Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can you really `support the troops' while opposing the war?
The King County Journal (Seattle area) ^ | April 6th, 2003 | John Carlson (columnist & talk-show host)

Posted on 04/06/2003 6:37:00 PM PDT by Eala

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-104 next last
To: Anamensis
>>This is the core of the problem. These folks are psychological adolescents.

Who need a very PHYSICAL ass whipping...Every lash that their Dr Spock practicing Mommy & Daddy never gave them growing up!

21 posted on 04/06/2003 7:35:56 PM PDT by Wondervixen (Ask for her by name--Accept no substitutes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
Again, it's the policies I protest, not the troops

Which policies, specifically.

22 posted on 04/06/2003 7:41:06 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LaraCroft
You say you have no problems with us being there for economic reasons, but then denounce the war because it is for 'humanitarian' reasons.

Because we are not there for economic reasons, we are there for "humanitarian" reasons. That's the official line.

See, it's a matter of precedent. A war for "humanitarian" reasons opens an awfully huge can of worms; if we were to use "humanitarian" reasons as a justification for war, we would be fighting through eternity.

Economic reasons, however, have an endpoint, a goal, and limits. We wouldn't invade France because, as satisfying as it may be, there is no money in it. More to the point, we wouldn't invade Ethiopia for economic reasons, but we might for humanitarian reasons.

It's the precedent I'm concerned with.

I voted for Pat Buchanan. So what?

23 posted on 04/06/2003 7:42:07 PM PDT by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Eala
Carlson is only slightly wrong. These protestors aren't "anti-war" or "anti-American"....they are anti-President Bush (or anti-Whichever-Republican-is-President).

Proof of this can be found in the fact that none of these "protestors" "protested" Clinton's war in Kosovo.

If Weird Algore was President and he ordered troops into Baghdad (HA!), their panties would all still be dry and powdery.

24 posted on 04/06/2003 7:44:10 PM PDT by Texas Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
our undying support of Israel -- makes more enemies than it prevents.

Forget it; you answered my question (that I posed in post #22) with that remark.

25 posted on 04/06/2003 7:44:53 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
It may be a chicken-and-egg conundrum. I have often felt our meddlesome foreign policy -- including Gulf War I and our undying support of Israel -- makes more enemies than it prevents.

Of course, my reply is 1) we do not fashion our foreign policy to please stateless extremists, nor should we, and 2) if you think it would have been okay for Saddam to become a world power to replace the USSR and rival us-- and there is plenty of evidence that he dreamt of a pan-Arab socialist juggernaut that would be a superpower-- then our world views are too different to support an extended conversation as we'll have no mutually agreeable starting point.

26 posted on 04/06/2003 7:45:57 PM PDT by Anamensis (Regime change began at home in 2000.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
Which policies, specifically.

Primarily, the enduring US foreign policy that causes us to meddle in other nations' affairs.

Other justifications for this war include spreading "democracy" (as if the miserable inhabitants of that God-forsaken rathole can handle anything like democracy); humanitarian aid, a horrible precendent; a pre-emptive strike, another horrible precedent.

27 posted on 04/06/2003 7:46:19 PM PDT by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
Right on the mark. If Rat were in the WH and running this campaign exactly the way GWB is now doing (a big IF), these so-called peaceniks would be backing him/her and the war effort unequivocally.
28 posted on 04/06/2003 7:48:03 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
Exactly. And the reason being that these "protests" cost money. Big money. These goofballs don't have jobs. Where are they going to come up with the loot to organize hundreds of "protests" around the globe?

It's been well-documented that the organizations funding these "protests" are all staunch left-wing wacko groups. I don't have the list handy but I'm sure you've seen it.

29 posted on 04/06/2003 7:51:28 PM PDT by Texas Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
Now, I cannot imagine a greater threat to troop morale than seeing fellow citizens back home protesting the very effort the troops are engaged in.

I can. They don't give a rat's ass about the anti-war protesters. Troop morale is much more affected by (a) lack of showers, (b) running out of toilet paper, (c) getting sand in their underwear, (d) sleeping in a loud, vibrating metal can while (e) getting a layer of diesel smoke over their entire bodies, and (f) running out of cigarettes while (g) not getting hot coffee.

THAT impacts morale. But they put up with it. Its part of the job and it lets them play with all the cool toys they have trained with.

30 posted on 04/06/2003 7:53:18 PM PDT by dark_lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle

Carlson is only slightly wrong. These protestors aren't "anti-war" or "anti-American"....they are anti-President Bush (or anti-Whichever-Republican-is-President).

Proof of this can be found in the fact that none of these "protestors" "protested" Clinton's war in Kosovo.

If Weird Algore was President and he ordered troops into Baghdad (HA!), their panties would all still be dry and powdery.

The hypocrisy on the part of the hippie freaks in the streets is a good point, and they are more anti-Bush than anything else.

And it's good to know that all those that support the war in Iraq were able to set aside their partisan preferences and support President Clinton in his actions.

For the record, I opposed everything Clinton did, including his military actions. I felt that they were for the wrong reasons, and I feared we would have American troops in the Balkans forever. Looks like I was right.

31 posted on 04/06/2003 7:53:35 PM PDT by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord; fr_freak
Now, I cannot imagine a greater threat to troop morale than seeing fellow citizens back home protesting the very effort the troops are engaged in.

I can. They don't give a rat's ass about the anti-war protesters. Troop morale is much more affected by (a) lack of showers, (b) running out of toilet paper, (c) getting sand in their underwear, (d) sleeping in a loud, vibrating metal can while (e) getting a layer of diesel smoke over their entire bodies, and (f) running out of cigarettes while (g) not getting hot coffee.

THAT impacts morale. But they put up with it. Its part of the job and it lets them play with all the cool toys they have trained with.

Well, you are both right. The troops in the field are more concerned (naturally) with the conditions they are in. The morale on the homefront, and the long-term morale of the country in general, are seriously affected by the anti-military America haters. We saw it in Vietnam.

32 posted on 04/06/2003 7:57:29 PM PDT by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Anamensis
Oh I don't know. Let us find a mutually acceptable starting point. How about we agree, as a starting point, that we love the USA and want only what is best for her. OK?
33 posted on 04/06/2003 8:00:19 PM PDT by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
You bring up an interesting point. Troops themselves were leaving military service in droves when disgraced ex-president Clinton was commander-in-chief and many officers were either reprimanded or outright discharged for voicing their disdain for Monica's boyfriend.

Not only do military personnel highly respect President Bush but I've heard recently that recruiting offices are being inundated with young people wanting to join the military.

I dare anybody who uses that "I support the troops but not the war" bilge to go to Baghdad and tell the troops in the 3rd Infantry Division or the 101st Airborne and tell them that.

I'll pay the airfare and all accomodations for anybody who has the guts.

34 posted on 04/06/2003 8:04:05 PM PDT by Texas Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
Define "best." ;^)
35 posted on 04/06/2003 8:04:07 PM PDT by Anamensis (Regime change began at home in 2000.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
So, if you oppose the war but you truly support the troops, as you say, then you will refrain from any public statements against the war and the President until the fighting is finished. That is not what these protestors are doing, however. Instead, they are deliberately trying to destroy the morale of ALL who are engaged in the war effort. Those actions are in complete conflict with supporting the troops.

Well said.

36 posted on 04/06/2003 8:06:01 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Anamensis
...I would think it would be self-evident...
37 posted on 04/06/2003 8:07:02 PM PDT by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Eala; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Grampa Dave; Dog Gone; dalereed; snopercod
They are supporting Saddam Heusein! He takes great delight and hope that, like the Vietnam conflict, enough bodybags will defeat the effort to remove him and this just emboldens him.

The so-called "Peace Protestors" also are making it obvious in Oakland, CA, yesterday, that it's all about the diversion of government resources (tax dollars) away from social programs. So for them, it's a "two-fer!"

Saying one "supports the troops," while "opposing the war," is like some Republican/conservatives I know who say "I'm a fiscal conservative and a social moderate." It's pure sophistry!!!

38 posted on 04/06/2003 8:08:12 PM PDT by SierraWasp (Media Advisory: Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eala; Amelia; justshe; DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet; dighton; 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub; bentfeather; ...
"Can you support the troops, but oppose the war?"

I, eternally curious of such things, posed this very question to the 50 or so Sailors I work closely with. These are men and women of ages 20-45, of ranks from E-3 to E-8, of all possible races. I asked them, simply, "what do you think when someone tells you they Support The Troops, but oppose the war?".

Interestingly, the response was universal, and consistent.

"I think that they're bull$hitting me".

This was the usual start of the response...the rest would be equally colorful. Full disclosure: I share the same views.

Philosophically, I suppose it IS possible to be for one and not the other in this case, but I can tell you that "The Troops", in NO uncertain terms, regard those who so claim as liars and cowards at best, and as insulting to THEM at worst. As one CPO put it, "If you say that, you're essentially patting me on the head and calling me a sucker under your breath. Don't do me any favors." Kind of says it all.

39 posted on 04/06/2003 8:08:55 PM PDT by Long Cut (ORION Naval Aircrewman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
One of the many, many reasons troops were leaving the service during Clinton's reign was prolonged deployments; our "obligations" overseas, combined with his (Clinton's) rape of the defense budget, caused us to force the servicemen to spend longer and more frequent tours away from their homes and families. Again, the policies - the need to meddle - are hurting us.
40 posted on 04/06/2003 8:10:18 PM PDT by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-104 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson