Posted on 06/14/2004 8:49:31 AM PDT by oompa-loompa
This weekend I was at a friends party and found myself in a calm debate over the war and PResident Bush. I was speaking with a person who called herself "a screaming left-wing moderate" (as if). She was talking about having been to anti-war demonstrations in Washington DC. I told her that I thought debate and opposition was fine and patriotic up until the first shot is fired but once the war is on- debate is ineffective and can only serve to weaken morale and strengthen the resolve of the enemy.
She went on to ask me a very odd question and as prepared as I was to handle "WMD, no al Queada connection and war for oil" arguments- I must admit I had to stammer when she asked me this-"If Kerry wins in November, and we are still at war in the middle east, will conservatives keep quiet and blindly support him unitl the troops come home?" She smuggly added, "...The way you are asking the left to support Bush just because we are at war." I have to admit it is the first time I have had to think about the possiblity.
My question- "If Kerry wins and we are still at war, are we obliged to give him quiet support until our troops are out of danger?"
I strongly disagree. No conservative worth his salt would state things that would make it harder on our troops to complete their mission.
To answer the question, yes I would support John Kerry if he were to be in the unlikely position to be continuing this war. If he handed the whole authority off to the UN, I would not be happy but I would still act like an American.
We "won" every battle in Vietnam, yet "lost" two years after we departed So. East asia precicely because of political dissent. That caused great harm to the presitege of the United States, and dramatically reduced our ability to influence world events via diplomacy.
Eisenhower once privatly berated Kennedy about the aborted Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Eisenhower's point was that the US should NEVER militarily get involved anywhere unless we are prepared for victory. Anything else does us damage.
So the answer is, yes. If Kerry is elected and gets involved in any armed conflict, any patriotic American should support him 100%.
Just as Charles Lingergh, after having fought hard to prevent US entry into WWII, immediatly gave his full support to FDR once hostilities began, and even voluntarily went into battle as a civilian.
Absolutely -- that's a no-brainer. It would be the height of hypocrisy to withdraw support to whoever is commander-in-chief until the enemy is defeated and knows he's been defeated.
All that IF the voter fraud goes as expected in 2004..
OK, besides, I doubt we have much to worry about anyway.
We have to go along with the policy of the country. At the moment we are at war. If Kerry withdraws from the war, which I don't see how he can, then we will support that. It would be annoying if there is another attack a year into Kerry's admin and we have to do all this again.
Most conservatives (at least around these parts) don't "blindly" support every one of the administration's decisions in Iraq. We both praise and criticize as the situation warrants.
The same would hold true if Kerry became the Prez.
Good question. Unfortunately, it's difficult to call up the posting history for a banned or suspended account.
So, I'm left to wonder if it's better to be a Bushbot during the first few months of one's FReeperdom. ;O)
The minute we heard an Al Sadar parroting our words, we'd have enough brains to shut up. That little lesson seems lost on the left. The same with Abu Graib.
I support the troops no matter who the president is even if I don't agree with the war. Once they are in battle all politics are thrown aside. You should have hit it out of the park with that lame question, why were you stunned ?
Input is one word, not two.
Your kind of new to post vanities like this.
Your= you're
And after reading down a few more posts, I see my instincts were correct and you're probably a troll testing what Real FReepers would say.
Of course!
Support for the troops is support for the troops.
The good news is, if Kerry is president, after 2 weeks that will be a moot point.
Now, if Kerry decides to invade Poland because it doesn't support gay rights, that is an entirely different issue...
Yes.
Absolutely. I don't have a problem with rationale discourse, review of policy issues and questioning the direction of the war effort. To me, that's a lot different than orchestrating protest marches and making baseless claims about oil, Halliburton, etc.
"I would have turned the question back on the 'moderate'. If Kerry were elected and you learned of continued Iraqi prison abuses and random military deaths, would you honestly demand Kerry's impeachment or at least the resignation of his Secretary of State?"
(apologize in advance if someone else has already made these points. I haven't read the replies yet.)
ZOT!
I smell the blood of a....
LIBERAL PLANT!!! (member since 6/9/04)
First of all, it's a straw dog argument to say that "our side" is demanding blind support of the current president. We're not. We are asking their side to at least recognize that there are people in the world who want to kill us, and that such people will not be impressed by a UN mandate nor will they be deterred by a subpoena. I know that's a hard concept, like trying to get a frog in a pot of water to recognize when the heat's been turned on, but in theory human beings are a little more observant than frogs. At least they should try to be.
I will rephrase the question to make it valid.
"If Kerry wins in November, and we are still at war in the middle east, will conservatives keep quiet and... support him unitl the troops come home?"
This of course depends upon whether we are still "at war." Withdrawal or handover to the UN does not constitute trying to win a war, it constitutes an effort to lose. If Kerry stays in the fight to win, then there is reason to support his war effort. If he decides to run away, or worse, to lose by handing authority over to the UN or the courts, then there is no war effort to support.
Your friend is trying to establish moral equivalency between a winner and a loser, between one who fights and one who doesn't even recognize that there is a fight. It's apples and oranges.
Supporting a man who is seeking anything but victory in a war that is already ongoing is to support a man in weakening the US. Debate about entering a war all you please- this is the time when it is the patriotic thing to do regardless of whether you are prowar or antiwar; it is important to challenge assumtions and emotions at this time to ensure we know what we are getting into. But once the conflict has been joined, it must be won or the US will be severely damaged and a lot of people will die for nothing, not just our people but those who have allied themselves with us and those we sought to help, who will be massacred if they cannot prevail alone. US credibilty will be destroyed and all enemies will become more confident, and so, more aggressive.
You should have asked her why she believes Kerry will endeavor to fight and win the war, given that his past history is one of trying to get the US to run away from one in Vietnam, a retreat which was in terms of human life and liberty more costly than the war itself. And if she doesn't believe Kerry will fight to win it, ask her why she would support him in losing it. She has to prove to you that Kerry wants to win, in order to prove he is worthy of wartime support.
Those people who defended President Bush by claiming that dissent is demoralizing are obligated to do the same under any other president. Those that have raised questions, presumably, would not be so obligated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.