I have found that if someone does not want war, they are called a Democrat which I am not - if someone does ot like the President, we do not support our military - which I do - my son and husband - my law professor told me years ago that everything is a perception - except if you are pregnant or not - about everything else can be argued - When we take away freedom of speech we take away what our military have been fighting for since the first arrival of the Pilgrims --
How Come
- Thread starter Cheerios
- Start date
Frank
Chairman of the Board
What have you been smokin'? I've heard a FEW, and some of them make sense to me - if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops - and that makes perfect sense. You can't tell someone you support them in their job, but you're against the work they're doing. If you think someone is doing something you think is WRONG, it's doublethink of the worst kind to claim "support" for them.
If someone is against the war, odds ARE they are liberal. The same goes for whether you like the President. If you equate him with Hitler or Stalin, chances aren't great that you're a Republican.
I'm weary of liberals - or people on this subject, wherever their stance is - whining about their freedom of speech. I don't know of cases where "freedom of speech" has been curtailed. I DO know that if you speak your mind on a touchy subject, you should be prepared to get your butt flamed. That IS what free speech is - someone disagreeing with you, whether yours is the popular opinion, or the dissenting one.
SmallTown
Football season!
It all comes in cycles. I was called a tight-a$$ conservative when I was blasting clinton for his "decision making" while in office, and now I get labeled a "stupid liberal" for not bowing down to Bush. Both sides don't like it if you're not a robot and agree with them on every single issue. This is why I gave up political parties years ago.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
First, Frank you're dead on as always.
Second, Smalltown - You are a Liberal. Bill Clinton spent eight years proving the adage "If you can't say somthing nice about someone, you're probably talking about Bill Clinton." Many of his actions were indefensible and plenty of Dems/Libs could find something to complaign about.
The issue with Bush is that Libs/Dems are attacking him for things that they are traditionally for. The Dems/Libs are the ones who rant about the environment, equal rights/affirmative action, religious freedoms, women power, excessive government power, corrupt police, torture, spying, robbing the poor to pay the rich, stealing from the poor, corrupt government officials, and on and on. If there was ever a regime that is 100% against everything the Libs/Dems stands for, from rape to destroying the environment, it was that of Saddam Hussein. Yet here are Libs and Dems coming out by the thousands to keep us from taking the guy down. That clearly shows that the Libs/Dems weren't pro-Hussein or anti-war, they're just Anti-Bush.
I guess the final litmus test would be to ask yourselves what would have happened if Bush had said "I really like Saddam and I'm going to do everything in my power to keep him propped up." Do you suppose the Dems/Libs might be up in arms over that and calling for Bush and Hussein's heads?
Lastly, Cheerios, thanks for sharing with us what is bothering you and now I would like say what bothers me. I'm getting real tired of people who think that being an American is a cafeteria plan. "Ok... I'll take three troops to support, hold the foreign deployment. And a plate of those american flags, but not the ones that make me look like I support George Bush... yeah, those ones on the Left. That's it. And how about a big cup of Letting-Me-Feel-Good-About-How-Well-Our-Military-Is-Doing, but I want the diet version that let's me still oppose war in general. Thanks!"
I don't see how you can really seperate the president, the United States, and the military into seperate camps. The Prez is the leader of the country and is the one setting policy, objectives, and giving the rudder orders to the DoD, State Department, etc. In short, the Prez is the United States and the military while he's in office. So you can't really say that you oppose the policies and objectives of the President, i.e., the United States, yet still support the United States! You can't say "Go Navy" and "No Bush" at the same time, especially if you're against Bush because of Iraq. That's why even Clinton's enemies rallied behind him when the troops were headed off to action because once the troops start moving it's no longer about George Bush or Bill Clinton anymore, it's about the United States.
The United States is not Burger King and special orders do upset us.
You may certainly feel free to object to anything that the President/USA/military are doing, that's your right. But don't try to console yourself for taking that stand by waving the flag for our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen, which you must admit goes right in the same category as helping kids and stray kittens. You would feel really bad if you didn't and you don't want to hear that you're a bad person.
Second, Smalltown - You are a Liberal. Bill Clinton spent eight years proving the adage "If you can't say somthing nice about someone, you're probably talking about Bill Clinton." Many of his actions were indefensible and plenty of Dems/Libs could find something to complaign about.
The issue with Bush is that Libs/Dems are attacking him for things that they are traditionally for. The Dems/Libs are the ones who rant about the environment, equal rights/affirmative action, religious freedoms, women power, excessive government power, corrupt police, torture, spying, robbing the poor to pay the rich, stealing from the poor, corrupt government officials, and on and on. If there was ever a regime that is 100% against everything the Libs/Dems stands for, from rape to destroying the environment, it was that of Saddam Hussein. Yet here are Libs and Dems coming out by the thousands to keep us from taking the guy down. That clearly shows that the Libs/Dems weren't pro-Hussein or anti-war, they're just Anti-Bush.
I guess the final litmus test would be to ask yourselves what would have happened if Bush had said "I really like Saddam and I'm going to do everything in my power to keep him propped up." Do you suppose the Dems/Libs might be up in arms over that and calling for Bush and Hussein's heads?
Lastly, Cheerios, thanks for sharing with us what is bothering you and now I would like say what bothers me. I'm getting real tired of people who think that being an American is a cafeteria plan. "Ok... I'll take three troops to support, hold the foreign deployment. And a plate of those american flags, but not the ones that make me look like I support George Bush... yeah, those ones on the Left. That's it. And how about a big cup of Letting-Me-Feel-Good-About-How-Well-Our-Military-Is-Doing, but I want the diet version that let's me still oppose war in general. Thanks!"
I don't see how you can really seperate the president, the United States, and the military into seperate camps. The Prez is the leader of the country and is the one setting policy, objectives, and giving the rudder orders to the DoD, State Department, etc. In short, the Prez is the United States and the military while he's in office. So you can't really say that you oppose the policies and objectives of the President, i.e., the United States, yet still support the United States! You can't say "Go Navy" and "No Bush" at the same time, especially if you're against Bush because of Iraq. That's why even Clinton's enemies rallied behind him when the troops were headed off to action because once the troops start moving it's no longer about George Bush or Bill Clinton anymore, it's about the United States.
The United States is not Burger King and special orders do upset us.
You may certainly feel free to object to anything that the President/USA/military are doing, that's your right. But don't try to console yourself for taking that stand by waving the flag for our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen, which you must admit goes right in the same category as helping kids and stray kittens. You would feel really bad if you didn't and you don't want to hear that you're a bad person.
SmallTown
Football season!
First off, the notion that i'm a liberal is pretty funny. We actually had a discussion about this a few weeks ago, might want to look it up.
as for your other remarks, I had to pull myself off the floor from where I was laughing so much.
It is the typical scare tactic, lumping everything into one and saying if you don't support one piece, you are blasting it as a whole. Luckily a big portion of our current system is based on the notion of checks and balances, where as each piece does work independently to reach a supposed common goal.
My feelings towards Bush has ZERO reflection of how I feel about the military. Honestly, the Jury is still out on Bush. Handling of Afghanistan, though great intentions, hasn't been the big bang we had hoped. But it was a great start and we did target people actually involved in 9/11. the war in Iraq gets both a good and a bad mark. Bad for the way we handled the entire situation, and good for the swiftness of the action itself. Again, jury is still out since there isn't even the start of a new government there yet. And then there is the economy, where Bush has claimed he will now focus more of his attention. So the jury is still out on that as well, and has a little bit of time to assess the situation and see what is best for the country.
That is the most ignorant response I have seen in quite awhile. So you are honestly saying that all the hits clinton was taking while in office means all of those republicans are not supporting the US? I don't believe that for one second.
Can't say "Go Navy! and No Bush!"??? And this didn't happen during the Clinton years?
And if they are all connected, you just called the entire US civilian population and military units people who commit adultury, lie under oath, and basically a useless creature who can't keep their johnson behind closed doors.
Oh wait, I'm sure this little grouping only works with a republican in office, right? doing things you support?
as for your other remarks, I had to pull myself off the floor from where I was laughing so much.
It is the typical scare tactic, lumping everything into one and saying if you don't support one piece, you are blasting it as a whole. Luckily a big portion of our current system is based on the notion of checks and balances, where as each piece does work independently to reach a supposed common goal.
My feelings towards Bush has ZERO reflection of how I feel about the military. Honestly, the Jury is still out on Bush. Handling of Afghanistan, though great intentions, hasn't been the big bang we had hoped. But it was a great start and we did target people actually involved in 9/11. the war in Iraq gets both a good and a bad mark. Bad for the way we handled the entire situation, and good for the swiftness of the action itself. Again, jury is still out since there isn't even the start of a new government there yet. And then there is the economy, where Bush has claimed he will now focus more of his attention. So the jury is still out on that as well, and has a little bit of time to assess the situation and see what is best for the country.
That is the most ignorant response I have seen in quite awhile. So you are honestly saying that all the hits clinton was taking while in office means all of those republicans are not supporting the US? I don't believe that for one second.
Can't say "Go Navy! and No Bush!"??? And this didn't happen during the Clinton years?
And if they are all connected, you just called the entire US civilian population and military units people who commit adultury, lie under oath, and basically a useless creature who can't keep their johnson behind closed doors.
Oh wait, I'm sure this little grouping only works with a republican in office, right? doing things you support?
jlabsher
Sorry about that chief.
Originally posted by Bruzilla
Lastly, Cheerios, thanks for sharing with us what is bothering you and now I would like say what bothers me. I'm getting real tired of people who think that being an American is a cafeteria plan. "Ok... I'll take three troops to support, hold the foreign deployment. And a plate of those american flags, but not the ones that make me look like I support George Bush... yeah, those ones on the Left. That's it. And how about a big cup of Letting-Me-Feel-Good-About-How-Well-Our-Military-Is-Doing, but I want the diet version that let's me still oppose war in general. Thanks!"
I don't see how you can really seperate the president, the United States, and the military into seperate camps. The Prez is the leader of the country and is the one setting policy, objectives, and giving the rudder orders to the DoD, State Department, etc. In short, the Prez is the United States and the military while he's in office. So you can't really say that you oppose the policies and objectives of the President, i.e., the United States, yet still support the United States! You can't say "Go Navy" and "No Bush" at the same time, especially if you're against Bush because of Iraq. That's why even Clinton's enemies rallied behind him when the troops were headed off to action because once the troops start moving it's no longer about George Bush or Bill Clinton anymore, it's about the United States.
The United States is not Burger King and special orders do upset us.
So, what you are saying is you love EVERYTHING about Bush and that if you don't love EVERYTHING you should catch a boat out? You love his tax cut plan, his defense plan, his "compassionate conservatism", his oil drilling plan, his anti-abortion stance, ad nauseum.
If you are married, you must love EVERYTHING about your spouse and NEVER get pi$$ed at them or it is time for a divorce.
You must agree with EVERYTHING about your job, your cable news station, etc.
Sorry, life isn't that simple big fella. I can biotch about him cause I participated in the election process and am a citizen and pay his salary as a taxpayer. This isn't a totalitarian dictatorship (yet) and us citizens do have the right of dissent, even when it doesn't disagree with the political rightwing.
SmallTown
Football season!
Stupidy has a very short memory as well. I can recall right wingers being pretty upset with bush for taking so long with the iraq situation, and for messing with the UN as long as he did. But that dissent was somehow different.
And if we go along with the whole "everything is connected" theme, many on the right have expressed their concerns over John Ashcroft and his 'new rules' regarding the war on terror. So anyone who questions him is saying "I hate Bush", and thus "I hate America" since Bush did nominated the guy for the position.
You might want to watch how you lump everything into one. You might not like the results.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
You'll have to excuse me, but where did I write that if you oppose Bush/United States policy you should leave the country? I never made such a claim and I disagree with anyone who has that "America - Love it or leave it attitude." I did mention that you have the freedom to voice opposition to the President/American policy, and you also have the right (although I didn't mention it) to oppose the policies of the President/United States and to work towards the changing of the same each and every four years.
The fact still remains that it is the President who ultimately determines what US domestic and foreign policy is, so you can't say that you do not support the President but you do do support United States policy... they are one and the same. If Americans support those policies the guy stays in office, if not (Carter and Bush Sr.) they're gone. You don't have to leave the country, you need to work to change the country to what you think is right, and if enough others agree with you then you get your way, and if not you lose.
Aside from a few Republican pin heads in Congress who was voicing opposition to Clinton's use of force? They questioned his timing and strategies (and rightly so on the later) but not his motivations or the need to do what he did. The same can't be said about the Liberals of today.
As for "you" determining whether we did well in Afghanistan, I hate to deflate your bubble but no one really cares if your jury is still out. The fact is that we, the US, won. That's was the utimate goal of the operation, not worrying about how we did it. You Libs can play monday-morning general all you want... have fun.
The crux of all of this is that it's just not socially acceptable to not support the troops, and that means also supporting war, Bush, and the Republicans. So you Libs try to find this cafeteria approach that will allow you to cheer and show support for Pvt. Smith to do well while opposing everything that he's doing, why he's doing it, and those who are telling him to do it, and I'm sorry but those cheers ring pretty hollow.
The fact still remains that it is the President who ultimately determines what US domestic and foreign policy is, so you can't say that you do not support the President but you do do support United States policy... they are one and the same. If Americans support those policies the guy stays in office, if not (Carter and Bush Sr.) they're gone. You don't have to leave the country, you need to work to change the country to what you think is right, and if enough others agree with you then you get your way, and if not you lose.
Aside from a few Republican pin heads in Congress who was voicing opposition to Clinton's use of force? They questioned his timing and strategies (and rightly so on the later) but not his motivations or the need to do what he did. The same can't be said about the Liberals of today.
As for "you" determining whether we did well in Afghanistan, I hate to deflate your bubble but no one really cares if your jury is still out. The fact is that we, the US, won. That's was the utimate goal of the operation, not worrying about how we did it. You Libs can play monday-morning general all you want... have fun.
The crux of all of this is that it's just not socially acceptable to not support the troops, and that means also supporting war, Bush, and the Republicans. So you Libs try to find this cafeteria approach that will allow you to cheer and show support for Pvt. Smith to do well while opposing everything that he's doing, why he's doing it, and those who are telling him to do it, and I'm sorry but those cheers ring pretty hollow.
SmallTown
Football season!
I agree. No one said that. Bringing stuff out of thin air again.
Many would disagree, including Bush himself. We toppled a government that couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag. I'm sorry, I have too much respect for our military to call that a win. Remember, this was a war on terror. We attacked because they aided terrorists, including Bin Laden. Eventhough Bush claimed we would bring him in dead or alive (then later changed his story to say he didn't really care if we got him). This is an on going process of rounding up the terrorists. So yes, until we get Bin Laden and the other terrorists hiding in afghanistan, we have not won.
Frank
Chairman of the Board
Riiiiight. That's why, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we were repeatedly told that *thousands*, even TENS of thousands of GI's would return in body bags, and that both conflicts would drag on for months and possibly years - we would have another 'Vietnam'. That commercial against the war with Martin Sheen and Janeane Garofalo said that the UN estimated the civilian deaths would surpass half a million. We we told that Afghanistan could not be taken - that empires have previously failed there, from Alexander to Russia. We were told that Iraq would fight fiercely, because evicting them from Kuwait was a whole 'nother story - people would NOT welcome the Americans, they preferred Saddam, there would be worldwide INCREASE in terrorism and bombings, that the oil fields would be burning everywhere. They were STILL saying this a week before we went into Baghdad.
As you said - stupidity DOES have a short memory. Everyone has forgotten all of these dire predictions of doom and gloom. Now, it's all about how we have failed in restoring order to a nation we defeated in war a mere few weeks ago. Even our OWN country took years - why on earth does anyone think we can establish order and form a government in a couple of weeks?
As for bin Laden - you do remember, no one was saying that Afghanistan and the war on terror was about getting bin Laden, and only getting him. And it was more than just al-Quaeda. I think that it would be great to capture him, but if you wipe out his network and neutralize his efforts, erase his source of support and assure he can't come back - it doesn't matter then, does it? Dead OR alive, he's as harmless as anyone else.
Re: Re: How Come
Is does make perfect sense. In our country it is the civilians that decide when we go to war, not the military. Just because someone disagrees with that civilian decision and thinks the war is unnecessary doesn't mean they want their friends, relatives, and countryman to get killed half way around the world. Supporting your troops means you hope they will be all right and come home, not that you are cheering for every kill they make.
Liberal is an very overused term by people like you. If you think I'm a liberal because my view of the war, then anyone who supports gun ownership, low taxes, and minimal government interference in private lives must be liberals as well. I guess that means were all liberals since pretty much everyone on this board has agreed with one of my viewpoints at one time or another.
See above and welcome to the club fellow liberal.
As long as you remember this when its your turn.
Is does make perfect sense. In our country it is the civilians that decide when we go to war, not the military. Just because someone disagrees with that civilian decision and thinks the war is unnecessary doesn't mean they want their friends, relatives, and countryman to get killed half way around the world. Supporting your troops means you hope they will be all right and come home, not that you are cheering for every kill they make.
Liberal is an very overused term by people like you. If you think I'm a liberal because my view of the war, then anyone who supports gun ownership, low taxes, and minimal government interference in private lives must be liberals as well. I guess that means were all liberals since pretty much everyone on this board has agreed with one of my viewpoints at one time or another.
See above and welcome to the club fellow liberal.
As long as you remember this when its your turn.
Bru, you are right. As a liberal, I supported the war because I saw the invasion as a way to remove a person contrary to the ideas of freedom. The arguments that Bush made were the ones of a liberal and well I was surprised that he was saying them and not my party or people of my ideology (after all Bush said in the 2000 Election that he wasn't for nation-building which is exactly what he is doing here) . If the libs here were true to their ideology, they would have supported the war. Yes, it was all about being anti-Bush. God I have no clue what these people are thinking. Libs are of the position that if we aren't for the freedom of speech there (i.e., Iraq) then we aren't for it here. We should have supported this war with much more valor than we did.
H
Heretic
Guest
I don't think Bush could have fathomed what would happen less than a year into his Presidency, alot of people thought of Iraq as a threat to our security and they probably were.
Okay, first of all, Bru, this got the laugh of the day out of me:
Second, Dems, I agree with you 100% - the Iraq War should have been a liberal's dream. But they couldn't get past their hatred of Bush in order to appreciate it.
On to Frank: One day you're going to say something I disagree with. Probably not today or tomorrow, but some day.
ST, I wonder about you sometimes:
Second, Dems, I agree with you 100% - the Iraq War should have been a liberal's dream. But they couldn't get past their hatred of Bush in order to appreciate it.
On to Frank: One day you're going to say something I disagree with. Probably not today or tomorrow, but some day.
ST, I wonder about you sometimes:
So are you saying that because you haven't personally seen anything go on, that must mean nothing IS going on? No headway has been made? No terrorists have been captured? Maybe if you'd switch the channel from CNN once in awhile, you'd see that in fact, great progress has been made in Afghanistan.
SmallTown
Football season!
And Vrai, sometimes I wonder about you. I clearly stated this is still an on going process.
As far as rebuilding, it was nice to see how much Bush put in the budget for this. It was about, oh, ZERO. Luckily congress saw this and added a few hundred million.
Last edited:
A
Avatar
Guest
...
Was it ever a question of if we would win? That was never the issue (in my mind). What did it solve? Bin Laden found? We ransacked a nation that harbored a terrorist. Fine. Now what? Oh did you hear the latest news about the humanitarian aid going to Afghanistan?....Me neither. I think it stopped when the camera crews left.
I guess my point is that this administration has such hallowed morals and a sense of doing the right thing at the start, but when the smoke clears theres just rubble left (of course in Afghanistan that's not a big change). And now people are being blown up in Riyhad. ...If we find that there are Al qeda cels in Saudi Arabia are we gonna go topple the King?...Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Well...ya see...the thing about that is that's a tricky subject.....Yea, it is a tricky subject...Make me understand.
