Troops Want to Stay In Iraq

[Gunny]

I use common sense - you seem to be using the MM version of common nonsense

Nonsense is making an accusation without any supporting evidence. Specifically, it speaks of the weakness of your agument. Generally, it speaks of your weak skills at making an argument.

What was racist about what Lott said?

Go back up and read it again. You're trying to make an argument now where there is none with me.

When libs express their ture feelings - called on it -they say they are "sorry" and libs give them a pass

Conservatives like Lott do nothing - say they are sorry - and are still savaged by the left

So? Whether or not that is the truth is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you perceive it to be. In that light, do you think them doing it justifies you doing it?

IMO, no.

 

[Gunny]

no...you just repeat the same tired old stuff.... and you continue to purposely misconstrue the meanings of words to suit your own partisan purposes. and when you don't do that and avoid taking ownership for your mistakes, you cut and paste editorials.... you really are a very predictable, very disappointing broken record.

And what Trent Lott said - and I am sure he did not MEAN it the way it came out - but what he said was that we would be a better country today if we had elected a man in 1948 who was a bigot and a racist and who wanted to outlaw interracial marriage and continue segregation. Now I am sure that he was only trying to make an old man feel good, but his words have meanings and if you are going to continually MISREPRESENT what Kerry said, I will feel compelled to correctly represent what Trent Lott said.

I think Lott is in the "shoulda' thought first THEN opened mouth" category.

 

[Rosotar]

I think Lott is in the "shoulda' thought first THEN opened mouth" category.

I think you pay a lot of lip service to "supporting" the troops but beyond blindly supporting the Republican party and your incompetent president's failed policies I don't see much evidence that you walk your talk.

Tell me gunny....how do you really "support" the troops?

 

[maineman]

I think Lott is in the "shoulda' thought first THEN opened mouth" category.

I agree wholeheartedly. I medrely point out that saying that Trent Lott stated that America would be a better place today if we had elected a segregationist in 1948 instead of Harry Truman is a true statement.... saying that John Kerry called our troops terrorists is a false statement.

Both statements were ones that, had they spent a moment and thought about how what they were about to say would be construed, they no doubt would have reworded.

 

[Gunny]

I think you pay a lot of lip service to "supporting" the troops but beyond blindly supporting the Republican party and your incompetent president's failed policies I don't see much evidence that you walk your talk.

Tell me gunny....how do you really "support" the troops?

Is this your way of saying "Hi I'm new here and dumber'n a red brick?"

You're already proving your judgement sucks.

 

[Rosotar]

Is this your way of saying "Hi I'm new here and dumber'n a red brick?"

You're already proving your judgement sucks.

I do apologize. I don't mean to go nuclear on the very first post.

Actually I'm not completely new here. I was banned from this board about two years ago under a different name. It was my first experiment with any kind of message board.

I've been reading your posts almost every day for the last two years so I feel like I sort of know you. Hopefully this time you'll get a chance to know me if you care to.

I'm left of the Kennedys so we're going to disagree a lot. I hope we can keep it civil. I know I learn more that way.

About a month ago I got an e-mail from the administrator on this board asking me to re-register so I'm now here, recycled for a second run. I hope I've learned a bit since last time.

So.....with all due respect.

How do you "support" the troops?

BTW thank you for your service to my country.

I am also a vet.

Psy-Op.......Panama and Grenada.

 

[T-Bor]

Can we please rename this thread to the Red States Gets Pwned by the Messageboard community?

 

[Gunny]

I do apologize. I don't mean to go nuclear on the very first post.

Actually I'm not completely new here. I was banned from this board about two years ago under a different name. It was my first experiment with any kind of message board.

I've been reading your posts almost every day for the last two years so I feel like I sort of know you. Hopefully this time you'll get a chance to know me if you care to.

I'm left of the Kennedys so we're going to disagree a lot. I hope we can keep it civil. I know I learn more that way.

About a month ago I got an e-mail from the administrator on this board asking me to re-register so I'm now here, recycled for a second run. I hope I've learned a bit since last time.

So.....with all due respect.

How do you "support" the troops?

BTW thank you for your service to my country.

I am also a vet.

Psy-Op.......Panama and Grenada.

I've given $10 a month to the Navy Relief Society without fail since 1980. My firstborn child is currently serving in the US Army as a medic. And as one other poster put it ....I pay my taxes.

And I'm not out telling them I support them while protesting what they are doing.

 

[Rosotar]

I've given $10 a month to the Navy Relief Society without fail since 1980. My firstborn child is currently serving in the US Army as a medic. And as one other poster put it ....I pay my taxes.

And I'm not out telling them I support them while protesting what they are doing.

We're not out protesting what they're doing gunny.

As long as they're following orders I am extremely proud of them.

This is all I expect of our fighting men and women.

I do take issue with the policy that puts them in harms way in the first place.

That is my right and my duty as a responsible American.

I submit that it is little more than a cheap ploy on the part of Republicans today to try to blurr the line between supporting the troops and supporting this incompetent president and his last ditch attempt to save his own ass by throwing more good after bad.

Blind support of this administration and it's failed policies doesn't have much at all to do with support of the troops.

In fact it's looking like just the opposite is true.

 

[Gunny]

We're not out protesting what they're doing gunny.

Some are, some aren't.

As long as they're following orders I am extremely proud of them.

This is all I expect of our fighting men and women.

I do take issue with the policy that puts them in harms way in the first place.

That is my right and my duty as a responsible American.

I submit that it is little more than a cheap ploy on the part of Republicans today to try to blurr the line between supporting the troops and supporting this incompetent president and his last ditch attempt to save his own ass by throwing more good after bad.

Blind support of this administration and it's failed policies doesn't have much at all to do with support of the troops.

In fact it's looking like just the opposite is true.

I'm rather curious in light of your previous comment that you feel as if you know me; yet, in htis thread, you have categorized me as something I clearly am not, and have never been.

I am not a Republican. Never have been, I vote Republican because it isn't like I have a whole lot of choices, and Republicans are the lesser of two evils, IMO. With Republicans I get about half what I want, and with Dems none.

However, I feel that neither party represent what's in the best interest of this Nation, nor the best interest and/or desires of the people in it. They're too busy slinging mud at one another and increasing their individual wealth, and will deal with an issue only if one party thinks it makes the other look bad, or it rears its ugly head and they can't somehow make it go away by wagging the dog.

You'll waste a lot of time searching this board to find where I have blindly supported anything. If I support something, I justify my support. You may not agree with my reasoning or ideology, but it is at least proof that I'mdoing my own thinking.

I do not consider saying that one cannot support the troops while telling them what they are doing is unjust/wrong/illegal is a cheap ploy. If troops feel that what they are doing is unjust, then they see themselves as murderers and come home with screwed up heads. The aftermath of Vietnam is prime example of that. As a former troop and leader of troops, I know exactly how I felt in their position, so I'm not just pulling something out of thin air.

What I DO consider a cheap ploy is speaking the words "I support the troops" while behaving in a manner inconsistent with the statement. Liberals at least learned half the lesson from Vietnam, and don't want to be identified as the bad guys this time. Problem is, if the tactics remain the same, words are not going to change the outcome.

As American citizens, we have appropriate forums with which to voice our grievances to the government without all the lies, accusations and theatrics in general, and without bringing US military personnel into the argument at all. They have no play in the making of policy in Washington.

What does "I support the troops" mean anyway? It means you support what the troops are doing. Even the few things I listed that I do are not really supporting the troops.

I support what they are doing. I did not however, agree with the invasion to begin with. I have not supported them being forced to fight an enemy with one hand tied behind their backs. I have not supported the blind political idealism that has been allowed to completely obfuscate sound military tactics and strategy.

I DO support finishing the job we started, and I support doing it the right way. We're there. Should this all be for nought? THAT would be the real crime.

Oh, and I don't blindly support the President either. I DO call bullshit when that's what all the accusations amount to. I've actually done the same for President Clinton, even though I didn't like him nor his policies.

 

[Annie]

I'm rather curious in light of your previous comment that you feel as if you know me; yet, in htis thread, you have categorized me as something I clearly am not, and have never been.

I am not a Republican. Never have been, I vote Republican because it isn't like I have a whole lot of choices, and Republicans are the lesser of two evils, IMO. With Republicans I get about half what I want, and with Dems none.

However, I feel that neither party represent what's in the best interest of this Nation, nor the best interest and/or desires of the people in it. They're too busy slinging mud at one another and increasing their individual wealth, and will deal with an issue only if one party thinks it makes the other look bad, or it rears its ugly head and they can't somehow make it go away by wagging the dog.

You'll waste a lot of time searching this board to find where I have blindly supported anything. If I support something, I justify my support. You may not agree with my reasoning or ideology, but it is at least proof that I'mdoing my own thinking.

I do not consider saying that one cannot support the troops while telling them what they are doing is unjust/wrong/illegal is a cheap ploy. If troops feel that what they are doing is unjust, then they see themselves as murderers and come home with screwed up heads. The aftermath of Vietnam is prime example of that. As a former troop and leader of troops, I know exactly how I felt in their position, so I'm not just pulling something out of thin air.

What I DO consider a cheap ploy is speaking the words "I support the troops" while behaving in a manner inconsistent with the statement. Liberals at least learned half the lesson from Vietnam, and don't want to be identified as the bad guys this time. Problem is, if the tactics remain the same, words are not going to change the outcome.

As American citizens, we have appropriate forums with which to voice our grievances to the government without all the lies, accusations and theatrics in general, and without bringing US military personnel into the argument at all. They have no play in the making of policy in Washington.

What does "I support the troops" mean anyway? It means you support what the troops are doing. Even the few things I listed that I do are not really supporting the troops.

I support what they are doing. I did not however, agree with the invasion to begin with. I have not supported them being forced to fight an enemy with one hand tied behind their backs. I have not supported the blind political idealism that has been allowed to completely obfuscate sound military tactics and strategy.

I DO support finishing the job we started, and I support doing it the right way. We're there. Should this all be for nought? THAT would be the real crime.

Oh, and I don't blindly support the President either. I DO call bullshit when that's what all the accusations amount to. I've actually done the same for President Clinton, even though I didn't like him nor his policies.

Ok, I'm going to wade in here, in a way I haven't for awhile. Vietnam had more 'shellshocked', 'battle fatigued' than previous wars. I truly do not believe that was do to their actions, but rather the concensus at home. They were the baby killers that Kerry and his ilk succeeded in labeling them.

Iraq? I think in the sense that the US needs a launching point in the ME, this is relevent, but that is not how it was sold. In any case, we are there, so we need to 'win'. Problem is, that would leave a positive GW legacy, which is unacceptable to some.

 

[maineman]

Ok, I'm going to wade in here, in a way I haven't for awhile. Vietnam had more 'shellshocked', 'battle fatigued' than previous wars. I truly do not believe that was do to their actions, but rather the concensus at home. They were the baby killers that Kerry and his ilk succeeded in labeling them.

Iraq? I think in the sense that the US needs a launching point in the ME, this is relevent, but that is not how it was sold. In any case, we are there, so we need to 'win'. Problem is, that would leave a positive GW legacy, which is unacceptable to some.

you know....kerry didn't make that stuff up... he heard vets telling of doing the very things that he reported on to the congress. I know that my friends who were in country have some pretty grisly stories to tell about what went on... American GI's did indeed have ears on dogtag chains around their necks.

I don't have a problem with "winning" in Iraq, even if it gave dubya a positive legacy...I just honestly believe that "victory" as commonly understood by most, is impossible to achieve. We will not, I believe, put a dent in the desires of sunnis and shia to slaughter one another. We will be unable to create a multicultural jeffersonian democracy on the banks of the euphrates regardless of how many troops we surge.... I firmly believe that "victory" is a fantasy pipedream at this point.... Dubya is playing an endgame where he can limp home to January '09 and let it be the next democratic president's problem to solve.

 

[Gunny]

you know....kerry didn't make that stuff up... he heard vets telling of doing the very things that he reported on to the congress. I know that my friends who were in country have some pretty grisly stories to tell about what went on... American GI's did indeed have ears on dogtag chains around their necks.

I don't have a problem with "winning" in Iraq, even if it gave dubya a positive legacy...I just honestly believe that "victory" as commonly understood by most, is impossible to achieve. We will not, I believe, put a dent in the desires of sunnis and shia to slaughter one another. We will be unable to create a multicultural jeffersonian democracy on the banks of the euphrates regardless of how many troops we surge.... I firmly believe that "victory" is a fantasy pipedream at this point.... Dubya is playing an endgame where he can limp home to January '09 and let it be the next democratic president's problem to solve.

I tend to agree with you about the sectarian violence. And IF President Bush were to say "y'know ... y'all ain't helping yourselves, we're outa' here," and ti was presented as that, I could see justification for it.

Problem is, the Democrats and the media will have none of it. They'll sell it as a loss no matter what.

It's too bad decisions can't be made simply for the fact that politicians are idiots and put partisanship before common sense, logic, and what's in the best interest of this Nation, and not just their individual political parties.

 

[maineman]

I tend to agree with you about the sectarian violence. And IF President Bush were to say "y'know ... y'all ain't helping yourselves, we're outa' here," and ti was presented as that, I could see justification for it.

Problem is, the Democrats and the media will have none of it. They'll sell it as a loss no matter what.

It's too bad decisions can't be made simply for the fact that politicians are idiots and put partisanship before common sense, logic, and what's in the best interest of this Nation, and not just their individual political parties.

I would applaud Bush if he said that and did that.

 

[Annie]

I'm going to be 'upfront' as I find that whatever I post, some have a problem with it. I don't think this administration did a good sales job on the necessity of Iraq, but that doesn't make it any less imperitive to win. It is, for our security/way of life. Not a small matter, other than I guess Merlin, who professes to be happy if we are a third world country.

Vietnam is truly an argument for another thread, but in treatment of troops, at home and abroad, it's relevant. It was wrong then and wrong now. Defecating on the flag to prove whatever is wrong. So is spitting on troops, which are now all over youtube, too bad that wasn't in existance for the Vietnam troops, no figment of their imaginations there.

 

[Gunny]

I'm going to be 'upfront' as I find that whatever I post, some have a problem with it. I don't think this administration did a good sales job on the necessity of Iraq, but that doesn't make it any less imperitive to win. It is, for our security/way of life. Not a small matter, other than I guess Merlin, who professes to be happy if we are a third world country.

The problem is, the only truly effective means of ending sectarian violence is ruthless suppression. That offends our Western/Judeo-Christian sense of morality, so we aren't about to do it.

Which, goes back to one of the reasons we did not remove Saddam from power in 91. He WAS doing it. Right or wrong, morally offensive or not, it worked.

Something else not emphasized that irritates the crap out of me is the Iraqis themselves who want whatever their bastardized, Islamic verison of "democracy" is need to get off their butts and start doing more.

Vietnam is truly an argument for another thread, but in treatment of troops, at home and abroad, it's relevant. It was wrong then and wrong now. Defecating on the flag to prove whatever is wrong. So is spitting on troops, which are now all over youtube, too bad that wasn't in existance for the Vietnam troops, no figment of their imaginations there.

Those people who protest violence with acts of violence are morons, IMO.

 

[Annie]

Those people who protest violence with acts of violence are morons, IMO.

Gunny, I would not presume to argue tactics. Just seems to me that since the 'surge' and 'new tactics' things are improving. I think they should be given time, but that seems what the democrats in the House are afraid of.

 

[T-Bor]

Your right Kathianne. The killing in Vietnam had nothing to do with the soldiers problems. Nor did the chemicals we were using (agent orange). I mean how in the world could seeing your buddies heads and limbs get blown off even COMPARE to slanderous words being thrown at them back home. end sarcasm.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny, I would not presume to argue tactics. Just seems to me that since the 'surge' and 'new tactics' things are improving. I think they should be given time, but that seems what the democrats in the House are afraid of.

I agree that the new strategy and tactics should be given a chance. The problem is that the different religious sects and tribes in Iraq have been killing each other for thousands of years. Most of the Middle East was pretty-much the same. They have simply renewed centuries old feuds and/or religious squabbles since the ruthless suppression has been lifted and freed them to do so.

I don't think we're going to stop that short of ruthless suppression. I also doubt we'll ever get any of the Arabs to coexist with the Kurds.

 

[T-Bor]

Plus I think the timetable given by the dems is more than fair. I think about 1.5 years is more than enough time for this so called surge to start working.