- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 113,005
- Reaction score
- 60,584
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
As soon as you stop exploiting troop deaths, I will stop accusing you of doing so.
once again, you are out of line. Please avoid accusing me of accusing the troops or we will have serious issue.
As soon as you stop exploiting troop deaths, I will stop accusing you of doing so.
Look "our Messiah" is tearing down the troops by going on talk shows...lets all announce it to the world maybe just maybe we can get that suicide level even higher than it was last year at this time.
Dude! :shock:This is why it is hard to take you seriously on the topic of Afghanistan. From your stupid complaints that Obama went on Leno, to claiming that the only reason why some don't agree with you is their blind love of Obama, to your exploiting the deaths of troops to make your political point. Right now, people like you are more harmful to the troops in Afghanistan that Obama could even be.
Link?As soon as you stop exploiting troop deaths, I will stop accusing you of doing so.
As soon as you stop making excuses for your messiah at the expense of our bothers and sisters, i'll start taking you seriously.
Look "our Messiah" is tearing down the troops by going on talk shows...lets all announce it to the world maybe just maybe we can get that suicide level even higher than it was last year at this time.
Can we leave suicide rates out of this? Troop deaths are a tragedy, and let's not use them for politics.
Nor should they be ignored for political reasons.
I am making no excuses. If Obama screws up, I will take him to task for it. So far, in this issue, he is doing the right thing as best I can tell. The whole "messiah" thing alone shows you have no interest in discussion, you just want to use hyper-partisan rhetoric to tear down Obama, and could care less really about the troops.
Let me just be clear.
I don't have issue saying Obama needs to make a decision on this.
I don't have much issue with people complaining about his amount of direct content with the general.
I actually agree he needs to not take too long making this choice, however at the same time I don't want it done rashly either.
What I don't agree with is complaining about troop morale and claiming its due to him "carring more" about Leno/Letterman/The Olympics and putting forward troops as props for getting your attack across, all the while you're (generic you) continually being the ones that continue to shout out that "Obama cares more about Leno than you!", "Obama doesn't care about the troops but cares about the Olympics". This is like the people saying Bush just did the war for Halliburton and shouting that out continually. Is there corrolation to both? Definitely. Halliburton benefited from the Iraq War, Obama to The Olympics/Talk shows. Does that somehow definitively prove "Bush did Iraq for Halliburton" or "Obama cares more about the olympics than the troops"? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Sure, some troops may hear the news and think that, but I dare say MORE are going to think that way...and thus lose morale...when you have a plethora of right wingers continually pounding the drums telling them "He doesn't care about you, he doesnt' care about you, he doesn't care about you".
Yet we're supposed to believe that these people pushing their political point in such a way that it will damage morale even further .... "Care about the troops" ?
The main reason why they are losing morale is because they are fighting an uphill battle that is unwinnable. They are being given a long term strategy that has few assertainable results, and an exit strategy that doesn't include the word "victory". Both the Bush and Obama administrations have the same strategy: toss money and lives at the problem and hope for improvement.
The leftist media does play a part in reducing the effectiveness of battle strategies, but they don't take all the blame for demoralizing the troops. Many right wingers are staunchly pro-war but have never even served, so they have no idea the work it takes for soldiers in the field.
Stories like this shouldn't be made public. It can't lead to any good. Now we have soldiers reading this **** online and it will effect even more soldiers's morale. It's a good example of why the media should be kept as far away from the battlefield as legally possible.
I just caught this...man you are SO wrong in many ways. First, the founders established a "free press" to keep the GOVT in check...that includes the military.
I disagree with the premise that a news article about low morale will cause lower morale. Continued deployments to ****hole countries away from their families will cause lower morale, which by what I've read from you, that is something that you advocate...I was in Iraq at the absolute lowest point of the war. The only thing that lower my morale was my fellow Soldiers being wounded and killed and poor leadership; not some lame news article.
The media is integral to keeping the nation back home informed about the war and keeping military leaders and civilian policymakers honest and forthcoming about said war. Imagine if Abu Ghraib never broke? Lyndie England, all her ****bag buddies and their atrocious chain of command would have gone unpunished. I'm glad that story broke and I'm glad that media are embedded with us on the frontline.
"Free press", means that journalists can write anything they please without fear of government censorship.
hahaha, tell that to the FCC.
I think most righties are willing to support the efforts of the soldiers in an attempt to bring the war to quick and decisive conclusion, with an American victory, but saying that righties are, "pro-war", i.e. "war mongerers", isn't accurate.
The strategy is clear. Our military simply requires the means and the political determination to see it through.
So why has this war raged on for eight years?
OK...So what is this clear strategy & why aren't you in DC explaining it to the Sec,. of Defense, the Joint Chiefs & the CinC?
The JCS already know and agree with the strategy. The Chairman seems to be very clear about what the strategy is.
I hardly think it's because Righties just want to have a war going on for the hell of it.
Personally, I think it was because Bush was far too concerned about the Libbos whining about being too hard on the enemy. I think that he should have placed restrictions on the press, went in and did what had to be done.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?