Why I Support Our Troops

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 2, 2005 15:49
VIEWED: 13777
PAGE 3 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

G1223

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 7:23 AM

I support the troops and the war. I see nation building as something that is not wave of a hand poof New Iraq pops into existance. I see the attacks as now starting to turn on to the people and away from our troops. Eventually those people will simply find their attackers and likely just kill them.

I do not think Bush lied to us so much as failed to have up to date intellegence. But that comes from having his assets turned towards satellites rather than HumInt sources. That is a matter of budget and is not reversed with a snap of fin gers.

I am tired of see Bush attacked for his taking action. Iraq violated the terms of the ceasefire time and again. I see the UN as a organization unwilling to uphold it's own decrees.

I keep wondering if those who want us out of Iraq have any idea of how to actually end the threat to this country.

TANSTAAFL

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 7:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by G1223:
I keep wondering if those who want us out of Iraq have any idea of how to actually end the threat to this country.

TANSTAAFL

Just read any of the threads on the topic on this board, people are full of ideas!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

PIRATEJENNY

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This isn't a come-on.

If you've read my posts, over time you may have noticed that I dwell on the notion of personal responsibility for freedom and justice. It's an appropriate question, seeing as it's Firefly's central theme. Becasue of that, some people assume that I'm laying the responsibility on our armed services, blaming our troops for everything from illegal warfare to atrocities and barbarism. Nothing could be further from the truth. If there is one thing I know about the military, it's that even the generals have to follow orders from the President. The enlisted have no choice in where or how long they serve, what their objectives are, why they're fighting.

Nope, that responsibility belongs here: in the comfortable yet uneasy, ignorant US civilian population. The ones with the power of the vote. We sit on our asses and second-guess the troops. But then we vote for Bush, and throw them into a meat grinder for no reason. I think we need to ask ourselves: "When do I become Mom (or Dad) Tam, so comfortable... and so afraid... that I will rationalize any horror to isolate myself from MY PERSONAL responsibility?"

I choose to support our troops by opposing George Bush. He and his Cabinet have been humping for Mideast invasions for YEARS, and it's all because of oil. I respect our troops more, I feel more responsibility for them, than Bush does.

I was just talking about personal respossiblity in another thread. yep each and everyone of us is respossible for what is happening. while I don't believe that Bush was leagally elected to the office of President not the 1rst and certainly not the 2nd time is besides the point, because regardless of what he and his admistration has done wether its cheat his way into office or attack a country based on lies, we all let it happen, we didnot not stand up to the cheating we didnot demand that our public servants take respossiblity, we did not stand up against the attack on Iraq we did not demand that our public servants be accountable for their actiond ..so it should not come as any shock or surprise that they are not accountable, there for we are all respossible. even those of us who did not support this admistration are responssible.

As for the troops, while I don't exactly support them, I do pity them as much as I pity myself..because I feel we are all in the same position...and I know that sentiment is more then Bush and Co feel for the troops!!!

G1223

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Just read any of the threads on the topic on this board, people are full of ideas!

HKCavalier

Sorry most of the ideas have read as lets appease our attackers. That is not a peace i would ever feel comfortable with.

TANSTAAFL

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:16 AM

Opus, as I understand your argument, we are fighting a "war on terror" with its roots in the Islamic religion. Assuming for the sake of argument that we can actually win the war on terror by killing all terrorists and their supporters (all Muslims?) I'm stumbling over one key point that you really never explained- How is it that we wound up invading the one country that had nothing to do with funadmental Islamist terrorism ie.- Iraq??? If Saddam did anything, he clamped down viciously on Islamic fundamentalism. If his departure did anything, it opened the floodgates of fuandmentalist preachers from Iran.

You can point to insurgents and foreign fighters in Iraq, but they are very much after the fact and so they obviously can't be used to justify the invasion in the first place. So, please explain clearly how Iraq and Saddam became our target in the war on terror.

OPUS

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 12:51 PM

All terrorism isn't done by fanatical muslims. The reasons for going into Iraq range from WMD, to not abiding by UN agreements made at the ceasefire of Gulf war 1, to constantly attacking US planes, the list goes on, if memory serves this early in the morning, 26 reasons were given to congress for going to war. I also beleive it was done as part of a larger strategy.
However, Sadam was harboring terrorists and giving aid to suicide bombers.

OPUS

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 1:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:

See, there you go with that 'they.' Who are 'they?' everyone in the Mid East? Every Muslim? Brown people? Who are 'they?' I want to know who 'they' are before I agree to let my country bomb people. I knew who 'they' were after 9/11; we had a list of names and a regime that supported them. Iraq has no connection to 9/11, even the Pres has said so. And I morally reject warfare on the grounds of regime change, that's the people of that country's job, not ours.

By that definition you have to object to the US having gone into Afghanistan, the Taliban wasn't responsible for 9/11.
And what about Slobodon Milosovich? Are you condeming the actions done with him? Where was the danger to the US then? Why do we still have troops in Bosnia to this day?
The regime change idea, with Sadam, was being called for by dems as far back as 98, whose opinions suddenly changed when they fell out of power.
As for who 'them' are, people who attack the US, regardless of race, religion or any other designation.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 2:12 PM

Quote:
All terrorism isn't done by fanatical muslims. The reasons for going into Iraq range from WMD, to not abiding by UN agreements made at the ceasefire of Gulf war 1, to constantly attacking US planes, the list goes on, if memory serves this early in the morning, 26 reasons were given to congress for going to war. I also beleive it was done as part of a larger strategy. However, Sadam was harboring terrorists and giving aid to suicide bombers.

Which brings me to another couple of questions: Apparently your definition of terrorism isn't limited to stateless fanatics. It seems to include by definition "the state" as a terrorist actor, and automatically places WMD or potential WMD into the category of terrorist weapons. Am I correct?

As for your second point- Which terrorists was Saddam harboring? The ones responsible for attacks on US interests eg. our African embassies, the Cole, and 9-11?

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 4:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
As I see it, the GWOT represents a conflict between societies with different basic premises.

Have you ever spoken to an Iranian? Read a single book by an Iranian? Do you know anything about the actual people you're talking about? Many, many Iranians love what America stands for. They argue about the Bill of Rights as if it was their own. All this stuff about "societies with different basic premises" is the result of propaganda which Americans have swallowed out of raw fear and, I think, an underlying conviction that what goes around comes around. Yes, I think we Americans are all aware that we've done some very bad, out of character things on the world stage and like good people throughout history deep down we expect to pay. But it doesn't have to be this way.

We can learn from our faults, take responsibility and make amends. We can start respecting difference instead of suspecting it. Respecting divergent world views instead of condescending to them. Not too very long ago, very decent, morally upstanding Americans owned slaves, our own parents participated in Japanese internment and we dropped the bomb. Were we evil when we did these things? Of course not. We were scared and we didn't know any better.

But now we do. Or should. Our society is not at stake here, AJ. Our society will endure. Have a little faith and cut down on the caffeine--it's making you jumpy.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 4:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
which side are you on?

I'm on the side of freedom and justice (these used to be known as 'American' values). The GWOT is a ruse designed to inspire the easily frightened into supporting perpetual warfare.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE