I Support the Troops

[thestickman]

Philip P:

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

Never are going to answer the simple “yes” or “no” question, are ya? Do you want the troops to succeed in meeting their objectives in Iraq? Yes or no?

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.

You had your chance to get a new CIC last fall and lost, thankfully. Btw, which of the CIC’s objectives in Iraq are wrong?

 

[Richardols]

thestickman:

The overall political and military objectives are certainly set by the President and in this instance, with the approval of Congress.

Glad you added “military” this time.

It was the President, with the support of Congress, who decided on a pre-emptive war to remove Saddam from power

So you agree that he doesn’t simply set general political objectives. Good.

 

[Stu]

Never are going to answer the simple “yes” or “no” question, are ya? Do you want the troops to succeed in meeting their objectives in Iraq? Yes or no?

You had your chance to get a new CIC last fall and lost, thankfully. Btw, which of the CIC’s objectives in Iraq are wrong?

http://www.selldrugs.net/issue_28_files/fish_barrel.gif

Going for a high score are we?

 

[AmyS]

Prager’s point is that there is a difference between caring about the troops and what happens to them, which is what most liberals look to as support. Supporting them is different. He mentions liking the Padres is one thing, wanting them to win is different.

 

[miguel]

Richardols:

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.

An Irishman wouldn’t state it that way. By the same logic, the American Revolution was a matter between colonial thugs and murderers versus British thugs and murderers.

 

[Richardols]

miguel:

An Irishman wouldn’t state it that way. By the same logic, the American Revolution was a matter between colonial thugs and murderers versus British thugs and murderers.

I’ve never read any history books that referred to the colonists as thugs and murderers. Descriptions of the IRA as such are common. The same about the British Army during the Revolution. The Black and Tans are commonly regarded as thugs and murderers - and rightly so. General Cornwallis had nothing in common with those people except nationality.

 

[Philip_P]

AmyS:

Prager’s point is that there is a difference between caring about the troops and what happens to them, which is what most liberals look to as support. Supporting them is different. He mentions liking the Padres is one thing, wanting them to win is different.

No, Prager says that those who oppose the war but say they support the troops are lying. He proposes a definition for “support the troops” that means “support the objectives set by the President.”

It’s perfectly valid to disagree with your political opponents, to point out flaws in their position, to call their judgment mistaken. However, to call them liars, as Prager does, is wrong.

I try very hard to refrain from questioning the motives of those I disagree with for this very reason - I believe in democracy, and in America. I do not believe in single-party rule. While I have strong doubts over how trustworthy President Bush and many in his administration are, I will not go so far as to accuse him of lying. That’s between him and God.

What purpose does it serve to praise people like Prager? Why, if you are a conservative, would you want to be associated with the position he advances here?

 

[Philip_P]

thestickman:

Btw, which of the CIC’s objectives in Iraq are wrong?

Forcible regime change. Making the ouster of Saddam a prerequisite was a mistake.

Don’t misunderstand me - I’m glad Saddam is no longer in power. But I don’t believe it was our role, or within our legitimate scope to send in troops to topple him ourselves.

The other objectives I disagree with follow directly from this first, flawed one.

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

What purpose does it serve to praise people like Prager?

Because he’s right. I have no problem praising folks for stating the obvious.

Why, if you are a conservative, would you want to be associated with the position he advances here?

Because his position on this issue is also the same as mine.

Btw, do you want our troops to succeed in Iraq? Yes or no, please

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

Forcible regime change. Making the ouster of Saddam a prerequisite was a mistake.

How would you have preferred to see Saddam removed?

Don’t misunderstand me - I’m glad Saddam is no longer in power.

But you’d rather we not have removed him from power, correct? I sense a similar theme here.

But I don’t believe it was our role, or within our legitimate scope to send in troops to topple him ourselves.

Thankfully Congress, the Useless Nations security council, the nations in the Coalition and the ceasefire agreement Saddam signed at the end of GWI said otherwise.

The other objectives I disagree with follow directly from this first, flawed one.

So based on what you’ve written, you don’t want our troops to succed in Iraq, correct?

 

[Richardols]

thestickman:

Btw, do you want our troops to succeed in Iraq? Yes or no, please

You gave the definition of success as accomplishing something desired or intended. I’m certain that returning home safely is something dearly desired and definitely intended by our troops in Iraq/Afghanistan. So, yes, I’ll bite. I very much want them to succeed in accomplishing that.

 

[miguel]

Richardols:

I’ve never read any history books that referred to the colonists as thugs and murderers. Descriptions of the IRA as such are common.

It all comes down to whose propaganda you read. I’ve read “Michael Collins” by Coogan. That history does not refer to the IRA (at that time) as thugs and murderers. It views their fight as legitimate. Their guerilla attacks were on British troops and pseudo-troops like the Black and Tans (drawn from the ranks of the British prison population). When British troops carried out reprisals against Irish civilians (i.e., torching homes and the like), reprisals were carried out in reverse against British civilian residents in Ireland (torching their homes as well). I’m sure you can find British historians who think the IRA at the time of the Anglo-Irish War were thugs and murderers. The Irish think the same about them. The same could be said of the American colonists. I’m sure you could find British historians, contemporary to the Revolution, who thought the Americans were thugs and murderers. You won’t get that perspective in American histories though.

 

[Richardols]

miguel:

I’m sure you could find British historians, contemporary to the Revolution, who thought the Americans were thugs and murderers.

Frankly, I haven’t read anything by any British historian who has proposed that view of the colonists.

 

[thestickman]

Richardols:

You gave the definition of success as accomplishing something desired or intended. I’m certain that returning home safely is something dearly desired and definitely intended by our troops in Iraq/Afghanistan. So, yes, I’ll bite. I very much want them to succeed in accomplishing that.

Once again ya didn’t answer the question. You changed the question to fit your preferrence.

Let’s try this then. Do you want our troops to succeed militarily on the ground in Iraq?

 

[Richardols]

thestickman:

Do you want our troops to succeed militarily on the ground in Iraq?

I thought they already had, unless they’re still engaged with the Iraqi Army somewhere that I didn’t hear about.

 

[miguel]

Richardols:

Frankly, I haven’t read anything by any British historian who has proposed that view of the colonists.

British authorities at the time were not referring to colonial rebels in flowery terms. They regarded their actions as criminal.

 

[thestickman]

Richardols:

I thought they already had, unless they’re still engaged with the Iraqi Army somewhere that I didn’t hear about.

They did defeat the Iraqi army. Do you want them to succeed against the terrorists in Iraq as well?

 

[AmyS]

Philip P:

No, Prager says that those who oppose the war but say they support the troops are lying. He proposes a definition for “support the troops” that means “support the objectives set by the President.”

It’s perfectly valid to disagree with your political opponents, to point out flaws in their position, to call their judgment mistaken. However, to call them liars, as Prager does, is wrong.

I try very hard to refrain from questioning the motives of those I disagree with for this very reason - I believe in democracy, and in America. I do not believe in single-party rule. While I have strong doubts over how trustworthy President Bush and many in his administration are, I will not go so far as to accuse him of lying. That’s between him and God.

What purpose does it serve to praise people like Prager? Why, if you are a conservative, would you want to be associated with the position he advances here?

Actually Prager did say what I said he said… I was listening to him today and he was talking about this article and some of the comments he has gotten. Have you ever listend to Prager? He is one of the least hateful people I have listened to. He is actually fair too. He isn’t a blind follower of President Bush, he criticises him too. I was just explaining what he ment. As a conservative (not a republican) I am just fine being associated with him.

 

[Philip_P]

AmyS:

Actually Prager did say what I said he said… I was listening to him today and he was talking about this article and some of the comments he has gotten. Have you ever listend to Prager? He is one of the least hateful people I have listened to. He is actually fair too. He isn’t a blind follower of President Bush, he criticises him too. I was just explaining what he ment. As a conservative (not a republican) I am just fine being associated with him.

AmyS:

Actually Prager did say what I said he said… I was listening to him today and he was talking about this article and some of the comments he has gotten. Have you ever listend to Prager? He is one of the least hateful people I have listened to. He is actually fair too. He isn’t a blind follower of President Bush, he criticises him too. I was just explaining what he ment. As a conservative (not a republican) I am just fine being associated with him.

Prager says that those who oppose the war are dishonest:

let it be clear that leftists’ patriotism is not the issue here. Their honesty is.

How could one believe that “war is not the answer” and also claim to “support the troops,” the very people waging what is “not the answer”? The answer is, by being dishonest.

He also lumps all who oppose the war under the category of “leftists,” which obscures the fact that there are many reasons, and many different people, who oppose this war. Apparently, we who disagree with Pager are all liars to him.

Perhaps he’s fairer when talking on other topics. I’ll have to take your word that he’s fair and not hateful. Based off of this article, though, he certainly doesn’t come across this way.

 

[Philip_P]

thestickman:

Once again ya didn’t answer the question. You changed the question to fit your preferrence.

Let’s try this then. Do you want our troops to succeed militarily on the ground in Iraq?

So you’re allowed to make up trick questions but those who respond to you aren’t allowed to rephrase it into a real question?

Your current phrasing is, at least, slightly better. Do I want our troops to succeed militarily in Iraq? I assume you mean do I want the Iraqi insurgency to end?

Of course I do. Who thinks near daily car bombings are a good thing? No one I know. However, I don’t believe there is a military solution to this problem. Insurgencies are a political problem, and while they have a military component, they ultimately require a political solution. I do not believe the choices of the president (who, as CIC, has the ultimate decision-making responsibility) will provide this solution.

So yes, I want the troops to succeed. Heck, I guess I do meet Prager’s absurd criteria for supporting the troops after all. And because I support the troops and want them to win, I oppose the decisions of President Bush.