Yes, I was refering to them. I assume that most Irakis currently fighting freely choose to do so.
But what does “support” mean exactly in your mind? I assume you didn’t send them packages or letters of congratulation… So, what do you mean when you say you’re supporting the american troops on the ground (or the “good Irakis” for that matter)?
I hope it is. And that is to not have us inadvertently put our troops in more danger, as well as to make sure when they do come home that we honor their service.
I think that one of the biggest blemishes on America is the the way the vets were “welcomed” back after serving in Vietnam. I would hate to see that happen again, but I fear we are on that course. This is not to say that all of those on the left, or all those who opposeed the war, run the risk of the becoming the reality. But some are. That seems undeniable.
I understand and respect this position. (Not that you should care one way or the other, just sharing my thoughts.)
Much of the rest of your post I have a difficult time deciphering, as it is rather cryptic. Intentionally so, I gather. But I am lost as to why.
Magellan, do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem? We’ve had a grand total of one person in this thread that doesn’t support the troops and I don’t he would actually spit. A vast majority of the anti-war movement supports the troops. Quit pretending otherwise. At this point, it seems less like actual concern for the troops on your part and more like you’re trying to use them to deflect any criticism away from bush. Your belief that “anti-war people secretly hate the troops” is disingenous and frankly, Bonvine feces. It only exists in your mind. Move on to the real conversation.
That horse is not only dead, it’s been taken to the glue and dog food factories respectivly.
Magellan, do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem? We’ve had a grand total of one person in this thread that doesn’t support the troops and I don’t he would actually spit. A vast majority of the anti-war movement supports the troops. Quit pretending otherwise. At this point, it seems less like actual concern for the troops on your part and more like you’re trying to use them to deflect any criticism away from bush. Your belief that “anti-war people secretly hate the troops” is disingenous and frankly, Bovine feces. It only exists in your mind. Move on to the real conversation.
That horse is not only dead, it’s been taken to the glue and dog food factories respectivly.
Quite right. That would be both stupid and rather tacky.
Heavens! Please advise soonest precisely what portions give you difficulty, and I will bend every effort to make such accessible.
Of course, intentional obfuscation on my part is not the only interpretation possible. You do realize that, yes?
Come on, convince others to write letters, as well. Just as one protestor marching in Washington is invisible and you need to convince others to march with you (figuratively), one letter is just an idea. Obviously you need some critical mass or you will be ignored.
Also, the letter I provided in response to your request demonstrates the nature of the argument. If adhered to, I wouldn’t even see anything wrong with marching with those talking points—exclusively. The usual "Bush lied, People died; No war for Oil; etc, will simply subvert the effectiveness of the strategy. As will, perhaps needless to say, “We support our troops who kill their officers; and Free Mumia”-type messages that seem to come pre-packeged with ANSWER anfd other extreme groups.
I maintain that the analogy is apt. I think we are looking for it to accomplish two different things. It demonstrates that an inclination to violence—even if perceived as righteous—is lessened by the reality of an overwhelming opposition.
Your question (singular, I thought. Did I miss one?) was:
If you choose to lay the responsibility of every life lost to The President, I will agree with you, as if hadn’t sent them they would not have died. But that seems ridiculous, in that you are them blaming the loss of life of every soldier on every President who sent them there. Now if you wish to hold The President responsible for the day-to-day prosecution of the war, I’d say you are being grossly unfair. The President does not decide battle strategy, but I think you know that. I mean, you wouldn’t hold Roosevelt or Truman responsible for every life lost during WWII, would you?
They have the threat of violence. And I was referring to negotiating with their countrymen.
If my additional response (above) does not answer this, we are talking past each other here. I suggest we move on.
I do not know. I can only tell who does not agree with him, as they have made that clear. The others either do or don’t. How am I to know? Do you have a way? Also, I would point out that my reality is not confined to this message board. I live in San Francisco, so rest assured I have heard much extremism from the left. If I lived in For Worth, I’m sure I would hear much of it from the right.
I would say I wouldn’t expect it out of the blue. But if I’m in a debate thread about sports and let’s say someone says all skiers are assholes, and that person is being taken seriously, my choice is either 1) speak up and say “Wait a minute, I’m a skier and I’m not an asshole. And I know a lot of other skiers, and there not assholes either.” or 2) accept the possibility that people will start to equate skiers with assholes.
I will not pit the organism that can type and give him, or others who desire to defend him, the excuse that what he said was said in a Pit Thread and must be taken with a grain of salt. No I prefer to have his “enlightened” thoughts exposed in the sober world of measured debate.
As far as confusing you two, I do not see that I am doing that. I am respectful of your positions and the tenor of what you have offered. I thought I made that clear, in both tone and actual words.
What? I don’t understand.
There’s seems to be a writing problem here. Please restate.
Bash Bush all you want. I am not a fan. I’ve just been saying to do it responsibly as far as the troops in action are concerned. Bash him for spending, tax cuts, No Child Left Behind, the border, knock yourself out. Perhaps you should reread my last dozen, or so, posts.
Now you know what I believe? Truly amazing. Let me tell you what I think I think and you can tell me if I’m right. I do not think that ani-war people hate the troops. Some might. But I think it is a very tiny, tiny group. I do think that much of the anti-war crowd hasn’t given serious thought to the consequences of their actions and speech. I think they should, I also think that some of them are even more interested on shittiing on Bush than they are in briinging the troops home.
I think the talking points in the letter I proposed makes a better—more effective—argument for bringing the troops home. I believe it will not be embraced for one simple reason: it doesn’t shit on Bush.
Writing tip: for your analogy to not seem so awkward here, you might have uesd “equine feces” above. Either that, or changed this passage, Just a thought.
And yet, if more people listened to your advice, it’s conceivable the troops would not come home as quickly, and as such fewer of them would be alive to enjoy the trip. Go figure.
I’m not persuaded by your comments about targeting Representatives. If the President is unpopular, or if something he’s done is unpopular, they understand that they’d do well to distance themselves from him. The Senators and Representatives who supported the war for stupid reasons ought to pay for it as well, but with Congress turnover being what it is, that’s more of a long-term process.
It seems that it was my trun to be unclear. I was not being snarky. And I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were not trying to be straight-forward. The reason for it, I could not glean. Either way, simply restate any parts of it, if any, you’d still like a response to.
If you believe the polls, the president is unpopular right now. Thirty-something percent. Some people running for office now may be starting to distance themselves from him. The Wall Street Journal is calling it “the Bush effect”. Here in California, Schwarzenegger was not too thrilled to have Bush in town during his own initiatives campaign, and said so. Something along the lines of Bring money or stay away. Say what you like about him, Arnold is not afraid to come right out and speak his mind. I don’t know about other states and elections/ Is this Bush effect real, or just talk?
We keep telling you we support the troops. You keep repeating “Support the troops” like we don’t.
You said you were worried about the troops being spit on. I’m trying to tell you that’s not likely, considering most people do support the troops.
I’m bashing him for putting the troops in harms ways without having any clue how to run this war. THat concerns me more then pretty much all those other issues you mentioned. I think it’s legitimate.
You seem to be implying that the anti-war people do not support the troops, despite everything we’ve said to the contrary.
And contrary to your experience, I’ve met people who seem more interested in smearing anti-war people then actually supporting our troops. People who seriously believe that anti-war people are traitors, commies, defeatists, unamerican, etc. It’s been implied by the adminstration, if not outright stated.
[Hijack]
I have a right to be cynical. I kept faith in the man for 4 years, despite everything. Abu Gharib, The invasion of Iraq, Gitmo, etc, etc. I knew he had a plan. All things considered, I’d rather not have to shit on bush. I don’t relish the fact I’m on the same side as Micheal Moore or the “Bush is a Nazi” guy from protests. I don’t like having to agree with Elucidator or DtS on this. I don’t relish the fact Bush and the GOP have made me ally with the left(who I have little love for) because the right now appears to be morally bankrupt and unwilling to out the assholes among them. I voted for the guy. I’ve kept the faith for him. He’s done nothing to justify it. He’s earned my disdain.
A year ago, I would have agreed with you. But after 4 years, I have a choice between believing him or my own eyes, and my own eyes tell me something vastly different. I can’t ignore the fact that there are pieces of lemon peel floating down the Potomic that would be a vastly better leader then Bush. I could let my cat lie on the keyboard while Command and Conquer was running and no doubt she would do a better job then Bush. I believe that nothing could be worse for the troops then to leave them in Iraq with Bush in charge, as he has proved completely inadeuqate to the task.
[/Hijack]
Second: Back to your proposal.
I’ve seen your letter and I don’t see how withdrawing funding helps without actually withdrawing the troops. It would only provide the oppurtiny for the White House to point and scream “See, the democrats don’t support our troops. They’d rather them starve and be without bullets and gasoline in the midst of combat”. And yes, I’m cynical enough by this point to believe Bush would do this. Why not, considering he’s failed to support them by actually planning this out, or providing an exit strategy, or providing body armor? “You go to war with the army you have” is a complete crock when you had years to prepare the army and plan the war you started. It’s not like we could have waited another year or so to get ready.
I really don’t see how cutting off their funding while they are combat is somehow better for them then protesting to get them withdrawn. Your solution involves cutting off matrial aid, which is objectivly harmful. Our solution invovles convincing our leaders the troops need to come home, which, according to you, might embolden the insurgents, which is big MIGHT.
You have failed to take two things into account.
1.) Since we don’t want to embolden the insurgents, by your theory, Don’t you think the insurgents would somehow find out the troops had their funding slashed by congress? You know, by watching CNN, or maybe CSPAN? Have you considered that would really embolden them?
2.) We’ve been hearing from this adminstration for years that these people hate us because of our freedom, that they want to kill us no matter what we do. These people, fantatical enough to strap bombs to their chests and fly planes into buildings, are already pretty emboldened. In which case, I really fail to see how any kind of protest could make a difference to people who await 72 virgins in heaven for blowing themselves up.
Crap, screwed up my coding.
And it’s “It’s not like couldn’t wait another year to get ready”
I’m sure most people support the troops in their heart. I’ve simply been trying to point out that one’s actions may have consequences contrary to that, and that we should pay attention to that fact. I don;'t know what is in the hearts of the people who carry signs saying “No war for oil”, or worse, but the idea of supporting our troops doesn’t come to mind. More like, “the President lied and you just lost an arm for nothing, schmuck.” Obviously there are more severe examples.
Spit on in the literal and figurative sense, yes. And I wish I shared your optimism. I don’t. In fact, I think it’s very likely. The reason: the nature if the rhetoric. I never would have imagined that Americans would carry signs saying that they support soldiers who kill their officers, or that an Ivy League professor would wish our military “a million Mogadishus”. Yet, that is the reality. That worries me. And sickens me.
Whether you’re right that a majority actually do support the troops and will never sttop to spitting on them is almost immaterial. How many need to do it to make that the reality for our young men and women when they return?
I’d simply ask you, and others, to consider how whatever message you devise would be received by our troops and the people that are trying to kill them. For most people, who I do believe support the troops in their hearts, an honest assessmentas to those ends will filter out inappropriate and counter-productive speech. I think you’d agree that there are some who do not support the troops, or this country even, and that no speech will be too strong. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to speak out against it, simply to send a message to the troops that those people may exist, but they are a tiny minority.
Why are you, and others, getting hung up on what I may be implying? I think I’ve provided enough actual commentary to make that exercise unnecessary.
I wouldn’t say that is contrary to my experience. Both groups exist. And do you not think that some anti-war people deserved to be taken to task? That there actions are defeatist, treasonous and un American? The problem arises when all anti-war proponents are painted with the same broad brush. I’ve been accused of it in this thread, even when I qualified my use of “the left” with words like “extreme” or hate-filled". The problem is that the sane anti-war left has allowed the two groups to be conflated. Look at marches in San Francisco and Washington. I’m sure there were many, probably a majority of, people marching that were devout patriots, but as a group, they were easy to write off as a bunch of American hating idiots. Rallying around the likes of ANSWER and that great unwashed mass, Michael Moore gave the anti-war movement a voice, but the wrong one. As I’ve pointed out, the best way to not be thrown in the same cesspool with them is for the true patriots on the left to separate themselves from them. They weren’t thrown together in the mind of some conservative, they marched together, and cheered and chanted. If you/they don’t like, rectify it.
My heart goes out to you. We differ in that I don’t think he ever should have been in office. In fact, I was infruriated when it became clear that he was even goinig to be the nominee. If there ever was an annointing, that was it.
First, I’m sure that I’ve failied to take more then two things into account. The letter was offered as the type of argument that could be employed that wouldn’t undermine our troops or insult them. As far as the funding, you make an excellent point, perhaps (horrors of horrors) a closed door session. In fact, wouldn’t that be a great way to actually get a timeline. If the objection (I think legitimate) is that the insurgents could then use our timeline against us, have a timeline and don’t let them know. But even if this idea has real merit, it will go nowhere, for the obvious reasons.
I’m sorry, you lost me here. Which protests are you referring to? Ones that are aimed at the insurgents?
Tell me if this answers your question: The form of protest outlined in my letter is designed to bring the troops home while not sutting the morale of our troops or further encouraging the insurgency. There level of hate is what it is, butI think it is best addressed on two fronts.
Present a strong, determined, united military force. The more we do that more we make violence a less attractive option. This is basic human nature.
Continue to work to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Rebuilding the infrastructure, opening schools, and getting backto some degree of normalcy is key. On 60 Minutes this past Sunday there was a report of 13 health care workers who flew to Pakistan (bin Laden country) to help victims of the earthquake. Actions like that probably do more to late the hate out of the balloon thatn anything. We should keep our eyes open for these opportunities to demonstrate our common humanity.
HPL, I appreciate both the thoughtfulness and tenor of this post.
Why not be defeatist when we deserve to be defeated ? Is it “treasonous and un American” to oppose America when it does wrong ? In that case, I’m “treasonous and un American” and proud of it.
Impossible. We have betrayed and abused them far too much, and people there have long memories. I expect they will still hate us centuries from now.
Here is a Slate article addressing the exact points of my OP
Okay, let’s assume that I’ve organized a protest march on Washington, adhering to your talking points. How, exactly, do I ensure that everyone who shows up follows those points, and doesn’t bring up any of your forbidden topics? It is a free country, after all, and I can’t simply tackle them to the ground because they have an unapproved placard.
Well, I don’t, so if you’re going to make any headway in convincing me that you’ve got a relevent point, you’re going to have to find a better analogy. Remember, you’re trying to convince me, not yourself.
Here, I’ll repost the relevant paragraph for the third time, and highlight the questions you missed:
Roosevelt and Truman made sure the troops they sent into battle had adequate equipment, sufficient forces, and a clear strategy for winning. Oh, and a valid reason for sending them to war in the first place. Bush did none of those things. He has thrown away over two-thousand soldier’s lives to pursue a personal agenda. He does not support our troops. Not simply because he sent them to war, but because of the manner and reasons he sent them to war. Is that clear yet? I don’t know how many times I can re-explain it to you.
Well, it should be relatively easy to wrest an agreement not to kill us from the Iraqis who do not want to kill us. Assuming there are any left, anyway. That steal leaves us with the problem of all those Iraqis who do want to kill us.
Here’s where I’m having a problem with you in this thread. You keep saying that folks like Der Trihs are extremists, which I agree with. But then you go on to act like its reasonable to assume that anyone who hasn’t publically disagreed with him may actually share his viewpoint. Well, if that’s the case, he’s not really an extremist, is he?
Look, I’ve never seen you disagree with Fred Phelps. Is it reasonable, therefore, for me to think that maybe you agree with him? Of course not. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you’re a decent human being. Do the same for anti-war protestors. Unless you hear a specific anti-war protestor specifically say, “I don’t support our troops,” assume that they aren’t gigantic flaming assholes, and that they do, in fact, support our troops. Is that so hard?
You really aren’t good at analogies, are you? Let’s try this again. I’m in a thread about sking. I don’t ski. You do. Someone else comes in and says, “All skiers are assholes.” Why am I under any sort of requirement to defend you? You’re a grown man. Defend yourself.
Why do you assume that anyone would want to defend him? Certainly, no one has in this thread. That’s why I suggested opening a pit thread: you think that there’s a significant population on the boards that agree with him. I suggest you test that. Pit him. See how many people show up to defend him. I’m sure he’ll get one or two: there’s no position that’s too extreme not to get one or two adherents. But I guarantee you the vast majority, regardless of politics, will agree with you.
I’m against the war. You have insinuated repeatedly that people who are against the war either don’t care about the troops, don’t care enough about the troops, or secretly despise the troops because they haven’t shouted down Der Trihs. While I appreciate the special exemptions from this generalization you’ve given me and a few other postrs, the generalization itself still rankles.
You organize your protest in a way that you exclude sentiments you find objectionable. Surely you wouldn’t let the NRA march in an anti-gun protest. If certain people or groups insist on conveying messages that you feel are counter-productive to your cause or overarching message, tell them to form their own protest.
If and when, in spite of your efforts in #1, messages do appear that you feel are over the top or are counter-productive, make statements separating your group from them. What am I supposed to do, dress where to draw the line for every protestor? “Well, let’s see, the guy in the blue hat doesn’t look like he’d agree with sign A, B, and F. And the girl in the orange shirt doesn’t look like she’s on board with sign B, E, and G—but she is fervently behind A and D. Yeah, definitely A and D, and maybe H.”
Given your increasing level of emotion, I’m growing less inclined to attempt to convince you of anything.
And I’ll post my answer for the second time. From Post #226:
To further assist you, asssume “more emboldened” = “more terrorist acts”.
Okay, I can see where this is devolving to. I guess some people cannot even have a discussion as to whether one can oppose the war without shitting on Bush without shittiing on Bush in the process.
And if you think that there weren’t instances of troops being insufficient or under-supplied I suggest you read up on WWII. I will offer one example: D-Day. Every one of the tanks—save one—that were supposed to land on the beaches to provide fire power and cover for the men never made it. This contributed to a loss of over 4,500 men, over 2,500 of them American. In ONE DAY! According to you, Roosevelt must have not cared about the troops, right? I’m sure those with fuller knowledge of WWII could supply you with many more examples.
Your unnecessary, flip statement aside, we are talking about those inclined to terror. The fact that the Sunnis made an extra effort to get involved in the election at the last minute, and that they were accommodated, I find significant and very encouraging. Sorry if you don’t.
When I started posting in this thread I guess I was a bit naive, as I had no idea that someone on these boards would hold those views. I do find them extreme. But if we are in a thread and someone makes a very extreme statement to the opposition (me, in this case), I think it is reasonable to expect that others that oppose (me), on sane grounds, would distance themselves from those statements. Not doing so undercuts the reasonableness of their own arguments. Therefore I feel it safe to conclude that his statements are no that outrageous to others.
I’ve given everyone the benefit of the doubt. To use your Phelps analogy, if we were in a thread and discussing gays in the military and were having a reasonable debate on the matter, and then someone chimes in with Phelps rhetoric in support of my position, I think it is incumbent upon me to separate what I beleive is a reasonable point of view with his vile thoughts. If I do not do that, I run the fear that my silence be equated with some degree of agreement or acceptance of his views. And I think that would be reasonable on the part of my opposition and therefore, detrimental to my cause.
If you have interest in doing so, you open a pit thread. I explained why I was not interested.
I suggest you read my words more carefully. You want me to not only defend what I am say, but what you think I am saying. I’ve attempted to clarify a point when asked. It is a fact that there are people who are against the war and don’t care about the troops, don’t care enough about the troops, or secretly despise the troops. I heve not painted everyione with the same broad brush. Quite the opposite. My posts have repeatedly acknowledged differing strains of anti-war sentiment. It seems you want me to be able to read minds. I see posts like der trihs’s and signs that appear in marches here in San Francisco and Washington and read about scum like DeGenova from Columbia and see no or little offense taken by those on the same side of the main debate and conclude that what I originally thought was a VERY extreme minority is possibly not so extreme.
If racism gets put on the table and comments are made by David Duke or Trent Lott or Bill Bennett, it falls to Republicans to either defend the statement or separate themselves from it. Ditto for statements from Harry Belefonte, Julian Bond, or Louis Farrakahn. The onus would be on the Democrats.
If your argument against the war (or anything else) gets muddled, watered down, or asinine based on contributions from those who share your main agenda, that’s not my problem to fix. Take some damn responsibility. Or do you want to have your cake and eat it to? You enjoy the energy such extremism brings to your cause, but when debate gets real you want to THEN distance yourself: “Who me? Why in the world would you think that I agree with that idiot?”
Sorry. Your argument, and the degree to which it is intelligent and reasonable, or extreme and easily discounted, is in your hands.
Is Farrakhan a Democrat?
Bush sold the war on the following: Iraq had WMD. Iraq was seeking nuclear material. Iraq had ties to Al Queda. Iraq was a clear and imminent danger. The reality is, he was selectively using bits and pieces of the information and ignoring others that expressed doubt.
A “little bit later”, The CIA Deulfers report said there was no capabilities, no plan to get capabilities, and apparently no interest. This agrees with the earlier CIA report that said the same thing. The Niger yellow cake turned out to be a hoax, re the Wilson report The 2004 Carnegie report said the threat was systematically misrepresented. In 2004 George Tenet (CIA guy) said there never was an immnent threat. The Downing Street memo show this as a deliberate attempt to “fix” the data… An earlier letter to Clinton showed that the Republican intent to attack Iraq was even older than 9/11. All these things were either swept under a rug, or met with more rhetoric. Now Bush denies ever saying there was a grave and imminent threat. Yet, he still harps on WMD. Plus now it’s all about 9/11 (again) too.
During the campaign debates the story changed several times and then degenerated into empty slogans that fuelled a drinking game right here on the Dope.
During the Veterans Day speech, he said his opponents are re-writing history and voted for war, based on the same information he had. He is saying the whole world knew everything we knew and agreed with Bush. NO. He was parsing the information. The original resolution was sold as a way to show we were serious, but was not sold upfront as a declaration of war. The full context of the reports used as justification was never shared beyond a select few individuals. Congress only saw what they were allowed to see (in the interest of national security). Other countries such as France and germany did say “Wait a minute”. He tied the reasons for the situation in Iraq to “9/11,” and ignored all of his previous rationale for going to war in Iraq, and the U.S. failure in Iraq to plan for stability operations and carry out effective nation-building. He ignored the CIA analysis indicating that the invasion and initial mishandling of the insurgency had made Iraq a magnet for Islamist extremists. He tried to conflate question and dissension as “not supporting the troops”, when he himself endangers them. he sent them on a fool’s errand. They were fighting for a false cause, with no clear mission other than some nebulous "go there and do stuff’, no plan for what to do after “doing stuff”, and underequipped. meanwhile, benefits, bonuses, and health care started to go “bye bye”. The stop-loss “backdoor draft” came in. The entire budget was under threat of veto, because someone dared to try and include anti-torture verbage. So who endangers the troops, and fails to support them, in the most despicable manner? The man who ordered them to go fight. The man who has been re-writing history all along to suit himself.
Now he claims that charges of lying and manipulation are “lies and manipulation”. It is mindboggling to read the actual reports he plucked from, compare them to his speeches after the fact, and consider he would dare accuse anyone else of manipulation.