I Support the Troops

[Richardols]

gilliam:

If we pull out of Iraq too soon, you will see a lot of bombers in the US in just a few years, financed by Iraqi oil.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And we’ll see Saddam breaking out his WMDs, too.

 

[wabrams]

Richardols:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And we’ll see Saddam breaking out his WMDs, too.

The one’s in those massive, easy to find stockpiles?

 

[cove]

Richardols:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And we’ll see Saddam breaking out his WMDs, too.

Are you saying that Saddam never used WMDs? There is strong evidence that he killed his own people using chemical weapons.

You won’t see Saddam breaking out his WMDs because the brave men and women who have dedicated their lives to protecting us against the evil that Saddam proliferated have made sure that this mad-man is never given the chance.

You should be grateful that you have been saved from the likes of Saddam Hussein. I am personally relieved the guy has been taken out.

Let us hope that Osma is caught soon.

 

[Stu]

Richardols:

Which is to say that one can make no criticism of the Administration’s policies in Iraq?

Even conservatives have said that it was wrong to have disbanded the Iraqi Army immediately after hostilities were over. Are you going to accuse those conservatives of giving the insurgency hope of winning because of their criticism?

This really isn’t too hard to understand. I don’t criticize my wife’s actions WRT childrearing in front of my children (and vice versa) as it creates perceived division and shows weakness in our unified front. Now I realize in our open and large society there will be criticism of policy but the tone of much criticism on the war from the left is without a doubt irresponsible, childish , comforting to the enemy and is not in keeping with someone who claims to “support the troops”. I suspect that is because most of it is politically motivated.

Of course I may be making a generalization but I can’t think of any leftist out there that I think dissents in a responsible manner. Perhaps you do. Please submit some examples of responsible criticism from the left instead of the typical “Al Franken-like” rants of corruption, evil and such. I’ll admit it if I see it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

miguel:

Americans the right to criticize government policy.
So if Nixon hadn’t pulled the troops out when he did, are you saying fewer of our troops would have died? Don’t get me wrong. I think the idea of fighting the spread of Communism was good. But at some point, politicians have to face the reality of being in a no-win, guerilla-type situation and cut the losses.

By Tet of '68, the guerilla war was over. The old line Viet Cong units were destroyed during Tet and the aftermath. From then on, we were fighting North Vietnamese Army regulars, masquerading as VC.

All the “VC” my company killed or captured after Tet were carrying NVA identity cards. All spoke Hanoi dialect, not any southern dialect, and all were born, recruited and trained in the North.

The war started under Johnson, not under Nixon. It should have been won under Johnson.

Instead, a steady hub bub of protest against “seeking a military solution” pushed us into an untenable position (abetted by MacNamara’s nonsense about “gradual escalation.”) Long before Nixon was elected, we were committed to fighting with a strategy that deliberately avoided victory.

The anti-war movement capitalized on that, made it impossible to change strategies, and gave the enemy a guarentee that by killing enough Americans they could win in the United States what they could not win on the battlefield.

Like it or not, we’re in a guerilla situation in Iraq. We’re not going to kill them all before we leave. Bush’s hope is that we’ll be able to pass the security baton to the Iraqis as we make a graceful exit. It’s my hope too.

And you make this judgement based on your own years of military training and vast combat experience?

 

[Richardols]

cove:

You won’t see Saddam breaking out his WMDs because the brave men and women who have dedicated their lives to protecting us against the evil that Saddam proliferated have made sure that this mad-man is never given the chance.

A better reason we won’t see Saddam breaking out his WMDs is that they weren’t there.

 

[Richardols]

vern humphrey:

Instead, a steady hub bub of protest against “seeking a military solution” pushed us into an untenable position (abetted by MacNamara’s nonsense about “gradual escalation.”) Long before Nixon was elected, we were committed to fighting with a strategy that deliberately avoided victory.

The anti-war movement capitalized on that, made it impossible to change strategies, and gave the enemy a guarentee that by killing enough Americans they could win in the United States what they could not win on the battlefield.

Certainly yours is a reasonable explanation of why we lost. As for me, I think we were on the road to defeat the first day we sent a soldier into Vietnam. Wasn’t it Eisenhower who warned about fighting a land war in Asia? The man obviously knew what he was speaking of.

 

[thestickman]

Richardols:

A better reason we won’t see Saddam breaking out his WMDs is that they weren’t there.

Odd how Saddam managed to fool the Useless Nations and the rest of the free world’s and other intelligence agencies on that, don’t you think?

 

[Richardols]

thestickman:

Odd how Saddam managed to fool the Useless Nations and the rest of the free world’s and other intelligence agencies on that, don’t you think?

Odd, too, how the Administration swore that the weapons were there, for sure, beyond any shadow of a doubt, and it knew just where they were and then…“Err. umm…we can’t find any.”

 

[thestickman]

Richardols:

Odd, too, how the Administration swore that the weapons were there, for sure, beyond any shadow of a doubt, and it knew just where they were and then…“Err. umm…we can’t find any.”

Yep, just like the Clinton administrations, the Blair administration, the Israelis, the Russians…etc They were all wrong and said the same thing.

Good thing that wasn’t the only reason we removed Saddam from power, eh?

 

[Richardols]

thestickman:

Yep, just like the Clinton administrations, the Blair administration, the Israelis, the Russians…etc They were all wrong and said the same thing.

As I understand it, neither Clinton, Blair, nor the Israelis or the Russians are the American Administration. Our administration said those weapons were there, and said it with solid assurance, even saying that they knew the locations.

So, I wonder how our soldiers missed all that WMD weaponry that was virtually littering the landscape.

 

[thestickman]

Richardols:

As I understand it, neither Clinton, Blair, nor the Israelis or the Russians are the American Administration.

LOL!!! I gotta give ya credit: factually you are 100% correct there.

Our administration said those weapons were there, and said it with solid assurance, even saying that they knew the locations.

They sure did. Along with the Useless Nations, Britain, etc…

So, I wonder how our soldiers missed all that WMD weaponry that was virtually littering the landscape.

LOL!!! Yeah, them WMD’s were supposed to be 4ft deep from one end of Iraq to da udder. Good thing it wasn’t the only reason we removed Saddam, eh?

 

[cove]

Richardols:

A better reason we won’t see Saddam breaking out his WMDs is that they weren’t there.

He never killed anyone using chemical weapons??? He never had the capability or the desire to build WMDs???

msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
Warnings about Saddam’s experts
The survey group also provided warnings.

"The addenda conclude that Saddam’s programs created a pool of experts now available to develop and produce weapons and many will be seeking work. While most will probably turn to the “benign civil sector,” the danger remains that “hostile foreign governments, terrorists or insurgents may seek Iraqi expertise.”

“Because a single individual can advance certain WMD activities, it remains an important concern,” one addendum said."

*Is it your opinion then that we have nothing to worry about regarding WMDs? Is it your opinion that he and his cronies should have never been stopped???

 

[SusanL]

Stu:

This really isn’t too hard to understand. I don’t criticize my wife’s actions WRT childrearing in front of my children (and vice versa) as it creates perceived division and shows weakness in our unified front. Now I realize in our open and large society there will be criticism of policy but the tone of much criticism on the war from the left is without a doubt irresponsible, childish , comforting to the enemy and is not in keeping with someone who claims to “support the troops”. I suspect that is because most of it is politically motivated.

Of course I may be making a generalization but I can’t think of any leftist out there that I think dissents in a responsible manner. Perhaps you do. Please submit some examples of responsible criticism from the left instead of the typical “Al Franken-like” rants of corruption, evil and such. I’ll admit it if I see it.

YES!!! Well put.

Oh and by the way, everybody, what do you think of Jane Fonda entering the picture with her protests (reminiscent of an earlier war, hmmm). ** Is she is support of our troops?**

I am so grateful that Kerry and Gore didn’t win and I pray that we don’t get another Clinton in office. (shudder)

 

[Philip_P]

thestickman:

LOL!!! Yeah, them WMD’s were supposed to be 4ft deep from one end of Iraq to da udder. Good thing it wasn’t the only reason we removed Saddam, eh?

Of the rationales given for invasion, it’s the only one that even had a chance of holding up to moral scrutiny.

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.

 

[MikeWM]

Philip P:

Pre-emptive war for the sake of regime change is not a principle I find morally defensible.

It’s certainly not a Just War, which is what we as Catholics should be worried about.

Mike

 

[SusanL]

MikeWM:

It’s certainly not a Just War, which is what we as Catholics should be worried about.

Mike

I would be careful about that. The Pope has made no declaration on whether or not this is a “just” war.

 

[vern_humphrey]

MikeWM:

It’s certainly not a Just War, which is what we as Catholics should be worried about.

Mike

Why, then, did John Paul the Great urge us to stay there until the job is done?

 

[MikeWM]

SusanL:

I would be careful about that. The Pope has made no declaration on whether or not this is a “just” war.

I’m not commenting on whether it was a ‘just’ war or not. I’m commenting on whether it was a Just War (capital letters), as defined in Catholic Doctrine.

Mike

 

[Philip_P]

SusanL:

I would be careful about that. The Pope has made no declaration on whether or not this is a “just” war.

He certainly was no fan of it, which should give serious Catholics pause.

Furthermore, the lack of a binding statement from the Vatican does not let us off the hook on forming a moral judgement on action. We are still obliged to apply moral principles to this war and come to a conclusion. I’m not claiming any sort of binding infallibility (with what authority could I possibly do so?), but in my judgment this war is immoral. Thus I have a moral duty to oppose it.

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.