Does The Left Honestly Support Our Troops?

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?

Brandon9000 wrote:

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?

Now you're being dense. Every reason trotted out was false. The war was a personal vendetta. There's plenty of proof. Just read Woodward.

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?

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?

Military Lawyers Fought Policy on Interrogations
JAGs Recount Objections To Definition of Torture

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 15, 2005; Page A01

Three top military lawyers said yesterday that they lodged complaints about the Justice Department's definition of torture and how it would be applied to interrogations of enemy prisoners captured by U.S. forces, the first time they have publicly acknowledged that they objected to the policy as it was being developed in early 2003.

At a Senate hearing yesterday, the judge advocate generals (JAGs) for the Army, Air Force and Marines said they expressed their concerns as the policy was being hashed out at the Pentagon in March and April 2003. Though their letters to the Defense Department's general counsel are classified, sources familiar with them said the lawyers worried that broadly defined, tough interrogation tactics would not only contravene long-standing military doctrine -- leaving too much room for interpretation by interrogators -- but also would cause public outrage if the tactics became known.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Quote:

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?

Why do you revert to attacking the poster every time that you are caught in something that you cannot explain? If, in fact, I am dense, it does not reflect nicely on you to point it out. If you were as quick to respond in a civil manner, maybe your points could be better understood. If you are unable to understand what I was saying then perhaps you should read it again. Your point of view is not the only point of view and quite often it does not reflect on the topic at hand.

OK Brandon I understand your point.
But I think that FD is saying the administration cleverly used the symbols and victims of 9/11 to sell the war to Joe Blow . Who was TOO STUPID initially to make the distinction. I'm just saying that I trust the public to wise up and urge Congress to push our resources into counter terrorism.

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.

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

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'?

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.

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.

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.

Intrepid wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Quote:

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?

Why do you revert to attacking the poster every time that you are caught in something that you cannot explain? If, in fact, I am dense, it does not reflect nicely on you to point it out. If you were as quick to respond in a civil manner, maybe your points could be better understood. If you are unable to understand what I was saying then perhaps you should read it again. Your point of view is not the only point of view and quite often it does not reflect on the topic at hand.

I may become annoyed at the sloppiness with which you examine posts before responding to them, and express it in my response, but I also deal with the substantive matter of the post. I do not merely insult you. I see that you have stopped referring to the substance of the conversation. I was saying that Free Duck had mis-characterized the reasons given for invading Iraq, when she said that it had been the claim of a causal link between Iraq and 9/11. Therefore, your tired old repetition of the feeble-brained liberal mantra about "no WMD" was not relevant. I can debate that matter too, but it had not been something I was discussing.

Military Lawyers Fought Policy on Interrogations
JAGs Recount Objections To Definition of Torture

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.

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.

Brandon9000 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.

It's possible that there is a form of speech that matches your criteria (maybe you'd like to offer an example), but that's really beside the point. If America's fighting men and women can't take criticism, if their combat readiness is adversely affected by the political debate at home, if their morale suffers whenever someone in the US offers a discouraging word, then that's a problem with our military, not a problem with the critics. And that military problem needs to be addressed immediately. Apparently, the armed forces are filled with people who can stand up to a hail of bullets but who are terrified by a New York Times editorial. Perhaps we shouldn't have been so eager to send such delicate specimens into combat in the first place.

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

We criticize professional athletes all the time, yet we still expect that their athletic performances will not suffer as a result. Certainly we should expect as much from the members of our military as we do from members of our favorite teams.

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

Yes he would say something like this: "After 9/11.... we have to be sure that WMD cannot be put in the hands of terrorists"..."The lessons learned form 9/11"..."9/11 taught us that..."