Reflections Post-Veterans’ Day
Now that the pageantry of Veterans’ Day is passed (and thanks, by the way, for all those who emailed their well-wishes), I’d like to reflect on something I saw at the parade this morning in Denver. There was a group of anti-war folks marching, carrying signs we’ve all seen before, most notably, “I support the troops, not the war.” This got me to thinking: How in particular, does the person with this t-shirt or bumper-sticker “support” the troops?
Does minimizing and criticizing the effort for which they’re risking (and in so many cases, losing) their lives show “support”? Does infantilizing and patronizing them by pitying them for being there, when they’ve volunteered to serve show “support”?
Here’s an example: If your son came to you and said he was going to move to Hollywood and become a moviestar, would you say “Well, son, I support you. Of course, you know, that’s a completely foolish idea and it’ll never work. You would be putting yourself in danger, and I think you shouldn’t do it. I encourage you to give up your mission of becoming a moviestar, move back here, and live the life I think you should. Oh, but yes, I support you, of course.”
Now, I can understand wanting your loved ones (or even non-personified ideas of “troops” in general) to be safe, and therefore not in a war half-way around the world. And I can appreciate (although I don’t agree) that the people who have this perspective feel it’d better serve our troops if they weren’t in combat. No-brainer, sure. But how does advocacy for tucking tail and abandoning their mission show support for the troops? Moreover, how do you think they interpret the “Support Troops/Oppose Their Mission” crowd’s actions? Do they feel like they’re being supported?
Let’s have an open discussion here: For those of you who “Support the Troops, Not Their Mission”, I ask you: Give me a concrete example of what you’ve done, say, this month, to “support” them. And if you could, also please explain how this counterbalances your lack of concern for (or more properly, your disdain for) what’s most important to them: Their Mission.
72 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I think there are a lot of people that support the troops but do not approve of the war in Iraq. However I don’t think you see them in a parade or running around demonstrating with the likes of Code Pink.
They do know that if they publicly criticize the war, it does hurt morale. And it does hurt the troops. Even if that criticism is entirely justified. So they have kept their mouths shut or a long time. And you know what? A lot of them are even Veterans.
Its been easy for some to ridicule those that have been considered to be “anti-war” because for the most part it has only been the loony and extremists that you have seen or heard from. Until last Tuesday.
This silent section of the public that is anti-war still haven’t joined any anti-war protests, or even said anything in public. But they did show their opinions in the only way they could, which is by they way the voted. Its been a mistake for those that are pro-war, especially in the GOP, to dismiss the concerns of anyone that has been anti-war as being lunatics, or worse, traitors. It just pissed off further a large but silent (and entirely reasonable) section of the electorate even more. Its one more way the insane partisanship displayed by GOP acolytes worked against their own interests this past election. Its what happens when you place your loyalties with political parties instead of principles.
There is also another large mass of people in the electorate that are now anti-war. They are Americans who entirely supported the war, and have been utterly dismayed by the incompetence demonstrated by the civilian leadership in its waging. Many were political moderates, who could see the necessity for getting rid of Saddam. And so against their usual inclinations, many of them supported the GOP, because they thought they would be better at conducting a war. They had the memories of the competence of Reagan during the Cold War. However, when things began to go downhill, and rather quickly, they felt both betrayed and stupid for having supported the GOP. They also expressed themselves with their vote last Tuesday.
The last thing I’ll say is that the discussion of “supporting the troops” is always waged on an uneven playing field by both sides.
Those that are anti-war are often telling the truth when they say that they are “for the troops” or at least bear them no animosity. But they also do not acknowledge that they cannot express that opinion in public without harming the morale of the troops, which is an inescapable consequence of their actions.
Those on the other side that criticize those that are anti-war also are not entirely honest. They claim that anti-war people are universally against the troops, and are even deliberately attacking them. And they claim that those protesting are anti-American, traitors, etc.
The majority of openly critical anti-war people are attacking the civilian leadership of the military, not usually the military itself and not, intentionally at least, “the troops”. That is the truth that those that attack people with anti-war opinions refuse to acknowledge.
So what you end up with is little useful debate about the issue.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 11, 2006 @ 11:05 pm - November 11, 2006
How do you support the troops but not the war? It’s very simple: We commend the people who have gone volunatry into service for this country. They go where they are ordered to go and many times, give the ultimate sacrifice in service to the nation.
The problem is, we’d rather have them someplace else doing their jobs. In order to get personal revenge, Bush and company trumped up fake allegations against Saddam Huessina nd Iraq. In doing so, we left Afghanistan too early with too few troops. And I’ve said it before: 5 years and 2 months as of today since 9/11/01 and Osama Bin Laden has still not yet been captured.
So…that’s why we support the troops, but not the mission they’ve been sent on in Iraq.
Comment by Kevin — November 11, 2006 @ 11:08 pm - November 11, 2006
“Do they feel like they’re being supported?”
Their FEELINGS are what are important here? “The troops” need to be legitimized in their mission through their FEELINGS? Do they want the whole American people to RECOGNIZE them in a certain way that makes them FEEL legitimate?
I didn’t think, from the way that some here discuss gay marriage, that people were supposed to depend on others for a sense of verification and that we shouldn’t really be worried about people’s feelings.
Aren’t we also implicitly asked, again on this blog, to respect evangelicals as people but not to accept their collective anti-gay projects?
If the point you were making in this post were as simple as you think it is, it wouldn’t have taken five paragraphs.
Oh, and we all pay taxes. And some of us have bumperstickers. And some of us say “Amen” when they are prayed for in church, many of which will always attend to the needs of soldiers while also condemning a particular war as unjust.
I guess this line of thinking just doesn’t compute in rigid, conservative minds.
Comment by jimmy — November 12, 2006 @ 12:48 am - November 12, 2006
get real. These republicans detest you and everything you stand for. They don’t want you to be in “their”party. Have you ever talked with one that would speak honestly. Oh, excuse me, that’s asking too much.
I used to be a republican and never knew one to say anything good about homosexuals. Never, Nada. Wake up and smell the roses and listen to Mike Malloy on streaming audio at http://www.novamradio.com from 9pm-12pm Eastern weekdays.
Comment by LEE — November 12, 2006 @ 2:23 am - November 12, 2006
[...] Gay Patriot has a question for Veterans Day protestors: Let’s have an open discussion here: For those of you who “Support the Troops, Not Their Missionâ€, I ask you: Give me a concrete example of what you’ve done, say, this month, to “support†them. And if you could, also please explain how this counterbalances your lack of concern for (or more properly, your disdain for) what’s most important to them: Their Mission. [...]
Pingback by Blogs of War » Support the Troops? — November 12, 2006 @ 2:27 am - November 12, 2006
#2
Bush and company trumped up fake allegations against Saddam Huessina nd Iraq.
Ummmm……Bush wasn’t in office in the 1990s.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 12, 2006 @ 8:51 am - November 12, 2006
5: Excuse me then, let me be clear: the *current* Bush trumped up the allegations to take personal revenge for Saddam’s plot to kill the elder Bush. He did so, even though at the time the plot was discovered in 94, our government took action against Saddam to smack down both that and his aspirations to make plans to go outside his borders again. Is that specific enough?
Comment by Kevin — November 12, 2006 @ 9:11 am - November 12, 2006
I was in the Navy on the battleship New Jersey off Viet Nam in 1968-69 and I think i can add a little perspective here. It was a futile war; we were constantly returning to the same places to do the same bombardments in support of the same Marine units. I remember writing to my friends at home encouraging them to attend peace rallies to get us the hell out of there. For me that was the way I wanted to be supported. I didn’t want support from gaggles of do-gooders sending us boxes of cookies, I wanted people to convey to the leadership that what we were doing just wasn’t working.
That’s the same attitude I’ve come to on Iraq. Either bite the bullet and reinstate the draft, send in a lot more troops and raise our taxes to pay for it or retreat in as expeditious a way possible to minimize further losses of life. Let the Iraqis, who so far act as if they haven’t a clue how to run a country, sink or swim on their own. We followed an incompetent POTUS and SecDef into this war on trumped up premises and now it’s time to really support the troops by saving their asses.
Comment by Bill Herrmann — November 12, 2006 @ 11:39 am - November 12, 2006
Isn’t a better question “How did Republicans support the troops while they were the majority in Congress?” The action of these national leaders are much more important than the random opinions of individuals not in a position to change things.
The Republicans did not provide necessary body armor. Many individuals needed to buy their own. “You go to war with the army you have” – does that ring a bell? When was that corrected over the course of the past several years?
The Republicans, against military advisors, did not go into Iraq with the necessary troop strength. The misallocation of resources has allowed Afghanistan to flare up again where it was once settled.
The Republicans have had no strategy for “winning” except “staying the course.”
The Republicans refuse to acknowledge the internal conflicts within the country and leave our soldiers stranded as sitting ducks between the two factions.
Can you please explain to me how any of this, in any way, is “supporting the troops?” How dare you take such a self-righteous, hawkish tone when the Republicans have led the way to our failure in this campaign with their incompetance and blind faith to leaders who have made us not only a laughingstock to the rest of the world, but whose actions have led to the death of nearly 3,000 soldiers.
Comment by Just A Question — November 12, 2006 @ 11:59 am - November 12, 2006
I did and still do support the war as well as the troops. I’m at Walter Reed every Friday night. I’ve sent letters, I’ve donated to organizations, I’ve sent packages to soldiers. And, oh by the way, those soldiers, including the great guys at Walter Reed, DON’T believe you can support the troops without supporting their mission. So if you want to understand our point of view, go talk to our soldiers.
Comment by Kate — November 12, 2006 @ 12:14 pm - November 12, 2006
I should have summarized my comments above.
ColoradoPatriot, you ask how one can “support the troops, but not the war” as if these two elements are inserparable.
I ask you, how could you and other hawkish Republicans support the war and not the troops? All the leadership’s actions seem to indicate that soldiers are an expendable commodity. Can you cite anything that would make one think otherwise?
Comment by Just A Question — November 12, 2006 @ 1:18 pm - November 12, 2006
Talk to a Vietnam vet. Many will tell you that you are so wrong.
Many will say that it is very easy to be anti-mission but support the solider. They will say that they too were anti-mission but they just wish the country would have supported them…
But instead of doing that you post fanatical arguments like:
“how does advocacy for tucking tail and abandoning their mission show support for the troops?”
And:
“Does infantilizing and patronizing them by pitying them for being there, when they’ve volunteered to serve show “support”?
Sigh…
Your implication that our brave soldiers need the citizens to have blind obedience to their elected leader’s chosen mission contradicts the entirety of what our soldiers fight for. And of course, implies you have no idea why our soldiers fight…
Comment by keogh — November 12, 2006 @ 1:19 pm - November 12, 2006
Bill Herrmann in #8 says:
I think this is a good example of what I was getting at in my post above. It may be an opinion you don’t like, but its not that of a raving anti-American lunatic, as he will be vilified as by the GOP fanatics here. I think there are a lot of people like him, other Vets too. There was no place for people with this opinion in the GOP on election day. So they probably went either Democratic or Independent or other.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 12, 2006 @ 1:44 pm - November 12, 2006
#8 Bill, I’ve read some interesting posts about the Soviets and Afghanistan that are similar to what you say about Vietnam. The USSR could control news from Afghanistan but returning soldiers still told the same stories. Vietnam was terrible, by all accounts. When I was in college in AFROTC (which I didn’t complete) my commanders talked about Vietnam, mostly about how limits put on military action made everything so much worse, the percieved political need to avoid any possibility of a stray bullet reaching China or the need to never ever bomb cities, resulting in “off limits” zones that were close enough to travel from one to the other in a night. Obviously they stayed in the military, just as obviously they felt a lot of frustration over how the war in Vietnam was carried out. They felt that we weren’t allowed to win.
In my opinion, putting soldiers in the line of fire and then not allowing them to win is the height of non-support.
But what about Iraq and Afghanistan? Obviously not all soldiers have the same opinions, but I dare say that the message from those places is not as overwhelmingly negative as it was from Vietnam or for the Soviets in Afghanistan. Most soldiers seem to feel good about what they are doing there, even if they’d rather be home.
I appreciate a quote from a young soldier in Iraq, to paraphrase, “You get orders to go and you think, what is the point? to go over there and get shot at, and then you get here and you realize that the people, they’re real people, just like in the States.”
Most soldiers are fighting for real people. I don’t think you can take the Vietnam template and assume the attitudes of our soldiers just because the news we get here in the States is so negative. I think that most of our soldiers, even if they’d rather not leave their families, would rather not go, I think they’d like permission to win. To support them would be to support winning.
Comment by Synova — November 12, 2006 @ 2:02 pm - November 12, 2006
Hey Nick, I support the troops, their mission and their Commander in Chief. This month, Michigan-Matt partner and I volunteered to visit 12 families from the service now forward deployed. On Nov 10th, the Marine Corp birthday, we completed our 12th visit to Army, Navy and Marine wives and kids.
We brought handmade cards from our son’s school, we brought a $1,000 check for each family to help with holiday expenses (which we raised by asking patriots within our GOP network to donate), and we brought a 13# turkey and all the fixings… plus a $200 phone card. Our local WalMart offered us a $50 gift card for each family and that was in our “Thank You” package as well. I wish I could have done more –we walked away with the warmth of big hugs from people who sacrafice everything for our way of life.
That was for each family. Meanwhile, the Democrats and lower case clan here were sniffing crotches and demanding reinstatement of the draft.
I pity our country now that it has been left to the devices of a group of politicians who think “Cut & Run” is a noble enterprise. The sacrafice already made by grieving families of military personnel in America will have been in vain if these dys-patriots in DC rule the day.
You can’t support the troops without supporting the mission, the CiC, America, democracy, liberty, or the troops’ families.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 12, 2006 @ 2:07 pm - November 12, 2006
Hey Gryph, instead of trying to script out a “GOP response” in place of no response to #8… why don’t you start blogging on your own site? I think you’ve proven repeatedly you can’t even articulate your own opinion… let alone a group’s that you’re clueless about.
Blog on the gramps site. Oh yeah, no readers. Forgot.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 12, 2006 @ 2:09 pm - November 12, 2006
I think Synova is right.
Also, Vietnam Vets aren’t some giant monolith that things the same way. I know some Vietnam Vets, some of them are very supportive of the war and the troops, others not so keen on the war-but they aren’t out protesting or anything (I honestly don’t know any Vietnam Vets protesting the war).
And a good way to support the troops is to also reach out and support their families. I have heard and seen some insensitive comments made to the families of these veterans, and insulting the veterans by implying they are stupid or that they volunteered because they didn’t have other options isn’t very supportive.
When my husband was in the Navy I didn’t know a single person he served with whose reason for joining the military was they didn’t have any other options. The majority of them joined out of patriotism (many of them joined during Gulf War I, even though almost none of them finished their schools before the war was over) and at least two of them joined to “see the world.” Actually I don’t know of any that said they joined for the GI bill, even though all of them signed up for it, when they joined.
Comment by just me — November 12, 2006 @ 4:31 pm - November 12, 2006
#7
the *current* Bush trumped up the allegations to take personal revenge for Saddam’s plot to kill the elder Bush.
I thought it was all about the oil, of which we only get less than 500,000 bbls/yr.
Or it was a dastardly plan to take over the world?
Which is it?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 12, 2006 @ 8:10 pm - November 12, 2006
What really bothers me, as a member of the military is that the people that believe “support the troops not the war” invariably try to convince me that I’m stupid and wrong for believing differently from them. Or rather, if I weren’t stupid and uneducated, I would believe as they believe. As in “if you make an effort to be smart, or you’ll get stuck in Iraq.” (A revealing Freudian slip on the part of the good senator) Or, since I volunteered for military service, I’m a victim of the “criminal Bush administration” (this is a favorite one, I hear it a lot). To quote a frothing-at-the-mouth Vietnam Vet, “only a true idiot would volunteer to fight an illegitimate war for a criminal administration” (Pot calling the kettle black, anyone?)
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to hold my tongue while being subjected to an anti-war, anti-bush diatribe about how if I were a “true to my oath” I would fight against the “domestic enemy” that is the Bush administration. Of course, this is coming from people that have nothing to lose and wouldn’t volunteer $0.01 to a legal defense fund should I blindly follow their rhetoric.
Speaking for myself, I think after 18 years in the Air Force, and several reenlistments, the very idea that I don’t know what I’m doing, or am too stupid to understand what I’m doing, reveals more about the ignorance (or maybe arrogance) of anyone who believes that to be the case.
The unspoken underpinning of the “support the troops not the war” is anyone who supports the war is wrong. If you set yourself in opposition to the war, you are in opposing with those who support the war. The vast majority of troops support the war (and they do) then you aren’t really supporting the troops, can’t support them, if you refuse to support the war.
Comment by imnohero — November 12, 2006 @ 8:11 pm - November 12, 2006
There is one way I know of people who are against the war but do support the troops. We have a wonderful organization here in Los Angeles called: Operation Gratitude. http://opgratitude.com/. All of the Hard Corps (no that is not a typo), are very supportive of the mission in Iraq an Afghanistan.
But on weekends like this one, (we sent off 16,000 boxes to our men and women over seas this weekend alone). I speak to many of the volunteers, and there are those who say, I hate this war, but I want to do something for the soldiers. I say: God bless them, they are doing something concrete with their time and energy to put a smile on a servicemans face.
So yes, there are a handful of people out there who actually can claim to be against the war yet still support our military.
Comment by Leah — November 12, 2006 @ 8:26 pm - November 12, 2006
This is a pretty darn perfect example of the fanaticism that replaces critical thinking in the GOP lately.
This person’s worldview of America has only two kinds of people in it. “Stay The Course”, and “Cut And Run”. For him the GOP can only consist of people people that hold the 1ST view. And anybody else must belong to the “Cut and Run” crowd, whom he regards as being un-American traitors.
But what if people have more complex views? What if someone wants to win in Iraq, but doesn’t think we are doing that right now, and doesn’t think the current leadership are doing their jobs competently?
And what if an actual real and winning strategy in Iraq were to involve withdrawal? And what if the Generals in the field thought that was the best option? Until last Tuesday it was politically impossible. The fanaticism displayed in Matt’s GOP has limited military decisions and strategies. This does not support the troops. Because it doesn’t let the military do its job to the best of its abilities. It has limited strategic options because of political considerations. Thats not “supporting the troops”.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 12, 2006 @ 8:58 pm - November 12, 2006
The Republicans did not provide necessary body armor. Many individuals needed to buy their own.
Imagine if your sweet lord BJ hadn’t gutted the military to the point they couldn’t afford bullets.
The sad part about that obfuscation is that most of them don’t want the vests. Just like most of the guys I talk to (10th Mt.) didn’t want the “up-armored HumVees. If you don’t get the right type of vest, which a lot of guys didn’t, you might as well not have any at all. See not all ballistic vests stop all bullets like most people think.
Not only that, but they did get the ballistic vests they should have had. Herre again, it was a red herring put forth by the liberals who believe that only they know what’s best for everyone. I still want to know why BJ denied SF the equipment and support they requested in the Mog. You don’t deny what SF asks for.
Further, I still want to know why the liberal media refuses to tell us what’s going on in Iraq other than that our soldiers are dying. Why is that? Seems to me that they’re content to paint Iraq as another Tet for the sake of ratcheting up their body count. I suggest that the liberals consider our soldiers to be “cannon fodder” to support their agenda.
How dare YOU! How dare you actively lying and misrepresnting the reality on the ground just to push your agenda. You and your liberal buddies are the sorriest SOBs alive and stealing our oxygen.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 12, 2006 @ 8:59 pm - November 12, 2006
Well, still no answer to my question. What I’m looking for is an explanation as to how denigrating their mission shows support for the troops. Or, conversely, how those who do that compensate for that lack of support so they can actually have the cojones to say they do “support the troops.”
Curiously, there seems to be a lot of recalling of Vietnam here, too. Great example…we saw how well that sort of support for troops and their mission worked!
Oh, and to whomever it was up there who said that the troops’ “feelings” aren’t important, Okay, then why even bother saying you suppoprt them, if that’s not important?
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — November 12, 2006 @ 9:01 pm - November 12, 2006
-Imagine if your sweet lord BJ hadn’t gutted the military to the point they couldn’t afford bullets.-
Clinton hasn’t been in office for 6 years. What does that have to do with funding body armor for troops in the current war?
Comment by Carl — November 12, 2006 @ 9:17 pm - November 12, 2006
Clinton hasn’t been in office for 6 years. What does that have to do with funding body armor for troops in the current war?
Because during the Clinton years there was a massive drawdown in our military. Bases were shut down, personel were reduced (my husband served during the Clinton years, and there were several people who were getting retirement offers after 14 years of service during the drawdown), and weapons, supplies etc were cut.
Now you can’t rebuild that stuff in a day.
Most of the lack of armor stuff wasn’t from last years budget, but from before the 2004 elections, when Clinton hadn’t been in office for 4 years.
So yeah, Clinton was part of the problem.
Comment by just me — November 12, 2006 @ 9:55 pm - November 12, 2006
Actually, if you want to be accurate about it, it’s every administration since Regan that has failed to provide enough funding for acquisition.
Troops went into the war on terror with 3 generations old body armor and unarmored HMMVEEs (to mention the headline grabbing things) because the politicians couldn’t sell to the public having a huge military budget when we aren’t at war. That is not to say that the equipment itself was old, just that it was an out of date or inadequate design. Armored HMMVEEs cost thousands more per copy…times thousands of them equals millions of acquisition dollars that just weren’t there. So, before you go on with your “bush didn’t give the troops…” take a look at Bush 41 and Clinton, which party controlled the house and what sort of public sentiment there was for military spending.
Military acquisition budgets are planned decades in advance. The Air Force is planning now for aircraft purchases in 2035, the navy is planning for destroyer refit and replacement, the army went ahead with it’s Medium weight tactical equipment program in 1995 (though didn’t get funding until 1997). I mean, you can’t look at Bush 43 and legitimately say that he failed to buy the troops anything for a war in 2001. Any major purchase decisions (like a new generation of body armor for 1 million army and marines) would have been made during Clinton’s terms, or Bush 41.
Why can’t politicians sell high military budgets during peacetime? You guessed it, the same people that are anti-war now are anti-military budget in peacetime. So, they oppose properly equipping the troops, then when the troops go have to fight with inadequate equipment, these same folks screech about “failure of the administration” while hiding began slogans like “support the troops, not the war.”
Comment by imnohero — November 12, 2006 @ 9:55 pm - November 12, 2006
The unspoken underpinning of the “support the troops not the war” is anyone who supports the war is wrong.
Well, just by way of observation: Anyone who does not support the war, logically, must also think that those who support the war are wrong. Conversely, anyone who supports the war must also believe that those who do not support the war are wrong. Holding an opinion, by definition, implies the belief that those who disagree with that opinion are wrong.
Comment by kdogg36 — November 12, 2006 @ 10:00 pm - November 12, 2006
Clinton hasn’t been in office for 6 years. What does that have to do with funding body armor for troops in the current war?
You’re absolutely right Carl. BJ didn’t wasn’t responsible for ANYTHING.
We pushed a magical reset button back in 2001 that made everything right as rain. Well except for a grossly underfunded military, a recession, terrorism etc.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 12, 2006 @ 10:00 pm - November 12, 2006
Sorry you’re that ignorant.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 12, 2006 @ 10:02 pm - November 12, 2006
#27
True, but those who support the war aren’t throwing around ill conceived, half witted ideas like “support the troops, not the war.”
Comment by imnohero — November 12, 2006 @ 10:52 pm - November 12, 2006
#23. I don’t buy your fundamental assumption and think that supporting the war and supporting the troops are two different things. So I see no problem with doing one and not the other. The former is not a necessary condition for the latter for many of us.
Comment by sean — November 12, 2006 @ 11:25 pm - November 12, 2006
8: I heartily applaud you for your input and glad to hear from someone who was in a similar situation.
12: There is one big difference between Vietnam and today: During Vietnam, there was a draft. Not only were people angry at the government for being there, they were also angry at the government for forcing men to be in that war. It’s unfortunate that this double-edged anger ended up being directed at the soldiers and not solely at our government for putting men (especially the draftees) into it.
Comment by Kevin — November 13, 2006 @ 12:06 am - November 13, 2006
Not only were people angry at the government for being there, they were also angry at the government for forcing men to be in that war.
Is that why the liberals keep demanding a draft?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 13, 2006 @ 12:10 am - November 13, 2006
18: Sure, I’d be happy to re-hash it all again if you’d like: American Imperialism; attempts to find a foothold to take control of a diminishing resources, lining the pockets of the friends of government (Haliburton is clearly the obvious target here). Using the term democracy, when it really means “yeah vote for someone and feel like it’s a democracy, but it’s really big American corporations that are going to have the say-so”
Interesting that so many of the people who came into government with the Bush administration were so well connected to businesses that would thrive if we were in a major military conflict. I find it a bit more than sad that companies like Haliburton and their executives have reaped tremendous profits while the military can’t provide our troops with enough support like body armour and their families are essentially charity cases. If these men and women are heroes, then for chrissake we should treat them as such and not pay them like chumps while the “business leaders” make out like bandits – literally.
Comment by Kevin — November 13, 2006 @ 12:15 am - November 13, 2006
Can anyone explain to me why, in five years’ time, when we knew what kind of operations we were undertaking, that in some of that $300 billion dollars deficit spending to fund the war why body armor and upgrading military vehicles wasn’t a priority? Does it take some amazingly long amount of time to produce kevlar and welders?
Military budgeting and military spending are different things and all I see in this thread is continued rationalization of why nothing happened. You seriously don’t think anyone should be held accountable for this huge oversite?
I understand you go to war with the army you have, but in five years time you also have the opportunity, supplies and resources to give them the tools and protection they need to do what they were sent for. And this was not done.
Comment by Just A Question — November 13, 2006 @ 1:35 am - November 13, 2006
#34
I find it a bit more than sad that companies like Haliburton and their executives have reaped tremendous profits
Say, where are those “tremendous profits”? I’m sure Haliburton would like to know. Wonder why they would try to get rid of a cash machine such as KBR.
Could you please explain to me how Haliburton is a “war profiteer” if they’re not making any profits? You can email your answer to me if you haven’t got the balls to answer here.
#35
why body armor and upgrading military vehicles wasn’t a priority?
Easy. Nobody wanted it. Not only that, the Hummers aren’t combat vehicles. They’re supposed to be light so they can move fast, especially when you need to haul ass out of a dangerous situation. Slapping a bunch of metal slows them down and defeats the purpose.
But as I said before, arrogant liberal douchebags think they know best. That’s why THEY were demanding these things and not the military. Funny how THEY were incapable of coughing up cash for what THEY demanded. Nope. Had to demand OPM to pay for it. And they voted for it before they voted against it as a CYA.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 13, 2006 @ 1:55 am - November 13, 2006
-You’re absolutely right Carl. BJ didn’t wasn’t responsible for ANYTHING.-
Sarcasm and cutesiness can’t hide your inability to answer an obvious question.
Your party ran Congress for 12 years. The White House for all but 12 out of the last 38 years.
Yet this is the best you can come up with for why there is little body armor for the troops?
This attitude is why your party lost on Tuesday. Thanks for giving us such a good example.
Comment by Carl — November 13, 2006 @ 6:38 am - November 13, 2006
Rather than expounding at length as many above have, I’ll answer your first question.
I just finished (last week) two years of voluntary mobilization in the Army with close to one year away from home and hearth. In that time I had the honor of serving with some of the finest men and women I have ever met. Loyal, respectful, honorable, courageous, true to their duty and their comrades. The work often sucks, but the comraderie and esprit de corps is priceless.
Comment by B — November 13, 2006 @ 8:27 am - November 13, 2006
So, ColoradoPatriot…
A question for you…how do you suggest people who are dissatisfied with the direction of the war express their dissatisfaction without denigrating the troops?
And if your answer is “You can’t” might I suggest that you’re not much of a partiot.
Comment by Flash — November 13, 2006 @ 8:45 am - November 13, 2006
Gryph writes: “The fanaticism displayed in Matt’s GOP has limited military decisions and strategies. This does not support the troops. Because it doesn’t let the military do its job to the best of its abilities. It has limited strategic options because of political considerations. Thats not “supporting the troops”.”
Right, Gryph. YOUR way to support the troops and the mission is to call the troops torturing butchers… to claim they wantonly kill innocents “just to let off some steam” from a hard day on patrol… YOUR way is to see all Iraqis as murdering thieves not worthy of liberty or democracy… YOUR way is to force those brave soldiers and leaders to adopt your singular and narrow vision for a military kept stateside and used for YOUR approved social engineering programs. You are so-Clintonesque in your use of the military you don’t even know it anymore.
Nope Gryph. The only fanatic here is your anti-religion, anti-military, social bigotry that finds bitter solace in tossing bricks but never accepts the responsibility to pick up those tossed bricks and build.
History is replete with guys and minds like yours. When you actually step up to the plate and start doing something constructive for the troops and their families instead of pulling them down to your level of “patriotism”, I think we can then take your sentiments as useful and your opinions will be worthy of respect.
Til then, you’re just another opportunist with a single agenda who puts our service men and women at further risk while already in harm’s way.
When you suggest the military are hamstrung from making decisions, you seem to fail to grasp a fundamental –the military don’t trust guys like you… in the foxhole, on the patrol, in the unit, in deployment, or even back home at the ballot box.
What’s truly telling about your response is you try to divide the military from proper civilian leadership. It’s as old a game as the ones played by Thos Jefferson (the 1st Cut & Run Executive) with then-General Washington. You really need to learn about history rather than try to rewrite your own version.
I’m sorry you still think of yourself as a patriot or what you do is “supporting the troops”. They sure don’t think so… and they’ve said it over and over but your monopoly on the truth won’t let that message penetrate your tin foil hat.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 13, 2006 @ 9:20 am - November 13, 2006
Kevin, #2 above: Absolutely!
I have the utmost admiration, love, and respect for all of our troops, regardless where/how they’re serving. They go whenever and wherever they are ordered. They put their lives on the line every day so I can feel safe and enjoy the many freedoms we all take for granted in the U.S. (I’m Navy vet, how could I not). Whenever I run across a soldier, sailor, airmen, or marine, as I often do in HR work, I ALways thank them for their service, and I mean it. I also pray for their safety and well being every day. However, like most of the rest of the country, I can support our troops’ efforts wholeheartedly without supporting the bush administration’s position: A misdirected campaign in a country that was no threat to us whatsoever (at least not for many years to come), while abandoning the efforts in Afghanistan/Pakistan, where the real epicenter of the terrorist threat thrives. CP, obviously, you’re highly intelligent. I don’t know why you can’t understand this concept. Seems pretty simple to me.
Btw, I’m yet another citizen, a part of that silent majority, who is NOT out protesting publicly with the antiwar crowd. The sentiment expressed in Bill’s #8 comment should carry some credence with you gop kool-aid drinkers. I’d suggest rereading it, as well some of the other posts throughout this thread.
Comment by ndtovent — November 13, 2006 @ 9:42 am - November 13, 2006
What Bill in #8 fails to either realize or admit, is that the VietCong weren’t very interested in flying airliners into civillian targets.
And while they DID joyfully engage in various atrocities, I don’t seem to ever recall the VietCong actively pursuing the death of those who chose not to follow the communist ideology.
I am grateful to Bill for his service, but I do question his failure to make the distinction between Vietnam the GWOT.
Eric in Hollywood
US Army, 1983 – 1986
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 13, 2006 @ 9:55 am - November 13, 2006
Correction to my earlier post:
While the VietCong actually DID execute those Vietnamese who weren’t communists, I don’t believe those actions can adaquately be compared to the bloody worldview currently held by the Islamofascists.
Mea culpa.
Eric in Hollywood
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 13, 2006 @ 9:58 am - November 13, 2006
Thanks for correcting that perspective, Eric. The communists in SE Asia did a lot of genocide against native peoples and those unwilling to be re-educated.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 13, 2006 @ 10:14 am - November 13, 2006
MichiganMatt says:
If MichiganMatt can find any place where I’ve said any of the things he is atributing to me in the above, he should prove it. Otherwise, he’s just continuing his dishonest pattern of distortion, distraction, and complete fabrication. And like Bruce in the following post, he also is helping the GOP march merrily (And fanatically) toward defeat in 2008.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 13, 2006 @ 11:16 am - November 13, 2006
Bill’s comment in #8 is typical of the manipulation tactics that Democrats like to use as a coverup for their actions; namely, the “put the veteran out there and no one will ever be able to challenge them” argument.
However, Synova did a good job of pointing out the problem; the reason Bill was engaged in what he deemed “futility” was because of the innumerable political and PR restrictions placed upon the US’s ability to wage war in Vietnam.
What leftists like to do is to play on the fact that the majority of the American public, even a goodly amount of those who served, are not aware of the strategic concerns that guide tactical actions. In short, sometimes you have to do things that don’t look right in the immediate vicinity to fit the larger strategic picture.
What needs to be said outright is that ndtovent and Kevin are using the dissension of troops, who are not in a position to know the strategic situation, to publicly lambast leadership, which is and does.
There was zero reason for the United States to NOT confront Iraq — both because of its international intransigence, the threat it represented to our allies and our interests in the region, and the fact that, as Afghanistan showed us, leaving in power unfriendly totalitarian governments that had limited access to anything could be damaging to the US, much less ones that controlled the wealth and resources that Ba’athist Iraq did.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 13, 2006 @ 12:15 pm - November 13, 2006
NDXXX, you nailed it –what some here do is to use the minority opinions of some troops (and veterans) to try to appear that there is a fundamental split between the troops and the military leadership and civilian leadership in the hopes of gaining political traction.
For anyone even vaguely familiar with the military and its code of honor and service, it’s the 1st Sin. That’s why when former military brass like Karpinski or Shalikashvili play politics with our soldiers’ lives, they also violate what it means to support the troops.
The WOT and the Iraq war are no more like VietNam than they are like the War of 1812 or WWII. Just as the Coalition forces began softening up the Iraq Republican Guard before the invasion, the left and MSM were already using VN-era charged words like “quagmire” and predicting the troops will be bogged down by chemical weapon releases –and their predictions were as fake as their concern for the troops.
Like a lot of predictions from the Left, the interest is in making Iraq seem like VN. When the Cut & Run Crowd win out in DC on the issue of Iraq, they’ll next focus on Afghanistan and comparisons to VN.
Old dogs keep playing those old tricks. “Just Do No”.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 13, 2006 @ 2:20 pm - November 13, 2006
Gryph at #45, so you’re reversing yourself about the troops being torturers and criminals? You’re retreating from the anti-religious bigotry when you offered that we ought to pull out of Iraq and let the Iraqi muslims just kill each other? You’re cutting from the earlier positions that the military brass were responsible for standing in the way of your sense of progress in allowing gays to serve openly?
Hmmm, that’s a lot of backpedaling for someone in your shape.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 13, 2006 @ 2:26 pm - November 13, 2006
I think the Left commenters here are helping us all understand what a difficult position the Election has put them in… they need our understanding and compassion. They don’t have plan beyond the McGovern-Kerry Cut & Run Plan but if we give them time, the minority GOP and WH will help them accomplish the KcGovern-Kerry Plan in 6 months. LOL –what a kool aid drinking, tin foil hat wearing kidder.
I still think our twice-elected President has it right: Get over it, roll up your sleeves, get back to work and find compromise with your political opponents –if (and it’s a BIG if) –the other side is interested in success.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 13, 2006 @ 2:31 pm - November 13, 2006
And I love it…Pelosi is already backstabbing the Dems’ current leadership and pushing for corrupt Congressperson “Cut-and-Run” Murtha to be her second-in-command, over the more-moderate Steny Hoyer.
Of course, this is after she forced Rahm Emanuel to back off because he might end up displacing her token black person, Jim Clyburn, who has to stay put to keep the Congressional Black Caucus from revolting over her kid-glove coverup of William Jefferson.
Meanwhile, she’s also undercutting Jane Harman, who is probably one of the most well-respected Democrats in terms of military realism and intelligence, by kicking her off the House Intelligence Committee, presumably to be replaced with someone like Jim McDermott.
Chase wondered why I was calling Pelosi “Speaker Mussolini” last week. I think this should suffice nicely as an answer; she, like Mussolini, has a habit of killing off the competent and installing her own ideological cronies.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 13, 2006 @ 2:59 pm - November 13, 2006
You cannot support the troops and not support the war. The war is their mission, their mission is defined by the Commander in Chief, all based on being a patriot to the country. Being a patriot is holding the interests of this country in reverence.
The rhetoric surrounding this issue is almost useless to debate, mainly because it is a disease of your mind that cannot assimilate what being patriotic, what being a patriot means, therefore defending one’s country and the country’s interest.
If the country’s interest is freedom and democracy, and you defend it, you are a patriot, thereby soldiers are patriots.
I love the ones who try and say otherwise, they’re just hypocrites, plain and simple, trying not to “appear” to be un-American, but we all know you are, un-American and NOT a Patriot.
Comment by Scooter — November 13, 2006 @ 3:19 pm - November 13, 2006
-And I love it…Pelosi is already backstabbing the Dems’ current leadership-
If you mean Hoyer, I think he was the one who tried to stop her from being Minority Leader a few years ago.
-he might end up displacing her token black person, Jim Clyburn, -
I don’t know that much about the various candidates, but I used to live in South Carolina and Clyburn is pretty well respected by both parties. He’s been in Congress for many years and he isn’t one of those politicians like Sheila Jackson Lee who passes his time trying to give hurricanes names like Latoya or Shequisha. He’s not just a token.
Comment by Carl — November 13, 2006 @ 3:22 pm - November 13, 2006
Sigh…
You rightists are becoming more and more delusional
Our elected leaders make decisions, we have the right and responsibility to criticize those decisions. That does not make one anti-troop. To suggest otherwise proves you have no idea for what America stands for.…
Then to continue your delusions: before the election we have seen you rightists try and defend the failed Iraq policy as not failed, say the democrats have no plan, then you mischaracterize all dems plans as “cut and run.” On these points you have been soundly trounced through reason, facts on the ground and at the polls…. Now you are doing the same thing post election….
But of course you are the ones idolizing bush for his Iraq strategy of:
“Do the same thing over and over while expecting different results”
Let’s hope Baker comes up with something good so bush can say “I got no plan, we will do his”
And NDT, if you have a problem with ideological cronyism, did you complain when Bush only hired ideological conservatives to lead the rebuilding effort in Iraq?
No you didn’t.
So you can stop your false/dishonest outrage at anytime.
Comment by keogh — November 13, 2006 @ 3:48 pm - November 13, 2006
#51 Scooter: You cannot support the troops and not support the war. The war is their mission, their mission is defined by the Commander in Chief, all based on being a patriot to the country. Being a patriot is holding the interests of this country in reverence.
It is possible to staunchly oppose the War in Iraq (although I do not), or any particular military action, and still be a person of good character and intelligence who loves one’s country.
Whatever it means to be a patriot, it does not include holding the decisions of one’s government in reverence above the conclusions of one’s mind and one’s conscience. If those conclusions include an opposition to the war, this does not mean you cannot still have a basic support (perhaps even reverence) for military personnel and their goals. It just means that you disagree with this particular mission, and to the extent that individual soldiers personally support the mission, you disagree with them on that.
I know several libertarians who oppose the War on Drugs, but who still have a general support for law enforcement. This would seem to be a parallel situation.
Comment by kdogg36 — November 13, 2006 @ 3:58 pm - November 13, 2006
And NDT, if you have a problem with ideological cronyism, did you complain when Bush only hired ideological conservatives to lead the rebuilding effort in Iraq?
No you didn’t.
And once again, puppet keogh steps into the trap.
Since you opposed alleged “ideological cronyism” in Iraq, keogh, why do you support it when Pelosi does it?
First repudiate Pelosi’s cronyism, and then you can criticize the former.
However, your point is not to repudiate cronyism; it’s to make wild accusations about Republican corruption to deflect attention from that of your own puppet masters.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 13, 2006 @ 4:04 pm - November 13, 2006
No NDT,
The point is that you continue to be the most dishonest poster here.
You falsely complain about slights, just as you falsely show outrage when talking Sadam’s atrocities yet say nothing about the atrocities committed by our pals.
Your arguments all become false arguments.
Just once, I would be interested in seeing something come from your typing that didn’t result in you being a intellectually dishonest hypocrite.
But no, that won’t happen. Instead, you will probably just call me an Anti-Semite again…..
(another falsehood)
Comment by keogh — November 13, 2006 @ 4:41 pm - November 13, 2006
Gee, keogh, when it comes to dishonest commenters here, I thought you were writing the book with all those stolen and unattributed quotes, ideas and words that you paraded as your own until called out on the plagerism –multiple plagerisms.
Or am I confusing you with another lower-case-clanner?
Intellectual dishonesty has been a hallmark of your posts here. I think NDXXX has it correct: you can’t abide by his characterization and apt comparison of NancyP with Benito Mussolini in the wake of her efforts to purge the House Democrat leadership of “non-believers” (read, people who don’t bow and worship at the NancyP altar).
It’s a repeat of how willingly you and your pals here looked away and reamined silent while ScreaminHowieDean purged the gay and lesbian offices and staff and resources from the DNC HdQtrs after taking office. Or how you stood by and cheered while fellow gays were viciously outed for partisan gain by Democrat hacks.
It’s a pattern, keogh. Like John Kerry and the average Democrats’ dislike of the military and people who serve… it’s been part of our country since the first “Cut&Run” President Thos Jefferson started the political movement that is the inheritance of modern day Democrats. Patterns, keogh; they’ll get you every single time.
So before you throw around terms you don’t comprehend… like intellectual dishonest… it might be good to learn something about today and the reality on the ground. It’s called, getting grounded, boy-o.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 14, 2006 @ 9:05 am - November 14, 2006
kdogg writes: “I know several libertarians who oppose the War on Drugs, but who still have a general support for law enforcement. This would seem to be a parallel situation.”
“Seem to be”, sure. At a superficial and shallow level.
Libertarians generally oppose the War on Drugs (which it isn’t, btw) because they think those law enforcement resources should be put to better use or they think trying to control behavior by drug users is an invasion of personal choice.
But let me tell you clearly, responsible law enforcement officials cringe the Libertarians talk about legalizing drugs… because the police know intimately the damage done by illicit drug use to our society every single day. The Libertarians think the price of personal freedom is worth that corrosive force in our society.
Kind of like the opimium dens in SF in the 1880′s. The Libertarians would argue if people want to live that way, let em. No skin off their ass… but the truth is that conduct and detachment from reality DOES corrode society.
In your metaphor, the police –like the troops– wouldn’t condone the actions of those who try to weasel between the application of froce and resources and the people doint the work. You can’t support the troops and demean the mission anymore than you can support drug legalization or unfettered drug use and still support the police.
You gotta find a better analogy… “it seems”.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 14, 2006 @ 9:18 am - November 14, 2006
My favorite little punching bag whined…
“as you falsely show outrage when talking (about) Sadam’s [sic] atrocities yet say nothing about the atrocities committed by our pals.”
I can’t speak for NDT, but as far as I’m concerned, Hussein’s penchant for gleefully running Iraqis through meat grinders has come to an end, as has his various other hobbies. You see, sweetie, while we Americans aren’t perfect, 9/11 did seem to instill in us the need to move beyond “outrage,” and onto action. Frankly, you and your fellow social workers can piss and moan all you want, but until you figure out a way to exterminate the slight majority of Americans who will no longer tolerate murderously sociopathic dictators and their minions (i.e. Zarqawi & Co.), this country will continue to hunt them down.
As for the alleged atrocities committed by “our pals,” I’m thoroughly ashamed that almost half of this country is as ignorant as you seem to be; equating our military and intelligence service’s interrogation techniques to the dipping of genitalia in hydrochloric acid is beyond ludicrous, and only further highlights the urgency of keeping you fools as far away from command as humanly possible.
Again, fellow patriots, our resident idiotarians illustrate the almost child-like wonder with which they approach America and it’s relationship to the world. They seek perfection in humanity, and foolishly believe that they, and only they, possess the tools by which to bring it about. Funny, isn’t it, how they disavow Christianity, yet believe that the United States should adopt a Christ-like foreign policy in areas of the world where life holds as much value as the price of a dull machete.
Silly castrati – you don’t bring a copy of Chicken Soup For The Soul to a gunfight.
With apologies to RightWingProf, Plan 9 From Outer Space most assuredly does not qualify as sound foreign policy.
Eric in Hollywood
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 14, 2006 @ 9:19 am - November 14, 2006
#58 Matt: But let me tell you clearly, responsible law enforcement officials cringe the Libertarians talk about legalizing drugs… because the police know intimately the damage done by illicit drug use to our society every single day. The Libertarians think the price of personal freedom is worth that corrosive force in our society.
I don’t know that this is the place for a full-scale discussion on drug policy. I do think that I need to take a moment to defend (at least) two acquaintances of mine who are police officers who don’t believe that aggressive enforcement of drug laws is preventing the harms you describe, but they do believe it is causing other harms. I think your words imply that they aren’t responsible law enforcement officials, in which case you are wrong.
If you want to discuss drug laws specifically, feel free to email me at kdogg36@gmail.com.
As for the larger point, if you believe that one shows disrespect to police or military personnel by conscientiously opposing significant parts of their mission, then we’ll just have to disagree on that. When I believe that a particular government policy is unwise or pernicious, I will seek to change it. I won’t denigrate or attack people who aren’t responsible for that policy being adopted, but I will fervently oppose it, and I won’t feel the slightest bit guilty about it.
Comment by kdogg36 — November 14, 2006 @ 1:18 pm - November 14, 2006
#33 “Not only were people angry at the government for being there, they were also angry at the government for forcing men to be in that war.”
“Is that why the liberals keep demanding a draft?”
Yes.
They believe that more people would oppose the war if more people were personally at risk.
Comment by Synova — November 14, 2006 @ 1:50 pm - November 14, 2006
kdogg36, and that’s what makes our country such a rich venue for a diversity of public opinion. You can hold an opinion that is directly contrary to mine (or mine to yours) and it’s ok.
Too bad the majority of people in the world don’t have that privilege –I think spreading freedom and liberty in the world is exactly what the WOT and Iraq ought to be about… it’s the best long-term tool to thwart Islamofascist jihads. And frankly, it’s a hell of lot higher on my list of international efforts than worrying about worker democracies in South America or building communes in Africa. And this from someone who isn’t afraid of nation building.
I do feel that not supporting the mission of either the troops or the police contorts to not supporting the troops or police –for me, it’s as simple as that –having come from a family of 3rd generation police. But then, those who serve in our family are known as “a policeman’s police” which we see as a honor, not a point for public humiliation or scorn. Same with the military –honor, not scorn.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 14, 2006 @ 1:58 pm - November 14, 2006
To elaborate (now that I’ve read the rest of the comments) proposing a draft is presented as support but is really the opposite. There are ways to support recruitment but they involve *not* portraying young men as ignorant tools who are the ultimate victim. Military service could be portrayed as worthwhile and important and liberal leaders could publically say so and encourage young people to enlist. This doesn’t happen.
Instead we get “draft” bills introduced that “pro-war” congresspersons will surely vote against, that include all females as well as males in a certain age range (for example) though even a reasonably written bill would get rejected because the military does not *want* a draft. And when one looks at who is introducing the bills, there’s no way to think that they are doing so to support the military, or think the military is a good thing. They want the rich drafted because they believe the military preys on the poor (and ignorant, obviously) and they want to foment fear among parents (such as during the 2004 election) to gain votes and to promote anti-war sentiment.
I think that it probably is possible to be pro-military (not “pro-troop”) and to disagree with a particular war. It’s possible to be pro-victory and to disagree with the war or particular action in the war. Obviously that means, in some sense, not being actively against the war, not working against it. One doesn’t have to think that the right choice was made to put one’s mind to figuring out how to win it anyhow.
In fact, that’s basically what the military does. The military doesn’t decide which war to fight or not fight, just how to win any particular battle.
So I think it’s possible to be pro-military while believing that the decision to go to war was a wrong one.
Being pro-troop requires support for the *idea* of military service, which, frankly, is lacking in most of the “support the troops not the war” rhetoric… it’s a “support” based on pity, not respect.
I *don’t* think it’s possible to be pro-troop without being pro-military, and to be pro-military means being pro-victory.
Comment by Synova — November 14, 2006 @ 2:18 pm - November 14, 2006
Oh, and pro-military is, at some meta level, pro-war. It assumes that a military is a good thing and service in the military is an honorable vocation and that war, as a concept, is a legitimate and necessary element of foreign policy. That, frankly, learning how best to kill people and break things is a desireable skill set.
It’s very true (in a general sense) that no one wants to go to war less than people in the military. There was a really lame notion going around when I was younger (still?) that human nature demanded that learned skills be used, that weapons or training for war demanded use… if I’ve got a hammer, I’ll use it, so better not to have the hammer. While our soldiers on the pointy end of the stick (and a noted General or two) have expressed a great deal of satisfaction (as opposed to seemly sorrow) over killing the enemy and blowing stuff up, it’s simply not true that any sane person would choose a world where that was necessary. It’s just that we don’t get to choose our world. And it is necessary.
Warriors are necessary. Training and study to wage war is necessary. Those who do that hard job deserve respect.
(And not to rag Murtha, but it’s so hard to resist… being pro-military is not defined by voting funding. The funding helps, but a distain for those in uniform, portraying them as victims to be cared for, our poor boys in uniform, is not pro-military and can not be pro-troop.)
Comment by Synova — November 14, 2006 @ 2:36 pm - November 14, 2006
#62: But then, those who serve in our family are known as “a policeman’s police” which we see as a honor, not a point for public humiliation or scorn. Same with the military –honor, not scorn.
My only point is this. I mean no scorn to police officers in questioning the validity of any number of laws that they enforce as part of their job. I doubt that most people who question the War in Iraq mean any scorn to military personnel, either. In either case, if the very act of fervent opposition to policy is interpreted as scorn, I am afraid that that’s an irreconcilable problem: I won’t be guilted out of opposing policies in good conscience.
Comment by kdogg36 — November 14, 2006 @ 3:13 pm - November 14, 2006
Though, probably, you don’t do anything to undermine the police as they try to enforce the laws you don’t agree with, do you?
I *do* think that most of those who publically oppose our presence in Iraq *do* scorn the people in the military and *do* believe they are stupid dupes and *do* take public action (particularly those with national office or visibility) that encourage the enemy. They preach inevitable doom and “support” for the troops means hauling them all home again and letting what they worked so hard at, and people died for, fail. (But at least no more American soldiers will be at risk, huh?) I really do think that the great majority of those who are “anti-war” are actually and truely “anti-military.” There is no possibility of a “just” war… war never solves anything, just turns our young men into killers and rapists, after all.
Murtha always comes to mind… willing to publically portray our troops, one and all, as walking the knife edge of atrocity. Gore, Kerry, others… we “terrorize” and should go home, redeploy, leave well enough alone… and Sadr hears that and knows if he just hangs in there and builds his base that his opportunity will arrive. The people are used to a strongman like Sadr and unused to democracy. The taliban moving into Somalia, the movement to the concept of the Islamic State (not an Historical concept in the least) in Africa and South Asia, and these luminaries, these statesmen, don’t give a sh*t about undermining international impressions of our resolve.
And somehow the refrain becomes, if we just leave well enough alone, stop *causing* problems, then it will all be okay. War doesn’t solve anything, the mere presence of our soldiers in Iraq has caused 650,000 *excess* deaths, if we go home the situation will become peaceful far more quickly than if we stay, fewer people will die if we do nothing at all.
This isn’t pro-troop. It doesn’t support those who serve. You may not think drugs should be illegal (I’m inclined to agree) but probably, like me, you recognize how destructive they are and *support* the goal, if not the methods, as well as believing that police are necessary and good and should be respected and not undermined. There *are* crazy anarchists out there, I’m assuming you aren’t one of them.
Comment by Synova — November 14, 2006 @ 4:04 pm - November 14, 2006
I *do* think that most of those who publically oppose our presence in Iraq *do* scorn the people in the military and *do* believe they are stupid dupes and *do* take public action (particularly those with national office or visibility) that encourage the enemy.
I’d say that a slim majority of my close acquaintances (and several family members) oppose the War in Iraq, and that is simply not my experience. None of them are famous people, admittedly.
There *are* crazy anarchists out there, I’m assuming you aren’t one of them.
I’m pretty sure you would think I was a crazy something (call it “market anarchist”) if you knew of my own political ideal. I certainly don’t mislead or misrepresent my beliefs here, but there are things I don’t discuss here or on many other forums because there wouldn’t be much point to it. I focus on things that are doable in the imaginable future, and I’d rather discuss and work with people for those changes rather than get into discussions that would emphasize our differences.
Comment by kdogg36 — November 14, 2006 @ 4:44 pm - November 14, 2006
kdogg writes: “I mean no scorn to police officers in questioning the validity of any number of laws that they enforce as part of their job.”
Hold on a second, little doggie.
We were talking about your analogy that being against the WOT (or more precisely Iraq) and pro-military is like being a police officer against the War on Drugs.
To now take it and spin “…questioning the validity of any number of laws that they enforce as part of their job” is a stretch that won’t pull back.
We were writing about the War on Drugs and libertarians’ higher emphasis on the value of personal choice… not any law, any enforcement, any anything.
Remember, I wrote the War on Drugs is generally supported by the police and to stand against the effort is to undercut the mission of police officers –to protect society. Simple as that. Unfettered access to now-illicit drugs (through legalization) would bring about a disintegration of society, increase in violent crimes, B&Es, etc that would make an average night in Gary Indiana look like a cakewalk for seniors.
I doubt even your police buddies would commend that as a policy option. But you see, Libertarians don’t have to worry about policy consequences since they rarely get to lead or have a demonstrable impact on public policy.
But nice try at extending the argument to a more absurd point.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 14, 2006 @ 5:53 pm - November 14, 2006
Synova –great points all. Thanks for making them in this discussion.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 14, 2006 @ 5:56 pm - November 14, 2006
#68: But nice try at extending the argument to a more absurd point.
If you want to discuss drug law policy specifically, or my own political philosophy in general, please do feel free to email me (kdogg36@gmail.com). I simply don’t have the time or internet access at this point to get into a public discussion here about those things. I have been in many such discussions during my internet life, and I know how many resources they can consume!
I am not sure what absurd point you are talking about. There are in fact many laws — some of them, like drug laws, amounting to a major “mission” — which I fervently oppose. Police officers enforce these laws. This does not mean I despise police officers or oppose their basic purpose of protecting people’s rights. If they choose to take it that way, or if you choose to take it that way, I do honestly regret that. But there’s nothing I can do about it: I hold these beliefs in good conscience, and I will not be intimidated or guilted out of them.
Remember, I wrote the War on Drugs is generally supported by the police and to stand against the effort is to undercut the mission of police officers –to protect society. Simple as that.
If, as I’m gathering, you think that it’s despicable to stand against the War on Drugs for these reasons, then you may feel free to label me as such. From the tone of your comments, I doubt it would be worthwhile for me to try and defend myself from that accusation.
Comment by kdogg36 — November 15, 2006 @ 4:46 pm - November 15, 2006
kdogg, put away the pity party hat, ok? It’s not in style this season (wink).
I was pointing out that we were discussing how supporting the troops and mission was NOT like supporting the police and the War on Drugs. You tried to extended it from the war on drugs to “any number of laws” that police enforce. That was the absurd point and extension.
I honestly can appreciate how some on the GayLeft can think they support the troops by undercutting the mission. I’ve watched many of the lower-case-clan here do exactly that over the last 2 years, repeatedly.
I think it generally goes less to conviction and more to the need to satisfy that inner hunger and urge within gay men to be highly individualistic, self-centered, ego-driven and contrary to normative societal positions. And secure cheap partisan gain –as the elections prove.
You may feel it’s ok to undercut police efforts to win the war on drugs and that still means you support the police… you seemingly feel it’s possible to support the troops while still being critical of the mission or military leadership. I get it.
What I don’t think you get is that Americans are supposed to be part of team. One of the team guidelines in war is that we hold our criticism of the coach and fellow teammates until after the game is over… and that if we don’t, we undercut the resolve of the team to win.
It’s why many conservatives cringed at watching TurbanDurbin and TeddieK nearly cheer when abu Ghraib broke. No timeline, no exit strategy. “Show us the body bags”. And so forth.
I didn’t want to discuss the utility of drug laws. This thread was supposed to be about the Left showing how not supporting the mission still allows them to claim they support the troops.
But thanks for the invitation to carry on that side discussion; I’ll pass.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 16, 2006 @ 9:56 am - November 16, 2006
Michigan Matt: I think it generally goes less to conviction and more to the need to satisfy that inner hunger and urge within gay men to be highly individualistic, self-centered, ego-driven and contrary to normative societal positions.
In terms of politics, this is not in accord with my experiences. Most gay people I know are socialists — which is evil precisely because it is an attack on the autonomy of the individual. Far from being highly individualistic, most gay people I know tend towards collectivist groupthink. A few of my acquaintances barely tolerate me because I won’t go along with their “progressive” political ideas.
What I don’t think you get is that Americans are supposed to be part of team.
I don’t get it because I don’t agree with it. The government exists to protect individual rights, to allow us to pursue our own values and form our own teams. It was not meant to force us all to be part of any team we don’t want to be a part of.
The fact that the government hasn’t even tried to stay within its constitutional limits for the past 75 years or so makes it even more difficult for me to feel the kind of comradeship you describe.
Comment by kdogg36 — November 16, 2006 @ 1:04 pm - November 16, 2006