Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja?

Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

FirmhandKY -> Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (5/10/2007 11:53:06 PM)
How about the pro? Appeal for Courage takes petition to Congress Tuesday May 8, 2007 A petition signed by 2,700 current and former service members in support of continuing U.S. combat operations in Iraq will be turned over to two Republican lawmakers tomorrow in a ceremony at the headquarters of the nation’s largest group of combat veterans. The petition was organized by two U.S. service members serving in Iraq, Navy Lt. Jason Nichols, serving in Baghdad, and Minnesota National Guard Staff Sgt. David Thul, who is conducting convoy operations in Iraq with the 34th Infantry Division. ... Many view Appeal for Courage as a response to a group calling itself Appeal for Redress, which in January turned over a petition signed by about 1,000 service members calling for Congress to cut off funding for the Iraq combat mission. The number of signatures on that petition has grown to about 1,900. About 60 percent of the 2,700 signatures on the Appeal For Courage petition come from service members who are serving or have served in Iraq, with about two-thirds enlisted members and one-third officers. The signatures were gathered over about a month. Appeal for Courage website: As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts which embolden my enemy while demoralizing American support at home. The War in Iraq is a necessary and just effort to bring freedom to the Middle East and protect America from further attack. Instead of news of this, here is what you will see: Retired generals, Iraq veterans launch anti-war ads FirmKY

domiguy -> RE: Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (5/11/2007 6:57:51 AM)
As of March 29th, 2007 there were 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq....So 1600 0f these people have signed the petition....Is this a ploy by Democrats to show that about 1% of the troops feel we should be there?

KatyLied -> RE: Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (5/11/2007 7:07:28 AM)
If they were planning a ceremony to do this it seems odd that they only allowed a month to get signatures.

selfbnd411 -> RE: Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (5/11/2007 8:11:02 AM)
Yep, I heard about that. I also heard about the Zogby's poll that showed that 70% of soldiers polled in Iraq in 2006 said that we ought to withdraw within the year.

Sinergy -> RE: Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (5/11/2007 8:28:41 AM)
I imagine an active duty soldier starting a petition to withdraw would be subject to a court martial. It is nice that 1600 people are willing to keep on blowing things up and killing people, but it doesnt strike me as a statistically valid sampling size. Sinergy

FirmhandKY -> RE: Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (5/11/2007 11:41:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy As of March 29th, 2007 there were 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq....So 1600 0f these people have signed the petition....Is this a ploy by Democrats to show that about 1% of the troops feel we should be there? No, it's a "ploy" to highlight the agenda of much of the media to blare massive headlines about anything "anti-war", but to "oops" and forget to publish much of anything that is "pro-war". There is a certain symmetry here. Both petitions are basically the same thing, except one is of service members against the war. It got great headlines. A second, of service members in support of the war - and with more signatures - doesn't get a peep out of the media. FirmKY

jj292 -> RE: Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (5/11/2007 11:51:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy As of March 29th, 2007 there were 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq....So 1600 0f these people have signed the petition....Is this a ploy by Democrats to show that about 1% of the troops feel we should be there? No, it's a "ploy" to highlight the agenda of much of the media to blare massive headlines about anything "anti-war", but to "oops" and forget to publish much of anything that is "pro-war". There is a certain symmetry here. Both petitions are basically the same thing, except one is of service members against the war. It got great headlines. A second, of service members in support of the war - and with more signatures - doesn't get a peep out of the media. FirmKY The media has been anti-war from day one. The only things they report are the negative things. The only people they interview are people who claim the war is lost or failing. And the anchors and hosts couldn't be more obvious in their anti-war bias.

Alumbrado -> RE: Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (5/11/2007 11:55:34 AM)
The media would go out of business if war and other sources of misery went away... don't ever confuse them with being anti-war...it is their bread and butter.

selfbnd411 -> RE: Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (5/11/2007 12:11:03 PM)
I don't care if every single soldier says he wants to stay in Iraq. In the United States, politicians control the military, not the other way around. If Bush wants to reverse things, he needs to talk to Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Tse Tung.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (5/11/2007 12:27:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 I don't care if every single soldier says he wants to stay in Iraq. In the United States, politicians control the military, not the other way around. If Bush wants to reverse things, he needs to talk to Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Tse Tung. You're missing the point. FirmKY

selfbnd411 -> RE: Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (5/11/2007 12:40:18 PM)
What is the point then? I love how Chris Matthews on Hardball has been pounding every hawkish Republican who parrots the Bush argument that politicians inside the Beltway shouldn't be telling Generals what to do. He asks them just one question--"Do you believe that civilians should control the military or should the military control the civilians?" It's a A-bomb question--if you say the military should control the civilians you're in favor of dictatorship. If you say civilians should control the military, then you reject Bush's assault on the US Constitution. Soldiers are citizens too, and they're free to submit their opinions to Congress. But their opinions should carry no more weight than yours or mine. We are all just citizens.

domiguy -> RE: Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (5/11/2007 12:42:54 PM)
Whether soldiers support the idea of us "being there" or not has become a rather moot point. This administration never had the foresight to understand from the beginning what type of effort was required to have a remote chance of success....I think there are plenty of Americans in uniform who might find that the war is just and should be waged...They are all heroes in my book...However not to give them all the tools necessary to even have a chance at success is criminal..... This just off the wire.... http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/11/news/iraq.php We are over four years into this mess and to continually hear that we don't have the proper equipment and troops available is simply horrendous....My heart goes out for all of those who fought and have lost their lives or have returned home with serious injuries....What do you say to them? Their sacrifice has truly been a waste. Even though there are troops who believe we should be there it is no longer in their best interest to allow them to stay under the guidance of an administration that has never had an understanding or grasp of the situation. I really do believe that in some way, aside from hurting the GOP, that Bush should be held accountable for what has happened to our troops.

meatcleaver -> RE: Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (5/11/2007 12:56:34 PM)
The simple answer to any person who is pro-Iraq or pro any other invasion. Invasions and occupations don't work! Whether it is Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin or anyone else, without a substantial flooding in of new population by the invaders or a welcoming host population, sooner or later it will all end in tears. I'm struggling to think of a single invasion that was actually successful in achieving its goals other than one with the single objective of defeating an enemy before packing up and going home.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (5/11/2007 3:02:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 What is the point then? I love how Chris Matthews on Hardball has been pounding every hawkish Republican who parrots the Bush argument that politicians inside the Beltway shouldn't be telling Generals what to do. He asks them just one question--"Do you believe that civilians should control the military or should the military control the civilians?" It's a A-bomb question--if you say the military should control the civilians you're in favor of dictatorship. If you say civilians should control the military, then you reject Bush's assault on the US Constitution. Soldiers are citizens too, and they're free to submit their opinions to Congress. But their opinions should carry no more weight than yours or mine. We are all just citizens. It's amazing how talent-less morons like Chris Matthews still has a job. I don't give a damn what he thinks should be controling the military. The military is not controlled by the people. The Constitution of the United States gives the power of commander-in-chief of the armed forces to the president, and the president solely. It is not the people's decision on how a war is conducted. It is not the congress's decision either. The congress's role is to declare war and give "advice and consent" on international treaties. It is not their role to conduct how a war is faught. This is clearly written in the constitution. The Congress has the ability to withold money or to impeach the president. But at no time in our history, has congress ever taken that drastic route during an ongoing war. Even during Vietnam, it was not Congress that pulled the troops out. It was not the people that pulled the troops out. It was President Nixon that pulled them out. And today it will be the same thing, the troops are not going to leave Iraq unless President Bush or a future president pulls them out. If Congress stops the funding, that also doesn't pull the troops. It just leaves them high and dry in the middle of the Iraqi desert without food, water, ammo, or supplies. Which is why Congress is NEVER going to stop funding the war. This whole fight between Congress and the President is nothing but political gesturing by the Democrats to try and force Bush and the GOP to pull out. And just keep in mind that even though Hillary and Obama have both said they are against the war now, neither has come out to say they would withdrawl troops if elected.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (5/11/2007 3:04:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver The simple answer to any person who is pro-Iraq or pro any other invasion. Invasions and occupations don't work! Whether it is Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin or anyone else, without a substantial flooding in of new population by the invaders or a welcoming host population, sooner or later it will all end in tears. I'm struggling to think of a single invasion that was actually successful in achieving its goals other than one with the single objective of defeating an enemy before packing up and going home. Japan United Stated nuked them twice. Forced the government to surrender. And forced the population to give up their emperor. It worked. And American Generals like Douglas MacArthur strolled through Japan like the next Julius Ceaser. Today, Japan is one of the richest democracies in the world. And is today of the America's biggest allies.

selfbnd411 -> RE: Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (5/11/2007 3:13:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 I don't give a damn what he thinks should be controling the military. The military is not controlled by the people. The Constitution of the United States gives the power of commander-in-chief of the armed forces to the president, and the president solely. So you're saying that the President does not represent the People, and that he is not elected? Indeed...I believe we have found common ground on that!

FirmhandKY -> RE: Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (5/11/2007 3:22:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver The simple answer to any person who is pro-Iraq or pro any other invasion. Invasions and occupations don't work! Whether it is Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin or anyone else, without a substantial flooding in of new population by the invaders or a welcoming host population, sooner or later it will all end in tears. I'm struggling to think of a single invasion that was actually successful in achieving its goals other than one with the single objective of defeating an enemy before packing up and going home. Japan United Stated nuked them twice. Forced the government to surrender. And forced the population to give up their emperor. It worked. And American Generals like Douglas MacArthur strolled through Japan like the next Julius Ceaser. Today, Japan is one of the richest democracies in the world. And is today of the America's biggest allies. Don't confuse meatcleaver with any facts. He's got his ideology to guide him. But, another example a little closer to home, although more distant in time ... he might want to ask the Carthagians if invasions work. Oh .. that's right ... the Romans invaded ... but didn't occupy ... long. FirmKY

cyberdude611 -> RE: Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (5/11/2007 3:44:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 I don't give a damn what he thinks should be controling the military. The military is not controlled by the people. The Constitution of the United States gives the power of commander-in-chief of the armed forces to the president, and the president solely. So you're saying that the President does not represent the People, and that he is not elected? Indeed...I believe we have found common ground on that! The president is not elected by the people. He is elected by the states (electoral college). Each state's vote is dependant on the people. So you can make that connection if you like. But there has been 4 times in our nation's history where a person was elected president but lost the popular vote. Those were the elections of 1824 (Adams), 1876 (Hays), 1888 (Harrison), and 2000 (Bush). Bush was the only one elected to a 2nd term. However keep in mind that prior to 1824, popular vote totals nationwide were not tabulated. So it is unknown what the popular votes were prior to 1824.

meatcleaver -> RE: Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (5/11/2007 3:44:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver The simple answer to any person who is pro-Iraq or pro any other invasion. Invasions and occupations don't work! Whether it is Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin or anyone else, without a substantial flooding in of new population by the invaders or a welcoming host population, sooner or later it will all end in tears. I'm struggling to think of a single invasion that was actually successful in achieving its goals other than one with the single objective of defeating an enemy before packing up and going home. Japan United Stated nuked them twice. Forced the government to surrender. And forced the population to give up their emperor. It worked. And American Generals like Douglas MacArthur strolled through Japan like the next Julius Ceaser. Today, Japan is one of the richest democracies in the world. And is today of the America's biggest allies. I have to admit unnecessarily murdering 200,000 innocent civilians worked a treat. When are you going to nuke Bagdad if nukes is what it takes?

meatcleaver -> RE: Ya'll heard about the Anti-war soldier petition, didn'tja? (5/11/2007 3:51:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Don't confuse meatcleaver with any facts. He's got his ideology to guide him. But, another example a little closer to home, although more distant in time ... he might want to ask the Carthagians if invasions work. Oh .. that's right ... the Romans invaded ... but didn't occupy ... long. FirmKY Rome didn't occupy Carthage, they destroyed it and ploughed it into the earth, rather like nuking a country by today's standards. Hannibal being more civilised and not doing the same to Rome when he had the chance. Rome mostly occupied tribal lands, most of the population not belonging to organised countries with a national identity like today and genocide was part of their strategy, killing swathes of population in their wake and leaving tracts of countryside to be repopulated.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875