I would have asked her a return question. Would she still be protesting the war?
Now the left argues that they are supporting our troops by fighting to get them home. Well, I have three responses to that. First, I don't believe that claim: they aren't doing it for the troops, they're doing it for other reasons; A.N.S.W.E.R. doesn't give a damn about our troops and they know it. Secondly, the best way to speed up the return of our troops is to help them win faster. And thirdly, refer to my previous paragraph.
So if we find Kerry overruling the requests of his generals for more troops or equipment, I think we can damn well shout from the rooftops without being accused of not supporting our troops. But if it is clear that Kerry is doing his best to insure that our boys succeed in prosecuting the conflict itself---because, as he has said, we're already there, so we need to finish the job---then yes I think we need to keep our mouths shut about it.
Her premise is wrong.
What makes her characterize that anyone is 'blindly' supporting anyone. Does she think those who support the war are 'blind?' And that those who oppose can see? Why? For what reasons?
Does she normally think people who agree with her can see, while those that disagree are ncessarily blind? And why?
Ask better questions to her to pick at the implicit assumptions in her position.
In any case, disagreeing with a war is one thing, but the hysterics, deceit, and . A good example would be the way the Republican party acted during Clinton's military endeavors. While criticism was there, it was usually civil, and there were nowhere near the amount of remarks from mainstream Republican leadership resembling the shrill and demeaning remarks of Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, etc.
So the answer is that nobody is asking anybody to be blind. There is an expectation of civility, lack of hysterics, and decorum that our side (largely) adheres to. Then ask her what about Democrats makes this style less appealing or less possible? After all, democrats raise the level of rhetoric in this time much higher than Republicans ever did (and to be sure, some republicans were shrill, but the party leadership never called Clinton 'stupid' or was demeaning in other ways.
Disagreement is legit, of course. What makes a large number democrats so shrill and alienating, when the large number of Republicans tastefully avoid incendiary rhetoric?
Looks as if you got your "in put" all right.
IMHO, it's largely a matter of degree. Blocking city streets, disrupting opponents' meetings, Kennedy's lies and harangues, endless investigations for political purposes, to name a few leftwing antics, are out of bounds. Reasoned debate based on facts is generally welcomed and, in the end, helpful. For instance, the complaint about many soldiers not having body armor was utterly appropriate. It was also handled in what was, overall, an even handed calm manner. Examine your own reactions to what you consider legitimate and well presented complaints from the left and how you've reacted to the more reasoned and factual criticisms. At least to me, it's the shrill histrionics, name calling and lies that are inappropriate and gives support to the terrorists. P.S. Her use of the word, "blindly", in the question about following Kerry made it a bit of a trick question.
Bush has been bashed on this forum as well as supported.
Iraq's timing and issues are debated here as heatedly as elsewhere. But here, leftist media lies don't color the debate.
The "up until the first shot is fired" is a lousy standard. Conservatives haven't called for such a thing.
The Dixie Chicks got in trouble for their comments because they were made to a foreign audience and made for blatant self-interest. There are conservatives that question the various aspects of war policy at home and stand united when discussing it abroad.
Likewise, it is possible to support the military, and its legally adopted mission while holding personal views, carefully and factually expressed, with full approval of all thinking citizens.
The left hasn't made their critique in that manner.
Instead they lie (bin Laden family plane didn't exit as Moore shows in his movie), make up motives and interpretations (Clark alleged Rice didn't know who al Qeada was despite her speech a year earlier about them) and falsely attribute motives (Bush making war for oil money when it was really the French and UN functionaries that were after oil money in their actions).
There is no conundrum here. If Kerry tries to put the US Military under UN or international control, as he desired decades ago in quotations well known, I will bash him, as I would Bush, if the same thing was done by Bush.
You are not very good at this.
You answer this question with the question:
"Will you support Kerry if he follows this course?"
When she answers "of course I will" you then ask
"So why aren't you supporting Bush? You just said you would support the same course of action if it is Kerry doing it."
The left is not interested in reasoning. Counter punch, my man, counter punch...
Fess up, you're the one who posed that question at the party, right?
It will be politics as usual...no matter which way the tables turn. Conservatives are just as capable of screaming as liberals.
Just occurred to me... the Left's antiwar slogan is "No Blood for Oil", yet nobody spilled more blood for control of oil than Saddam Hussein...
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..
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.
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.