I Support the Troops

[HagiaSophia]

I loved this article because it affirmed to me what I’ve ben asking myself for some time – exactly what does “I support the troops” mean?

"…Liberals, Democrats and others on the Left frequently state that they “support the troops.” For most of them, whether they realize it or not, this is not true. They feel they must say this because the majority of Americans would find any other position unacceptable. Indeed, for most liberals, the thought that they really do not support the troops is unacceptable even to them.

Lest this argument be dismissed as an attack on leftist Americans’ patriotism, let it be clear that leftists’ patriotism is not the issue here. Their honesty is.

In order to understand this, we need to first have a working definition of the term “support the troops.” Presumably it means that one supports what the troops are doing and rooting for them to succeed. What else could “support the troops” mean? If you say, for example, that you support the Yankees or the Dodgers, we assume it means you want them to win.

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45234

 

[Richardols]

"…Liberals, Democrats and others on the Left frequently state that they “support the troops.” For most of them, whether they realize it or not, this is not true.

Nonsense. The writer thinks it is impossible to separate support for the Administration from support for our servicemen, and uses WWII Germans as his example, asserting that one could not have, at the same time said, “I oppose the evil Nazis’ prosecution of the war, but I support the German troops.”

Many people did just that, supporting the men in the Wehrmacht though hating what the Nazi government was doing. Were those soldiers to be shunned and despised for doing their duties, when such duties were those of any soldier? No.

So, also, all Americans can wish our soldiers well, pray that they remain well and unwounded, trust that they honor their commitments to their oaths, that they remain in good spirits, and that they will return to their homes as soon as possible. And one can let the soldiers know that. And, even as one does that for the soldiers in the field, one can oppose the Administration, point out where it has done wrong, and demand that it bring the war to as quick an end as possible.

I despise swine like Prager who find it necessary to libel those who don’t share his slavish and uncritical devotion to the Administration and its conduct of the war as traitors and liars.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Richardols:

I despise swine like Prager who find it necessary to libel those who don’t share his slavish and uncritical devotion to the Administration and its conduct of the war as traitors and liars.

Dennis Prager is certainly no “swine” and you are way beyond the pale in suggesting that he is. Frankly you ought to seek to have your post edited.

To the best of my knowledge the man never takes on the role of “slavish” anything to anyone. He pretty much calls them as he sees things which is from an ethical and moral POV as his columns usually point out. While one can certainly not agree with him, frankly I find his credibility much higher than I do some posters and he isnt the only one to bring up the subject of “I Support the Troops”…line. His columns usually bring up some good questions even if one does not agree with his conclusions about them, which after all is the mark of a good “teacher”.

 

[Richardols]

HagiaSophia:

he isnt the only one to bring up the subject of “I Support the Troops”…line.

So he’s a dittohead. Wouldn’t be the first one to repeat what kindred spirits have already said.

 

[Richardols]

HagiaSophia:

He pretty much calls them as he sees things which is from an ethical and moral POV.

“A frequent guest on the O’Reilly Factor and on *Hannity and Colmes” *Examples of ethical and moral POVs? IYO, perhaps.

 

[thestickman]

“A frequent guest on the O’Reilly Factor and on *Hannity and Colmes” *Examples of ethical and moral POVs? IYO, perhaps.

LOL!!! And that has what to do with the content written in the article? Zip. When reality can’t be addressed specifically, attack the source who has the audacity to speak accurately; a tactic commonly used by the left.

 

[Richardols]

thestickman:

the source who has the audacity to speak accurately; a tactic commonly used by the left.

LOL!!! Describing anyone from the right, whether a Brownshirt or one of lesser fanaticism, as one who “speaks accurately”; a tactic all too commonly used by the right-wing.

 

[thestickman]

Richardols:

LOL!!! Describing anyone from the right, whether a Brownshirt or one of lesser fanaticism, as one who “speaks accurately”; a tactic all too commonly used by the right-wing.

Respectfully, I submit your reluctance or inability to address the points made in the original article is, IMO, another example why liberals continue to lose elections on the national level. They have no argument, no ideas, nothing to offer the nation at all but tired catch-phrases that have in some instance, become invalid.

Prager’s right. The left claims to support the troops. I wish their rhetoric and their behavior matched this claim.

“Lest this argument be dismissed as an attack on leftist Americans’ patriotism, let it be clear that leftists’ patriotism is not the issue here. Their honesty is.”

AMEN!!!

 

[Philip_P]

thestickman:

Respectfully, I submit your reluctance or inability to address the points made in the original article is, IMO, another example why liberals continue to lose elections on the national level. They have no argument, no ideas, nothing to offer the nation at all but tired catch-phrases that have in some instance, become invalid.

Prager’s right. The left claims to support the troops. I wish their rhetoric and their behavior matched this claim.

“Lest this argument be dismissed as an attack on leftist Americans’ patriotism, let it be clear that leftists’ patriotism is not the issue here. Their honesty is.”

AMEN!!!

Ok, let’s talk content. We could start with the fact that Prager starts with a sports metaphor. Apparently Republicans think we’re playing a game here, and supporting the troops simply means cheering for the home team (and really, if you’re going to stick to the metaphor, it means cheering for the team owners and forget the players!). Well, that explains a lot.

Some of us aren’t interested in playing baseball, we’re interested in protecting lives. The relevant question isn’t whether you’re cheering loud enough, or which bleachers you’re in. It is: are the actions of those in charge (currently the Republicans) truly making our lives safer and reducing the risk of terrorism. I say no.

Furthermore, our troops aren’t baseball players. They are human beings, my fellow citizens, asked to put their lives on the line in the execution of their orders. If I believe those orders to be flawed, the right thing, the patriotic thing, is to protest loudly against those orders. If someone believes the war to be wrong, supporting the troops *requires *that they criticize the administration.

I guess Prager and his ilk would rather play baseball, though.

 

[Robert_Bay]

General Reminder:

The charity level of this discussion appears to be deteriorating. Please self-edit for tone and content before clicking the “Submit” button. If the charity level does not improve, this thread will have to be locked. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

Ok, let’s talk content. We could start with the fact that Prager starts with a sports metaphor. Apparently Republicans think we’re playing a game here, and supporting the troops simply means cheering for the home team (and really, if you’re going to stick to the metaphor, it means cheering for the team owners and forget the players!). Well, that explains a lot.

Some of us aren’t interested in playing baseball, we’re interested in protecting lives. The relevant question isn’t whether you’re cheering loud enough, or which bleachers you’re in. It is: are the actions of those in charge (currently the Republicans) truly making our lives safer and reducing the risk of terrorism. I say no.

Furthermore, our troops aren’t baseball players. They are human beings, my fellow citizens, asked to put their lives on the line in the execution of their orders. If I believe those orders to be flawed, the right thing, the patriotic thing, is to protest loudly against those orders. If someone believes the war to be wrong, supporting the troops *requires *that they criticize the administration.

I guess Prager and his ilk would rather play baseball, though.

Nice spin on the baseball metaphor–I got a nice laugh from it. It has nothing at all to do with the thesis of the article, of course. But I did chuckle.

Is it possible to “support the troops” and be against the objectives they are risking their lives to achieve? I don’t think so.

Prager’s right when he says, “*Many on the Left angrily accuse the Right of disparaging their patriotism. That charge, too, is false. I have never heard a mainstream conservative impugn the patriotism of liberals. But as regards their attitude toward our troops, the patriotism of those on the Left is not the issue. The issue is their honesty.”
*
For the folks on the left, I have a simple question to ask you: Do you want our troops to meet their objectives? Yes or no?

 

[AmyS]

Richardols:

So he’s a dittohead. Wouldn’t be the first one to repeat what kindred spirits have already said.

If you actually knew more about Prager, this statement would make you laugh… You know nothing about him.

 

[HagiaSophia]

“A frequent guest on the O’Reilly Factor and on *Hannity and Colmes” *Examples of ethical and moral POVs? IYO, perhaps.

He is called upon because he is a well known radio host, (particularly with his Religion on the Line) weekly show featuring ministers of various faiths all discussing current moral perspectives for religious thinking people in modern life; writer and apologist for the Christian Judaic POV. It would be better if you don’t know anything about the person to limit youself to simply disagreeing with him rather than trying to talk about someone rather well known whose work you are totally unacquainted with apparently.

Anyone claiming that Prager is some slave to a single political party doesnt have a clue.

 

[HagiaSophia]

AmyS:

If you actually knew more about Prager, this statement would make you laugh… You know nothing about him.

Ain’t that the truth!

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I have no use for the liberal mantra that they “support the troops” but do everything possible to deny what they said only a few months ago in a transparent effort to undermine the commander in chief. Can anyone imagine what would have happened if FDR’s every move was undermined by small minded people who continually lied about their positions.

I was once a Democrat. The Democrats used to be an honorable party. No more. They need a radical overhaul but that will probably have to wait until the present leadership dies off. What a pitiful bunch they are.

Dan L

 

[ElizabethJoy]

I used to be a Democrat, too. But, they’re sooooo far out in space, I would not even consider re-joining the party until people like Zell Miller are back in vogue **and **in leadership.

Dennis Prager is right on the money, IMO. His writings and views come from a firmly held moral core. That’s why people can’t argue very effectively against him or his positions.

Elizabeth

 

[Philip_P]

thestickman:

**
For the folks on the left, I have a simple question to ask you: Do you want our troops to meet their objectives? Yes or no?

Which objective would that be? Find WMD’s? They’re not there to be found. Promote democracy in the middle east? I believe there were far better ways to do this than invading Iraq. Reduce the threat of terrorism? I’ve seen no evidence that our actions in Iraq have done this, and in fact it’s quite possible it’s had the opposite effect.

Look folks, we can disagree on the prudence and wisdom of a course of action. I don’t believe the Iraq war serves our national interests, others do. Since none of us are infallible, such differences are perfectly valid. Furthermore, as citizens in a democracy, it is not just a right, but a responsibilty to engage in such debate, especially when there are differences of opinion.

This, however, is a far cry from calling those who disagree with you liars or stupid or unpatriotic. I don’t have a problem with those who support the war calling those who oppose it wrong - and making their case. When people such as Prager accuse those who disagree with them of dishonesty and worse, however, they cross a line which ought not be crossed.

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

Which objective would that be? Find WMD’s? They’re not there to be found. Promote democracy in the middle east? I believe there were far better ways to do this than invading Iraq. Reduce the threat of terrorism? I’ve seen no evidence that our actions in Iraq have done this, and in fact it’s quite possible it’s had the opposite effect.

LOL!!! You didn’t answer the question. I like that you haven’t seen evidence our actions have reduced terrorism. sKerry used that line a lot during the election in 2004.

But if you’ve really forgotten what our objectives in Iraq are, you might wanna read the Congressional Resolution that gave Bush permission to remove Saddam from power the way we did. One of those objectives was 1st made official US policy during the Clinton administration.

Look folks, we can disagree on the prudence and wisdom of a course of action. I don’t believe the Iraq war serves our national interests, others do. Since none of us are infallible, such differences are perfectly valid. Furthermore, as citizens in a democracy, it is not just a right, but a responsibilty to engage in such debate, especially when there are differences of opinion.

Again I quote Prager: ***I have never heard a mainstream conservative impugn the patriotism of liberals.

***Neither have I, for that matter. Yet the left sure seems to want to tell us how patriotic they really are. What’s that ol saw about the guilty dog barking loudest…

This, however, is a far cry from calling those who disagree with you liars or stupid or unpatriotic. I don’t have a problem with those who support the war calling those who oppose it wrong - and making their case. When people such as Prager accuse those who disagree with them of dishonesty and worse, however, they cross a line which ought not be crossed.

Odd, I always find cogent arguments, even when I disagree with them to be helpful in all forms of discussion. IMO, Prager accurately shines the light of reality upon the left’s claim they support the troops.

I see you didn’t answer the question so I will ask it again. It’s not a multiple choice question. It’s a simple “yes or no” question. IMO, not answering this simple question with a “yes or a no” actually proves Prager’s point.

Do you want our troops to meet their objectives? Yes or no?

 

[Philip_P]

thestickman:

Again I quote Prager: I have never heard a mainstream conservative impugn the patriotism of liberals.

**Neither have I, for that matter. Yet the left sure seems to want to tell us how patriotic they really are. What’s that ol saw about the guilty dog barking loudest…

Pager accused liberals of being dishonest. As far as questioning patriotism, some conservatives such as Ann Coulter have called liberals traitors, but you’re right, she’s hardly mainstream. Better leave her on the fringes where she belongs.

As for your question, I don’t believe President’ Bush’s strategy will achieve our objectives. I do not support putting American citizens in danger for the sake of a flawed strategy.

 

[swampfox]

Philip P:

Pager accused liberals of being dishonest. As far as questioning patriotism, some conservatives such as Ann Coulter have called liberals traitors, but you’re right, she’s hardly mainstream. Better leave her on the fringes where she belongs.

As for your question, I don’t believe President’ Bush’s strategy will achieve our objectives. I do not support putting American citizens in danger for the sake of a flawed strategy.

I guess you wouldn’t have gone to work at the World Trade Center on 9/11/01 or wouldn’t now take the subway to work in NYC. The point is you are and have already been in the scope of the islamofascist terrorists and the best way to take them out is to be on the offensive until and unless the majority of the Muslim community rises up and says enough is enough and challenges the suicidal madness of their misguided brethren.