RE: When Patriots are Blind

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: When Patriots are Blind

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: When Patriots are Blind

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: When Patriots are Blind - 5/12/2007 10:55:12 AM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Manawyddan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
I have been trashed by people telling me I do not support the troops, almost the entire time, both here and elsewhere. Unfortunately, history has proven that my reasons for not wanting us to go to war turned out to be valid. I wish this were not the case.

That's one of the arguments I continuously make to the conservatives in my office, and they always shrug and nod but refuse to admit any mistake.

Essentially: Everything that's occured in Iraq was predicted by the left-wing press. It was the conservative press who said it would be cheap and easy and over with in six months.

So whose talking points should I believe now?

Mana, it was also predicted by Pat Buchanan.

(in reply to Manawyddan)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: When Patriots are Blind - 5/12/2007 2:01:18 PM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Therefore, "I support the troops, I just don't support the war." is an oxymoronic statement.

The need to 'support the troops' is a ploi used by those that believe in the war. Supporting the troops is irrelevent, neither side do, the troops are a pawn in a game, a pawn put on the chess board by those that sent the troops to war. They are a red herring in the intellectual argument about whether the war is right or wrong. The phrase 'support the troops' is thrown into the argument to cloud the weak position of the pro-war faction.

The troops were sent to war based on a lie. The neo-cons intended to invade Iraq before 9/11 so they are there not because of an imminent danger nor because Iraq hosted terroists nor because they were supposed to have WMD. The troops were sent to war and put in danger because it suited the interests of the neocons. The same people who challenge people to 'support the troops'. If one is against the war they can't 'support the troops' but they can be 'concerned for the safety of the troops' which is a valid and lofty position to take since the troops are in a war that should never have been fought.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Profile

Post #: 42

RE: When Patriots are Blind - 5/12/2007 5:14:16 PM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

I've never used any "you must support the troops" as a technique to garner support for winning the war.

I just recognize that people who choose to say "I support the troops, I just don't support the war" are trying to have their cake and eat it too. That's why they don't like being confronted with the logical, ultimate conclusion about their conflicting beliefs. Cognitive dissonance.

FirmKY

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 43

RE: When Patriots are Blind - 5/12/2007 5:21:04 PM

farglebargle

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Manawyddan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
I have been trashed by people telling me I do not support the troops, almost the entire time, both here and elsewhere. Unfortunately, history has proven that my reasons for not wanting us to go to war turned out to be valid. I wish this were not the case.

That's one of the arguments I continuously make to the conservatives in my office, and they always shrug and nod but refuse to admit any mistake.

Essentially: Everything that's occured in Iraq was predicted by the left-wing press. It was the conservative press who said it would be cheap and easy and over with in six months.

So whose talking points should I believe now?

Manawyddan,

No offense, but I will take your post in order to discuss an often stated truism with which I disagree.

That truism that "I support the troops, I just don't support the war."

The cold hard fact of the matter is that the majority of the troops - especially the warriors at the point of the spear - have the desire for victory as their foremost goal.

DEFINE: VICTORY.
CITE: Your source for "the majority of the troops".

quote:

"Opposing the war" automatically means that you do not seek victory, you seek something less.

This belief then, is not supporting what "the troops" wish, and fight for.

That MIGHT be true IF the Troops set POLICY. But they don't. So it is perfectly acceptable to oppose the POLICY which has the troops deployed, yet still support the Troops individually.

In other words: THE TROOPS ARE *NOT* THE MISSION.

And I wonder about the agenda of those who would have us believe that the troops are.

I'd HIDE a deserter from Bush's Folly. Is THAT enough support?

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Profile

Post #: 44

RE: When Patriots are Blind - 5/12/2007 5:21:25 PM

minnetar

Posts: 1272
Joined: 4/11/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I've never used any "you must support the troops" as a technique to garner support for winning the war.

I just recognize that people who choose to say "I support the troops, I just don't support the war" are trying to have their cake and eat it too. That's why they don't like being confronted with the logical, ultimate conclusion about their conflicting beliefs. Cognitive dissonance.

FirmKY

i disagree. i definitely do not support the war. That is based on the reasons the government used to support our entering it. i do support the troops. Why shouldn't everyone. They enlisted to do a job to support our country. It wasn't something that is conditional based on whether they think we have entered into a conflict that is right or wrong.

minnetar

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Profile

Post #: 45

RE: When Patriots are Blind - 5/12/2007 5:25:20 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

I have been asking war supporters to "define victory" for 4+ years now, farglebargle.

I generally get some inarticulate verbal attack at my patriotism accompanied with frantic hand waving.

I wonder how Gallileo felt trying to convince the Catholic Church that the earth revolved around the sun, or
how Christopher Columbus felt trying to explain to people that if you sailed west you would not fall off the planet.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to farglebargle)

Profile

Post #: 46

RE: When Patriots are Blind - 5/12/2007 5:27:50 PM

farglebargle

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

I have been asking war supporters to "define victory" for 4+ years now, farglebargle.

As the Social Constructivists would argue, words without agreement on meaning are meaningLESS.

When I see the word "Victory", in this context, I just have to see if my understanding is in line with the usage.

E.G.: Victory COULD HAVE MEANT the assurance of no WMD, and the ouster of the Hussein lead government.

But obviously it didn't. As we are still hearing calls for it.

Now I GUESS it means something like: Kuwait's Government.

Rotsa Ruck

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Sinergy)

Profile

Post #: 47

RE: When Patriots are Blind - 5/12/2007 7:49:50 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: minnetar

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I've never used any "you must support the troops" as a technique to garner support for winning the war.

I just recognize that people who choose to say "I support the troops, I just don't support the war" are trying to have their cake and eat it too. That's why they don't like being confronted with the logical, ultimate conclusion about their conflicting beliefs. Cognitive dissonance.

FirmKY

i disagree. i definitely do not support the war. That is based on the reasons the government used to support our entering it. i do support the troops. Why shouldn't everyone. They enlisted to do a job to support our country. It wasn't something that is conditional based on whether they think we have entered into a conflict that is right or wrong.

minnetar

Ditto ditto and mega ditto! agreed!

the troops have an obligation to follow the orders of this government and there is an extremely fine line where troops can dissent, (only on paper) because when the commander says do it you do or get court marshalled.

I support the troops and respect them to the highest for fighting a war that we never should have been in.

i have no respect for the people who put us in that war and there is no victory to had and only the slow or no learners have not figured that out yet.

you just have not been able to make that distinction between honor and duties that our soldiers respect and perform and the treason and traitors that are operating our government with your approval.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to minnetar)

Profile

Post #: 48

RE: When Patriots are Blind - 5/12/2007 8:14:23 PM

minnetar

Posts: 1272
Joined: 4/11/2007
Status: offline

Firm can you please explain why You think we are trying to play both sides of the fence?

minnetar

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Profile

Post #: 49

RE: When Patriots are Blind - 5/12/2007 8:16:15 PM

minnetar

Posts: 1272
Joined: 4/11/2007
Status: offline

lmao Real i was trying to tone our opposition down.

minnetar

(in reply to Real0ne)

Profile

Post #: 50

RE: When Patriots are Blind - 5/12/2007 9:41:36 PM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: minnetar

Firm can you please explain why You think we are trying to play both sides of the fence?

minn,

Well, first, I don't really think many who use it are really trying to "play" both sides of the fence. Many do it without understanding where the logic of their position leads. I gave a short answer in my post 40 in this thread, but I'll defer to merc for a detailed explanation. I read his at one point, and attempted to find it through the "search" function, but was unsuccessful. If he has the time, perhaps he will be able to give better guidance on where he discussed the logic.

My explanation in post 40 is also a bit sparse, but here is my thinking a little more in detail.

Many people are against the war. Some for purely political reasons, some for pragmatic reasons, some for humanitarian reasons, some for personal reasons (they have something or someone to lose over there). I think that those who are against the war for personal reasons have the most difficult time with reconciling nonsupport of the war with their love of the individual that may be in the conflict. They suffer the most personal pain, and I recognize the difficultly that they have in emotionally bringing their two positions into harmony. In fact, I think that they can't really successfully do that and it adds a burden to their souls. I sympathize with them, and will not directly criticize them.

For all the rest, it should be easier to see how nonsupport of the war translates into nonsupport of the troops. The one's who refuse to say that though, are generally doing so for the purely political reasons i.e. they understand that an attack on "the troops" doesn't play well with a large majority of the US public, regardless of the politics of the origin and prosecution of the war or because they haven't thought it all the way through yet..

But, you can track the events of how returning troops from Vietnam were treated over time, as that war lost public support. And, in that time, it was a draft military, unlike the volunteer force of today.

There is a similar progression of how the troops are viewed today, in this conflict. The hidden contempt for the military, and their role in the conflict has slowly been revealed in those areas that the antiwar forces can do so. Notice how many of the antiwar people try to make the argument that only uneducated idiots join the services? That recruiting is tumbling, that now felony criminals and drug addicts can now join?

Have you noticed how every single possible incident of brutality or criminal behavior on the part of any US military member is seized upon, and widely publicized by the very people who are against the war but still "support the troops"?

The longer the war goes on, the more the mask will slip from those who "Support the troops, but don't support the war". The safer the antiwar leadership feels about expressing their true feelings about the troops, the more negative things you will see and hear about the troops, and the lower the barriers between "the troops" and "the war" will become.

If it goes on long enough, you'll see them spitting on soldiers in public again.

And, yes, this is certainly a generalization. I'm sure you will be able to find exceptions (and you may be one), and people who can make a distinction between "the war" and "the soldier". But they are going to be rarer than hen's teeth, because that simply isn't how humanity's psychology generally works. It is extremely difficult for someone to "hate the crime, but love the criminal". You can't "hate a police state, but love the policeman". You can't "hate religion, but love the priest". You can't "hate murder, but love the murderer".

Of course, you may recognize all of these formulations of the common Christian saying of "hate the sin, love the sinner". The reason you recognize it and them is because it is a philosophical attempt to overcome a natural human tendency to identify the "bad thing" with the "doer".

That natural human tendency is what causes the cognitive dissonance that I mentioned earlier. And, why I say, that you can't "Not support the war, but support the troops".

FirmKY

< Message edited by FirmhandKY -- 5/12/2007 9:50:14 PM >

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to minnetar)

Profile

Post #: 51

RE: When Patriots are Blind - 5/12/2007 10:01:08 PM

farglebargle

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

If you're correct, then WHY do so many NOT support the troops? Consciously or otherwise?

Does a Soldier who enjoys Sovereignty in a Constitutional Republic have a higher duty to scrutinize orders, their lawfulness, and Constitutionality and act in the best interest of the Their States, and The Republic than a Slave Soldier who is merely "following orders" ( and is that acceptable post-Nuremberg Trails ) ?

Have the atrocities committed in the name of the United States brought the neglect of these responsibilities to the fore?

Namely, that everyone who obeyed an order to torture has dishonored themselves, their branch, and this nation?

Is this, in part, why Congress shall make no appropriations past 2 years? Because the Framers understood the danger inherent in keeping a standing army? ( i.e.: The Citizens forget their Sovereignty. )

< Message edited by farglebargle -- 5/12/2007 10:02:42 PM >

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Profile

Post #: 52

RE: When Patriots are Blind - 5/12/2007 10:24:14 PM

curiousexplorer

Posts: 77
Joined: 2/1/2007
Status: offline

There are a few things to remember in terms of Iraq.
The main person who apparently lied about WMD was the madman who claimed to have them. Whenever a madman claims to have weapons and has proven their willingness to use them, only a fool doesn't take the threat seriously.
Also the U.N. should have stepped in the very first time Saddam gave any resistence to weapons inspectors. They should have removed him and commited a multinational peacekeeping force to stabalise the country for at least a decade, probably two. Stability and a taste of freedom helps people to want to fight for it. I'm sure Americans and Australians would fight for what they have feasted on for many generations.
Those who claimed failure before the war started or after a few years simply had no idea of the time it takes for change of this nature. The support they drained also helped to encourage the result they, and others, wanted. The insurgents love the protesters. Them and the voting process is the one thing the insurgents can hang onto. They are banking on leaderhsip and policy changes and will hold out for them.
And most importantly, sometimes doing the right thing doesn't change anything, but it is still the right thing to do.
And for all the feel good people who pretend to care about the world by being against the war, it is their own backyards and countires which they care about. If they were even close to being as progressive as they claim to be their patriotism would be for the future global community. That would mean taking active steps to destroy, yes destroy, all dictatorships, one by one.
But I'm a scifi fan, and don't expect people to be capable of these things for at least another 500 years, probably longer, if ever.

(in reply to farglebargle)

Profile

Post #: 53

RE: When Patriots are Blind - 5/13/2007 4:15:37 AM

farglebargle

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

The main person who apparently lied about WMD was the madman who claimed to have them.

7 December 2002, Hussein certifies to the UN the status of all programs

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/iraq/documents/page1.html

Well, since Hussein said he didn't have any, and it turns out HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY, I wonder exactly where you're getting your information from.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to curiousexplorer)

Profile

Post #: 54

RE: When Patriots are Blind - 5/13/2007 6:41:50 AM

puella

Posts: 2457
Joined: 12/2/2004
Status: offline

Not to mention that it was the US, not Saddam Hussein who kicked out the weapons inspectors. Was it not reported here about how Hans Blix was having a coronary because his inspectors were actually getting their job done (even though there were not weapons of mass destruction to be found) and the US hauled them out to begin the bombing campaign? Blix was on the news almost constantly in the months before the US invaded Iraq. His confidence that the inspectors could and were properly finishing the job that was assigned to them, and that what Hussein and the Iraqi ministers to the UN had said (that Iraq did not have WMD and that all their plants were destroyed/and or dismatled in the wake of the Gulf War and subsequent sanctions) was bearing out to be absolutely true was part of what made the outcry in the public of the UK so much more present and palpable over how incredibly wrong and unnecessary it was to invade that country (and isarguably the greatest part of why Tony Blair is being forced to finally step down).

_____________________________

We must move forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom...... The Simpsons

War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." ...Ambrose Bierce

"Don't you oppress me!"....Stan/Loretta

(in reply to farglebargle)

Profile

Post #: 55

RE: When Patriots are Blind - 5/13/2007 8:07:48 AM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

"I'd HIDE a deserter from Bush's Folly. Is THAT enough support? "

Well said, and I've not seen it challenged as of yet.

I agree totally, but I can indeed understand the other side. This is not a football team. Loss means death, not getting into a first class seat and going home with their tail between their legs.

I wish they had never started this shit, but they did. At this stage of the game the job must be completed, there needs to be alot of killing to quell the families and friends of those we have already killed. As much as I am firmly against this war, I can see that there is no backing out. A civil war could rightly be blamed on us at best, and I mean at best. Worse is the hornet's nest we stirred up. When a foreign government comes and occupies your country and kills your compatriots, what do you do ?

Someone asked how long we were going to be in Iraq, I got the answer to that, as long as the credit of the US government is properly propped up. We have had bases in Germany and Japan for how long now ? The answer is forever. In fact the answer is forever in about 130 countries or so last count.

Do we have a military base in Israel ? Do we have a military base in Russia ?

Why, why not ? Somehow I don't think they got around to Pakistan either. Logically, sometimes one can deduce the reason from the results. And the picture that paints is a bit too gruesome for some people's taste. The truth is still the truth.

And the truth is that 'they' want to rule the world. And the truth is that 'they' are doing everything in their power to accomplish it. Greed and the hunger for power is an incureable addiction for this species. Unlike a substance abuser, who might quit in later life if for no other reason than that his body simply can't handle it anymore, they persue their addiction to their last dying breath. And they get better and better at it.

And that is why they are winning. That is why they are rich and we are poor. And don't think, even if you make say $200,000 a year, that you are not poor. You have no real money anyway, but that isn't even the point. Tht $200,000 doesn't buy as much as it should because A) they get a cut out of damnear everything and B) they control what the money is worth.

Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws. Who all remembers who said that ? And, the bigger question is, what are his descendents and those of his cohorts doing today ?

The only choice is to break our addiction to money. Maybe go live in the woods. Oh, wait, the Weavers tried that. And I guess the Davidians didn't move far enough.

I have a hard time understanding such avariciousness, and I am sure it is impossible for many good people. But I do comprehend that they do not care one iota for us, our sons, daughters sent into their slaughter in Iraq or wherever. They simply do not care at all. As long as their kids aren't there. They recruit governments, and Iraq is simply a troublesome enlistee. Iraq requires a bit of special training. And THAT is exactly what is happening.

So if supporting our troops means that I must support this cabal of real muthafukers, then I guess I don't. I am very sorry if you take the position as that. But the truth is the truth. If it is true that I must support the war to claim to support the troops, I no longer claim to support the troops.

Happy now ?

( umm, that was sarcastic, I don't want to see anyone killed, even the Iraqis, get it ? )

T

(in reply to puella)

Profile

Post #: 56

RE: When Patriots are Blind - 5/13/2007 8:40:23 AM

caitlyn

Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline

I think you need to differentiate between:
1. Oppositon to going to war ...
2. Opposition to war, as it was sold to the American people ...
3. Opposition to events of today ...

1. Opposition to going to war ...
Going to war could be seen as questionable at best. I think many Americans feel that war should be a last resort.

2. Opposition to war, as it was sold to the American people
Lets forget WMD's, etc ... That's a matter people will never agree on. It could have been nefarious, it could have been a mistake, it could be that Iraq hid them ... it could be a lot of things. Lets point to the objective of removing Saddam and installing an elected government. People have the right to oppose this as an objective. Many people don't want our government to be this involved in the government of other people.

3. Opposition to events of today ...
This is the most troubling, at least to me, in that the objective keeps changing, and there is no end in sight.

Looking at these three, point one would counter the position that we made this mess and have a responsibility to clean it up. This is my position, and I freely admit that point one destroys my position fully. It's hard to imagine the chaos that might happen, were we to just leave ... but it is chaos of our own making. Point two is the most clear. "Mission Accomplished", was clear enough ... why didn't we leave then? There was a short period, before terror cells established themselves in Iraq, when Iraqis could have established a government for themselves, and been the nation they wanted to be, rather than the one we wanted them to be. Point three takes you down the worst road, towards President Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex.

I feel you can oppose the war, but support the troops. We will have to respectfully disagree. If that takes me down a notch in your eyes, so be it.

Point one is the ultimate support of the troops ... we will not put them in harms way, while there are other options available.

Point two is also support for the troops ... they accomplished the goal as stated. To keep them there, is to devalue their accomplishment.

Point three is likewise support for the troops ... we will not allow them to die jumping a bar that will forever be higher, and will have no end.

Thank you for your time, and my apologies for the length of this post.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Profile

Post #: 57

RE: When Patriots are Blind - 5/13/2007 8:44:18 AM

slaverosebeauty

Posts: 1941
Joined: 12/12/2004
From: Cali
Status: offline

Hiding a 'deserter' from this 'mess' is as American as you can get. Would I do it, in a heart beat, no questions asked. This is my generations Vietnam, on steriods. I support the troups {those who have volunteered to go to war, serve and protect us, and die if neccessary, regardless if they agree for our reasons being there or not}, NOT the government or the monkey in charge.

Hussein is dead, can't we let the man burn in peace?!

_____________________________

http://slaverosebeauty.livejournal.com/

"Friends live on in our hearts, regardless if they are here or not."

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 58

RE: When Patriots are Blind - 5/13/2007 9:38:55 AM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

I feel you can oppose the war, but support the troops. We will have to respectfully disagree. If that takes me down a notch in your eyes, so be it.

A principled and well thought out disagreement never lowers someone in my eyes.

I will address your other points later, when I have more time.

Good post, btw.

FirmKY

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to caitlyn)

Profile

Post #: 59

RE: When Patriots are Blind - 5/13/2007 10:04:50 AM

agirl

Posts: 4530
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline

What exactly IS the definition of *supporting the troops*?.

agirl

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Profile

Post #: 60