Author Topic: "At least I don't have a kid in Iraq" (Read 2222 times)

Charon · « **Reply #75 on:** January 10, 2007, 07:26:11 PM »

Quote

if you think the "iraq war" is a failure you are a victim of the media and the liberals, most of iraq is peaceful, only a few small areas are affected by the terrorists, the extra troops are to be used in those spots to mop up the remnants.

Hey, then there is no problem. I will sleep well tonight knowing this is a non issue. Once we clean out the last of those "dead enders" democray can just take off.

Charon

Neubob · « **Reply #76 on:** January 10, 2007, 07:33:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by cav58d
My family is 100% supportive of my decision. Not only supportive, but they are extremely encouraging, and are helping me put my WOFT packet together, with a smile on their face.

Are they enthusiastic about you joining the armed forces in general, or are they enthusiastic about you potentially going into combat?

midnight Target · « **Reply #77 on:** January 10, 2007, 08:56:06 PM »

Glad you're serving Cav, and I'm sure Suzanne Sommers will be there with the USO to entertain you when you do.

cav58d · « **Reply #78 on:** January 10, 2007, 09:17:00 PM »

Neubob, they understand the eventuality of what will come with the job I am going into, and they are 100% supportive and enthusiastic.

Neubob · « **Reply #79 on:** January 10, 2007, 09:35:07 PM »

Being enthusiastic about your eagerness to undertake and execute a responsibility is one thing. Being enthusiastic about you being shot at is something totally different.

Being in Iraq and doing the job is honorable and dignified. That does not mean that getting hurt or worse while doing that job is not potentially tragic.

That being said, I beleive that a person(Sommers included) can be both supportive of our troops, and their cause, but at the same time, fear for them.

Do you not agree?

cav58d · « **Reply #80 on:** January 10, 2007, 10:01:54 PM »

I think a better choice of words for her would be, "at least I haven't lost a kid in Iraq". I still think her comments were very degrading, and not necessary. She has the right to say whatever she wants, but I find it offensive. To I find it offensive enough, to ever take this conversation past the AH BBS? No, not at all. But it is offending to me.

cav58d · « **Reply #81 on:** January 10, 2007, 10:03:07 PM »

whatever, it really doesn't matter anymore. I have my opinion, you have yours. Lets close the thread. =)

JB88 · « **Reply #82 on:** January 10, 2007, 10:05:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by cav58d
whatever, it really doesn't matter anymore. I have my opinion, you have yours. Lets close the thread. =)

nevar!!!!

(88 shakes fist at the sky, trembles slightly and lets loose his best william shatner as captain kirk, stranded in the bowels of the genisis planet "CAAAAAAVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV")

ahem.

lazs2 · « **Reply #83 on:** January 11, 2007, 08:44:21 AM »

at its essence... the way I feel about the war is... whatever the troops feel about it.

Right now... the troops seem to think that we should be there and they don't seem to be that upset about being there. I have talked to plenty of em.

I will go with whatever they want. That to me is real support for the troops. Give them what they want.

If they want to stay and finish the job then give em the tools to do so.

I don't like a draft. I was around for a draft. it doesn't equalize out anything... makes it worse even.

I am for a volunteer army. I want the soldiers to be in because they want to be and because they are getting something out of it.

None of this has to do with what wars or police actions we should be in. I just feel that the draft is the ultimate evil. No one wins. If we can't do it with a volunteer force then maybe we shouldn't do it.

lazs

Neubob · « **Reply #84 on:** January 11, 2007, 09:08:02 AM »

Here's a question... And please don't jump on me for asking it. It is a question, not an answer with a question mark at the end.

What is more supportive of our armed forces--wanting our troops to remain at war, doing the job, but, inevitably, leading to casualties, or wanting them to come home, safely, from a mission that is of questionable use to our nation?

Of course I have my own preference. I'm just curious as to what you guys think.

lazs2 · « **Reply #85 on:** January 11, 2007, 09:21:01 AM »

It is supporting of human beings to want to not see harm come to them but...

Troops?

let's make it more simple. is it supportive of me to make me wear seatbelts or a helmet when riding a motorcycle? Is it supportive of me to make a law that says I must run away when a burglar enters my home?

In my opinion... supporting the troops is supporting what they believe is the right thing to do. giving them what they need. You are not supporting them if they believe that they have a mission that is a just one that needs to get done and they are working hard and risking everything and then.....

you are pulling the rug out from under them or.... going around saying that their sacrafices are not what you want that you think they are causing harm rather than good...

It is like saying that you know more than them so they should shut up and quit killing babies.

Not sure if I put it right but in essence you don't support someone by imposing your will on them. It is not support to tell someone they don't know what they are talking about or doing and that you are gonna stop em for their own good.

In vietnam it was a lot simpler.... supporting the troops was not as clear cut with a large portion of the draftees really never wanting to be there and wanting out badly once they were.

I believe that is why the left wants a draft.. to get the more maleable kids in to use as examples.

It is extremely hard to say you are supporting the troops when you don't have a lot of kerries throwing their fake medals away in public or groups of kids scared of a draft out protesting.

My idea of supporting the troops is to listen to them and help them anyway they think they need.... I would say that no matter what I read I will not know as much as they do being there.

lazs

Neubob · « **Reply #86 on:** January 11, 2007, 09:37:32 AM »

Ok, fair enough... But you are an individual. The armed forces, for lack of a better term, are an organ of a nation.

The men and women of the military are experts in deciding how to execute their mission. Do you think that they should have autonomy in deciding what their mission is, when that mission is finished?

Maverick · « **Reply #87 on:** January 11, 2007, 12:01:05 PM »

Neubob,

Yourt question is overly limiting in that there are certainly more options and conditions than you limited. In addition you allowed your personal bias to show in the wording of it.

Be that as it may. the last question you asked is easy. The answer is no.

As long as we have the country we have now the military needs to have and be controlled by (I'm talking policy and political decisions here) by that civilian government. That means the goals of the country politically are not set by the military.

Once the political goal is set and the option to use military power is engaged, then get out of the tactical arena and let the military leaders practice their craft. Please note I said the "tactical arena". This means the politicos stay the hell out of the ops center and leave war fighting to the experts.

On the strategic level they (civilian politicians) must be involved. Strategic goals are tied directly to the political goals and political input and direction are important. This does not mean the politicos go back and start directing combat ops. They merely set the political goals to be achieved by the combat and lay guidelines to accomplish them. Then they again let the military leaders obtain them. Clausiwitz said it best when he stated that war is the ultimate expression of political power by a nation.

If you totally remove the politicians from the equation you have just stepped into a military government similar to what saddumb employed in iraq. Mao also described it when he said true political power is derived from the barrel of a gun. That kind of system is exactly what the founding fathers were striving to avoid and I think they did a darn good job.

This really is a subject for a separate thread rather than hijacking this one.

lazs2 · « **Reply #88 on:** January 11, 2007, 02:48:50 PM »

very good answer mav. thanks. I would not have done as well.

It does boil down to the fact that you need to give the troops all the monetary and .... more intangible.. the moral support they need to accomplish whatever mission they are tasked to do.

That mission is where there is room to support the troops but not the way the war is going. but..

I do not believe it is support to have a press that only shows the bad caused by their mission...or.. that dwells on the inevitable barbarism of a very few soldiers while claiming that the thousands of heroic acts performed every day are not newsworthy.

I also think that the troops on the ground have a better feel for what is going on than the average voter or BB poster. For now, it seems that the troops want to accomplish something for all their sacrafice. I would allow them to do so at this point.

lazs

namvet · « **Reply #89 on:** January 12, 2007, 01:12:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
RPM shacked this one. In fact, this could possibly be the dumbest neocon twisty thread ever..

And that is saying a lot.

Amazing the lengths they will go to in order to avoid the fact that war is bad, or that having a loved one in harm's way could be more painful than losing one's home. Hitler and Stalin could only dream of having followers so expertly brainwashed.