I Support the Troops

[MikeWM]

swampfox:

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.

I was in the scope of the ‘Catholic’ terrorists, the IRA, for many years. You just have to get on with life. Did the condemnation of the Catholic Church stop the IRA? I think we all know the answer to that.

Mike

 

[thestickman]

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.

LOL!!! What does Coulter have to do with this thread?

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.

LOL!!! Again, you didn’t answer the question. I didn’t ask you about Bush’s strategy. Sadly, you’ve again proved Prager’s assertion valid.

Thankfully, the troops are meeting their objectives. They are doing so brilliantly. If you really want to know the good news the MSM doesn’t report from Iraq, go here and you’ll discover there’s a WHOLE lot of wonderful things taking place in Iraq.

Last chance, Phillip. Do you want our troops in Iraq to meet their objectives?

 

[Philip_P]

thestickman:

LOL!!! What does Coulter have to do with this thread?

thestickman:

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

Coulter is a loud conservative who has impugned the patriotism of “liberals” Now we may disagree with whether she is “mainstream,” but she is cited by several self-identified conservatives on these forums, so it is at least an open question. If I were a conservative I would not want to claim her.

LOL!!! Again, you didn’t answer the question. I didn’t ask you about Bush’s strategy. Sadly, you’ve again proved Prager’s assertion valid.

But that is the question. Pager, and those who agree with him, believe that the supporting the president’s strategy and supporting our troops are one and the same thing. But you ask if I support the troops? Of course I do. I want them safe and healthy. I care about their well-being and do not want harm to come to them. I have met no Americans who want anything less, whether they agree or disagree with the president’s decisions.

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

But that is the question. Pager, and those who agree with him, believe that the supporting the president’s strategy and supporting our troops are one and the same thing. But you ask if I support the troops? Of course I do. I want them safe and healthy. I care about their well-being and do not want harm to come to them. I have met no Americans who want anything less, whether they agree or disagree with the president’s decisions.

I never asked you a single time if you support the troops. I never mentioned President Bush a single time and unless I missed it, neither does Prager. I’ve asked this same question many times now and have *yet *to get an answer to this question: Do you want the troops to meet their objectives?

Maybe I should rephrase the question. Do you want the troops to succeed in Iraq?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I don’t know about Prager and I don’t know about liberals and I don’t know about the motives of all people who wonder about the outcome of this war. However, I do call the actions of people like Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin callous, calculating, hypocritical, and unpatriotic. I can’t do much about Ted Kennedy, but I’m certainly working to help Dick Durbin find other employment.

Dan L

 

[BOBKAT]

It is all about the truth. People don’t want to hear it because of two reason. One they will have to admit that they are wrong and Two they may have to do something about it. The Lord came to this world to give us the truth and if you read your bible you will see that some had a very hard time with accepting Him and why is that? Again the truth is a hard nut to swallow. So here we are today and when Dennis Prager whom I think is very insightful, speaks about the truth of the matter at hand he is called a swine a dittohead. I don’t get it! We are in a fight for our very lives maybe not so physically but mentally and spiritually this is a life or death battle no room for disrespect. We all have our opinions, but lets keep things in perspective and remember that our children are over there fighting for us.

God Bless this great nation of ours
Amen
Kathleen

 

[Richardols]

Philip P:

But that is the question. Pager, and those who agree with him, believe that the supporting the president’s strategy and supporting our troops are one and the same thing.

Right-wingers apparently cannot conceive of opposing a conservative President. What he decides is correct. Therefore, to oppose any of his decisions is also to oppose those involved in executing those policies. So, criticism of Bush equals criticism of our troops or others. Not so.

But you ask if I support the troops? Of course I do. I want them safe and healthy. I care about their well-being and do not want harm to come to them. I have met no Americans who want anything less, whether they agree or disagree with the president’s decisions.

Liberals would agree. We all wish our troops well, want them to be physically safe, want them to remain in good spirits, and most of all, want them back home with their families as soon as possible. And, we should let our armed forces know that.

One could certainly oppose everything the President does domestically and internationally without criticizing those carrying out his policies, both home and abroad.

 

[swampfox]

MikeWM:

I was in the scope of the ‘Catholic’ terrorists, the IRA, for many years. You just have to get on with life. Did the condemnation of the Catholic Church stop the IRA? I think we all know the answer to that.

Mike

Are you really equating the local leftist bombers in the IRA with the islamofascist terrorists? Has the IRA been real active in blowing up innocents recently? It helps reduce and end the violence and terrorism when the Church and its followers ostracize thugs and killers who claim to be Catholics and condemn the evil acts of those who claim to be Catholics but who in fact have rejected Church teaching and have embraced the culture of death.

 

[Richardols]

swampfox:

Are you really equating the local leftist bombers in the IRA with the islamofascist terrorists? Has the IRA been real active in blowing up innocents recently?

Does only “recently” count? The violence perpetrated by the IRA or by Al-Qa’-idah has the same result - the death of innocent people. I see no difference between the two save that the IRA is local.

 

[Philip_P]

thestickman:

I never asked you a single time if you support the troops. I never mentioned President Bush a single time and unless I missed it, neither does Prager. I’ve asked this same question many times now and have *yet *to get an answer to this question: Do you want the troops to meet their objectives?

Maybe I should rephrase the question. Do you want the troops to succeed in Iraq?

But Prager’s entire article is about supporting the troops. Further, Pager ties supporting the troops to supporting the administration. You do the same thing when you talk about the troops meeting their objectives. Troops and objectives are not the same thing - troops are people, objectives are goals set by decisionmakers such as the president.

My position has been consistent. I support the troops. I do not support the decisions of this administration.

 

[thestickman]

But Prager’s entire article is about supporting the troops. Further, Pager ties supporting the troops to supporting the administration. You do the same thing when you talk about the troops meeting their objectives.

What a fallacious spin and dance Bush isn’t micro-managing this war like Johnson did in Vietnam. If he were your assertion would be valid. Instead he’s leaving the planning and execution to the professional soldiers. All of our soldiers serving in the military have daily objectives–whether they are in Iraq or in Ft Bragg. Bush has zip to do with that. Bush isn’t directing frontline fire to the troops in Iraq from DC.

Outside of that reality, if you support the troops you should have zero problems answering “yes” or “no” to the simple question I’ve asked you numerous times. Yet, you’ve chosed to avoid doing so, repeatedly.
Philip P:

My position has been consistent. I support the troops. I do not support the decisions of this administration.

But you refuse to answer a simple question: Do you want the troops to meet their objectives? I even rephrased it to *Do you want the troops to succeed? *and you’ve refused to answer that question also.

Until you do, IMO, you validate Prager’s assertion 100%.

 

[Richardols]

thestickman:

All of our soldiers serving in the military have daily objectives

Such as latrine duty, KP, policing the grounds, going out to the firing range, going on a 15 mile march, showing up at an office job, doing his MOS duties? Those aren’t objectives, those are duties.

Do you want the troops to meet their objectives?

What do you mean by objectives? Philip P put it correctly. Troops don’t set objectives, the leadership does, and in relation to a war, it’s the President and his advisors who set the objectives. And, setting objectives is not micro-managing the war.

*Do you want the troops to succeed? *

What do you mean by succeed?

 

[condan]

Richardols:

Does only “recently” count? The violence perpetrated by the IRA or by Al-Qa’-idah has the same result - the death of innocent people. I see no difference between the two save that the IRA is local.

Actually, “recently” does count. The IRA was the recognized army of the Irish Free State during the Civil War. A photo of Michael Collins hangs in our study.

The SDLP and the INLA are the socialist and communist fringe splinter groups responsible for attacks against civilians. It is a common mistake to lump all the actions together under the heading of the IRA when in fact that is not the case.

 

[Richardols]

condan:

Actually, “recently” does count. The IRA was the recognized army of the Irish Free State during the Civil War. A photo of Michael Collins hangs in our study.

Recognized by whom? It was my understanding that the Anglo-Irish War was a matter of IRA thugs and murderers versus Black and Tan thugs and murderers.

 

[MikeWM]

condan:

Actually, “recently” does count. The IRA was the recognized army of the Irish Free State during the Civil War. A photo of Michael Collins hangs in our study.

The SDLP and the INLA are the socialist and communist fringe splinter groups responsible for attacks against civilians. It is a common mistake to lump all the actions together under the heading of the IRA when in fact that is not the case.

In the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s? So some people took the name of some other people, much as the abhorrent ‘Real’ IRA are trying to do nowadays.

I think it’s quite clear who we are referring to when we say ‘the IRA’.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

swampfox:

Are you really equating the local leftist bombers in the IRA with the islamofascist terrorists? Has the IRA been real active in blowing up innocents recently? It helps reduce and end the violence and terrorism when the Church and its followers ostracize thugs and killers who claim to be Catholics and condemn the evil acts of those who claim to be Catholics but who in fact have rejected Church teaching and have embraced the culture of death.

I’m not sure it makes a great deal of difference to the people blown up whether it’s a ‘local leftist’ act of terrorism or an ‘islamic fundamentalist’ act of terrorism, really.

And, agreed:

The Catholic Church condemed the evil acts of those who claimed to be Catholics, but it made very little difference as such people weren’t proper Catholics anyway.

The mainstream Muslim groups are condemning the evil acts of those who claim to the Muslims, but it will make very little difference as such people aren’t proper Muslims anyway.

Mike

 

[thestickman]

Richardols:

Such as latrine duty, KP, policing the grounds, going out to the firing range, going on a 15 mile march, showing up at an office job, doing his MOS duties? Those aren’t objectives, those are duties.

What you’ve described are certainly duties. I was speaking of general mission objectives and specific mission objectives. Those are set by the military in order to met the general poltical objectives of the civilian government.

What do you mean by objectives?

For the purposes of the discussion the definition of objectives is: Something worked toward or striven for; a goal.

Philip P put it correctly. Troops don’t set objectives, the leadership does, and in relation to a war, it’s the President and his advisors who set the objectives. And, setting objectives is not micro-managing the war.

Setting the main objective in any war is certainly the job of the President. Which does get closer to the point I am making and liberals continue to fumble or dodge. If you truly support the troops you want them to meet all their objectives in the theater they are deployed--regardless of who their CIC is and whether you agree with their reasons for the war or no. You can’t pick and chose which objectives you like and don’t like because the troops aren’t going to be ordered out of harms way until their objectives are successfully met.

What do you mean by succeed?

LOL!!! The relevant definition of succeed for purposes of this discussion is :*To accomplish something desired or intended.
*
www.dictionary.com is a good tool

 

[Philip_P]

thestickman:

Setting the main objective in any war is certainly the job of the President. Which does get closer to the point I am making and liberals continue to fumble or dodge. If you truly support the troops you want them to meet all their objectives in the theater they are deployed--regardless of who their CIC is and whether you agree with their reasons for the war or no. You can’t pick and chose which objectives you like and don’t like because the troops aren’t going to be ordered out of harms way until their objectives are successfully met.

Baloney. Supporting the troop is not the same as supporting the objectives set by the CIC.

If the troops aren’t going to be ordered out of harms way until the objectives are met, and the objectives are wrong, then supporting the troops means prevailing upon the CIC to change the objectives, or getting a new CIC.

 

[Richardols]

thestickman:

What you’ve described are certainly duties. I was speaking of general mission objectives and specific mission objectives. Those are set by the military in order to met the general poltical objectives of the civilian government.

The President et al don’t set general political objectives that are implemented on a mission specific basis by the military. Otherwise, what you are saying is that the President went no further than saying that he wanted a regime change in Iraq, and it was the military that decided on war as the answer. No, it was the President who decided on a pre-emptive war. That was quite specific. It wasn’t a general political objective.

If you truly support the troops you want them to meet all their objectives in the theater they are deployed--regardless of who their CIC is and whether you agree with their reasons for the war or no.

You are still confused about objectives, which are the CIC’s objectives, not the troops’.

 

[thestickman]

Richardols:

The President et al don’t set general political objectives that are implemented on a mission specific basis by the military.

You sure about that? As I read the Congressional Resolution it sure seems otherwise to me.

Otherwise, what you are saying is that the President went no further than saying that he wanted a regime change in Iraq, and it was the military that decided on war as the answer.

Putting words into my mouth again, Richard. The overall political and military objectives are certainly set by the President and in this instance, with the approval of Congress. The President ordered the military to meet those objectives and they have successfully met many but not yet all of them.

No, it was the President who decided on a pre-emptive war. That was quite specific. It wasn’t a general political objective.

It was the President, with the support of Congress, who decided on a pre-emptive war to remove Saddam from power, to assist the Iraqi people in setting up a democratic form of government, etc…

You are still confused about objectives, which are the CIC’s objectives, not the troops’.

Actually, I’m not confused at all. I’m 100% certain supporting the troops means you have to want them to meet all their objectives. You can’t have it both ways. Folks on the left want desperately to have it both ways but ya can’t.