Supporting Our Troops

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 20 2007, 09:52 AM) [snapback]393294[/snapback]</div>

Wth? I say "lets fund the VA adequately, give the troops the same level of health care that everyone else can expect" and you say i don't support them? You've lost it, man.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mehrenst @ Feb 19 2007, 11:50 PM) [snapback]393171[/snapback]</div>

To plagiarize a responsible journalist...
SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED SLOW-BLEED.

And, oh yeah...SLOW-BLEED.

Just like every other talking point and Big Lie the White House and RNC try to shoot out there as Democratic policy, after you hear it long enough, you realize it means nothing...except that the Republics are out of bullets.

MJ...Not quite, we can still lower expectations even further and fire more gays.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Feb 20 2007, 11:04 AM) [snapback]393300[/snapback]</div>

You do not support the troops in Iraq currently - that is the truth.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Feb 20 2007, 12:10 PM) [snapback]393329[/snapback]</div>

Nobody needs to smear Jihad Jack Murtha - he is doing a good enough job himself. Redeploy to Okinawa - JEEEEZ.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 20 2007, 02:23 PM) [snapback]393375[/snapback]</div>

You must remember Eagle, in Republicanland "supporting" the troops consists of:
1. Sending them into a civil war
2. Giving them inadequate armor
3. Not going to their funerals
4. Not providing adequate healthcare when them come back minus a limb.
5. Not providing enough troops to get the job done.
6. Not providing a clear end of mission.
7. Firing key generals who disagree.

:huh:

*EDIT: Thanks Mark. "Every general" was inaccurate, changed to "key generals."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Feb 20 2007, 01:42 PM) [snapback]393386[/snapback]</div>

In Liberal Democratic Land you support the troops by:
1. voting that you do not support their mission
2. you threaten to take away the money needed to fight the war
3. tell them they are stuck in Iraq if they dont go to college
4. Protest at the funeral of soldiers killed in action
5. spit on soldiers returning from war
6. call them baby killers
7. accuse them of behaving like Nazi's
8. support giving Constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield
9. want to redeploy them to Okinawa

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 20 2007, 07:30 AM) [snapback]393281[/snapback]</div>

I support them by calling for them to be brought back home.

Let's see, if you were a soldier which would you prefer: To go on fighting a losing war with too few people and inadequate equipment in a country that doesn't want you there, or to be at home with your loved ones, going to a 9-to-5 job and coming home to a hot supper and a warm bed at night?

So who's supporting the troops: The folks who want them to stay there, or the folks who want them to come home?

I support the troops who are in harms way today by calling for them to be brought back home, out of harm's way.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Feb 20 2007)</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 20 2007, 11:00 AM)</div>

This is just textbook. With a single sarcastic word: "support", MegansPrius accurately and succinctly catalogues major failures of the right's prosecution of the Iraq war, exposing the right's claim of "support" to be utterly and totally hollow. Every item is true, nothing is exaggerated, distorted or "spun" - every item is calm and matter-of-fact (with one exception: the phrase "every general" in item 7 is too broad and should be replaced by "key generals"). It's a small but brilliant representation of the left's point of view that anyone on the left would immediately endorse (even with a little pride at having such an artful spokesperson).

Then there's Dr. Berman's list. I believe anyone with a better than 4th grade reading skill would instantly recognize which list is the more hysterical (in all senses of that word). I'd be embarrassed, if my political bent were to the right, to have my side represented so obviously, so clumsily, so juvenilely falsely. Every item is disingenuous, an exaggeration, toppling over with vicious "spin." Take #4. The only protests at soldiers' funerals I'm aware of are being done by religious fanatic fundamentalist extremists on the right side of the political spectrum, not the left. #5, 6 and 7 are really only one item which, to the infinitesimal extent that it happens at all (#5 being exceedingly unlikely), is not endorsed by the left. #3 is a deliberate piece of mendacity, imputing an unintended meaning to a moment of awkward rhetoric. #1 and 2 are a single item, conflated to a false representation: the left opposes escalation, not "the mission" (it can't oppose "the mission" for the simple reason that no one on the planet knows what "the mission" is - as pointed out in MegansPrius item #6), and, opposing escalation, opposes funding IT, not taking away funding needed to maintain current battle capability. #8 substitutes "Constitutional rights" for "conformance to Geneva Conventions", another bit of disingenuity (although in our good Dr.'s case it might be sheer ignorance). Finally, casting redeployment to Okinawa (#9) as somehow unsupportive of troops is a fantastic non-sequitur, like saying that pouring beans out of a frying pan onto a plate increases the likelihood they'll burn. Throughout it all the tone is relentlessly puerile, like a 4th grader talking back.

The contrast between the the two lists, one accomplishing its purpose defly, the other attempting the same trick but falling flat on its face, was too much to resist commenting on.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Feb 20 2007, 03:31 PM) [snapback]393462[/snapback]</div>

Exactly. Mission Accomplished. Saddam dead. WMDs destroyed. Bring the troops home!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Feb 20 2007, 08:49 PM) [snapback]393731[/snapback]</div>

Thank you, Mark. An excellect analysis. Of course, the b-man could be no other than puerile and disingenuous: it is the essence of a troll to provoke, while remaining devoid of meaningful content.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 20 2007, 10:30 AM) [snapback]393281[/snapback]</div>

By bringing them home the fastest way possible. You can play this rhetoric game for the next 5-10 years with another 10,000 americans dead and 50 thousand injured or you can bring them home. If the only way to do that is to cut off funding, then cut off the funding. Your way only ensures more deaths of american soldiers. Cutting off funding ensures getting them home.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Feb 21 2007, 09:30 PM) [snapback]394318[/snapback]</div>

By your logic we should disband the entire US armed forces so you could "support" our troops the best way possible?

You guys still have not answered the basic question - one that seems to confuse even the smartest of democrats today - what happens to the region and the world if we take our troops home?

and...

Tell me BTW - how do you support your policemen and policewomen - do you keep them in the precinct house :lol: or do you let them go outside and do their job? I could ask the same thing about your local firefighters - when there is a blaze a burning do you let them go outside and play fireman - do you let them risk injury and death trying to do what they want to do, what they are trained to do, what they volunteer to do - save people - knowing that some of them will get hurt and some may even die performing their heroic acts of bravery? Or do YOU "support" your firefighters by keeping them locked up in the their firehouses?

thanks for the good laugh again this morning.

have a nice day.

 

As a soldier currently serving I will add my $.02...

The support we want is not telling us we are stupid for serving (coudn't get a real job). We know that we have a higher purpose and the civilians around us don't get it. The military is not populated by draftees, it is a profession that actually does something other than going to work from 9-5. We also wan't decent health care when we are injured on duty. The VA is ok but it could be better at taking care of recently wounded soldiers (lots of WWII vets at the VA). The third thing we want is a civilian population that won't take advantage of us when we get back (milking soldiers of their money is a sad fact of life).

On the other hand as an Engineer we have an old axiom 'What do you get when you add dirt to mud? More mud!"

Keith Jessup
MAJ, EN
Team Chief OC/T

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Essayons @ Feb 22 2007, 05:16 AM) [snapback]394446[/snapback]</div>

Milking people of their money is the foundation of capitalism. Soldiers are by no means alone in this respect.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Essayons @ Feb 22 2007, 08:16 AM) [snapback]394446[/snapback]</div>

Let me ask you a question - what do think of people who want to show their "support" of US troops in Iraq by withdrawing them from there and returning them home? Thank you.

And I honor your service to this great country - thank you

 

Berman, it's one thing to send your troops into a conflict where they are free to act as needed, where they can see victory down the road, and where they can see the reasons for being there. It's another thing to send them into a conflict telling them they can't shoot until they've triple checked their target is actually the one shooting at them, Where they can't see a path to victory, where the people they are trying to help don't really want them there, and where no one really knows the reasons for being there other than "the president lied to us".

I will fully support our troops and a war of the first type - Like WWI or WWII - troops were free to do what was needed, the people they were helping wanted them there, they saw the path to victory, and they knew why they were there. Other wars, like the one we're in today, don't meet any of those requirements. So while i support the troops and think they are doing a great job in a horrible situation, I do not support the war or the individuals leading the war.

Please understand that there is a big difference between supporting the troops and supporting a war. It seems that many people get these confused.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Feb 22 2007, 10:40 AM) [snapback]394498[/snapback]</div>

I understand and AGREE to some degree. I have heard that the rules of engagement for US troops is being liberalized - and it should be. the problem is that the press is hot to trot looking for any type of firefight incidents that would look bad for our boys. if the bad guys fight behind the skirts of women or from Mosques - then bad stuff will happen and SHOULD happen.

In terms of seeing victory - few wars have clear paths to victory - this one included. it does not mean not to try and find the light.

not to support the war or the troops CIC and support the troops is a feat best left for you because i think it is an impossiblity.

from my perspective, if ANY US President sends our troops into war, at that moment I will support the troops, the mission and the CIC - period.

 

Talk about having the blinders on... You just said you would support any war the president decides upon. What would you do if Bush comes on the TV tonight and says "Israel has WMD's, and they must be found and destroyed before they're used.", and tomorrow he sends in 50k troops to attack Israel. Would you still support him and the war?

As far as this war goes, i do not support it. Our objectives aren't clear, and those that we've been told, like "freeing Iraq" the people there don't seem to want. We were lied to in the beginning (WMDs? yeah right. Al Queda? Not before, but they sure are there now.) by the president. The president has mismanaged the war and won't get my support for the job he's done. He prevented the troops from taking the action they needed. In my opinion, he's the worst enemy our troops currently have.

I do support the troops, however. I have donated both time and money towards supporting them (gathering care packages, etc).

What it comes down to is this: I will support any initiative that will help our troops. That would include more money for better equipment and armor. But it does not include ineffectual "surges" or keeping them there longer than they should be. It does not include turning troops around on their way home for redeployment. It does not include keeping them in the middle of a civil war they can't possibly hope to win.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Feb 22 2007, 11:05 AM) [snapback]394523[/snapback]</div>

If the Congress authorized it, yes i would.

Unfortunately it would be a short war. Israel would inflict so many casualties on US forces that people like you and your ilk would suit for a redeployment or retreat in the first day or two of fighting. I would guess 5-10k dead/wounded Americans right off the bat if they ever got close to Israel's borders. Like Iraq, Israel would count on spineless, simple minded, anti-Americans and the media to come to "her" rescue. And she would not even have to resort to fighting behind women or children, shooting from synagogues, dressing in civilian clothing, etc. its too easy bro.

This country could not win a war if we wanted to today or tomorrow - not with you and yours here.

Next...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 22 2007, 02:25 PM) [snapback]394640[/snapback]</div>

We 'won' in Afghanistan, at least until the Bush administration abandoned the country...

As for Israel not 'fighting behind women or children'...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

There you have the shameless and utterly indefensible bombing of military and civilian personnel by Jewish settlers/guerrilla fighters.