Keep in mind that the writer is a veteran of Viet Nam and other theatres of war. His father was KIA in Korea. His son is on leave from Iraq. Maybe he is liberal, maybe he is not. One cannot tell simply by his position on Iraq. However, he and his family have a long military background.
To paraphrase Lenin, leftists support the troops like the rope supports the hanged man.
As I explained earlier, libertarians (such as found at LewRockwell.com), are not leftist nor liberal in the sense commonly used nowadays. The are more choices then simply left - right, liberal - conservative.
:yup:
The issue is not who wants to continue to keep them in harms way, but who wants to increase the risks they face and prolong the war.
In what way do you find the simile ironic? What do your comments have to do with the job for which the troops exercise their free will to undertake? Does ‘wanting the troops brought home’ trump the choice of the troops to complete their job away from home? Who exactly wants to keep the troops in harm’s way?
And the US is not going to make that same mistake again! Why? Because Nam taught you at what cost your enemies can be allowed to wage war on the streets of America.
Amen.
I don’t recall seeing any NVA or Viet Cong waging war in the streets of America.
Nor did they. It was all done for them, by the anti-war movement.
What business did we have there in the first place? It would have been nice if Germans & Japanese had demonstrated against their government during WWII.
Relevance?
How can you know that they did not demonstrate and were ‘silenced’?
Where are the peace protestors during these genocides? Am I to assume that legitimate self-defence is not OK but genocide is OK?
There were those that did and were “silenced”. However, if more had demonstrated to the magnitude of the Viet Nam demonstrations, maybe history would have been different.
Oh, get real, please.
Wait! You’re missing the point. First of all, Iraq was not a case of intervening in genocide. The mass killings were not current; they’d happened years and decades prior. Genocide is worthy of any nation getting involved to stop it, but genocide after the fact is just a political tool used by our government.
Some Germans did protest – and went to concentration camps.
In the end, that’s what it comes down to – people ignore the horrors committed by terrorists and brutal dictators and attack the United States.
To which I reply: oh, remember your courtesy, please. When people forget their manners, they have conceded the point being discussed, in this case that a double standard is being imposed between war and genocide.
Is there a credible distinction between stopping war and stopping genocide?
Elaine, who are ‘the big boys’?
Are you suggesting that ‘we’ are not helping those without oil or other vital resources? Or are you laying the foundation for airbrushing Hugo Chavez’s ‘charitable’ intentions toward the governance of the Americas?
Duplicity? Along the lines of being not ok with war but ok with genocide? Before changing the subject, please make a credible distinction between stopping war and stopping genocide.
Murder and rape were happening all the time. Mass killings were episodic, orgies of blood every now and then.
Because they buy into: