posted on July 28, 2005 09:37:11 AM
and should admit it.
Liberals, Democrats and others on the Left frequently state that they "support the troops." For most of them, whether they realize it or not, this is not true. They feel they must say this because the majority of Americans would find any other position unacceptable. Indeed, for most liberals, the thought that they really do not support the troops is unacceptable even to them.
Lest this argument be dismissed as an attack on leftist Americans' patriotism, let it be clear that leftists' patriotism is not the issue here. Their honesty is.
In order to understand this, we need to first have a working definition of the term "support the troops." Presumably it means that one supports what the troops are doing and rooting for them to succeed. What else could "support the troops" mean? If you say, for example, that you support the Yankees or the Dodgers, we assume it means you want them to win.
But most of the Left does not want the troops to win in Iraq. The Left's message is this:
You troops may think you are winning; you may think you are doing good and moral things in Iraq; you may believe you are fighting the worst human beings of our age and protecting us against the scourge of Islamic terror. But we on the Left believe none of that.
We believe this war is being fought for oil and for Halliburton and other corporations; we believe you are waging a war that is both illegal and immoral; we believe you have invaded a country for no good reason and have killed a hundred thousand Iraqis [the Left's generally mentioned number] for no good reason; but, hey, we sure do support you.
Honest people on the Left need to understand that the two positions are not reconcilable. A German citizen during World War II could not have argued: "The Nazi regime's army is engaged in an evil war of aggression and is slaughtering millions of innocent people, and I therefore completely oppose this war, but I sure do support the Nazi troops."
One example is the claim made by Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and almost all other Democrats and liberals that the war in Iraq is "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." How does one support troops that are fighting a wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time? A few leftist writers have been honest enough to say, "Nothing personal, guys, but I sure don't support you." But the vast majority of the Left and all Democratic politicians have not been honest on this matter.
A second example is the oft-repeated line, found on liberal bumper stickers, "War is not the answer." Aside from the idiocy of this claim – war has solved slavery, ended the Holocaust, destroyed Japanese fascism, preserved half the Korean peninsula from near-genocide, and saved Israel from extinction, among other noble achievements – the claim offers no support to those who do engage in war.
How could one believe that "war is not the answer" and also claim to "support the troops," the very people waging what is "not the answer"? The answer is, by being dishonest.
A third example is the Left's opposition to military recruitment on most of the elite and many other college campuses. So deep is leftist disdain for troops that most on the Left regard the mere presence of military personnel on a university campus as a form of contamination. Yet, the Left claims to "support the troops."
Many on the Left express far more contempt than support for the troops.
A Democratic senator compares our interrogators to the Nazis and communist torturers; the head of Amnesty International in America defends likening Guantanamo Bay to the Gulag; and liberals routinely speak of troops as coming from the lowest socio-economic rungs of society (maybe that's one reason they oppose recruiters on campuses, lest the best educated actually join the military). But, hey, the Left supports the troops.
An honest leftist would say: "Because I view this war as immoral, I cannot support our troops." What is not honest is their saying, "Support the troops – bring them home." Supporting people who wish to fight entails supporting their fight; and if that fight is opposed, those waging it are also opposed.
Many on the Left angrily accuse the Right of disparaging their patriotism. That charge, too, is false. I have never heard a mainstream conservative impugn the patriotism of liberals. But as regards their attitude toward our troops, the patriotism of those on the Left is not the issue. The issue is their honesty.
posted on July 28, 2005 10:36:33 AM
So, to put this in a few less words, it's necessary to accept that the war itself is necessary and right. If you can't do that, then by definition, you can't support the troops.
Have I got it?
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on July 28, 2005 11:25:32 AM
against the war, support the troops.....yea, right....like the IDIOT Lt. Gov. of PA .....who had the NERVE to show up, uninvited at a fallen Marines funeral and say, "our government doesn't support the war". I couldn't believe it when I read that story. Had that been MY sons funeral.....the police would have been called to remove her democratic rear-end from the premises.
And I'd bet SHE'D say she supports our troops too. yea, right....
Like the article says.....they CAN'T be truthful and say what the really mean/feel, people would see them for what they really are.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 28, 2005 11:32:14 AM
Ron, maybe you haven't been here long enough to know this has been discussed many, many times. Nobody here has ever said they don't support the troops, or implied in any way they don't support them. This only amounts to more propaganda to discredit the left. Bear and others can post as many articles as they want saying how great war is and how Bush is such a good guy. It doesn't do any good because we all know there were no womd, a country is in ruins because of it, thousands have died, and there's no end in sight. Nothing can erase that, imo.
Linda doesn't speak out against Ann Coulter who has said it was due to DISABLE VETERANS that we lost the war. Where is her (ANN's) support for the troops
I guess Linda and Bear are also speaking out against all the veterans who have spoken out against this war. Bear and Linda want to dishonor their service to this country.
Unlike Linda, the armchair soldier, these veterans have served this country and have risked their lives.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
[ edited by logansdad on Jul 28, 2005 12:08 PM ]
posted on July 28, 2005 12:03:06 PM
...Nobody here has ever said they don't support the troops...
kraft, how can you support somebody doing something you think is all wrong? It doesnt make sense. It IS a lie. The same lie as I am not pro-abortion; I am pro-choice. I will tell you right now, I am pro-choice and I fully realize that means pro-abortion. There's two choices in that issue: Life or abort. There is no 'choice' and then ignore what that choice is. Maybe if you so-called liberals could own up to half an ounce of truth about what you really believe, you could fight your way out of a paper bag once in awhile.
posted on July 28, 2005 12:13:24 PMkraft, how can you support somebody doing something you think is all wrong?
There is a difference between speaking out against the war itself and the people that are doing the fighting.
We can speak out against the government and the reasons for being there. It does not mean we are speaking out against people who are doing the fighting.
DB, you said you were pro-choice. Let's say for a minute to were pro-life. Would you be able to speak out against abortion but still love the person who got an abortion?
It is like Jesus said, love the sinner not the sin.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on July 28, 2005 12:23:27 PM
logan, first of all I am not Jesus, I'm human and if I were a pro-right-to-lifer I suppose I would be able to still love one who has had an abortion, but I would not be able in good consciousness be able to support abortion or the continuation of it as a legal practice. This is one issue that is very black and white to me. Either you believe the embryo is a fully developed human, and one has committed murder, or you dont. But stop kidding yourself saying you dont support abortion and just support choice. That is a downright lie.
posted on July 28, 2005 12:24:48 PM
So, exactly how much has the neocons done to support Veteran benefits? The neocon agenda is to use the troops for war profiteering, then when they come back without an arm, a leg, or have psychiatric problems, they don't get the care they need. Why should one of our soldiers have to wait months on end to have a much needed surgery? That article was nothing but hogwash... something Linda might be interested in.
posted on July 28, 2005 12:30:20 PM
People are "patriots" in many ways. The Rosenbergs sold out their country for the good of mankind, etc.
And while there may be a lots of left wing web sites that report our troops having endless discussions about "dead troops", that's not what I hear from people serving there.
It's kind of like the few thousand "Vietnam veterans against the war" out of what, 3.4 million who served?
posted on July 28, 2005 01:21:58 PM
Can you love your child, even when that child does something wrong? Can you support our troops, while wanting them out of harm's way, and out of an illegal and immoral war?
Once again you attempt to pervert the meaning of patriotism to serve your own needs. You attempt to paint those who disagree with the war as anti-American.
It is you who are dishonest and your lame subterfuge proves it. Is that what passes for free thinking amongst the neocons?
posted on July 28, 2005 01:58:38 PM "If you support the troops, then you support the war they are fighting."
Not true. People who do not support the war have shown more respect for the troops and in fact have been credited with putting pressure on the pentagon and DOD to support the troops with the proper equipment. Troops were sent to Iraq with Humvees that had to be gerry rigged with plywood and sandbags for armor --appropriately called "cardboard coffins" because many died in these makeshift rigs. They were not supported with the proper guns, ammunition, radios and protective gear.
The neocons that started this war without appropriate planning and without the proper equipment and armor did NOT support the troops.
posted on July 28, 2005 03:00:54 PM
We will just have to disagree over this Helen.
I don't believe a person can be against this war and support the troops.
posted on July 28, 2005 03:14:29 PM
Of course they can.
Do you believe that the pentagon and DOD and your president can fail to support the troops by inadequate planning and failure to provide armored vehicles, guns and safety gear?
Failure to plan and provide necessary equipment is non support. Do you agree with that?
posted on July 28, 2005 03:26:04 PM
Twinsoft had a good point for you to consider also when he asked, "Can you support our troops, while wanting them out of harm's way, and out of an illegal and immoral war?"
"You can support the men and women in those uniforms, but I seriously doubt you actually support the troops"
If I support all men and women in uniform in the service of the U.S. military then I support the troops.
I see that you failed to answer my question so I'll repeat it again.
Do you believe that the pentagon and DOD and your president can fail to support the troops by inadequate planning and failure to provide armored vehicles, guns and safety gear?
Failure to plan and provide necessary equipment is non-support. Do you agree with that?
posted on July 28, 2005 04:18:36 PM
No I don't believe OUR President has failed in his support of the troops. DOD or Defense Dept. either. It is very easy to arm chair after the fact.
I think they used the intell they had and planned accordingly.
War is not neat and tidy nor entirely predictable.
Study some past wars, you will see this has happend in the past and will probably happen in the future.
Do you support the war and efforts of our men and women to win it?
posted on July 28, 2005 04:47:18 PM
Ron - GREAT question.....let's see IF helen answers it though. Since from the time we first set foot on Iraqi soil....she's been calling and I quote her ...for us to "admit defeat and bring our troops home".
But somehow the left sees that as being supportive of our troops. Good for a sad laugh anyway. Like they really believe admitting defeat is what the troops are trained for or want to do. They're so sad....
------------------
And I doubt few anti-Iraq war people here would answer YES....we want them to WIN...defeat the terrorists....accomplish their mission. But they can easily SAY they support them. And it's all lip-service and not honest at all.
--------------------
I can't begin to tell you how many soldiers I've talked to that have said they don't see the anti-war people as supporting them. They laugh at that statement.....and THEY say things like 'if you can't truly support us.....then at least SHUT UP...and don't make things harder for us'.
-----------------
logansdad - There is a difference between speaking out against the war itself and the people that are doing the fighting.
It's all in the way it's said, imo. But when people have FITS about how terribly the troops are treating our enemies....or blaming THEM for all the deaths....or like helen once did and had a FIT about our soldiers going into the enemies homes.....to be sure there were no combatants in there.....she sure wasn't supporting THEIR actions. She blamed them for everything.....murdering innocents...etc.
THAT'S NOT supporting the troops.....in any way, shape or form.
Just like the leftist media continually writing about the Koran abuse at GITMO. They muslims went NUTS over it.....and those articles put MORE of our soldiers lives at risk.....they encouraged MORE angry muslims to come fight them....in defense of their quran.
Don't fool yourselves.....a lot of the actions from the left has been EXTREMELY harmful to our troops welfare over in Iraq. That too, is NOT supporting our troops.
You're only fooling yourselves.....and personally I see it as aiding and abetting our enemies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 28, 2005 04:52 PM ]
There was no plan for this war beyond shock and awe. The fact that many died because of that failure to plan along with the failure to provide appropriate armor and equipment is inexcusable and can only be seen as NON support of our troops.
Because of failure to stop the ongoing insurgency and diminishing support from the American people, U.S. withdrawal strategies are now under consideration. European countries will be scaling back their efforts also because of the strength of the insurgents and because of possible Islamist group attacks. So...this war is lost.
You ask, "Do you support the war and efforts of our men and women to win it?"
Of course I support their efforts to win the war. But they should all be honored for their efforts regardless of whether they win or lose.
posted on July 28, 2005 05:06:58 PM
Ron, the soldiers are fighting road bombs in unarmoured vehicles with little help in sight. Rumsfeld said you use what's available in a war. How is that showing support?
posted on July 28, 2005 05:40:27 PM
Right, the old stupid, not supporting the troops equipment needs bs.
the military, based on past experiences, outfits each division with a ratio of equipment types.
When the occupation was complete they discovered that the armored personnel carriers they had were no good because they were not very maneuverable and were hard to see out of in urban settings. The guys needed Humvees, very few of which were armored.
The Pentagon stripped units around the globe of all available armored Humvees and placed orders for more.
The History channel has a documentary on the company that produces the armored Humvees. The increase in production they achieved was nothing short of amazing. And in a matter of days that company designed and began issuing a retrofit kit. When Rumsfeld said in a few weeks they would have everything they needed, he wasn't kidding.
The not-equipping the troops stuff is similar to us giving the Iraqis logistics aid, helicopters, and tactical gear during the Iranian war, becoming "weapons", followed by WOMD here.
posted on July 28, 2005 05:50:24 PM
TROOPS SENT INTO WAR WITHOUT ARMORED VEHICLES: Spec. Thomas Wilson told Rumsfeld, "A lot of us are getting ready to move north [into Iraq] relatively soon. Our vehicles are not armored. We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that's already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat." Rumsfeld responded that "you go to war with the Army you have...not the Army you might want to wish to have at a later time." But the planning for war in Iraq began in late 2001. In a spin session later in the day, Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita conceded that as late as the fall of 2003, the military was producing just 15 armored Humvees a month, less than 4 percent of today's production capacity. According to Di Rita, one quarter of Humvees in war zones today are unarmored. The bottom line: soldiers in Iraq today don't have armored vehicles because of poor planning and Rumsfeld refuses to accept responsibility.
posted on July 28, 2005 05:55:22 PMdiminishing support from the American people, U.S. withdrawal strategies are now under consideration.
No, helen....that's NOT why.
But you do bring up another good point....support from the American people going down. Now why would that be????
It's, in part, because of the LEFT leaning media....who nightly since the war started will announce every NEGATIVE things going on.....blasting our troops behavior all the time...blaming them like you were.
Might have been nice to see the liberal media cheering on our soldiers accomplishments.....missions achieved each and everytime they were making progress.
But, oh NO....liberals didn't want to cheerlead for our soldiers....they didn't want the war....and they've spent each and everyday reporting ONLY the negative side.
That's how THEY support our troops. WRONG!!!
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
Since from the time we first set foot on Iraqi soil....she's been calling and I quote her ...for us to "admit defeat and bring our troops home".
Good for a sad laugh anyway. Like they really believe admitting defeat is what the troops are trained for or want to do. They're so sad....
