Do You Support the Troops?

orion · May 17, 2006, 7:01pm

[quote]PGJ wrote:

I believe if the Iraqi’s saw a determined, united front in America, they would be more willing to come out cooperate. All they see are American politicians, it’s leaders, fighting over legalities and moralities, calling each other all sorts of names, and on the verge of possible pulling out leaving them there to deal with the Saudi, Syrian, Iranian, and Jordanian terrorists who want power. We’re not fighting Iraqi’s. The “fog of war” is full of errors and blunders. There is a saying in the military that a plan only lasts until first contact with the enemy. Meaning, EVERY plan gets messed up. The question is: do you tuck your tail and run away or do you stay and figure it out? If the allies quit after the Germans and Austrians killed 10,000 American, Brittish, Canadian, Australian troops on a single day on the beaches of Normandy, what would have happened? The D-Day invasion was jacked up before it even began, but we pressed on. Armed conflict is nasty, but sometimes it is necessary. Austria is not a big target for terrorists, so going after them isn’t a big priority to you guys. President Bush stated up front that we wouldn’t stand by and do nothing as threats grew. It seemed the entire nation was in agreement with this “reach out and touch someone” policy. Now, many are pussing out because it’s not as easy as some thought it would be.

[/quote]

You could try that “get to know your enemy” stuff with people you believe to be “liberal”, whatever that means for you.

Large parts of America and an even bigger part of Europe believe that Bush lied to them to get this war and that he used the aftermath of 9-11 to go to war.

That can be right, or wrong, or oversimplified, or fried with onion rings, that is what people believe.

If you believed that, would it be a big priority for you to follow that leader? Would you be able to trust him ever again or would you just count the days until he is out of office?

If in this presidents administration suddenly wiretapping became the norm, Homeland Security got powers previously unthinkable, and the administration constantly only admits what can be absolutely proven until the next scandal where we find out that their contempt for the spirit, if not always the letter of the constitution is even greater than expected, would you not only quietly count the days but also voice your dissent as loud as possible ?

Do you have to be seriously deranged to think all that, or can someone who thinks along these lines still be counted as a reasonable being?

harris447 · May 17, 2006, 7:03pm

[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
Its funny how things come full circle. I can only repeat what I have already said. IN EVERY CONFLICT THE LIBERALS SIDE WITH THE ENEMY. Point blank.

There was no choice. Tell me something Harris, if you are so smart.

Say a madman, were to bury all his WMD’s in the sand under his country. How would people thousands of miles away ever find them?

Supporting the troops is not saying come home. The only way the troops will come home is when their job is done. You want them home, help them finish their job. This job is to clear the insurgents and terrorists. Soon as its done, they will come home.

What will you bloody liberals bitch about when they come home? Ever think of that? You should be screaming stay so you have something to bitch about. That is the liberal way. Complain but do not act. Pretty soon you guys will be like the french military. Their battle plan is capitulate and cooperate. [/quote]

There was NO CHOICE but to go to war with Iraq?

(Well, not “war.” War is when two sids are fighting…)

It’s amazing how the “mission” keeps changing: first it was WMD’s, then it was “spreading democracy.” Now it’s “defeating the insurgents.”

Now answer me this: what will the mission be after the insurgents are gone? Speaking of which, where were the insurgents before we got there?

Oh, right: they didn’t exist. We created our own enemy.

Now, tell me something, if you’re so smart: what if there were no weapons, just like the Duelfer Report said?

What if the entire war was based on utter bullshit?

TrainerinDC · May 17, 2006, 7:07pm

Wrong. Wrong as always Orion. America and England are joined at the hip. England owns a significant percentage of our gold standard. By attacking us its as if they are attacking their own source of income. Armed Forces can’t fight without money. English money is invested all over America. America and England are brothers. We may fight like brothers at times, but we are brothers.

France!?!?!? Are you out of your mind? Do they not teach history in your country? Look at history and tell me what France has won. Or forget history and look at the current affairs. France has no respectable military, other than the Foreign Legion, which is Foreign! Hate to be the bearer of bad news here but you seriously need a reality check. You seem to forget that America has the most elite, best trained, best equipped, and most professional military ever created.

You should worry about China. Everyone on this planet with a brain should worry about china. Throughout history bad things happen with a culture that has a surplus of males. Whats the ratio in China again? You’d be amazed. Look it up.

TrainerinDC · May 17, 2006, 7:11pm

[quote]harris447 wrote:
There was NO CHOICE but to go to war with Iraq?

(Well, not “war.” War is when two sids are fighting…)

It’s amazing how the “mission” keeps changing: first it was WMD’s, then it was “spreading democracy.” Now it’s “defeating the insurgents.”

Now answer me this: what will the mission be after the insurgents are gone? Speaking of which, where were the insurgents before we got there?

Oh, right: they didn’t exist. We created our own enemy.

Now, tell me something, if you’re so smart: what if there were no weapons, just like the Duelfer Report said?

What if the entire war was based on utter bullshit?
[/quote]

Lets say there were no WMD’s. It would not make any difference. They still were in violation of UN orders. They were still attacking american planes in the no-fly zone. An evil dictator was still in power, and that dictator definitely posessed WMD’s. That dictator killed his citizens. The dictators son had harems of raped women. His son had thousands of murders committed by his hand or others. That dictator was killing wholesale a segment of his own population (the kurds) That dictator had to go. America stepped up to handle it.

ExNole · May 17, 2006, 7:24pm

[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
Its funny how things come full circle. I can only repeat what I have already said. IN EVERY CONFLICT THE LIBERALS SIDE WITH THE ENEMY. Point blank.

There was no choice. Tell me something Harris, if you are so smart.

Say a madman, were to bury all his WMD’s in the sand under his country. How would people thousands of miles away ever find them?

Supporting the troops is not saying come home. The only way the troops will come home is when their job is done. You want them home, help them finish their job. This job is to clear the insurgents and terrorists. Soon as its done, they will come home.

What will you bloody liberals bitch about when they come home? Ever think of that? You should be screaming stay so you have something to bitch about. That is the liberal way. Complain but do not act. Pretty soon you guys will be like the french military. Their battle plan is capitulate and cooperate. [/quote]

I know there are some intellectually respectable people on this site that support the war that know this “liberals support the enemy” thing is total bullshit and I’d wish they’d call people on it.

If victory hinged on shooting more people than we would be in a great spot. We’re really good at that. But the problems in Iraq are independent of any success we have in military engagements.

It doesn’t matter if we are liberators or occupiers, it matters how we are perceived. And if peple believe we are occupiers and they are freedom fighters we are in trouble.

The ethnic tensions in Iraq are getting anything but better and the government is ineffectual at best. We don’t have enough troops to give any sort of security to people outside of the green zone. In every measureable standard of living (electricity, unemployment, terror attacks, sewage etc.) things are worse than pre invasion.

The Sunnis won’t settle for anything but control of the government and neither will the Shi’ites. The Kurds have wanted their own country for who knows how long.

It doesn’t matter how well we fight, or how long we stay, the Army is not going to be the decisive factor in whether or not Iraq becomes a stable democratic country.

makkun · May 18, 2006, 1:32am

ExNole,

[quote]ExNole wrote:
[…]
I know there are some intellectually respectable people on this site that support the war that know this “liberals support the enemy” thing is total bullshit and I’d wish they’d call people on it.

If victory hinged on shooting more people than we would be in a great spot. We’re really good at that. But the problems in Iraq are independent of any success we have in military engagements.

It doesn’t matter if we are liberators or occupiers, it matters how we are perceived. And if peple believe we are occupiers and they are freedom fighters we are in trouble.

The ethnic tensions in Iraq are getting anything but better and the government is ineffectual at best. We don’t have enough troops to give any sort of security to people outside of the green zone. In every measureable standard of living (electricity, unemployment, terror attacks, sewage etc.) things are worse than pre invasion.

The Sunnis won’t settle for anything but control of the government and neither will the Shi’ites. The Kurds have wanted their own country for who knows how long.

It doesn’t matter how well we fight, or how long we stay, the Army is not going to be the decisive factor in whether or not Iraq becomes a stable democratic country. [/quote]

At last - a voice of reason.

Makkun

orion · May 18, 2006, 3:12am

[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
Wrong. Wrong as always Orion. America and England are joined at the hip. England owns a significant percentage of our gold standard. By attacking us its as if they are attacking their own source of income. Armed Forces can’t fight without money. English money is invested all over America. America and England are brothers. We may fight like brothers at times, but we are brothers.

France!?!?!? Are you out of your mind? Do they not teach history in your country? Look at history and tell me what France has won. Or forget history and look at the current affairs. France has no respectable military, other than the Foreign Legion, which is Foreign! Hate to be the bearer of bad news here but you seriously need a reality check. You seem to forget that America has the most elite, best trained, best equipped, and most professional military ever created.

You should worry about China. Everyone on this planet with a brain should worry about china. Throughout history bad things happen with a culture that has a surplus of males. Whats the ratio in China again? You’d be amazed. Look it up. [/quote]

All right genius, I said they could, theoretically, not that they would.

Did you ask yourself why I picked France and the UK? No?

Nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to reach every point on the globe , that?s why.

I don?t care how good a soldier you are , you don?t survive a mushroom cloud.

Not even if you are a big bad American soldier. Trust me.

If you do not trust me, ask one of them.

PGJ · May 18, 2006, 8:14am

[quote]orion wrote:
PGJ wrote:

I believe if the Iraqi’s saw a determined, united front in America, they would be more willing to come out cooperate. All they see are American politicians, it’s leaders, fighting over legalities and moralities, calling each other all sorts of names, and on the verge of possible pulling out leaving them there to deal with the Saudi, Syrian, Iranian, and Jordanian terrorists who want power. We’re not fighting Iraqi’s. The “fog of war” is full of errors and blunders. There is a saying in the military that a plan only lasts until first contact with the enemy. Meaning, EVERY plan gets messed up. The question is: do you tuck your tail and run away or do you stay and figure it out? If the allies quit after the Germans and Austrians killed 10,000 American, Brittish, Canadian, Australian troops on a single day on the beaches of Normandy, what would have happened? The D-Day invasion was jacked up before it even began, but we pressed on. Armed conflict is nasty, but sometimes it is necessary. Austria is not a big target for terrorists, so going after them isn’t a big priority to you guys. President Bush stated up front that we wouldn’t stand by and do nothing as threats grew. It seemed the entire nation was in agreement with this “reach out and touch someone” policy. Now, many are pussing out because it’s not as easy as some thought it would be.

You could try that “get to know your enemy” stuff with people you believe to be “liberal”, whatever that means for you.

Large parts of America and an even bigger part of Europe believe that Bush lied to them to get this war and that he used the aftermath of 9-11 to go to war.

That can be right, or wrong, or oversimplified, or fried with onion rings, that is what people believe.

If you believed that, would it be a big priority for you to follow that leader? Would you be able to trust him ever again or would you just count the days until he is out of office?

If in this presidents administration suddenly wiretapping became the norm, Homeland Security got powers previously unthinkable, and the administration constantly only admits what can be absolutely proven until the next scandal where we find out that their contempt for the spirit, if not always the letter of the constitution is even greater than expected, would you not only quietly count the days but also voice your dissent as loud as possible ?

Do you have to be seriously deranged to think all that, or can someone who thinks along these lines still be counted as a reasonable being? [/quote]

What I can’t understand is why a citizen of a socialist nation cares about American laws? Wiretaps, constitution, Homeland Security…mind your business. You guys have enough crap to worry about over there. Let us deal with our own issues. I could give a crap if Europe thinks Bush lied. Your (European) media is so tainted and biased, it makes American media look like mere amatures. I don’t buy into the whole “One World” crap. You obviously have never been in a position of leadership. Sometime you have to make tough decisions. Sometimes those decisions make you very unpopular, but you still have to make them. Leadership is not a popularity contest. It is physically impossible to make everyone happy, and some people will never be happy no matter what.

PGJ · May 18, 2006, 8:29am

[quote]harris447 wrote:
TrainerinDC wrote:
Its funny how things come full circle. I can only repeat what I have already said. IN EVERY CONFLICT THE LIBERALS SIDE WITH THE ENEMY. Point blank.

There was no choice. Tell me something Harris, if you are so smart.

Say a madman, were to bury all his WMD’s in the sand under his country. How would people thousands of miles away ever find them?

Supporting the troops is not saying come home. The only way the troops will come home is when their job is done. You want them home, help them finish their job. This job is to clear the insurgents and terrorists. Soon as its done, they will come home.

What will you bloody liberals bitch about when they come home? Ever think of that? You should be screaming stay so you have something to bitch about. That is the liberal way. Complain but do not act. Pretty soon you guys will be like the french military. Their battle plan is capitulate and cooperate.

There was NO CHOICE but to go to war with Iraq?

(Well, not “war.” War is when two sids are fighting…)

It’s amazing how the “mission” keeps changing: first it was WMD’s, then it was “spreading democracy.” Now it’s “defeating the insurgents.”

Now answer me this: what will the mission be after the insurgents are gone? Speaking of which, where were the insurgents before we got there?

Oh, right: they didn’t exist. We created our own enemy.

Now, tell me something, if you’re so smart: what if there were no weapons, just like the Duelfer Report said?

What if the entire war was based on utter bullshit?
[/quote]

Jesus f’n Christ, Harris. Are you stooopid or something? Missions always change as the face of the battle changes. Good lord, you have no idea. Typical liberal that has never served his country, but thinks he knows how the military and national strategy works. You have really shown your ass, this time.

Where were the insurgents before we got there? Have you been living under a rock? They were flying airplanes into buildings, blowing up American ships and embassies, killing innocent people at night clubs and markets. They blew up the WTC 10 years ago. They have been downing airliners all over the world for decades. WTF? Don’t you get it? These bastards have been at war with us for a long time and we did nothing. You are such a pussy. Quit making us out to be the bad guys. The next mission will probably be to get rid of that freak in Iran. Missions always change based on new evidence, targets of opportunity, enemy resistance, force structure…you seriously have no clue. Look, you are not in the military and never will be. There will not be a draft, so you are safe. EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN IN IRAQ IS A VOLUNTEER. So why do you care? Let us do our thing. You can support us by letting us do our job and not give the enemy talking points to use as propaganda.

JeffR · May 18, 2006, 8:34am

dirty-harry,

I wanted to say that you’ve been the unwilling recipient of the most effective T-forum ass beating ever.

All your usual attacks have been systematically neutralized. You cannot cry “chicken-hawk” or “the troops are just following the Evil Ones’ orders.”

These guys know full well what they are doing. They are informed. They see right through your double-talk about supporting the troops.

In summary, they make you look insignificant in every possible way.

VERY strong work PGJ and DD.

JeffR

JeffR · May 18, 2006, 8:41am

dirty harry vomited out:

I cannot tell you how tired that little retort is. Seriously.

PGJ could have put together all that from cnn. Seriously. In spite of themselves, you can put together the danger that saddam posed from their reporting.

It takes work. But, with a little mental stamina, you could do it (aka…you missed it entirely).

[quote] Comparing Saddam to Hitler is like comparing Bush to Roosevelt.

(Either Roosevelt.)[/quote]

That was nonsense.

saddam invaded neighbors, subjugated his people, threatened the West, set up camps, persecuted a section of his people due to their religious beliefs, built up his forces in defiance of treaties.

On and freakin’ on.

Oh, hitler did all of those things.

JeffR

orion · May 18, 2006, 9:08am

[quote]PGJ wrote:

What I can’t understand is why a citizen of a socialist nation cares about American laws? Wiretaps, constitution, Homeland Security…mind your business. You guys have enough crap to worry about over there. Let us deal with our own issues. I could give a crap if Europe thinks Bush lied. Your (European) media is so tainted and biased, it makes American media look like mere amatures. I don’t buy into the whole “One World” crap. You obviously have never been in a position of leadership. Sometime you have to make tough decisions. Sometimes those decisions make you very unpopular, but you still have to make them. Leadership is not a popularity contest. It is physically impossible to make everyone happy, and some people will never be happy no matter what.

[/quote]

Our media, when compared to US television are the allmost the definition of fair and balanced.

Seriously.

See for yourself if you don?t believe me, though BBC interviewing Blair might be too much for you, if you are not used to tough interviews ;-)…

See, you don?t give a shit what Europeans or anyone else thinks. The Bush admisnitration does not either.

You wonder why you are allmost alone in Iraq, European nations won?t hand over suspected terrorists to you and you aren?t able to get the UN behind your actions?

You don?t give a shit? Why do you get upset then, if France basically tells you to hit the road and don?t call any more?

You don?t believe in the One World stuff. Too kumba ya for you?

The idea is more like someone can manufacture a deadly virus in Indonesia,
have it mass-produced in Germany and shipped to the US via the UK, if you believe in it or not.

If you like it or not, you have to try to understand how the muslim terrorists think, why the Europeans see things differently than the Americans some time
and that nations like Russia, China and India have interests that sometimes are incompatible with your own.

Supporting the troops and rallying behind POTUS will not make those people go away and since you can?t kill them all, you will have to find a way to deal with them.

Welcome to the 21 century, were we have only “One World” left.

harris447 · May 18, 2006, 9:13am

[quote]PGJ wrote:
harris447 wrote:
TrainerinDC wrote:
Its funny how things come full circle. I can only repeat what I have already said. IN EVERY CONFLICT THE LIBERALS SIDE WITH THE ENEMY. Point blank.

There was no choice. Tell me something Harris, if you are so smart.

Say a madman, were to bury all his WMD’s in the sand under his country. How would people thousands of miles away ever find them?

Supporting the troops is not saying come home. The only way the troops will come home is when their job is done. You want them home, help them finish their job. This job is to clear the insurgents and terrorists. Soon as its done, they will come home.

What will you bloody liberals bitch about when they come home? Ever think of that? You should be screaming stay so you have something to bitch about. That is the liberal way. Complain but do not act. Pretty soon you guys will be like the french military. Their battle plan is capitulate and cooperate.

There was NO CHOICE but to go to war with Iraq?

(Well, not “war.” War is when two sids are fighting…)

It’s amazing how the “mission” keeps changing: first it was WMD’s, then it was “spreading democracy.” Now it’s “defeating the insurgents.”

Now answer me this: what will the mission be after the insurgents are gone? Speaking of which, where were the insurgents before we got there?

Oh, right: they didn’t exist. We created our own enemy.

Now, tell me something, if you’re so smart: what if there were no weapons, just like the Duelfer Report said?

What if the entire war was based on utter bullshit?

Jesus f’n Christ, Harris. Are you stooopid or something? Missions always change as the face of the battle changes. Good lord, you have no idea. Typical liberal that has never served his country, but thinks he knows how the military and national strategy works. You have really shown your ass, this time.

Where were the insurgents before we got there? Have you been living under a rock? They were flying airplanes into buildings, blowing up American ships and embassies, killing innocent people at night clubs and markets. They blew up the WTC 10 years ago. They have been downing airliners all over the world for decades. WTF? Don’t you get it? These bastards have been at war with us for a long time and we did nothing. You are such a pussy. Quit making us out to be the bad guys. The next mission will probably be to get rid of that freak in Iran. Missions always change based on new evidence, targets of opportunity, enemy resistance, force structure…you seriously have no clue. Look, you are not in the military and never will be. There will not be a draft, so you are safe. EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN IN IRAQ IS A VOLUNTEER. So why do you care? Let us do our thing. You can support us by letting us do our job and not give the enemy talking points to use as propaganda.[/quote]

I’ve been trying to be respectful, but you’re really, really dumb.

Missions might change in battle, but…no, wait: they don’t. how did the mission change during Korea, WWII, WWI, etc.? They didn’t. There was one clear mission objective because there was actually a reason to go to war.

Saddam was a bad guy? Who gives a fuck. Kim Jong Il is a bad guy. Robert mugabe was a bad guy. We never attacked them.

Don’t you dare say this war was started because “Saddam was a dictator and someone had to step up.” There has never–NEVER–been a war fought for humanitarian purposes on the face of the Earth.

Saddam was violating UN sanctions? Wow, conservatives are amazing ambidextrous when it comes to the UN. Should it be torn down, or should we go to war because someone didn’t follow a UN resolution.

Every single person in Iraq is a volunteer?

No. The Iraqis aren’t.

orion · May 18, 2006, 9:14am

[quote]PGJ wrote:

Where were the insurgents before we got there? Have you been living under a rock? They were flying airplanes into buildings, blowing up American ships and embassies, killing innocent people at night clubs and markets. They blew up the WTC 10 years ago. They have been downing airliners all over the world for decades. WTF? Don’t you get it? These bastards have been at war with us for a long time and we did nothing. You are such a pussy. Quit making us out to be the bad guys. The next mission will probably be to get rid of that freak in Iran. Missions always change based on new evidence, targets of opportunity, enemy resistance, force structure…you seriously have no clue. Look, you are not in the military and never will be. There will not be a draft, so you are safe. EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN IN IRAQ IS A VOLUNTEER. So why do you care? Let us do our thing. You can support us by letting us do our job and not give the enemy talking points to use as propaganda.[/quote]

No, that is precisely what this insurgents did not do.

They did not fly planes into towers and they did not try to blow up the WTC ten years ago.

Those insurgents also did not down planes for decades.

There were very good reasons to invade Iraq and none of the above was one of them.

GDollars37 · May 18, 2006, 9:54am

[quote]ExNole wrote:
TrainerinDC wrote:
Its funny how things come full circle. I can only repeat what I have already said. IN EVERY CONFLICT THE LIBERALS SIDE WITH THE ENEMY. Point blank.