Reminder to support our troops.

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 74
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath

    Do female troops need more support than male troops?



    No, just in the bra and femine napkin section of the ship's store.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 42 of 74
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    You oppose the war, but you support the soldiers who wage the war? That's a farce, and you know it. Tell that to a leatherneck's face. Say this: "This war is a mistake and soldiers will die for no good reason, but I support you 100%!" Come back to me with his response.



    Joining the military is a voluntary move. Soldiers believe in the cause or aren't morally opposed to it. If they were, they'd desert and face the consequences. If you truly are opposed to a war on Iraq, you should be opposed to the people that fight it.




    Wrong. One can be opposed to those that give the orders and can be opposed to said orders while supporting the welfare of the troops at the same time. Is it really that difficult for you to grasp that concept?



    The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

    - F. Scott Fitzgerald




    1. I disagree with the timing of this war. I disagree with those giving the orders.



    2. Since the orders have been given and troops are moving in, I hope they fight well and survive to come home safely.



    Those two statements, while they may seem contradictory to an adult that reads at a third grade level, are most certainly not mutually exclusive.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 43 of 74
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    Wrong. One can be opposed to those that give the orders and can be opposed to said orders while supporting the welfare of the troops at the same time. Is it really that difficult for you to grasp that concept?



    The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

    - F. Scott Fitzgerald




    1. I disagree with the timing of this war. I disagree with those giving the orders.



    2. Since the orders have been given and troops are moving in, I hope they fight well and survive to come home safely.



    Those two statements, while they may seem contradictory to an adult that reads at a third grade level, are most certainly not mutually exclusive.




    Oh, so it's the timing you're opposed to.



    If those two statements corrected portrayed the sentiment of the tontons, SPJs, bunges, SJOs, etc. then a half dozen or so currently active threads on the impending war in Iraq wouldn't even exist. Is it really just the unfortunate timing of the war that riles you up?



    After those soldiers 'fight well' I don't suppose we'll hear a peep from any of you about how the replacement regime is to terrible, or how completely destroyed Baghdad is, or how many innocent lives were killed, or...whatever. If you support the troops, you support their actions. Not a peep from any of you. The troops will have made all those horrors possible.



    Why did you oppose the war again? Because France said it'd veto a document it didn't even look at? Because Iraq doesn't need to adhere to deadlines? Timing?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 44 of 74
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    Oh, so it's the timing you're opposed to.



    If those two statements corrected portrayed the sentiment of the tontons, SPJs, bunges, SJOs, etc. then a half dozen or so currently active threads on the impending war in Iraq wouldn't even exist. Is it really just the unfortunate timing of the war that riles you up?



    After those soldiers 'fight well' I don't suppose we'll hear a peep from any of you about how the replacement regime is to terrible, or how completely destroyed Baghdad is, or how many innocent lives were killed, or...whatever. If you support the troops, you support their actions. Not a peep from any of you. The troops will have made all those horrors possible.



    Why did you oppose the war again? Because France said it'd veto a document it didn't even look at? Because Iraq doesn't need to adhere to deadlines? Timing?




    BR, what about to an adult that reads at the first grade level?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 45 of 74
    just got an email from my brother who is a pilot over in turkey right now. i thought i'd post a snippet of his comments to show his particular perspective on the events that are about to transpire in iraq.



    Quote:

    We are ramping up pretty fast. I don't know if I'll be able to contact you guys after a bit. Lots of things are happening. They are evacuating the families and civilians off of Incirlik. I feel sorry for them, since they have to mad scramble to god knows where on 24 hour notice. We are restricted to the base and are locked down tight. Turkey votes today on overflight permission so we"ll see what happens there.



    I miss all of you and can't wait to get back home. Dont worry about me, we pretty much got things under control. We all are in good spirits and not that concerned about the events to transpire. If worried about anyone pray for those poor bastards on the recieving end...its going to be real bad for them.



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 46 of 74
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    BR, what about to an adult that reads at the first grade level?



    I think they lose their status of adult at that point.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 47 of 74
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    Oh, so it's the timing you're opposed to.



    If those two statements corrected portrayed the sentiment of the tontons, SPJs, bunges, SJOs, etc. then a half dozen or so currently active threads on the impending war in Iraq wouldn't even exist. Is it really just the unfortunate timing of the war that riles you up?




    Don't lump me in with everyone else here. Your problem is that you see things in black and white. Yes, it is the timing, among other things, I'm opposed to. Why is that so ridiculous? Let me guess...I don't agree with you so it must be ridiculous!



    My statements were not contradictory to any first-rate intelligence. Obviously, and sadly, you are not.



    One more thing...

    Quote:

    Why did you oppose the war again? Because France said it'd veto a document it didn't even look at? Because Iraq doesn't need to adhere to deadlines? Timing?



    I'm opposed to the entire process beginning when and how it did. I don't care about the last document that France, looking after its own oil interests, said they'd veto.



    It simply is not OK to seek UN approval, not get it, and attack anyway.



    Now, before you go insane on another idiotic tirade about how unamerican I am, let me tell you what would have been OK:

    [list=a][*]If Bush stated, "We gave Iraq weapons. We were wrong. We are now going to correct that mistake.[*]We did not bother to seek UN approval and simply went in for the above reason.[*]We did seek UN approval, got it, and went in.[/list=a]



    Seeking UN approval, not getting it, and attacking anyway is unacceptable.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 48 of 74
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR



    Seeking UN approval, not getting it, and attacking anyway is unacceptable.




    Unless you're a first grader.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 49 of 74
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Or one of the myriad nations who take military action without asking the UN in the first place.



    But let's keep ignoring that common practice.



    "bush is bad, bush is bad, bush is bad, bush is bad..."
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 50 of 74
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Or one of the myriad nations who take military action without asking the UN in the first place.



    Let us find an example where one country attacked another based on U.N. resolutions but without U.N. backing. Let's find an example of a country that went to the U.N. for support, was rejected and attacked anyway.



    If it's a wrong act, it doesn't matter if it's happened before. It's still wrong.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 51 of 74
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Is the US attacking to enforce a UN resolution?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 52 of 74
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    You oppose the war, but you support the soldiers who wage the war? That's a farce, and you know it. Tell that to a leatherneck's face. Say this: "This war is a mistake and soldiers will die for no good reason, but I support you 100%!" Come back to me with his response.



    Joining the military is a voluntary move. Soldiers believe in the cause or aren't morally opposed to it. If they were, they'd desert and face the consequences. If you truly are opposed to a war on Iraq, you should be opposed to the people that fight it.




    If you polled those service people fighting this war, they would most probably come back and tell you that "we are fighting to defend our country and the Constitution, to make the world a better place, etc etc" and similar noble commentary....echoing the sentiments learned in whatever military college etc they attended.



    If this war was all about supporting those high ideals, I would be in support of it, 100%, just as I supported the (now lapsed) campaign against Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, 100%.



    This war isn't about regime change: Ari Fleischer let that one out of the bag yesterday when he said that even if Saddam Hussein and his henchmen left Iraq by 5pm Pac time Wednesday, the US would still attack.



    This war isn't about defending the US and its constitution: we haven't been attacked by Iraq.



    This war has *nothing* to do with human rights, or promoting democracy in Iraq. Anyone who is taken in by that claptrap is living in cloud cuckoo land.



    Is this war all about "weapons of mass destruction"? That we will have to see....It would be sad if stashes of VX, Sarin and anthrax were found in the early stages of the war, because that would indicate that the intelligence existed, but was denied to the inspectors....who are "angry as hell" with the Bush administration, claiming that they "obstructed every move" by persistently providing garbage intel, and sending them on wild goose chases.



    This war isn't about eliminating terrorism or retaliating to 9-11 (although some 45% of the American public believe that Saddam Hussein was personably responsible for 9-11, and over 80% of Americans believe that Iraqis were the hijackers...a big reason for much of Bush's war support at home). If that much ignorance exists within the public, it is hard to believe that regular service personnel have an intimate background in the politics behind this war. That is not their job...the job of the serviceman is to obey the orders of his superior 100% of the time and carry those orders to the best of his ability.



    Your "desertion" claims are unfounded: the huge majority of Vietman servicemen were against that war...in that case because "the cause" was nebulous at best. Even Robert McNamara, the chief architect of the Vietman war has said that "it was a terrible mistake". Soldiers in Vietnam didn't desert in droves; the consequences of desertion are too appalling for a military man to contemplate. Imagine coming home to accusations and labels of "traitor", "coward", then facing a courtmartial and then 20+ years in a military jail, would be a worse fate than being shot dead by the enemy.



    In the case of Iraq, the "cause", as you put it, is more down to who is going to make a very large amount of money from a war, given that the Federal Government, in a worse-case scenario, may spend $1,000 Billion on this adventure in the next 5 years. Nobody can deny that the motivation to go to war, given those incentives, is extremely strong, specially when the primary beneficiaries are corporations with intimate ties to the Bush administration.



    America is all about capitalism, materialism, and making money. It's our raison d'etre. Why can't we just admit to the world that this what we are about, rather than trying to hide it under some bogus humanitarian nonsense? Bush and co...please just tell the people the truth, don't talk to us all as if we are idiots, and you will at least get some brownie points for sincerity....even if a lot of us disagree with you. I hate being lied to, and then have to pay my taxes on behalf of those lies.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 53 of 74
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton

    Oddly enough, and to prove that you can't lump us all together, I disagree with BR on one point.



    If we do not seek UN approval it does not automatically mean we can start a war. There has to be some sort of indication that we have widespread international support before invading or attacking another country. Support not just from governments, but from the people; not just from our allies, but from those who might not usually agree with our views.




    I see your point but I just happen to disagree. You aren't a communist pig or unamerican because you disagree. We simply have a difference in opinion. Unlike others, we don't have to resort to petty name-calling if we are on different sides of an issue.



    I feel that we are an autonomous nation that has every right to create and execute its own foreign policy. If we feel a war needs to be fought, it is in our right to fight it. However, if we bring the UN into it at all, then we MUST have their approval before we can move out. We cannot have it both ways. We sought the approval of the UN and we didn't get it. By seeking their approval first, we gave up our right to shape our own foreign policy on this particular situation. Again, had we simply said "We gave them weapons. We made a mistake. We are going to correct it." and went in, there would have been no objection from me. Unfortunately, we sought UN approval, didn't get the response we wanted, acted like petty children and changed the name of our food, and then went in to Iraq anyway.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 54 of 74
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton

    Since we're going to war, lets hope Saddam is deposed peacefully and quickly. Let's hope there are many more surrenders and defections among Iraqi tropps before deaths occur. Leats hope deaths are kept to a minimum and limited to opposing military personnel only. Let's hope the Iraqi people really do want Saddam out. Let's hope people will forgive us for taking this action. Let's hope no chemical or nerve weapons are used.



    Exactly. Even though we don't support the war in its current incarnation (although for different reasons), we do support our troops. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for some people to understand.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 55 of 74
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    Don't lump me in with everyone else here. Your problem is that you see things in black and white. Yes, it is the timing, among other things, I'm opposed to. Why is that so ridiculous? Let me guess...I don't agree with you so it must be ridiculous!



    I lumped you in there because you threw in a few ad homs. That's black...or is it white? That's being extreme. The anti-war sentiment on this board is not simply because of the timing. There's an entire list of issues being whined about--the most notable ones being "Bush is a moron," and "but, but the UN!"



    And yes, I do think it's ridiculous for someone to support the troops in writing on a message board like this one, then a week later go protest at the capitol, or continue talking about how awful a decision it was, as people are doing.



    This topic is a stage for tonton to pat himself on the back... for taking the moral high ground on two fronts, by being both anti-war and supportive of the troops. Obviously tonton's not as vigilant in his stance on either in reality.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 56 of 74
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene



    And yes, I do think it's ridiculous for someone to support the troops in writing on a message board like this one, then a week later go protest at the capitol, or continue talking about how awful a decision it was, as people are doing.




    I'll go one step further. I hope the U.S. loses the war (obviously I know this is basically an impossibility) but I wish no ill will upon any individual soldiers.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 57 of 74
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 58 of 74
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    I'll go one step further. I hope the U.S. loses the war (obviously I know this is basically an impossibility) but I wish no ill will upon any individual soldiers.



    Are you daft? The only way we could lose this war is to have an enormous, unbearable number of American soldiers killed. How can you possibly believe that you can "support our troops" while hoping they suffer bloody repulse after bloody repluse until their side loses?



    On a purely practical note, you also realize that the surest way for the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd to fade into psycho-fringe irrelevancy is to let the public know you're rooting for Saddam to kill American boys and girls. Which really would be sad, because you've picked up a lot of mainstream support over the last year, here and around the world. It would be nice to have you folks around to fight the tax-cuts-for-the-rich sure to follow hard on the heels of the war.



    "The object of war is not to die for your county, but to make the other poor bastard die for his," is as true about politics as it is about war (--Patton).
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 59 of 74
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    I'll go one step further. I hope the U.S. loses the war (obviously I know this is basically an impossibility) but I wish no ill will upon any individual soldiers.



    Yeah, that's retarded.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 60 of 74
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Maybe they can just take out are leadership and end the war quickly. Sometimes I'm afraid at the blinders people around here wear.



    I know people fighting right now. I know people flying right now. I know they all might go up in a poof. It wouldn't change the fact that the war is wrong.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.