 |
Serial Thriller
Fluffy Bunny
Registered: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 352 |
Of course I'd question whether being a soldier in a war of aggression and occupation is worthy of support or honour.
__________________
They may take our freedom, our lives and even our names. but we'll always have our numerical designations
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
06-06-2006 09:46 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Trenchant_Troll
ad hominid
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 25502 |
You have a short memory.
__________________
I wanna be a part of the problem for a change.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
06-06-2006 03:48 PM |
|
|
| |
|
fubar
ignorami ginormi
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: wookin pa nub
Posts: 10792 |
Support the troops. Not necessarily the administration.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
06-06-2006 03:50 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Thimbles worth of opinion
Symetrically challenged
Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 7974 |
Nice.
I don't have a lot of time to fuck around on this but I will leave a quick note.
I would say this guy is either astroturf or he's deluded. Jesus, he's in Fallujah and he thinks his biggest problem is CNN. Lets go through this.
quote:
Almost every week, I open The Press and find an article or letter to the editors denouncing the coalition effort in Iraq. Invariably, the individuals behind these anti-war letters and rallies mask their political agendas by asserting that they “support the troops but not the war.” People like Vince Giordano, Paul Sutherland and Anne Stubbs are pictured in the April 13 edition of The Press carrying a yellow-ribboned coffin and signs that say “Bring Them Home Now.” They read off the names of the dead and claim to “show support for our troops” while urging lawmakers to “bring them home.” They believe that the U.S.-led coalition should never have entered Iraq and that the current effort is a never-ending quagmire that has made no progress. They believe that things are progressively getting worse and think that our forces should just pick up and leave.
They do all this under the pretense that they are supporting the troops. However, what they are really doing is using our lives and the issue of our safety and well-being as a means to achieve a political end.
Yeah. Everybody has got a political end. The real reality isn't that this was a stupid war that was started under false pretenses and, through gross incompetence and insensitivity to the needs of the populations living there, has become a collosal fuckup in the opinions of much of the war's most ardent initial defenders and the generals responsible for executing the invasion. The real reality isn't that under equiped and under trained forces have been forced to suppress people for whom they have no linguistic connection, never mind cultural, the result of which is mass resistance from the population of Iraq, not Al'Qeda.
We all have political ends, except for the president who, god knows, is above useing conflicts to his political gain. Everybody else is political but me. Moron.
quote:
My primary concern is the assertion that these individuals support the troops in Iraq but not our mission. It boggles my mind that this logic is actually utilized on a large scale.
Yeah, because it's hard to relate to these people who don't want relatives and friends to die, nevermind die in a war of choice based on lies and unaccountabilty - without forseeable gain. If people care about the troops they should make sure that their leaders are as incompetent as possible and that they put troops into harm's way as much as possible. Oh, and get the yellow ribbon. Let's people know you care.
quote:
Supporting the troops but not the war is like saying that you support filmmakers but not making films.
I love Stanley Kubrick, but Eyes wide Shut was a shitty movie. According to this guy, if I love Stanley Kubrick I cannot think Eyes Wide Shut was shitty, because if I hate one of his movies, I hate them all. Nice Argument.
quote:
One cannot claim to support an individual in a given profession but not support what the said profession entails. This is essentially a slap in the face to those in the service.
How protesting the job we are doing in Iraq while demanding our withdrawal constitutes supporting us is beyond me.
Mom says she supports me but she doesn't want me to get high on meth and drive into barricades. How that bitch can say she supports me after that is beyond me.
You get the feeling this guy lacks imagination?
quote:
Furthermore, I am particularly interested in how these people support us, specifically. I have never once received a letter from an individual who claims to “support the troops, not the war.” Not a single Marine I know has received anything that could be considered remotely supportive from any of these people or the groups they represent.
Al Franken has done several USO tours in Baghdad. How many care packages has Bill O'Reilly sent?
Or how about this act of charity? I guess this guy isn't a marine so he doesn't count. Or how about the people who work in hospitals, work for Veterans Rights Organizations, work for charities who supplement Iraqi aid and get kidnapped and killed for their trouble because troop levels are too low and occupation policies have been too stupid to maintain basic security in the country after 3 years and 2500 americans killed. I guess none of that matters.
Because we don't have the yellow ribbon. Fuckjob.
quote:
We have received phone cards, hygiene supplies, food, etc. from members of state and local government, radio stations, schools, private individuals and organizations, but never once from any group claiming to “support the troops, but not the war.”
I ask again: How can these groups claim to support our troops while telling us that what we are participating in is wrong?
I answer again, you have a shitty sense of logic.
quote:
How can they support us if they are essentially saying that our blood and sacrifices have all been given in vain?
How can they support us if they say that our comrades and brothers who have been wounded or killed in action have done so for a hopeless and morally questionable cause?
How can people love soldiers and hate Vietnam? It's all so difficult and hard to imagine.
quote:
I reply to the questions I pose with a simple answer: They can’t. As a matter of fact, I assert with a considerable degree of confidence that their efforts make our already difficult job even more difficult. I’ll go so far as to say that their rallies and protests cost more and more servicemen their lives and limbs every day.
You see, guns and IED's don't kill people, "No blood for oil" banners do.
quote:
I support my assertion with evidence gathered first hand. I see the Iraqi people every day. The protesters do not. I speak with the Iraqi people every day. The protesters do not. I don’t sit behind a desk and do paperwork or resupply efforts in the military. I am an Infantry Marine and I walk the sewage-filled streets of this city every single day.
Funny how those streets are still filled with sewage, 3 years after. Wait, where did you say you where based again? Fallujah? Where the phospherous's white glare and the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there?
Yeah, I'll bet those Iraqis just fucking love you to your gun pointing face. Fallujah is insurgent country. The insurgents are Baathists. People are not terrified of the insurgents in Fallujah, they are terrified of the police who are often Shiite militia/death squad members when off duty.
quote:
In Fallujah, the people watch Al Jazeerah. However, they also watch CNN. A lot of them fear that the United States will soon cut and run.
Yeah in fallujah people are always worried that the americans are going to leave them alone.
quote:
The actions of these aforementioned organizations and the heavy media coverage their rallies often generate serves as fuel for the insurgency. Insurgents believe they can drive us out through the idea of “death by a thousand cuts.” The longer they persist in their efforts, the more the American public becomes disenchanted with the coalition effort.
The insurgency sees this as a result. These criminals will continue to kill Iraqi civilians, Iraqi Police, Iraqi Army and coalition forces so long as they see that their efforts are alienating the American public from its military.
And for those of you that aren’t up to speed with the situation in Iraq, the insurgents attack and kill established public services (such as Iraqi police and Iraqi army) more often than they attack coalition forces. As a matter of fact, an explosive-laden insurgent blew himself up last week outside the Iraqi police station that is attached to our compound.
The insurgents aren’t fighting simply to drive America out of Iraq. They are fighting to destroy any semblance of the Iraqi government so that they can impose their will on its people.
Publicly protesting our efforts in Iraq fuels the insurgency. Doing it under the pretext of “supporting our troops” is disgraceful.
Yeah, because sending in insufficent troops, disbanding the Iraqi army, Gitmoizing Abu Grahib, haveing no post-Shock and Awe plan, having no exit strategy, had nothing to do with creating the insurgency in the first place. We who protest to try and hold the ameican leadership accountable, we make the war harder.
quote:
Let me now emphasize that I respect an American citizen’s right to voice his or her opinion in a public forum. Such a right is granted in the U.S. Constitution.
However, voicing one’s opinion in such an irresponsible way is something I do not support.
Welcome to "It boggles my mind that this logic is actually utilized on a large scale"-ville.
quote:
Additionally, using deployed service members as a mask to serve your purely political purpose is downright shameful. If your desire is to protest the war, then protest the war, but don’t use me or any reference to our troops as a tool to bolster your purpose.
I guess we can say the same about an administration who uses military audiences to jack off in public about their policies or lack there-of. BTW. When people offer criticism on something like, say... torture and the response from right wing pundits to documented attrocities to something like, say... torture is to accuse the individual of hateing the troops and hating his country for having doubts in something like, say... torture, what do you suggest he do?
Should he
a) feel no shame or regret that his country was caught committing torture and be quiet?
b) express shame and regret while stating his love and support for his country and the military personel to whom he is grateful for their sacrifice?
c) burn the flag so as to put it out with piss while screaming "Allah shits on American corpses. Praise September 11th!" and then decapitating Sean Hannity in hopes of getting play on late night Al'Jazzera tv.
Is there no middle ground?
quote:
I’ll summarize by saying this: Organizations such as The Ridgefield Coalition to Stop the War do not support our troops. No matter what they say or what is printed on the signs they carry, they effectively do the opposite of support us. They downright hurt us.
Such organizations damage the morale of the men and women in the armed forces and progressively cause them to believe less and less in the mission at hand. The conditions here are difficult as it is. Opening a month-old edition of The Ridgefield Press and reading an article about an anti-war demonstration that uses our troops in an effort to mask its true cause doesn’t help.
Please do not feign support while effectively telling us that we are fighting for an unworthy cause. I think I speak for an overwhelming majority of our troops when I ask organizations like The Ridgefield Coalition to Stop the War to discontinue using Marines, soldiers, airmen and sailors as a means to serve a political end.
You are neither supporting us nor honoring us. You are doing the exact opposite.
You may think so, but I'm sure the National Guardsman who was promised that he'd "Be! As far away as can be! You can do it in the National Guard!" but instead is on there third call up while hopped up on meds and stimulants to take the edge of the PTSD and the exhaustion of understaffing is probably feeling a little different. I'm sure lots of people netted in the stop loss program who were working under the idea that a completed contract meant no more obligation are probably wistfully looking back to the days when the UN was responsible for this shit. I'm sure there are thousands of widows and orphans who are seeing the truth ever more clearly as daily incompetence and lying add up into large and unpopular piles who may differ from your opinion. If you don't want to be spoken on behalf of, don't speak on behalf of others.
ps.
You know, I was watching an interesting report by the Ex-British Navy Spokesperson in Iraq, which may give us an insight into your perspective.
quote:
http://www.democracynow.org/article...06/05/29/136243
AMY GOODMAN: You have a chapter called "The FOX Factor." Can you talk about it?
STEVE TATHAM: Well, yes. I suppose you either love or you hate FOX. I put FOX in the book, because for everything that was said about Al Jazeera, I think the same argument could be made about FOX TV. Was Al Jazeera biased? Certainly, Al Jazeera presented the war from an Arab perspective, and the Arab world didn't like the war. Therefore, in that respect, there was a degree of bias. Did FOX TV present the war from a particular perspective? Certainly. You only had to tune in to see the strap line "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to know that you weren't necessarily going to get objective coverage of what was going on. And I pick out particular presenters' comments on screen during the conflict, about what they felt about the war, and the reason it had come about, to highlight this. I recall speaking to David Rhodes, who was head of, I think, news gathering at FOX at a previous Al Jazeera conference, and I remember him saying to me, "Sure, we did go this particular way, but we only went that way because we felt the rest of the media was much too liberal and much too left-minded, so we took a more right-minded course." "The FOX Factor" played significantly with the U.S. military, because -- and I saw this firsthand from November 2002 ‘til April 2003 when I was working alongside the Arab media -- the only TV station that was broadcasting continuously into the military accommodation, the eating areas, the living spaces, even on the ships, was FOX TV, and that, I'm sure, had an effect on the way people regarded the environment in which they were working.
Perhaps it's these folk's apologism for racism, violence, and mindless suport of stupid policies which have made troops susceptible to commiting Haditha-like and Abu Grahib-like acts. Instead of deriding a small coalition of pacifists, why not demand better, more informative, coverage that won't mislead it's public into believeing false ideas (Al'qeda is working with Sadaam, etc) and encourage negative behavoir that undermines the image of the army as "liberator"?
__________________
My nipples are asymetrical... and that's a feature not a bug.
Last edited by Thimbles worth of opinion on 06-07-2006 at 05:19 PM
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
06-07-2006 08:25 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Thimbles worth of opinion
Symetrically challenged
Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 7974 |
Ah the support the troops crowd.
quote:
9/11 Widows, New York Papers, Respond to Coulter's 'Slander'
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/e...t_id=1002648990
By E&P Staff
Published: June 07, 2006 7:55 AM ET updated 10:00 AM ET
NEW YORK Syndicated columnist and author Ann Coulter appeared on the Today Show on Tuesday, promoting a new book. Host Matt Lauer asked her to explain certain remarks in the book aimed at activist 9/11 widows, including her charge that they were nothing but "self obsessed" and celebrity-seeking "broads" who are "enjoying" their husbands' deaths "so much."
After she defended these statements, he closed by saying, "always fun to have you here."
Elsewhere in the book, Coulter refers to the widows as "witches" and asks, "how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies"?
In response, a group of five 9/11 widows, who may have been the prime targets of Coulter's remarks, issued a statement denouncing Coulter's views. The New York Daily News on Wednesday featured this headline on its front page: COULTER THE CRUEL. One story inside was topped with "Coulter's Revolting New Read" and another c aleld her a "a model of meanness."
The Star-Ledger in Newark, meanwhile, carried a story today with the headline "For 9/11 widows, book adds insult to injury." It featured interviews with some of the widows. The New York Post headlined a story: "RIGHTY WRITER COULTER HURLS NASTY GIBES AT 9/11 GALS."
The Post interviewed one of the widows, Mindy Kleinberg of East Brunswick, N.J. -- part of a group Coulter dubbed "The Witches of East Brunswick." Kleinberg said, "We are trying to make sure that nobody else walks in our footsteps. And if she [Coulter] thinks that's wrong, so be it."
Universal syndicates Coulter's column. A spokesman there told E&P it had no response to the latest firestorm.
The five widows' statement is reprinted below (it first appeared at crooksandliars.com).
*
We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack, which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in place to protect its citizens.
Through our constant research, we came to learn how the protocols were supposed to have worked. Thus, we asked for an independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously existed and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only motivation ever was to make our Nation safer. Could we learn from this tragedy so that it would not be repeated?
We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter’s accusations to set the record straight because we have been slandered.
Contrary to Ms. Coulter’s statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day.
It is in their honor and memory, that we will once again refocus the Nation’s attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11.
We are continuously reminded that we are still a nation at risk. Therefore, the following is a partial list of areas still desperately in need of attention and public outcry. We should continuously be holding the feet of our elected officials to the fire to fix these shortcomings.
1. Homeland Security Funding based on risk. Inattention to this area causes police officers, firefighters and other emergency/first responder personnel to be ill equipped in emergencies. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.
2. Intelligence Community Oversight. Without proper oversight, there exists no one joint, bicameral intelligence panel with power to both authorize and appropriate funding for intelligence activities. Without such funding we are unable to capitalize on all intelligence community resources and abilities to thwart potential terrorist attacks. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.
3. Transportation Security. There has been no concerted effort to harden mass transportation security. Our planes, buses, subways, and railways remain under-protected and highly vulnerable. These are all identifiable soft targets of potential terrorist attack. The terror attacks in Spain and London attest to this fact. Fixing our transportation systems may save lives on the day of the next attack.
4. Information Sharing among Intelligence Agencies. Information sharing among intelligence agencies has not improved since 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented had information been shared among intelligence agencies. On the day of the next attack, more lives may be saved if our intelligence agencies work together.
5. Loose Nukes. A concerted effort has not been made to secure the thousands of loose nukes scattered around the world – particularly in the former Soviet Union. Securing these loose nukes could make it less likely for a terrorist group to use this method in an attack, thereby saving lives.
6. Security at Chemical Plants, Nuclear Plants, Ports. We must, as a nation, secure these known and identifiable soft targets of Terrorism. Doing so will save many lives.
7. Border Security. We continue to have porous borders and INS and Customs systems in shambles. We need a concerted effort to integrate our border security into the larger national security apparatus.
8. Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Given the President’s NSA Surveillance Program and the re-instatement of the Patriot Act, this Nation is in dire need of a Civil Liberties Oversight Board to insure that a proper balance is found between national security versus the protection of our constitutional rights.
--September 11th Advocates
Kristen Breitweiser
Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken
Would people like this be prefered in their corner?
Ugh. I'll take the Ridgefield Coalition anytime over the raving psychotics on the Fox side of Bizzaro world.
__________________
My nipples are asymetrical... and that's a feature not a bug.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
06-07-2006 04:07 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Smug Git
Arrogance Personified
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35782 |
The role of the press isn't to 'support the troops'. Their ideal role is to paint what they believe to be a representative picture of what's going on. You can argue about whether they are doing that*, sure, but the question of 'are the press supporting the troops' is completely fucking misguided, in my opinion.
*I doubt that most people think that they are doing that, although which side they believe that the press is coming down on will vary.
__________________
I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
06-07-2006 04:25 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Smug Git
Arrogance Personified
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35782 |
Their realistic role (as opposed to the 'ideal' one, above) is to sell enough to make profits, which is from where my problem with them comes (they produce content for morons because that's the route to making money). However, my real problem is with us, for lapping up the nonsense they produce.
__________________
I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
06-07-2006 04:30 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Trenchant_Troll
ad hominid
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 25502 |
What do mean "us"? And get that tongue back in your mouth.
__________________
I wanna be a part of the problem for a change.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
06-07-2006 04:51 PM |
|
|
| |
|
loser
oxymoran
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Beringia
Posts: 5398 |
quote:
Originally posted by Trenchant_Troll
What do mean "us"?
you.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
06-07-2006 04:56 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Trenchant_Troll
ad hominid
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 25502 |
I can't believe that I stopped reading Drudge just to come here and read that lame post.
__________________
I wanna be a part of the problem for a change.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
06-07-2006 05:09 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Smug Git
Arrogance Personified
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35782 |
Drudge is able to read all the media and filter out the good stuff to produce 100% guaranteed crap. Because there's nothing worse than browsing internerd news and coming across something thoughtful.
__________________
I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
06-07-2006 05:23 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Thimbles worth of opinion
Symetrically challenged
Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 7974 |
quote:
Originally posted by Smug Git
The role of the press isn't to 'support the troops'. Their ideal role is to paint what they believe to be a representative picture of what's going on. You can argue about whether they are doing that*, sure, but the question of 'are the press supporting the troops' is completely fucking misguided, in my opinion.
*I doubt that most people think that they are doing that, although which side they believe that the press is coming down on will vary.
His complaint isn't with the media, his complaint is with the protestors because it's a free country unless I disagree with you.
PS. There's another soldier objecting to his portrayal in protest "I was in a Michael Moore movie for 3 seconds and it damaged my life. Damaged my life to the tune of 85 million dollars. Isn't that right Mr. Kennedy?"
__________________
My nipples are asymetrical... and that's a feature not a bug.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
06-07-2006 05:38 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Trenchant_Troll
ad hominid
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 25502 |
quote:
Originally posted by Smug Git
Drudge is able to read all the media and filter out the good stuff to produce 100% guaranteed crap. Because there's nothing worse than browsing internerd news and coming across something thoughtful.
So, is it first or second in your Bookmarks folder?
__________________
I wanna be a part of the problem for a change.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
06-07-2006 06:24 PM |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
fubar
ignorami ginormi
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: wookin pa nub
Posts: 10792 |
quote:
Originally posted by Thimbles worth of opinion
His complaint isn't with the media, his complaint is with the protestors because it's a free country unless I disagree with you.
...
So, if someone says that they don't agree protesters, wouldn't that also be free speech? Or is it not since you don't agree with him?
My problem is with the administration, not the guys in the military. What have I done about that? Well, I vote against war-mongers, and donate to care packages, and such.
If you take out your venom on the military men, they may not be around in sufficient numbers to fight for you when you feel you need to be protected. Not saying you're a pussy or anything, but when Canada invades the US, you're gonna need someone to help you sling cheese at them.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
06-07-2006 06:55 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Thimbles worth of opinion
Symetrically challenged
Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 7974 |
quote:
Originally posted by fubar
So, if someone says that they don't agree protesters, wouldn't that also be free speech? Or is it not since you don't agree with him?
My problem is with the administration, not the guys in the military. What have I done about that? Well, I vote against war-mongers, and donate to care packages, and such.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. His arguement was, "It's a free country, unless I disagree with you." or, as he put it, "
Let me now emphasize that I respect an American citizen’s right to voice his or her opinion in a public forum. Such a right is granted in the U.S. Constitution.
However, voicing one’s opinion in such an irresponsible way is something I do not support.", irresponsible being the way protestors are killing people with their "No blood for Oil" banners.
Military man or not, fuck him. Millitary men, just like politians, are not all equal. Some I support, but not this FOX saturated guy. Nor would I support the guys who commitited Haditha, to take an extreme example.
__________________
My nipples are asymetrical... and that's a feature not a bug.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
06-07-2006 11:58 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Trenchant_Troll
ad hominid
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 25502 |
You see, Thimbles, the flaw in your notion of free speech, and that of other lefties, is that you some how think that the first amendment protects an individual from repercussions of their speech, which it does not. A person can say whatever they like in a free society, but they have to deal with the results of their words.
If politicians say something stupid and they piss off their constituents, they lose support. If Cindy Sheehan makes remarks that reveal her to be self-serving malcontent to some people, they are gonna give her the finger. If you tell a female co-worker that she looks hot today, you are likely going to be disciplined. Hate speech and threatening the President can be treated as crimes.
I believe what this soldier is pointing out is that, while every American has the right to voice their opinion, it is not some "get out of jail free card" when it comes to the results of the opinion you might voice; and in the case of speech deemed irresponsible to enough people, your words can even punished as a crime.
Apparently, he feels that those that claim support for the troops, and yet do everything in their power to undermine their mission for political advantage, are exercising their right in a very irresponsible way.
You may not agree. That's your right. I do agree, and that is mine.
__________________
I wanna be a part of the problem for a change.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
06-08-2006 12:28 AM |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
![[new thread]](/images/vb/button_newthread_off.png "Post New Thread")
![[post reply]](/images/vb/button_newreply_off.png "Post A Reply")
