we were going to Iraq to resolve the WMD issue, but never claimed a causal link between Iraq and 9/11.

Yep... He never found those either, did he?

I am not sure I understand your point. What is your point? I am not attempting to prove and disprove every possible proposition, only one - that Free Duck's characterization of the reason given for going to Iraq was false.

and I am doing the same to your characterization of the reason that Bush gave for going to Iraq was false.

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

With all due respect. Cheney claimed a causal link and as far as I'm concerned he's GW's shill.

The interview is somewhere in these threads.

Find the interview or withdraw the allegation. Bush said over and over and over that we were invading to resolve the WMD issue.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
panzade wrote:
I echo your frustration with TV "news".

I'll just say this. We seem to forget that the American public has an unerring grasp of what is a "just " war, and what isn't.

No amount of gloss could keep the public from pulling the plug on that pig-in-a-poke named Viet Nam.

No amount of spin is going to keep the American public from pulling the plug on the Iraqui mis-adventure. Eventually they'll insist on transfering our expenditures on (to) the war on terror.

The only societies that can't influence the war departments are totalitarian...and we're not there...yet

Yep. One thing I love about America is that, try as some might, we don't want to be an empire -- at least the people don't. We have an inate sense that starting a fight is not ok but defending ourselves in one is. That's why the sellers of this war tried so hard to mention 9/11 in every breath that breathed the word Iraq. They could never have convinced the public to go there without evidence of some provocation.

That must be why Bush said a million times that we were going to Iraq to resolve the WMD issue, but never claimed a causal link between Iraq and 9/11.

Yep... He never found those either, did he?

I am not sure I understand your point. What is your point? I am not attempting to prove and disprove every possible proposition, only one - that Free Duck's characterization of the reason given for going to Iraq was false.

and I am doing the same to your characterization of the reason that Bush gave for going to Iraq was false.

Omg, you're dense. I am not saying that the link between Iraq and 9/11 which Free Duck says was given to motivate the invasion is false. I am saying that Free Duck is incorrect that that was the reason given for invasion. Resolving the WMD issue was the reason given for invasion. How does your post have any bearing on that?

0 Replies

Does The Left Honestly Support Our Troops?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know