Do You Support the Troops?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Now I understand…you are a German socialist. Your posts make sense now. You have a lot of balls coming here and talking about war and government leaders and so on. Mind your business. Your country already capitulated. For once, Germany isn’t the source of a world war. I guess you feel superior now.

Bombing military targts = sawing off heads. I got it.

[/quote]

Austrian libertarian, the socialists and the fpoe are the only parties I never voted for and the first world war was not started by Germany, but by Austria, as a reaction to the assasination of our crown prince by a vile serbian terrorist!

Anything else I can help you with?

22

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Who the hell ACTUALLY voted for Kerry because you liked the guy’s ideas and believed in him? Or was it simply a vote AGAINST President Bush? Be honest.

[/quote]

Sadly that’s how the American voting system, in regards to the president, is setup. I doubt anyone votes for a presidential candidate and agrees with ALL his stands\priorities\agenda. Usually you are voting for the lesser of two evils, but no one is going to agree with everyone on everything so I guess the election system is cool…

Look on the bright side, for all you Bush haters he’s out in T-minus 2 years…

23

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
PGJ wrote:

I can sense your compassion, and I appreciate it. But don’t ever think of the troops as cattle being led to the slaughter by uncaring leadership. That’s the problem, I think most people who say they support us actually pity us like were this big stupid herd who have no control of our destinies.

You said “you guys are the workhorses - you’re doing the work. It’s where your riders are leading you that’s the problem.”

If I didn’t have confidence in my leadership I would get out of the military. I volunteered for this. I and everyone else understand the risks and the mission. Nobody was drafted or forced to be here. We do not want your pity.

Who said anything about pity? I don’t pity you or anyone else in the Army.

You guys do what you’re told. You’re the Army. That’s your job.

You fight the fights, but it’s the politicians that tell you where to fight. You don’t control your destinies at all- you’re the property of the US government.

“I qution everything the government does at all times.” - that’s very sad. Move to Canada please.

You don’t like questioning politicians? But you just said that you weren’t the blind herd.

Spending billions of dollars to improve military equipment is not wasted money. It saves lives. Maybe we should go back to spears and shields, those are cheap. Maybe we should stop being so far advanced technically and tactically compared to the enemy and even up the battle field.

Can you read correctly? I said once I had no problem with military spending. Now you’re starting to irritate me. I’m agreeing with you, dick.[/quote]

You used a horse analgy like we have no control. I could have chosen not to join. I wasn’t drafted. See the difference? The government doesn’t own me. I have to follow certain guidelines, but I am not owned. I guess you have to be in the military to understand.

You said you question EVERYTHING the government does at ALL times. That is sad to me and you should move to another country where you might be happier. I NEVER said you can’t question politicians. Just be civil and have a point. Nice spin move.

“to others it means give the denfense department billions and screw everything else” when you said this, I interpreted it as a slam against military spending. If I was wrong, I apoligize.

24

[quote]En Sabah Nur wrote:
Look on the bright side, for all you Bush haters he’s out in T-minus 2 years…[/quote]

Don’t count the Bushes out just yet…

[i]Another President Bush? First 2 Are for It
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
Thu May 11, 8:39 AM

ORLANDO, Fla. - Could there be a third President Bush? The current commander-in-chief said Wednesday that younger brother Jeb would make a great one, too, and has asked him about making a run. The first President Bush likes the idea as well.

Jeb Bush, the Republican governor of Florida, has one asset that his presidential brother doesn’t right now _ approval from most of his constituents. While George W. Bush’s approval ratings are in the low 30s, some 55 percent of Florida voters surveyed last month by Quinnipiac University said Jeb was doing a good job…[/i]

25

[quote]orion wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Now I understand…you are a German socialist. Your posts make sense now. You have a lot of balls coming here and talking about war and government leaders and so on. Mind your business. Your country already capitulated. For once, Germany isn’t the source of a world war. I guess you feel superior now.

Bombing military targts = sawing off heads. I got it.

Austrian libertarian, the socialists and the fpoe are the only parties I never voted for and the first world war was not started by Germany, but by Austria, as a reaction to the assasination of our crown prince by a vile serbian terrorist!

Anything else I can help you with?[/quote]

Austria-Hungary, you mean, right? And you seem quite proud of that accomplishment. Actually I was refering to WWII, started by Hitler’s sudden rise to power by enciting the population in to believing it was the Jews who caused the German defeat. Then his brown-shirts went around and literally beat up anyone who opposed him. Hmmm, sound like anyone we know…Saddam perhaps…maybe the Iranian crack-pot even? As far as I’m concerned, Germany and Austria have lost all rights to be judgemental about world peace.

26

[quote]En Sabah Nur wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Who the hell ACTUALLY voted for Kerry because you liked the guy’s ideas and believed in him? Or was it simply a vote AGAINST President Bush? Be honest.

Sadly that’s how the American voting system, in regards to the president, is setup. I doubt anyone votes for a presidential candidate and agrees with ALL his stands\priorities\agenda. Usually you are voting for the lesser of two evils, but no one is going to agree with everyone on everything so I guess the election system is cool…
[/quote]

I agree. I don’t even agree with my wife a lot of times. I don’t see it as a “lesser of two evils” but “who’s the better guy for the job”. You will never agree with anyone ALL the time. That’s just the nature of humanity. Doesn’t mean you have to hate the guy.

27

It is against the law for the military to publicly criticize the president or the government. We give up several constitutional rights when we join, the rights to assembly and free speech being the major ones. That is part of the deal, we accept it, and it is the reason why you will read very little criticism from active duty military. Things are actually better than they were at the turn of the century when military officers were not allowed to vote, for fear of the military influencing an election. Many in the military don’t really agree with the president, or the administration, but stay on and fight.

That all being said, I believe there is a tremendous amount of support for the military. More so than during the end of the Vietnam war. I had the honor of meeting a group of New York City fire-fighters who were in D.C. to visit the wounded Marines and Soldiers at Bethesda and Walter Reed. To a man they thought that the war was a mistake and the president is probably retarded, but they still came down to show some support to the wounded.

They even laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. I think that is a pretty good representation of the attitude of most the county, and I personally don’t have a problem with it. It is a much different attitude than 30 years ago when my father came back from Vietnam and was spit on at the airport in San Diego. If other countries wish to interpret political diversity and free speech as a weakness, that should not be a concern of ours. I consider it our greatest strength.

28

[quote]BH6 wrote:
It is against the law for the military to publicly criticize the president or the government. We give up several constitutional rights when we join, the rights to assembly and free speech being the major ones. That is part of the deal, we accept it, and it is the reason why you will read very little criticism from active duty military. Things are actually better than they were at the turn of the century when military officers were not allowed to vote, for fear of the military influencing an election. Many in the military don’t really agree with the president, or the administration, but stay on and fight.

That all being said, I believe there is a tremendous amount of support for the military. More so than during the end of the Vietnam war. I had the honor of meeting a group of New York City fire-fighters who were in D.C. to visit the wounded Marines and Soldiers at Bethesda and Walter Reed. To a man they thought that the war was a mistake and the president is probably retarded, but they still came down to show some support to the wounded.

They even laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. I think that is a pretty good representation of the attitude of most the county, and I personally don’t have a problem with it. It is a much different attitude than 30 years ago when my father came back from Vietnam and was spit on at the airport in San Diego. If other countries wish to interpret political diversity and free speech as a weakness, that should not be a concern of ours. I consider it our greatest strength. [/quote]

Well said! Well said, indeed!

29

[quote]BH6 wrote:
It is against the law for the military to publicly criticize the president or the government. We give up several constitutional rights when we join, the rights to assembly and free speech being the major ones. That is part of the deal, we accept it, and it is the reason why you will read very little criticism from active duty military. Things are actually better than they were at the turn of the century when military officers were not allowed to vote, for fear of the military influencing an election. Many in the military don’t really agree with the president, or the administration, but stay on and fight.

That all being said, I believe there is a tremendous amount of support for the military. More so than during the end of the Vietnam war. I had the honor of meeting a group of New York City fire-fighters who were in D.C. to visit the wounded Marines and Soldiers at Bethesda and Walter Reed. To a man they thought that the war was a mistake and the president is probably retarded, but they still came down to show some support to the wounded.

They even laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. I think that is a pretty good representation of the attitude of most the county, and I personally don’t have a problem with it. It is a much different attitude than 30 years ago when my father came back from Vietnam and was spit on at the airport in San Diego. If other countries wish to interpret political diversity and free speech as a weakness, that should not be a concern of ours. I consider it our greatest strength. [/quote]

Nice post.

If freedom of speech is to be restricted during war for fear of being “weak”, than what exactly are we fighting for anyway…

30

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Austria-Hungary, you mean, right? And you seem quite proud of that accomplishment. Actually I was refering to WWII, started by Hitler’s sudden rise to power by enciting the population in to believing it was the Jews who caused the German defeat. Then his brown-shirts went around and literally beat up anyone who opposed him. Hmmm, sound like anyone we know…Saddam perhaps…maybe the Iranian crack-pot even? As far as I’m concerned, Germany and Austria have lost all rights to be judgemental about world peace.
[/quote]

That is seriously stupid though, because we still have it in our bones, as a society, how shit like that begins.

Once the brown-shirts are on the streets it is usually to late to do anything about it, most people are too scared to make a move then.

No, you must stop them when they start making excuses after excuses after excuses why they constantly want more power.

Your stance is pretty much the same that German generals took; they had sworn an oath, who were they to question him, they were only following orders.

Theirs was not to question why, theirs was just to do or die.

I understand that this is basically your job too, but how that implies in any way that a government may not be critizised by civilians during wartime is beyond me…

Plus and that may be a bit extreme for a true patriot American, supporting your troops unconditionally is not necessarily a virtue.

We supported our troops, it was cold in Russia, they should not have been there in the first place though.

Or we become ultra-liberal and re-define “supporting our troops”:

“Supporting our troops” means from now on to have political plans in the drawer that are as well thought out and executed as the military ones, preferably with decently armored vehicles and body armour, because of all the nasty shit that flies around in a war zone.

31

Actually you could argue that it was the complacency of the European governments and thier failure to realize they were going to have to go to war with Germany that caused WWII. Hitler was acting in the interests of his nation. Those interests happened to be contrary to the interests of the rest of the world. Not that he wasn’t an evil SOB, but the European powers (and the U.S. for that matter, although we did not involve ourselves in European affairs at the time) followed a policy of appeasement for too long. Hitler was allowed to violate the Treaty of Versaille without military action taken against him.

France and Britain failed to maintain a strong military following WWI, and failed to adapt thier strategies and tactics to the changes that technology was creating in the conduct of warfare. It took the rest of the world many years to adapt to the style of warfare that Germany introduced in the invasion of Poland and refined in the invasion of France. Is there a lesson to be learned here? Absolutely.

32

[quote]BH6 wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Austria-Hungary, you mean, right? And you seem quite proud of that accomplishment. Actually I was refering to WWII, started by Hitler’s sudden rise to power by enciting the population in to believing it was the Jews who caused the German defeat. Then his brown-shirts went around and literally beat up anyone who opposed him. Hmmm, sound like anyone we know…Saddam perhaps…maybe the Iranian crack-pot even? As far as I’m concerned, Germany and Austria have lost all rights to be judgemental about world peace.

Actually you could argue that it was the complacency of the European governments and thier failure to realize they were going to have to go to war with Germany that caused WWII. Hitler was acting in the interests of his nation. Those interests happened to be contrary to the interests of the rest of the world. Not that he wasn’t an evil SOB, but the European powers (and the U.S. for that matter, although we did not involve ourselves in European affairs at the time) followed a policy of appeasement for too long. Hitler was allowed to violate the Treaty of Versaille without military action taken against him.

France and Britain failed to maintain a strong military following WWI, and failed to adapt thier strategies and tactics to the changes that technology was creating in the conduct of warfare. It took the rest of the world many years to adapt to the style of warfare that Germany introduced in the invasion of Poland and refined in the invasion of France. Is there a lesson to be learned here? Absolutely.[/quote]

Good points.

“the European powers (and the U.S. for that matter, although we did not involve ourselves in European affairs at the time) followed a policy of appeasement for too long. Hitler was allowed to violate the Treaty of Versaille without military action taken against him.”

Boy, sounds a lot like Saddam and the UN sacntions, which included no-fly areas that Saddam regularly violated by shooting at American planes and regular weapons inspections. Perhaps we should have just turned our heads like we did in the 19930’s as an evil dictator grows more powerful. That could have saved us many casualties involved in a nasty war. Remember, Desert Storm did not end. There was a cease fire contingent upon Saddams complete compliance with UN sanctions. We had the right to go back. It’s too bad so many of our “allies” chicken out. We’ll be the world’s police since nobody else wants to.

It still blows me away that so many people consider President Bush the bad guy.

33

[quote]BH6 wrote:
It is against the law for the military to publicly criticize the president or the government. We give up several constitutional rights when we join, the rights to assembly and free speech being the major ones. That is part of the deal, we accept it, and it is the reason why you will read very little criticism from active duty military. Things are actually better than they were at the turn of the century when military officers were not allowed to vote, for fear of the military influencing an election. Many in the military don’t really agree with the president, or the administration, but stay on and fight.

That all being said, I believe there is a tremendous amount of support for the military. More so than during the end of the Vietnam war. I had the honor of meeting a group of New York City fire-fighters who were in D.C. to visit the wounded Marines and Soldiers at Bethesda and Walter Reed. To a man they thought that the war was a mistake and the president is probably retarded, but they still came down to show some support to the wounded.

They even laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. I think that is a pretty good representation of the attitude of most the county, and I personally don’t have a problem with it. It is a much different attitude than 30 years ago when my father came back from Vietnam and was spit on at the airport in San Diego. If other countries wish to interpret political diversity and free speech as a weakness, that should not be a concern of ours. I consider it our greatest strength. [/quote]

Things are waaaayyyy better than they were in the 90’s under Clinton. I know a lot of guys who retired under clinton’s time who REFUSE to display their discharge certificate with his signature. That man was hated by the military. President Bush is very popular with the military.

34

Stick around, I seem to grate on people after a while… but I promise to try to leave any potential animosity in the political arena! :wink:

Anyway, I think you have blinders on for one side. Are you trying to tell me that swift-boating (which is now a verb) wasn’t a well funded strategically planned personal attack?

Look, unfortunately, politics is played pretty dirty in the states. This is true of BOTH sides. You are going to have to try to recognize it on both sides of the political spectrum or nobody will take you seriously… exept Jerffy, and if he is your only ally, you’ve already lost.

35

[quote]vroom wrote:
It’s a well-funded, strategically planned personal attack on the President and all things conservative. I can not let that go uncontested. You seem like a reasonable guy. I like your style.

Stick around, I seem to grate on people after a while… but I promise to try to leave any potential animosity in the political arena! :wink:

Anyway, I think you have blinders on for one side. Are you trying to tell me that swift-boating (which is now a verb) wasn’t a well funded strategically planned personal attack?

Look, unfortunately, politics is played pretty dirty in the states. This is true of BOTH sides. You are going to have to try to recognize it on both sides of the political spectrum or nobody will take you seriously… exept Jerffy, and if he is your only ally, you’ve already lost.[/quote]

Agreed.

Even I’m forced to realize that pragmatic conservatives aren’t always a bad thing. And I don’t like that, but it is what it is.

36

[quote]PGJ wrote:
For all the haters here…who’s your national defense advisor? When’s the last time you were personally briefed by the JCS, world leaders, SecDef, Sec of State, NATO, CIA and the FBI? If the answer is “Never” then how can you say the President is making bad decisions? Maybe YOU just don’t fully understand the situation.
[/quote]
This is a terribly weak argument my friend, by the same token one could just as easily be asked how they know that the President’s decisions are good or proper. Even when, many decades down the line, much of the intelligence regarding present military decisions and the run up to them is made known more fully there will still be disagreement on the wisdom of those decisions by virtue of the fact that people’s perspectives do now and will in all liklihood continue to differ.

37

[quote]vroom wrote:
It’s a well-funded, strategically planned personal attack on the President and all things conservative. I can not let that go uncontested. You seem like a reasonable guy. I like your style.

Stick around, I seem to grate on people after a while… but I promise to try to leave any potential animosity in the political arena! :wink:

Anyway, I think you have blinders on for one side. Are you trying to tell me that swift-boating (which is now a verb) wasn’t a well funded strategically planned personal attack?

Look, unfortunately, politics is played pretty dirty in the states. This is true of BOTH sides. You are going to have to try to recognize it on both sides of the political spectrum or nobody will take you seriously… exept Jerffy, and if he is your only ally, you’ve already lost.[/quote]

Swift-boat was crap. Kerry is a phony and he knows it, but the swift-boat thing was stupid. Putting yourself in for a medal is really bad form in the military. I do try to see both sides and sometimes both suck really bad. However, I am conservative Christian by nature. I know what I believe. I do lots of research and read lots of books (you should try General Tommy Franks’ book “American Soldier” for an inside look at the war).

One thing I never saw while any Democrat was in office were hords of Republicans protesting, shouting-down public speakers, disrupting peaceable assemblies, and displaying outright hatred and vileness towards the President. No President is perfect and he can NEVER make everyone happy.

It’s the outright disrespect that bothers me most. How can we expect a Democracy (Republic actually) to flourish in the Middle East when we can’t even get it right here? Shouldn’t we be the example? Where’s the civility? The open debate and sharing of ideas? It has totally turned into you vs. me on EVERY issue. “The sky is blue…no, it’s baby blue…no, it’s blue and you’re stupid…well, you’re more stupid and I’m shocked and offended at your statements…”

You are right, politics is nasty and I think a lot of really good people have been run off or fear to even try public service for fear of public embarassment. My dream is for some day, the Presidential candidates make a gentlemans agreement NOT to run negative ads or criticize each others performance. Whouldn’t that be cool if the candidates just stuck to the issues and told us their plans?

38

[quote]BigPaul wrote:
PGJ wrote:
For all the haters here…who’s your national defense advisor? When’s the last time you were personally briefed by the JCS, world leaders, SecDef, Sec of State, NATO, CIA and the FBI? If the answer is “Never” then how can you say the President is making bad decisions? Maybe YOU just don’t fully understand the situation.

This is a terribly weak argument my friend, by the same token one could just as easily be asked how they know that the President’s decisions are good or proper. Even when, many decades down the line, much of the intelligence regarding present military decisions and the run up to them is made known more fully there will still be disagreement on the wisdom of those decisions by virtue of the fact that people’s perspectives do now and will in all liklihood continue to differ.[/quote]

Hey, man. My point is that everyone thinks they know some inside information and that major national-level decisions are really easy to make. The fact is, you and I have no freakin’ idea the complexity of the issues the President deals with. No concept of being in charge of something as large as the USA. He has experts from all areas briefing him constantly. He lives and breathes this stuff. We’re just a bunch of hackers. He knows more than you and I.

We don’t have a need or a right to know everything. You don’t WANT to know everything. It kills me to see the local college kids or the lady that works at the coffee shop complaining about the President, like they know something.

39

Did you ever stop to consider if this may be more of a reflection on the man and the times than on the general public?

I mean, shucking this off onto the shoulders of “those bad bad liberals” is a bit too convenient don’t you think?

40

No need to idolize the guy, he’s just a man, with all the faults and failings that this entails…