Dems DO NOT Support the Troops

[Mikkel]

Here's a dem who obviously doesn't support the troops and is proud to say so.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/...raq/index.html

Dean: U.S. can't win Iraq war
GOP says Democrat leader embraces 'retreat and defeat'

Tuesday, December 6, 2005; Posted: 1:37 p.m. EST (18:37 GMT)


In an interview with WOAI radio in San Antonio Monday, the head of the Democratic Party drew a parallel between efforts to hand over security responsibilities to Iraqis and similar efforts during the Vietnam War to the South Vietnamese

Do you have a link that works? This one just takes me to a cnn error page.

 

[aps]

Is it true flattery will get me everywhere?

It might.

Did you see my funny comment about phone sex? Hee hee hee

 

[Donkey1499]

While the leader of the DNC has no faith in mighty US Military, the Democrat's 2004 presidential hopeful accuses the troops of acts of terror.

Howard Dean said "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong," As many of you know, I'm in the military and I know one hell of a lot more than Dean and we can and will win this war.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/5/200637.shtml

John Kerry accused the troops of terror " ... And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the - of - the historical customs, religious customs." This does sound like the same borderline acts of treason he committed after Vietnam.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/5/162822.shtml

With leaders like this who demoralize the our troops and invigorate the enemy, no wonder the military voted 73% Republican. Lets have some faith for our guys can we?

The dems are just weakling little pansies that have no spine. FDR would be spinning in his grave to hear that his party is a party of cutting and running. Today's democrat party is Anti-American... oh yeah, I just went there.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Do you have a link that works? This one just takes me to a cnn error page.

Dean said taht success in Iraq depends on Iraqis and that the US military can't win it for them.

It's fine when the Bush Admin says it, but almost treasonous when Dean says it for some reason.

 

[oldreliable67]

Interesting commnet posted by Steve Verdon on the 'OutSide the Beltway' blog:

Frankly, the Democrats tactic of saying we can't win in Iraq strikes me as precisely the wrong approach to the problem. If the Democrats "win" on this one the result is that we lose. We lose in Iraq and we quite possibly degrad [sic] our ability to prosecute the war on terrorism in other parts of the world. Maybe that is what the Democratic party leadership wants, but it doesn't look like a very good strategy for making the U.S. safer...which ironically is one of the Democrats complaints about invading Iraq in the first place.

Source.

In other words, with their 'cut and run' rhetoric, the Dems are risking reinforcing voter convictions that the Repubs will do a better job of addressing terrorism.

 

[Donkey1499]

Interesting commnet posted by Steve Verdon on the 'OutSide the Beltway' blog:



Source.

In other words, with their 'cut and run' rhetoric, the Dems are risking reinforcing voter convictions that the Repubs will do a better job of addressing terrorism.

The right has currently done better at fighting terrorism than the left. The dems would rather throw money at the problem (wasting tax money???).

 

[Mikkel]

Dean said taht success in Iraq depends on Iraqis and that the US military can't win it for them.

It's fine when the Bush Admin says it, but almost treasonous when Dean says it for some reason.

That seems like hypocracy to me.

I have a question for the 'support the troops or else' crowd here. What do you make of Paul Hackett? He's an Iraq war veteran who ran against Jean Schmidt last year's special election and lost by 2 percentage points. He's now making a bid for senate against DeWine next year. He's the biggest Bush bashing politician I've seen since Howard Dean was running for President.

Is he treasonous for opposing the war after fighting in it, or could it just be that it makes it easier for you to justify your position by calling dissentors traitors?

http://www.paulhackett.com/
(if it takes you to some poorly designed website, there should be a link at the top taking you to his real website with the same domain name)

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The dems are just weakling little pansies that have no spine. FDR would be spinning in his grave to hear that his party is a party of cutting and running. Today's democrat party is Anti-American... oh yeah, I just went there.

I take it you didn't read the thread before you jumped in with the variety of name-calling you substitute for debate, so I'll re-post this for your edification:

[MOD MODE]
These sorts of, "\/\/3 ru|3, 7h3y dr00|," threads have a history to rapidly degenerating.
If you would like the thread to remain open, please continue to keep the debate about the thread subject.
[/MOD MODE]
​

 

[Donkey1499]

I take it you didn't read the thread before you jumped in with the variety of name-calling you substitute for debate, so I'll re-post this for your edification:

[MOD MODE]
These sorts of, "\/\/3 ru|3, 7h3y dr00|," threads have a history to rapidly degenerating.
If you would like the thread to remain open, please continue to keep the debate about the thread subject.
[/MOD MODE]
​

Dude, you're getting all pissed off over a little ol post I made? I was writting about WHY the dems don't support the troops or their cause. I may have been a little harsh, but you need to lighten up a bit. If it offended you, then oh well. Just ignore it or laugh at it. People take stuff too seriously these days.

 

[YNKYH8R]

Ya the underwear on the head was murderous treatment. I think Abu Ghraib although wrong for basic reasons was blown way out of proportion to make our president and our military look bad. The dems led that march to tarnish the whole for the actions of a part.... You stated that no politicians made those comparisons, i just brought up durbin to show you that they have. And shehan also is notorious for insulting and discrediting the military and she's definetly a dem poster girl. They were just examples. And the comparison between shehan and England falls way short.

It's my opinion that you give those that defend you a bit wider of a birth. They are the ones dodging the bullets and roadside bombs. There young and make a lot of split second life or death decisions. And some are bound to be wrong. When it comes to the military, if a person hasn't been there, specially in combat, i take what they say with a grain of salt. I'll give them the benifit of the doubt, until proven as a whole they are acting out of malice and not duty or neccesity.

I don't believe it was blown too far out of proportion because of the way it was viewed by the Iraqi population. We don't have a lot of social taboos to exploit.

 

[Mikkel]

I don't believe it was blown too far out of proportion because of the way it was viewed by the Iraqi population. We don't have a lot of social taboos to exploit.

Additionally, we're trying to build a free democracy in Iraq. If something like that happened in the United States, it would have been an even bigger scandal. If we can't follow the same code of behavior in Iraq as we do here, the mission has failed.

 

[ANAV]

How do you win a war unless the other side surrenders? Do you think they will do that?

The terrorist and insurgents don't have to surrender for us and the people of Iraq to win. In ten days Iraq has yet another election on the road to democracy. So we are winning.

Our surrender (leaving before the Iraqi's are ready to protect and govern themselves) is the only way can lose.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Dude, you're getting all pissed off over a little ol post I made? I was writting about WHY the dems don't support the troops or their cause. I may have been a little harsh, but you need to lighten up a bit. If it offended you, then oh well. Just ignore it or laugh at it. People take stuff too seriously these days.

[MOD MODE]
I'm not upset.
Nor is name-calling debate.
These sorts threads do have a history of rapid deterioration.
If you have an issue with my actions feel free to pm me, vauge or any other mod or report my posts using the 'Report Bad Post' button on the bottom left of my posts.

per Forum Rules

5. Moderators - Moderators are the key to the success of any board. They are expected to live up to a higher standard as such we expect you to treat them with a higher standard. Any rule broken against a moderator could result in immediate banning. Publicly disrespectful behavior from a member toward a moderator regarding moderator actions or decisions may result in a summary suspension of that member's posting privileges.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/buttons/report.gif
5a. If there are any concerns over a moderators actions, please address a private message (PM) to vauge or the moderator in question. Your feedback and concerns are very valuable to the success of this board. Each and every PM will be read and investigated.
​

[/MOD MODE]

 

[ANAV]

You can support the troops and not agree with this war at the same time.

And you can show support for the troops in other way and not demoralize them by telling saying they can't win and invigorating the opposition.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

And you can show support for the troops in other way and not demoralize them by telling saying they can't win and invigorating the opposition.

The Admin's opposition to the humane treatment of detainees in US custody certainly has "invigorated the opposition." Does that mean the Bush Admin doesn't support our troops too?

 

[alphieb]

If you don't support the mission how do you support those that are perfornming the very task you don't support?

Our troops enlisted to serve our country, they were called and have/are serving their duty as promised. If I enlisted and was called I would uphold my promise even if I didn't agree. Those very troops are the ones who will maintain our freedom in the future, etc. Why is that so hard to understand? Regardless, of what I think of Bush's decision, I know in their heart of hearts they are trying to protect US.....Perhaps they have a different opinion, I respect and support that.

 

[alphieb]

And you can show support for the troops in other way and not demoralize them by telling saying they can't win and invigorating the opposition.

Refer to post #66, how do you define winning?

 

[alphieb]

The terrorist and insurgents don't have to surrender for us and the people of Iraq to win. In ten days Iraq has yet another election on the road to democracy. So we are winning.

Our surrender (leaving before the Iraqi's are ready to protect and govern themselves) is the only way can lose.

How do we combat the Sunni's which makes up a high percentage of the population? What happens when we leave? I suspect there will be some resistance.

 

[Donkey1499]

[MOD MODE]
I'm not upset.
Nor is name-calling debate.
These sorts threads do have a history of rapid deterioration.
If you have an issue with my actions feel free to pm me, vauge or any other mod or report my posts using the 'Report Bad Post' button on the bottom left of my posts.

per Forum Rules

5. Moderators - Moderators are the key to the success of any board. They are expected to live up to a higher standard as such we expect you to treat them with a higher standard. Any rule broken against a moderator could result in immediate banning. Publicly disrespectful behavior from a member toward a moderator regarding moderator actions or decisions may result in a summary suspension of that member's posting privileges.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/buttons/report.gif
5a. If there are any concerns over a moderators actions, please address a private message (PM) to vauge or the moderator in question. Your feedback and concerns are very valuable to the success of this board. Each and every PM will be read and investigated.
​

[/MOD MODE]

Of course name calling isn't debate, but it is a tactic. Do you have a problem with someone coming on here calling Bush a liar, even though that still has yet to be proven? I don't even remember what I had said earlier, so I'll go back and check it. Plus, I've been away from this site for a week and a half for personal reasons, so my debating is a bit rusty right now.

 

[Donkey1499]

The Admin's opposition to the humane treatment of detainees in US custody certainly has "invigorated the opposition." Does that mean the Bush Admin doesn't support our troops too?

Well, the torture definately needs to stop. To torture is definately anti-American. Cheney should be kicked in the nuts for suggesting torture. So, does Cheney support the troops? Cuz if we torture the terrorists, then that just pisses them off. But if we show them kindness they'll feel ashamed and give us whatever info we need. One idea is the US Military could hire prostitutes (who say they are virgins, even tho they're not) and we could even give them feasts fit for a king. Then we stop the kindness and tell them that if they want it back, they need to tell us what we want to know and if the info is wrong they get a kick to the nuts (why? I dunno). But what I'm trying to say is that torture is not the answer. What do we have secret agents for if they're not out in the field? Have someone join Al Qaeda, work their way up through the ranks, then eliminate Bin Laden. It's easier said than done, but Hell, Al Qaeda has recruited Americans before, haven't they?

But any who, those who support torture do not support the troops, nor do they support America and her interests.

 

[stsburns]

Democrats patrioticly see their duty in the US to question authority except when they are in power. Republicans already believe in authority, so loyalty comes easier for them to give in. But back to the point, Democrats rutinely say they are "not against the soldier, were against the war," which is the same recycled line they used during Vietnam. They are using doing everything they can in their power to portray Iraq as Vietnam. If this is shown as support for our troops, I wonder what to think on how the last presidency supported our troops? Can anyone take a guess?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I don't believe it was blown too far out of proportion because of the way it was viewed by the Iraqi population. We don't have a lot of social taboos to exploit.

It was underwear on the head. I didn't see any pics of blow torches and genitals.... It was a college hazing... It was blown way out of proportion

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Additionally, we're trying to build a free democracy in Iraq. If something like that happened in the United States, it would have been an even bigger scandal. If we can't follow the same code of behavior in Iraq as we do here, the mission has failed.

Bullshhit... Horrible things happen in prison all the time... Yet you hear nothing about it.. Sorry was used as a pathetic way to make the military look bad... Blown up blown up blown up

 

[Calm2Chaos]

The Admin's opposition to the humane treatment of detainees in US custody certainly has "invigorated the opposition." Does that mean the Bush Admin doesn't support our troops too?

They were treated fine. Hell better then fine in some cases. Again making something out of nothing to try and make the President and the military look bad

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Our troops enlisted to serve our country, they were called and have/are serving their duty as promised. If I enlisted and was called I would uphold my promise even if I didn't agree. Those very troops are the ones who will maintain our freedom in the future, etc. Why is that so hard to understand? Regardless, of what I think of Bush's decision, I know in their heart of hearts they are trying to protect US.....Perhaps they have a different opinion, I respect and support that.

So you join the military.. Your CO comes up to you and tell you to enter the school and wipe out all the student no matter what the age. Do you do this?