"We support the troops but not the mission"

[Gaffer]

Oh, OK, but I beleive he meant "BATTLEFIELD" experience rather than "MILITARY" experience. HEH HEH.

I have battlefield experience.

[Gaffer]

Originally Posted by chum43  View Post
I suppose then you support mafia hitmen too?

This is what you stated. That implies you are comparing mafia hit men to our soldiers.

 Originally Posted by Gaffer  View Post
Taking down saddam was an act of defense by pre-emptive means. 
Kinda like your robbery analogy. 
If you know the guy has a gun and is about to rob you and you can 
stop him by drawing a gun and disarming him wouldn't that be 
the prudent thing to do?

Rahul: Your statment is inaccurate as Saddam never had any 
WMD's as he was originally purported to have. 
Yet more lies propogated by Bush and his administration.

I didn't say anything about the WMD's That's a stupid arguement as its history since nothing of importance was found. I was saying he was a threat to the region and the world. He was allying himself with anyone that was an enemy of the US, he was supporting terror organizations. He was slaughtering his own people, he was stealing money from the un and ignoring the resolutions and the cease fire obligations.

 Originally Posted by Gaffer  View Post
The lies propagated by the left during those years far out do the 
lies of the administrations of the time.


Rahul: Proof, please.

Gulf of Tonkin ring a bell? The 68 tet offensive which we won hands down, declared a huge loss by the media. kerry telling lies to a congressional commitee. hanoi jane posing on a AA gun. The dem congress voting to suspend all funding to South Vietnam so they could not defend themselves. There's lots of proof.

Rahul :So, are you saying all those who demonized the military 
are part of the left? 
Got any proof?

Only the left demonizes the military. My proof...anything said by the left for the past 40 years.

Rahul: He isn't "my boy", and whether or not the victor 
has the right to dictate terms is irrelevant as I wasn't arguing that.
I was saying the agreement was hardly fair. Or are you saying 
the US should dictate what goes on in every country of the
world since the US has the strongest army in the world?

You talk like you sympathize with him and wish he was still in power. As for "agreement", there was no agreement. There were the terms of the cease fire. Terms are not an agreement. He was to comply or the fighting would resume. It has nothing to do with what's fair. There were 40 other countries involved in dictating terms to saddam besides the US. It wasn't the US acting alone. We just shouldered the biggest share of the burden.

We should dictate to any country in the world that poses a threat to us. And every country that harbors or supports terrorists is our enemy and should be dealt with accordingly.

[chum43]

This is what you stated. That implies you are comparing mafia hit men to our soldiers.

I stated it in response to another poster which stated "it's just their job"... but you never mention that.

I am comparing the support for one with the support for the other within a certain CONTEXT

and yet you continue to insist on taking it out of context because it suits your argument, that i'm just some crazy fool saying our troops are a bunch of mafia hitmen, which i'm not saying, but obviously you can't read more than the end of a sentence and only one per paragraph or you'd realize that.

[Gaffer]

I stated it in response to another poster which stated "it's just their job"... but you never mention that.

I am comparing the support for one with the support for the other within a certain CONTEXT

and yet you continue to insist on taking it out of context because it suits your argument, that i'm just some crazy fool saying our troops are a bunch of mafia hitmen, which i'm not saying, but obviously you can't read more than the end of a sentence and only one per paragraph or you'd realize that.

I quoted it from your post. I couldn't go back to the full text you said it came from. But I still think you used the wrong analogy. The troops are subject to UCMJ and don't arbitrarily shoot people and are not ordered to do so by officers, who are under the same laws. In most cases in iraq they respond to attacks on them rather than initiate the the firefights.

[gabosaurus]

I have battlefield experience.

That plus 10 bucks will buy you (or anyone) a latte and a lemon square at Starbucks.
It comes down to accountability. Bush started a war of his own choosing. As commander in chief, he has the right to send American military to fight his war. Just as a plant manager can send men into work at a facility he knows if unsafe. If you are trained to follow order, then you follow orders.

The American soldier has no choice as to where he or she is to serve. They could be sent into an ambush and have no choice but to do their job.
It is up to their superiors to make proper judgments. In this case, the Bushies are compelling the military to make the ultimate sacrifice, for no reason other than a bunch of vindictive fools want it to happen.

[Gaffer]

That plus 10 bucks will buy you (or anyone) a latte and a lemon square at Starbucks.
It comes down to accountability. Bush started a war of his own choosing. As commander in chief, he has the right to send American military to fight his war. Just as a plant manager can send men into work at a facility he knows if unsafe. If you are trained to follow order, then you follow orders.

The American soldier has no choice as to where he or she is to serve. They could be sent into an ambush and have no choice but to do their job.
It is up to their superiors to make proper judgments. In this case, the Bushies are compelling the military to make the ultimate sacrifice, for no reason other than a bunch of vindictive fools want it to happen.

Bush ordered military action against a despot. The despot was taken down. Mission accomplished. Now its a matter of pacifying the country and establishing a government that will not be belligerent to us or its neighbors. That will take many more years.

Your analogy sucks as Bush sent the troops in knowing it was dangerous and they knew it as well. They are trained for just that. The military doesn't train you to follow orders. You are trained to accept the orders and do what needs to be done.

Troops are not sent into an ambush. They do have to go into areas where an ambush can occur. And they do so prepared. You have no idea what even constitutes an ambush.

The military makes the ultimate sacrifice because they are patriots, not because they are compelled to do so. They go where they are ordered to accomplish their mission. But I don't expect you to understand any of that in your blind Bush hatred. Your own vindictiveness shows in your first sentence.

[chum43]

I quoted it from your post. I couldn't go back to the full text you said it came from. But I still think you used the wrong analogy. The troops are subject to UCMJ and don't arbitrarily shoot people and are not ordered to do so by officers, who are under the same laws. In most cases in iraq they respond to attacks on them rather than initiate the the firefights.

I didn't say you had to, but to pull it out and then comment that I was doing something I clearly wasn't is a whole different story, my comparison is simply in the "it's just their job" realm of things, not in the profession itself... and I do think the analogy works, I'm not saying they are mafia hitmen, I'm just saying if you are going to support troops with the dismissal that it's just their jobs, no matter how righteous their ddefensive killing is, then you can't really argue against also supporting mafia hitmen, no matter how immoral their killing is, under the same guideline, that it's "just their job"... I'm not argueing that morally their jobs are equal just because they both involve killing, I'm simply saying they are both just jobs, and if you have a problem with the job then you have to have a problem with the person doing the job, to me it's completely legitimate to not have a problem with either, i'm simply saying you can't have a problem with one and then dismiss the other as just doing their job. support the troops and the war, or don't support either, there is no middle ground as far as i'm concerned.

[OCA]

I love asking this question: care to prove that its immoral and illegal?

Lets wait to see if we get a factual answer

Hey cum you sort of conveniently skipped this!

Hows about humoring me, eh?

[chum43]

Hey cum you sort of conveniently skipped this!

Hows about humoring me, eh?

if you mean me, then I "conveniently skipped" it because it wasn't directed at me and rightly so, because I never made the point that the war was immoral or illegal, the only point I ever tried to make was that you can't support the troops and be against the war at the same time. But you wouldn't know that because you don't actually read my posts, you people just look for damning words and pull together your own little conclusion of what vile shit I must be spewing even though it's not there.

[Gaffer]

I didn't say you had to, but to pull it out and then comment that I was doing something I clearly wasn't is a whole different story, my comparison is simply in the "it's just their job" realm of things, not in the profession itself... and I do think the analogy works, I'm not saying they are mafia hitmen, I'm just saying if you are going to support troops with the dismissal that it's just their jobs, no matter how righteous their ddefensive killing is, then you can't really argue against also supporting mafia hitmen, no matter how immoral their killing is, under the same guideline, that it's "just their job"... I'm not argueing that morally their jobs are equal just because they both involve killing, I'm simply saying they are both just jobs, and if you have a problem with the job then you have to have a problem with the person doing the job, to me it's completely legitimate to not have a problem with either, i'm simply saying you can't have a problem with one and then dismiss the other as just doing their job. support the troops and the war, or don't support either, there is no middle ground as far as i'm concerned.

In looking back I think I was confusing part of your post with rahul's posts. I agree there is no middle ground for supporting the troops. And I believe most libs do not support them.

[Gunny]

That agreement was hardly signed on equal terms - if Saddam didn't sign the agreement, the US would never have stopped the first war. The agreement was made purely on American terms, and was not fair. Someone could put a gun to your head tomorrow and force you to give up your wallet, but that doesn't mean you want to or that the implicit agreement in giving up your wallet is in anyway legal.

Who gives a shit. He lost. Read your history. The victor dictates the terms. The agreement was quite fair. Sotp being an asshole, stop pursuing WMDs and don't screw with our allies. How HARD is that?


I consider waging a war against another nation solely for the purpose of milking it's resources (oil) highly immoral and imperalistic.

When the US does that you be sure and let me know.


Yes.

At least you're honest. Wrong, but honest.


I disagree. In fact, it's a good way to tell the troops to voluntarily LEAVE ...

You can disagree all you want. You're wrong in this as well.


I did not claim to be an expert on anything.



It isn't anything of the sort. I am simply saying I don't believe in bashing the soldiers personally, rather, the administration and it's stupid policies.

Sure it is. After the backlash libs got when the smoke cleared on Vietnam, libs have this time made sure they have that check in the box.


You expect me to feel sorry? Or what? They are in a war zone - it's pretty obvious people would be pointing weapons at them ... If they don't like it, they should not have GONE in the first place.

I don't expect you to do anything but perhaps display a bit more intelligence than this. Military personnel don't get to pick and choose which wars they fight in.

After all, it's not Iraq invaded the US and they are simply defending their country. It's the other way around - the US is the aggressor here.

I guess I should have had you figured as some anti-American apologista.



When making an absurd claim, it helps to provide a source. Where is yours?

Your own words, Einstein. Immoral and illegal killing is called "murder."

[OCA]

if you mean me, then I "conveniently skipped" it because it wasn't directed at me and rightly so, because I never made the point that the war was immoral or illegal, the only point I ever tried to make was that you can't support the troops and be against the war at the same time. But you wouldn't know that because you don't actually read my posts, you people just look for damning words and pull together your own little conclusion of what vile shit I must be spewing even though it's not there.

You are correct, it was Rahul, maybe I should've asked him in Spanish.

You only called the troops mafia hitmen and mindless drones....very complimentary of you.

[Gunny]

When you are in ALL their heads,(and our heads) then "YOU" can presume to speak for them. (and us) AND NOT BEFORE

Horseshit. Dishonest, defelctive bullshit. I've got 20 years experience of either being one, or leading them. It isn't hard to figure out what makes them work, and what makes them break. And I hardly need to know each and every one to make that assessment.

You're just full of shit.

[chum43]

You are correct, it was Rahul, maybe I should've asked him in Spanish.

You only called the troops mafia hitmen and mindless drones....very complimentary of you.

ok lets see how many times I can repeat myself before you figure out that you are full of shit...

first, I never called them mafia hitmen, I said supporting them and not the war simply because it's their job is the same as supporting ANYONE "just doing their job", no matter how much you morally disagree with the job, including mafia hitmen

second, I never called them mindless drones, I said I couldn't stay in the military because it felt as though they were trying to turn me into a mindless drone, granted it is hard to imagine that anyone makes it to the front lines without at least putting on an act as such, but I never said the troops were mindless drones.

these are both indirect assumptions that are simply misleading, I don't think troops are like mafia hitmen, and I don't think they are all mindless drones, but supporting them and not the war because it's just their job is like supporting mafia hitmen doing theirs or postal workers doing their's, or school teacher's doing their's the job is irrelevant, I simply chose a job that most people disagree with, and although I don't believe most troops to be mindless drones, it is certainly the desired outcome of the US military training, and as I said before that is completely necessary and makes tactical sense given the size and scope of dangerous operations, the point was it is simply not for me.

[Gunny]

depise all you wish. I'm sure the feeling is mutual. I am strongly opposed to bloodthirsty gung ho militants.

Not only are you despicable, but you're using terms you have no freakin' clue what they mean, so how about you quit opening your suck and spewing "gungo ho" as if it's something bad until you learn what it means?