Nah man, I got to disagree with the people who say libs don’t really care about our troops. I want to join the Marines and my parents are against the war but this doesn’t mean that they don’t suppport the troops. They just don’t want me dead. I know a vietnam vet who told me how hippies back in his day called him a “baby killer” when he came home but how many libs call troops that today? Libs are not unpatriotic they are just Americans with different views on what is best for America. They care about our security just like every other American.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Come on pookie, don’t be obtuse. When you are wrong, sack up and admit it.[/quote]
I would if I was, but your case is weak. I see more differences than I see similarities.
You have to learn to look at the big pictures, not just at the parts that support your assertion.
It’s like those WMDs in Iraq. Finding 500 rusty, broken and unusable ones might fit the statement “We found WMDs in Iraq”, but when the rest of the details are taken into account (ie, they were old, unmaintained and basically unusable) there was no threat.
Concentrating only on the particular details that support your assertion, while ignoring the rest of the picture only makes you look foolish.
Grow a brain. Then come back and debate with the adults. Or keep being a clown. Your choice.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
And how many Americans that join are poor, or at least not well-off, and see the military as an option to get themselves out of that situation? [/quote]
I still believe that they have more options available to them than the roman legionnaires did. And if they do join, the pay is better, education is provided and the length of service is much shorter than 25 years.
All,
The main problem with the Roman analogy is that the Roman Legions swore allegiance to their General, NOT Rome. Generals were political leaders. They owned their particular armies. Rome destroyed itself through infighting of the Legions. Eventually the Roman armies became so weak that they couldn’t defend Rome against the northern “barbarians”.
American military swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. They swear to obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over them, but their allegiance is to the country.
The point of the thread is: a DISCONNECT is being established between our military and our populace. The Dem victory looks (IMO) to our military as if the American people are not supporting them. They see people who want to cut and run, something that is a polar opposite to how our military men and women think, and we voted the cut-and-run crowd into office.
How long would any one here fight to defend cowards, who want to run and hide at the first hint of danger? How many here would defend people who spit on wounded veterans, like those scum at the peace rally?
Not long, I’d bet…
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
And as for American’s being willing to die for freedom, how the fuck is freedom being threatened in America? In Iraq Israel and the rest of the Middle East, perhaps, freedom is at stake, but here? No. Here, Americans are being threatened. But is the terrorism supported or disabled by starting wars in the Middle East, in countries where, before the war, few terrorists were being bred?
Since 9/11, there has not been a single real threat to American safety on American soil. If their has, I’d love for someone to point it out to me.
[/quote]
I didn’t say anything about defending American freedom. History shows that America has always been willing to fight for freedom around the world. Hitler wasn’t a dirct threat to America.
The Kiaser Wasn’t a threat. North Korea wasn’t a threat to America, and neither was N. Vietnam. Liberals want to create this “one world” community where we are all friends. SHouldn’t we be willing to help our friends by ensuring bad people at taken care of? It goes back to having nothing worth fighting for.
I think President Bush made it abundantly clear that America can no longer sit back and allow threats to gather. His intent io to go after the bad guys on their territory before they can hit us here.
And do you REALLY believe there is no threat to Americans just because there hasn’t been an actual attack here in a while? That is truly idiotic. That’s like saying you don’t need car insurance because you haven’t had a wreck in a while.
I hope to God that we never get attacked again, but a part of me hopes we do so that people like you will finally realize that this is not a game. We are at war with people who would very much like to blow up your kids elementary school.
And don’t start the “blame America first” argument that we are creating terrorists. They have been at war with us for decades and we ignored it. These people hate us because of our lifestyle and religion. It’s a religious war to them. It took 9/11 to wake the sleeping giant. Let’s not fall back asleep.
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Come on pookie, don’t be obtuse. When you are wrong, sack up and admit it.
I would if I was, but your case is weak. I see more differences than I see similarities.
You have to learn to look at the big pictures, not just at the parts that support your assertion.
It’s like those WMDs in Iraq. Finding 500 rusty, broken and unusable ones might fit the statement “We found WMDs in Iraq”, but when the rest of the details are taken into account (ie, they were old, unmaintained and basically unusable) there was no threat.
Concentrating only on the particular details that support your assertion, while ignoring the rest of the picture only makes you look foolish.
Grow a brain. Then come back and debate with the adults. Or keep being a clown. Your choice.
[/quote]
Pookie,
Do you really believe Saddam was clean and had no WMD’s? Truly, is that what you think?
If 100 people witnessed someone kill another person with a gun, but the gun was never found, is the man innocent? Liberals have become so legalistic, it has clouded their “reasonable man” ability.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The point of the thread is: a DISCONNECT is being established between our military and our populace. [/quote]
Actually, the worst DISCONNECT I see is between the Bush administration and reality.
They’ve been running your army into the ground for over 3 years now with practically now results to show for it.
At one point, someone has to put and end to it and clean up the mess.
[quote]PGJ wrote:
Do you really believe Saddam was clean and had no WMD’s? Truly, is that what you think?[/quote]
Saddam was a brutal dictator, but posed no threat to the West. And no, I don’t think he had anything worth mentioning in the way of WMDs.
Funny that in the 80s, the US claimed that it’s the Iranians who had gassed the Kurds. And it’s the US who was selling WMDs to Saddam.
Cut the childish analogies, Jeffro, stop pretending that your short-sighted foreign policies don’t land you in mess after mess.
An ability that the neocons have long since replaced with their vaunted “let’s make up some shit and sell it to the idiot public to do what we want anyway” ability.
[quote]40yarddash wrote:
Nah man, I got to disagree with the people who say libs don’t really care about our troops. I want to join the Marines and my parents are against the war but this doesn’t mean that they don’t suppport the troops. They just don’t want me dead. I know a vietnam vet who told me how hippies back in his day called him a “baby killer” when he came home but how many libs call troops that today? Libs are not unpatriotic they are just Americans with different views on what is best for America. They care about our security just like every other American.[/quote]
Well you could look up some of the things Dick Durbin and John Kerry have said about the troops. They both convicted, in their own minds, the military based on third and fourth hand accounts of things they heard. They both made very public comments.
I don’t doubt that many liberals feel they are patriotic. I also think a lot of conservatives feel the same way. Caring about the security of your country should be the minimum expectation not something unusual.
It’s more about personal convictions then political affiliations. However the days of the hawkish liberal have not been seen in many years. When they do appear they are quickly overwhelmed by their own supporters.
The statement you made about your folks caring about the troops just not wanting you to become one because of the danger is exactly the problem that alienates the military from society.
Lot’s of guys join the military, knowing they may be killed, because they believe in what they are doing and they believe in the mission. They realize the dangers…and did it anyway. That’s a huge divide for people.
It used to be called the difference between sheep, sheepdogs and the wolf. The sheepdog protects the sheep from the wolf and will kill it when necessary. The sheep always hope for the best but are powerless against the wolf.
They are glad the sheepdog is there to protect them but they resent they fact they need them and when they don’t see the wolf for long periods they think about telling the sheepdog they don’t need him anymore, until a new wolf appears. It’s an old military story. If you join the Marines you may hear a version of it from your DI.
If you’ve signed up in the last 3 yrs, you know your going to fight and maybe die. They have taken great personal risk for something they believe in and that’s why we admire the courage and committment. It’s a huge gap right now.
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Come on pookie, don’t be obtuse. When you are wrong, sack up and admit it.
I would if I was, but your case is weak. I see more differences than I see similarities.[/quote]
pookie,
You know I don’t like when you do this. I’ve told you before: I want my opponents erudite and interesting. Not obtuse and relying on bare bones info.
There is truly no joy in defeating a weakling.
Sigh.
AGAIN, your original post claimed that the legionnaires were neither voluntary neither were they paid.
Wrong and wrong.
I’ll play your game. Here is a breakdown of the pay scale. The increase was precisely the time period of which I am speaking (ala last 500 years/glory years of rome).
from www.vroma.org
“Legionary pay was never lavish (112.5 denarii per year, which was doubled by Julius Caesar to 225 denarii), and the cost of food and arms was deducted from this amount. In contrast, centurions received considerably higher pay; under Augustus, the lowest ranking centurion was paid 3,750 denarii and the highest ranking, 15,000 denarii.”
My response is that you need to get your facts straight. You compound your error by asserting that anyone who disagrees with your error is “ridiculous.” Or in my case: “makes me look foolish”
Shall we go into this? You know full well that I’ve got plenty of links availabe showing that the sarin was potent and dangerous. You also know full well that saddam didn’t declare them. Finally, you know full well that there were tools rabidly asserting that there were “NO WMD IN IRAQ.”
During our discussion, I have focused on very specific errors in your understanding.
For example: Your silly counter that somehow the service wasn’t voluntary because “serve or starve.” Why not take up crime? Were they REALLY FORCED to join. Of course not. Just pure silliness.
I pointed out to you that landed gentry also CHOSE to serve as a social climbing apparatus. Not to mention the guys that joined just for political purposes.
Too bad. I guess I wasn’t truly expecting you to own up to your errors. However, hope does spring eternal.
In summary, this isn’t much fun destroying your argument. It’s just too easy.
JeffR
[quote]PGJ wrote:
All,
The main problem with the Roman analogy is that the Roman Legions swore allegiance to their General, NOT Rome. Generals were political leaders. They owned their particular armies. Rome destroyed itself through infighting of the Legions. Eventually the Roman armies became so weak that they couldn’t defend Rome against the northern “barbarians”.
American military swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. They swear to obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over them, but their allegiance is to the country. [/quote]
PGJ,
I agree with you 100%. I have been very careful to limit the discussion to pookie’s erroneous statement that the Roman legionnaires were neither voluntary nor were they paid.
JeffR
[quote]pookie wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Do you really believe Saddam was clean and had no WMD’s? Truly, is that what you think?
Saddam was a brutal dictator, but posed no threat to the West. And no, I don’t think he had anything worth mentioning in the way of WMDs.
If 100 people witnessed someone kill another person with a gun, but the gun was never found, is the man innocent?
Funny that in the 80s, the US claimed that it’s the Iranians who had gassed the Kurds. And it’s the US who was selling WMDs to Saddam.
Cut the childish analogies, Jeffro, stop pretending that your short-sighted foreign policies don’t land you in mess after mess.
Liberals have become so legalistic, it has clouded their “reasonable man” ability.
An ability that the neocons have long since replaced with their vaunted “let’s make up some shit and sell it to the idiot public to do what we want anyway” ability.
[/quote]
pookie,
saddam was a supporter of terrorism–al qaeda and palestinian. He fired on our planes. He tried to assassinate our President. He used WMD on his people. He broke the cease fire agreements. On and on and on.
I guess there are many avenues of thought still available to you. Cue background music…“A whole new world”
In summary, please listen/read transcripts of the saddam tapes. That should tell you all you need to know. If you need a link, let me know.
JeffR
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The point of the thread is: a DISCONNECT is being established between our military and our populace. The Dem victory looks (IMO) to our military as if the American people are not supporting them. They see people who want to cut and run, something that is a polar opposite to how our military men and women think, and we voted the cut-and-run crowd into office.
How long would any one here fight to defend cowards, who want to run and hide at the first hint of danger? How many here would defend people who spit on wounded veterans, like those scum at the peace rally?
Not long, I’d bet…
[/quote]
Its always interesting how you make a broad generalization, “our populace” then ratify that a few sentences later damning liberals.
How about this, where was the support needed when the Republicans were in office? Where were the adequate supplies and body armor that saves lives? How many “liberals” spent their own money to sent body armor to their sons and daughters over there? I can tell you, a helluva lot more than your precious republicans.
You say the populace has a disconnect with the military, shit, it looks like you have a disconnect with reality.
This was posted on Strategypage.com today.
Bashing Baby Killers
February 2, 2007:
A report on NBC Nightly News has touched off a bit of controversy in the blogosphere. In the initial NBC report, several troops expressed their frustration about opponents of the efforts in Iraq who claim to support the troops, but don’t support the mission.
One media response to this came from William Arkin, who decried the troops’ comments, hoped they had been counseled, raised the specter of a military coup, and then referred to them as mercenaries. The response to the Arkin comments in the milblogging community has been fierce, with big blogs like OPFOR, Blackfive, and others returning fire.
Arkin’s comments are just the latest shot taken at the volunteer army by the anti-war movement. This past November, Senator John Kerry got into trouble by implying a lack of intelligence among the troops and the notion that many of the recruits are poor.
Like Kerry’s comments, which killed his 2008 presidential bid, Arkin’s comments also have little, if any, basis in truth. Arkin’s comments also managed to deliver other insults as well, including cheap shots centered around Abu Ghraib and Haditha, implying both were typical of the conduct of American troops in Iraq.
It seems that Arkin echoed the claims of Seymour Hersh from October of last year. In a speech at a Canadian university, Hersh claimed that the American forces in Iraq were routinely carrying out atrocities.
The attack on the troops was also factually-challenged in one other aspect. In the post, Arkin also claimed that nobody had been spitting on troops and calling them baby killers. Apparently he did not hear of the incident involving Joshua Sparling during the protests in late January.
At least one anti-war protestor spat at the Iraq veteran, who had lost a leg while over there. There have been other incidents reported by the blogosphere where veterans have been called baby killers as well.
This was all about statements like those made by t Hersh in his speech last October. That said, much of this disrespect has not been covered in the mainstream media. Nor were Hersh’s comments, for that matter.
In a very real sense, there is only so much hypocrisy that the anti-war movement would be able to get away with. Eventually, they were going to be told they could not have it both ways. Their claims of supporting the troops are now being challenged by the troops themselves, some of whom pointed out that the support seems to be half-hearted at best.
It certainly is fair to ask the anti-war movement how they reconcile their belief that they support the troops with their opposition to what they are doing.
Ultimately, Arkin’s comments are just the latest instance of the anti-war movement’s mask slipping. Like the comments from John Kerry and Seymour Hersh, they reveal how the anti-war movement really feels about the troops. The truth is that the anti-war movement is not really that supportive of the troops. Arkin, like Kerry and Hersh, just happened to be honest about his feelings.
? Harold C. Hutchison
[quote]PGJ wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
And as for American’s being willing to die for freedom, how the fuck is freedom being threatened in America? In Iraq Israel and the rest of the Middle East, perhaps, freedom is at stake, but here? No. Here, Americans are being threatened. But is the terrorism supported or disabled by starting wars in the Middle East, in countries where, before the war, few terrorists were being bred?
Since 9/11, there has not been a single real threat to American safety on American soil. If their has, I’d love for someone to point it out to me.
I didn’t say anything about defending American freedom. History shows that America has always been willing to fight for freedom around the world. Hitler wasn’t a dirct threat to America.
The Kiaser Wasn’t a threat. North Korea wasn’t a threat to America, and neither was N. Vietnam. Liberals want to create this “one world” community where we are all friends. SHouldn’t we be willing to help our friends by ensuring bad people at taken care of? It goes back to having nothing worth fighting for.
[/quote]
You’re on pretty shaky ground here. Hitler declared war on the U.S. first. The Kaiser sank our ships and then there’s the Zimmerman telegram. North Korea and North Vietnam attacked allies of ours. We didn’t defend Europe from communism out of the goodness of our hearts.
The territorial US hasn’t been threatened since maybe the War of 1812. But Imperial Russia was worse than the Kaiser’s Germany, and between Stalin and Hitler it’s a tossup. South Korea and South Vietnam were not democracies by an stretch (though they were far better than the alternative).
My point is America has usually entered wars to protect our national security and national interests, which is as it should be. If you want to find true examples of the US intervening to promote democracy and human rights, you have to generally look at Latin America, despite what Noam Chomsky and other idiots say.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The point of the thread is: a DISCONNECT is being established between our military and our populace.
[/quote]
No, the point of your thread was that there is a disconnect between the Democratic Party and the American military. Most of our countrymen don’t even vote.
I agree that the majority of the military probably wants to finish the job in Iraq, even though that probably isn’t possible. But there are plenty in the military, especially senior officers, who think we need to get out of Iraq in short order, for our own security and due to recruiting and retention issues. Read statements by Generals Schoomaker, Abizaid, and Casey sometime.
One of the main problems, and cause of the huge disconnect, is the media portrayal of every single American fatality as a massive military failure, and clear evidence that we are loosing.
Does America really believe you can have war without casualties? News flash: people die in war. It’s a sad reality. It goes back to my theroy that liberals have nothing worth fighting for.
I believe this war has been overwhelmingly successful. Yes, there are still pockets of resistance in Iraq, but looking at the big picture 3000 KIA is pretty bloodless for a war of this length. We lost 10,000 on the beaches of Normany in a matter of days. What would libs say about that? They’d call it the biggest military blunder in history. 6,000 dead Marines on Iwo Jima in 30 days. How many American aircrew lost their lives fire-bombing the holy-hell out of Germany and Japan? Thousands. Not to mention that more Japanese civilians died from American fire-bobming than from the A-bombs.
From a cold, hard strategic point of view, we are winning.
War is ugly. Fortunately we have people who voluntarily go to fight. Let them do their job. Quit the personal attack on the President. It doesn’t help.
The time to buy car insurance is not after the wreck.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
When the values of the Soldiers and Marines begin to vary markedly from those of the people they’re protecting, when the fighting men and women begin to perceive that their blood and sacrifice is unappreciated and/or used for a political agenda, then WE’VE GOT A PROBLEM!
How long will America’s Finest continue to protect us if they are spat upon, ridiculed, and humiliated when they come home? Those who do such things dishonor themselves and their country. They attack their protectors!? That is clinically insane.[/quote]
This is an excellent point! Many of the American public, including myself, never felt that this war is protecting or defending American freedom or liberty.
Twenty Terrorists attacking two cities and killing a handful of people, while tragic, does not threaten American values or independence. We may be less safe than we were 100 years ago but that is the reality of living in the modern world. America in no way, shape, or form is ever going to fall because a few people “hate” us.
We need to get over ourselves and realize we aren’t as special as we make ourselves out to be.
[quote]PGJ wrote:
Does America really believe you can have war without casualties? News flash: people die in war. It’s a sad reality. It goes back to my theroy that liberals have nothing worth fighting for.
[/quote]
You live in a much larger and opinionated world than existed 250 years ago. Now becasue of instant information you get to be informed about people’s opinions more readily. Do not be surprised by this fact.
Liberals do think there are things worth fighting for just not all of the same things that conservatives value so dearly. This war doesn’t protect American interests becasue American interests were never at stake–unless maybe it was about the oil.
If ever American independence were threatened conservatives and liberals would no longer exist.