I Support the Troops

  • Thread starter Thread starter HagiaSophia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vern humphrey:
Why, then, did John Paul the Great urge us to stay there until the job is done?
Because once you have invaded a country and destroyed their infrastructure, army, police, and so forth, in the name of ‘liberating the people’, there is a moral duty for you to stay there and sort it out before you leave. I agree with the wonderful last Pope - we shouldn’t have gone to war, but given we did, we have a duty to make things right.

Mike
 
40.png
MikeWM:
Because once you have invaded a country and destroyed their infrastructure, army, police, and so forth, in the name of ‘liberating the people’, there is a moral duty for you to stay there and sort it out before you leave. I agree with the wonderful last Pope - we shouldn’t have gone to war, but given we did, we have a duty to make things right.

Mike
Which means we have a duty to maintain a concerted stance, and not undermine the efforts that are ongoing now.
 
vern humphrey:
Which means we have a duty to maintain a concerted stance, and not undermine the efforts that are ongoing now.
I don’t believe I am. I think it is imperative to stay there until the country is ‘sorted out’. I have absolutely no idea how to sort it out, mind, that really ought to have been worked out before invading in the first place, methinks, and then we most likely would have been out of there already.

Mike
 
40.png
MikeWM:
I don’t believe I am. I think it is imperative to stay there until the country is ‘sorted out’. I have absolutely no idea how to sort it out, mind, that really ought to have been worked out before invading in the first place, methinks, and then we most likely would have been out of there already.

Mike
People without military experience seem to think there can be such a thing as a perfect war. Look at history – look at the mistakes and miscalculations made on the Normandy landing alone.

We have done remarkably well, and are getting better.
 
vern humphrey:
People without military experience seem to think there can be such a thing as a perfect war.
As a veteran of a war, you surely know that the same is true of people WITH military experience. 🙂
 
40.png
Richardols:
As a veteran of a war, you surely know that the same is true of people WITH military experience. 🙂
I don’t know of anyone with combat experience who thinks you can have a perfect war. After all, it is a truism among experienced soldiers that “no plan survives contact.”
 
Philip P:
This does not in anyway mean I do not “support the troops” as I want them safe and healthy. It does mean I do not support the goals of the commanders, chiefly those of the president, in this war.
Phillip,

With all due respect that is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen in print. You support me and my comrades but don’t support the goals as set forth by our commanders that if succesful would allow those deployed to come home safely and in a quicker manner. The alternative being failure in achieving such goals which would mean victory by the enemy most likely marked with more death of YOUR fellow countrymen.

I understand you didn’t support the war. However that “train has left the station”. Time to get on board and support the troops by supporting victory in the war.

-Stu
 
40.png
Stu:
Phillip,

With all due respect that is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen in print. You support me and my comrades but don’t support the goals as set forth by our commanders that if succesful would allow those deployed to come home safely and in a quicker manner. The alternative being failure in achieving such goals which would mean victory by the enemy most likely marked with more death of YOUR fellow countrymen.

I understand you didn’t support the war. However that “train has left the station”. Time to get on board and support the troops by supporting victory in the war.

-Stu
AMEN!!!
 
40.png
Stu:
Phillip,

With all due respect that is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen in print. You support me and my comrades but don’t support the goals as set forth by our commanders that if succesful would allow those deployed to come home safely and in a quicker manner. The alternative being failure in achieving such goals which would mean victory by the enemy most likely marked with more death of YOUR fellow countrymen.

I understand you didn’t support the war. However that “train has left the station”. Time to get on board and support the troops by supporting victory in the war.

-Stu
“I support the troops but I don’t support the war” was the big lie of the anti-war movement during Viet Nam. They blocked us from pursuing a strategy aimed at victory. They encouraged the enemy to hang on, holding out hopes of a collapse of American political will.

And in the process killed 58,000 of my generation.

Don’t let them to do your generation what they did to my generation.
 
40.png
Stu:
Phillip,

With all due respect that is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen in print. You support me and my comrades but don’t support the goals as set forth by our commanders that if succesful would allow those deployed to come home safely and in a quicker manner. The alternative being failure in achieving such goals which would mean victory by the enemy most likely marked with more death of YOUR fellow countrymen.

I understand you didn’t support the war. However that “train has left the station”. Time to get on board and support the troops by supporting victory in the war.

-Stu
If you go to the first page of this thread, you’ll see a long exchange I had with Stickman explaining my position. If you’ll look at his tag-line, you’ll see what his response was.

The problem with his question (and tagline) is that it begs the question. To answer it you have to concede exactly what it is you disagree with - I might ask you if a man who is beating his wife should try to avoid breaking her nose. Obviously that’s a stupid question which you can’t answer. If you say yes, it means you think it’s fine that he’s beating his wife, you just think he should avoid beating her nose. If you say no… Any answer is the wrong answer. The right answer is to insist that he is wrong to be beating is wife in the first place, forget about her nose.

Regarding the fact that we are in Iraq, I’m very upset that President Bush has forced us into a position where there are no more good choices. Yes we are stuck there, but no matter what we do, it’s a net loss for the country. Leave now and all hell breaks loose, stay longer and more of our soldiers die… The only right answer is to pray for the safety of all those stuck over there and drive home the fact that the whole war was a mistake from the beginning.
 
vern humphrey:
Don’t let them to do your generation what they did to my generation.
I tried to stop them, but the president gave the order to invade anyway.
 
Philip P:
If you go to the first page of this thread, you’ll see a long exchange I had with Stickman explaining my position. If you’ll look at his tag-line, you’ll see what his response was.

The problem with his question (and tagline) is that it begs the question. To answer it you have to concede exactly what it is you disagree with - I might ask you if a man who is beating his wife should try to avoid breaking her nose. Obviously that’s a stupid question which you can’t answer. If you say yes, it means you think it’s fine that he’s beating his wife, you just think he should avoid beating her nose. If you say no… Any answer is the wrong answer. The right answer is to insist that he is wrong to be beating is wife in the first place, forget about her nose.

Regarding the fact that we are in Iraq, I’m very upset that President Bush has forced us into a position where there are no more good choices. Yes we are stuck there, but no matter what we do, it’s a net loss for the country. Leave now and all hell breaks loose, stay longer and more of our soldiers die… The only right answer is to pray for the safety of all those stuck over there and drive home the fact that the whole war was a mistake from the beginning.
The fact we are succeeding in Iraq remains lost on those who would have rather we not removed Saddam from power as we did. 25 million people are free that weren’t before we removed Saddam from power. That’s never a mistake.

The fact a democracy is located where there never has been one before isn’t a mistake. It’s a wonderful thing. The mistake lies with those who will continue to regret we went to war at all, despite all the great longterm things that continue to come from our efforts and sacrifice.

The events below occured in the spring of this year.

In the aftermath of the deadly terrorist attack in Hillah, which claimed some 125 lives, two thousand local residents came out onto the streets and protested at the scene of the carnage, chanting “No to terrorism!”

In the latest of the recent series of demonstrations in Baghdad, 2,000 Shia protested outside the Jordanian embassy, angered that the alleged perpetrator of the Hillah suicide attack was a Jordanian national.

In Basra, thousands of local university students were protesting the thuggish behavior of the followers of Muqtada al Sadr and other religious leaders. Raising signs “No to terrorism, No to [Religious] Parties”, Basra University is currently on strike, demanding the government provides better security and protection from the self-appointed guardians of public order.

Now imagine something like this taking place in the middle east while Saddam was in power and oil-for-fraud was the status quo…take your time:)
 
Philip P:
If you go to the first page of this thread, you’ll see a long exchange I had with Stickman explaining my position. If you’ll look at his tag-line, you’ll see what his response was.
Yes I watched the entire exchange and posted the picture of fish in a barrel as I thought his retorts to you were akin to shooting the fish.
Philip P:
The problem with his question (and tagline) is that it begs the question. To answer it you have to concede exactly what it is you disagree with - I might ask you if a man who is beating his wife should try to avoid breaking her nose. Obviously that’s a stupid question which you can’t answer. If you say yes, it means you think it’s fine that he’s beating his wife, you just think he should avoid beating her nose. If you say no… Any answer is the wrong answer. The right answer is to insist that he is wrong to be beating is wife in the first place, forget about her nose.
I find this explanation wholly unconvincing. My response is the right answer is to stop the guy from beating his wife instead of pondering upon it.
Philip P:
The only right answer is to pray for the safety of all those stuck over there and drive home the fact that the whole war was a mistake from the beginning.
Prayer is welcome but keep the hand wringing. Many of us are happy to be taking action in the name of our country and at the direction of the our Command-in-Chief. The time for talk was long since past. It was time to take action. We are doing a good job over there. Think how good we would be doing if everyone were behind our efforts.
 
Philip P:
Of the rationales given for invasion, it’s the only one that even had a chance of holding up to moral scrutiny.
Thankfully, both Congress and previous administrations feel/felt differently.
Yes, this means I disagree with invasions in order to install a more favorable government (the alternative I prefer is isolation and pressure, as worked in the Cold War). Pre-emptive war for the sake of regime change is not a principle I find morally defensible. War for the sake of self-defense is. No WMDs, no rationale for invasion.
Again, I am thankful Congress, our President, the leaders of over 50 other nations in the coalition disagree(d) with you. I’m also fairly confident those who continue to carry the scars of Saddam’s tyranny and torture, in addition to those still looking for their loved one’s remains in the numerous mass graves aren’t going to agree with you either.
 
40.png
thestickman:
Thankfully, both Congress and previous administrations feel/felt differently.

Again, I am thankful Congress, our President, the leaders of over 50 other nations in the coalition disagree(d) with you. I’m also fairly confident those who continue to carry the scars of Saddam’s tyranny and torture, in addition to those still looking for their loved one’s remains in the numerous mass graves aren’t going to agree with you either.
Given the growing strength of the insurgency; the direction Iraq seems to be taking (a budding friendly relationship with Iran); and the fact that we haven’t been able to establish law and order; I’m not sure the families of the 1,700+ Americans killed and up to 20,000 wounded would agree with you.
 
40.png
gnjsdad:
Given the growing strength of the insurgency; the direction Iraq seems to be taking (a budding friendly relationship with Iran); and the fact that we haven’t been able to establish law and order; I’m not sure the families of the 1,700+ Americans killed and up to 20,000 wounded would agree with you.
Remember, your views on Iraq are shaped by the same news media that presented Tet of '68 as a military defeat for the United States.
 
Philip P:
I might ask you if a man who is beating his wife should try to avoid breaking her nose.
I don’t understand how an army beating back sadistic thugs and thieving terrorists is analogous to a man beating his wife. Can someone explain it to me?
 
40.png
gnjsdad:
Given the growing strength of the insurgency; the direction Iraq seems to be taking (a budding friendly relationship with Iran); and the fact that we haven’t been able to establish law and order; I’m not sure the families of the 1,700+ Americans killed and up to 20,000 wounded would agree with you.
And your evidence the insurgency (what insurgency? The suicide bombers aren’t Iraqis) is growing in strength is?

I highly reccomend this site to those who seem determined to either remain uniformed about the great things our forces and the Iraqi people are doing together and seperately. This site has a lot of good news the MSM and the left prefer to ignore.
 
vern humphrey said:
“I support the troops but I don’t support the war” was the big lie of the anti-war movement during Viet Nam. They blocked us from pursuing a strategy aimed at victory. They encouraged the enemy to hang on, holding out hopes of a collapse of American political will.

No, Vern. Our goal in Vietnam was limited - to keep the North from invading South Vietnam and to keep South Vietnam independent. It wasn’t to invade the North and achieve some “victory” over them.

We were unable to do so, inspite of the number of troops we had there, and inspite of our use of airpower against North Vietnam itself. The North Vietnamese weren’t just “hanging on.” They were prepared to make whatever sacrifices it took to achieve their victory.

The anti-war leftists were not Supermen, Vern. They couldn’t do squat to prevent Johnson from pursuing his aims. The American people, almost all of us, left and right-wingers alike, soon saw that we weren’t going to win, that we had no real strategy to preserve South Vietnam’s independence, and saw that we were just throwing resources away to no benefit.

Would that they had realized that when Johnson began his war, before so many young Americans had to pay with their lives for Johnson’s Folly.
 
40.png
Stu:
I understand you didn’t support the war. However that “train has left the station”. Time to get on board and support the troops by supporting victory in the war.
Stu, that’s the talk of a Jingo. If one believes that the war was wrong to start with, there’s no reason to get on the bandwagon or whatever afterwards.

I can understand that some of you support the war and Bush’s war aims. You have your justifications. You may certainly support the war in as good conscience as you can.

But those of us who in equal good conscience opposed the war and still oppose it have our reasons and need not change our opinion to satisfy you or the Administration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top