PDA

View Full Version : Standing Up For the Troops



stephanie
09-13-2007, 01:16 PM
:clap::salute:

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Chris Hill, the National Director for Operations Gathering of Eagles (GOE). He served in the US Army Infantry (9th Regiment) from 1986-90.





FP: Chris Hill, welcome to Frontpage Interview.


Hill: Thank you.


FP: This weekend, on Saturday, Sept 15, your group will confront anti-war demonstrators at the Capitol. I want to talk to you about this event and your efforts.

Before we get to that, tell us a bit about your group. What exactly is the Gathering of Eagles?


Hill: GOE is a group of veterans and supporters who believe that we face a grave enemy, with whom we are currently engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.


We have witnessed our brave warriors, of multiple generations, attacked by members of hateful anti-American groups and we have had enough. We will not see this generation slandered and abused the way the Vietnam vets were. We will support our service members fully on the ground here while they fight the good fight in the War on Terror.


We were initially organized to protect our war memorials from desecration, but have since expanded to defend our military from assault. Obviously, witnessing the attacks on Gen Petraeus before he testified, and the presumed vandalism of the Vietnam Wall, both are needed. We also stand in the streets to give all those people who support our brave warriors a voice. People who might yell at their television sets in frustration can rally with us instead.


FP: Tell us about your plans for September 15, 2007.


Hill: The Gathering of Eagles was on Capitol Hill last Monday to show support for Gen. Petraeus and the larger War on Terror. We visited 70 plus congressional offices and had face to face meetings with Sens Lieberman and McConnell. That was our first push. We wanted to let the good guys know that they have popular support for the war effort and let the other side know that we are not going away.


This weekend we will do the second part. We will confront ANSWER, MoveOn.org, Code Pink and the rest of the anti-American forces who are marching from the White House to the Capitol. On September 15, we will rally at 9:00 a.m. at 7th St on The Mall and then move over to Pennsylvania Ave to line ANSWER's route. We will counter them all the way to the Capitol where they plan a die-in. They will hold likenesses of our brave warriors who have been killed in action. We find that particularly despicable since they have not asked any family members of those killed for permission.


FP: What is your overall position on the War on Terror in general and on the Iraq war in particular?


Hill: We believe that the war in Iraq is the central battle ground in the larger War on Terror; not because we said so, but because bin Laden and Zawahiri said so. We believe our service members are taking the fight to the radical Islamists who wish for world dominance. We support the effort fully. We want our brave men and women to come home too, but as victors, not with their tales between their legs due to legislated defeat. T


The average age of our warriors is 19. That means most of the professional military enlisted after 9/11. They know who they are fighting and why, and we will not see their sacrifice disparaged. Not on our watch.


FP: What are your thoughts on the Left’s behaviour in the Terror War?


Hill: I believe the radical elements of the Left, embodied by the MoveOn, ANSWER, and Code Pink crowd, are actually extending the war they claim to want to end. Their statements wind up on jihadist recruitment DVDs, propaganda sites such as al Jazeera, and as we witnessed this week, in the speeches of bin Laden.


They are so invested in defeat that they will sacrifice our brave men and women in uniform to reach their goals, which are the radical upheaval of the government of the United States and an end to the democratic ideals which have made us the greatest nation on Earth. Had they been behind the war effort from the beginning Iraq would be a very different place these days. Yelling about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, while homicidal maniacs bent on world domination cut off heads, is decidedly harmful and hurts the morale of our brave warriors.

read the rest at...
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=C504FA68-40F9-433F-8B1E-84C0D6840D9B

retiredman
09-13-2007, 01:25 PM
how does agreeing with a the validity of a military mission become synonymous with "supporting the troops"?

and how does not agreeing with the validity of that mission translate into NOT "supporting the troops"?

gabosaurus
09-13-2007, 10:24 PM
It is easy for a person to "support the troops" when you don't have to do anything about it.
People like Stephanie are only supporting the further death and destruction of the troops. Because obviously she enjoys the daily carnage.

Dilloduck
09-13-2007, 10:37 PM
It is easy for a person to "support the troops" when you don't have to do anything about it.
People like Stephanie are only supporting the further death and destruction of the troops. Because obviously she enjoys the daily carnage.

:laugh2: I'm sure thats it---she loves daily carnage.:rolleyes:

diuretic
09-13-2007, 11:17 PM
Someone should get them a bargaining agent to get better pay and conditions for them. That'd be "standing up for the troops".

Gaffer
09-13-2007, 11:53 PM
how does agreeing with a the validity of a military mission become synonymous with "supporting the troops"?

and how does not agreeing with the validity of that mission translate into NOT "supporting the troops"?

Lets see. The troops have a mission. To fight a war. I support that mission. There fore I am supporting the troops.

You don't support the mission to fight a war. But they will fight the war in spite of your lack of support. If you can't support the mission you can't support the troops. You are just giving lips service. You may not want them to come to any harm. But your still not supporting them.

let's say your son wants to play football. You tell him that's fine I'll support you son. But you really hate football and never go to his practices or his games. Are you really supporting him?

diuretic
09-14-2007, 12:35 AM
Is a soldier (by that I mean any military person) merely a tool to be used by politicians for their own ends? No, I think not. Treating a human being merely as a means to an end is morally wrong.

But soldiers are people who volunteer to do an arduous, dirty and dangerous job so it's also right to say that no-one's compelling them to join up and that they know that any one of them can be ordered into a dangerous situation in which they might be killed.

So in a sense soldiers enter into a situation where their duty is more important then their personal safety. And they do this voluntarily.

Now, it seems to me that because soldiers have volunteered to take on this duty that whoever is responsible for them to be ordered into dangerous situations should only do so when it's absolutely the last resort for whatever policy objective is to be achieved.

It's not moral for a soldier to be ordered into a dangerous situation for anything other than as a last resort.

I think that the morality of the order has to be discussed without reference to the soldiers who have been sent to carry out the order.

People can support or object to the order without using the soldiers who carry out that order as props for either side.

People who "support the troops" simply because they believe the order was right and good are betraying those they profess to support. If they believe the order was right and good then the fact that the soldiers have been sent to carry out the order is irrelevant.

Those people who accuse objectors to the original order of "not supporting the troops" are using the soldiers to support their own position that the order is right and good.

Therefore those people are treating the soldiers as means to a political end are morally wrong.

People who object to the original order of itself, who believe that the order is not right and good, don't need to either support or decry the soldiers. They simply need to observe that the soldiers are carrying out an order they disagree with.

Therefore objecting to the original order is not morally wrong because the soldiers have not been used as means to an end.