Let’s say that a person is driving drunk. Their car hits and kills someone.
We’re against people being killed by cars. . . but we don’t blame the car. The car is neutral: it can be used well or poorly. We blame the irresponsible driver.
To be frank, I bashed Clinton for not getting into Kosovo earlier, and I bashed Clinton for yanking troops out of Somalia too soon giving the “impression” that we pulled out in defeat.
Did you bash those who bashed Clinton while he did have troops in Somalia and Kosovo?
How many people here would say they support our troops? I expect nearly everyone. How many here support Americans killing, maiming, and wounding foreigners, armed though they may be? I would suspect much less. That’s what our troops are doing.
To support our troops does not require a brainless enthusiasm for all actions that they are compelled to take in the course of their duties. It is a great thing for our country to do everything that it can do to get behind our troops, but that doesn’t mean that we also have to sign up for the political agenda that got us into this situation, and it certainly doesn’t mean that we have to be enthused about the death and destruction that our troops are now delivering to a corrupt and despotic regime.
Don’t tell me I have to become a psychopath in order to be patriotic.
I know its a little bit of a copout, but Bill Clinton was such an unbelievable scumbag that it was hard to even take any aspect of his ‘foreign policy’ seriously. On a recent episode of Frontline members of the CIA (Wolfowitz included) described Clinton’s Defense Secretary’s reaction to their plan for reducing the threat of terrorism. He just kept saying, “How will this make us look?”. He never once even considered what the positive, longterm results might have been.
No, because they’re risking their lives for Saddam Hussein. I feel both pity and hatred toward them.
Yes, because what they are doing is killing people. There is little room for a middle ground. These are not employees of an evil tobacco company or scandal ridden Enron shareholders. Their job is to conquer the Iraqi govt and to kill the soldiers who try and stop them.
And this, to me, is the heart of the anti-war movement. They simply have no stomach for this concept and they think everything will remain hunky-dory if we just do nothing.
Why would you not be enthusiastic about it? Or at least, why would you be upset about it? This is pretty much the only way to end them.
And this, to me, reveals your complete ignorance of what the anti-war movement stands for.
Really, when you make proclamations about whether or not folks against the war support our soldiers, you could at least try to understand where they’re coming from. With the above statement, you completely lost any credibility to talk about what the anti-war movement does or doesn ot support.
I was specifically talking about the anti-war protestors. I have yet to see any one of them come up with a better reason for their protesting other than, “because war is so icky”.
They are people who are all too young to remember any real wars besides ‘that cool Desert Storm show’ (myself included) and seem to think that war is something from the middle ages that no civilized country would ever need to resort to. To paraphrase an often used quote, they think freedom & democracy are just there and always will be no matter what. Even 9/11 didn’t snap them out of their little fantasy world.
This totally destroys your credibility, but thank you for playing.
Oh, and Bush is such an unbelievable scumbag that it’s impossible to take any apect of his foreign policy seriously.
No, you weren’t. You earlier said the anti-war movement. You might choose your words better, if you’re trying to communicate something other than “anyone against the war.”
Over-generalize much? You’re not doing your position any credit when you take a few choice soundbites and apply them to everyone who’s against the war, or even everyone who attends a peace rally.
Try again.
Then evidently you’ve spoken to none of them. Surely you don’t expect us to believe you’ve polled a representative sample of anti-war protestors and not one of them had an actual reason? Please; we aren’t that gullible.
Straw man arguments will get you nowhere on this board.
No. They were legitimately bashing Clinton for something other than was related to Kosovo and Somalia. Clinton was doing something good in Kosovo, and while the mission in Somalia was kinda vague and open ended, I wasnt about to bash him for it while he had troops there.
Still hated the guy but he does have his moments.
Not to hijack the thread too much, but I should point out that the assertion in the OP that soldiers returning from Vietnam were uniformly abused and/or despised by the folks at home.
And to chime in on the debate – I care about our troops more than George W. Bush does. I don’t think they should have to risk their safety and their lives just so Haliburton stock gains another 20 points, nor so that the neoconservatives can push their “America-only” philosophy. The lives of the troops are worth more than oil and power in this case.
They damn well better not have sworn an oath of fealty to George Bush. They swore to uphold the consitution and to obey properly consituted orders.
They answer up the chain of command to the president. But he answers to us. Citizens have a right and a duty to criticize the little weasel.
<slight and short hijack here>
what the hell are straw man arguements? This term has been the soundbyte of the week on this board. Someone please clue me in about this.
Used quite often in these parts, especially in emotionally-charged topics.
If accusing Bill Clinton of having ‘a serious lack of character’ ruins my credibility I think over 50% of the people on this board should pack up & leave! 
I really wasn’t trying to. I haven’t heard a realistic anti-war POV. It always let the UN inspectors do it, war is wrong, its about the oil etc.
ugh…
Here is the Oath of Enlistment that every enlisted man takes before entering the military.
http://www.stayarmy.com/theoath.htm
*“I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD.”
*
And “war is icky” is saying this how?
Perhaps you’d get a better answer about a valid anti-war perspective if you looked a little deeper than protestors’ signs and the soundbites you hear on television. Some of the discussions on this board would be a better place to start.
Thank you, Avalonian. That was quite informative. I appreciate the reply.
Anytime. I just recently decided to look it up myself, because I also saw the term getting thrown around more often.