• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do you support the troops?

Yesterday Murtha said that our troops "Murdered Civilians and that's why they need to be brought home, to stop the murders". So, now our troops are murderers just because some un-named sources said so? The military is doing an investigation. The troops them selves said they were fired upon; I choose to believe the troops, not an un-named source let alone Murtha. Murtha also said that children were murdered in the shooting.... maybe if he considers 16-17 year olds to be "children". Women were also reported (by Murtha's un-named source) that "women were murdered"... what I'm getting from Murtha is that women aren't capable of shooting a gun at out troops? SEXISt REMARKS COMING FROM A LIBERAL!?!?! BLASPHEMY!!!:roll:
 
Donkey1499 said:
Yesterday Murtha said that our troops "Murdered Civilians and that's why they need to be brought home, to stop the murders". So, now our troops are murderers just because some un-named sources said so? The military is doing an investigation. The troops them selves said they were fired upon; I choose to believe the troops, not an un-named source let alone Murtha. Murtha also said that children were murdered in the shooting.... maybe if he considers 16-17 year olds to be "children". Women were also reported (by Murtha's un-named source) that "women were murdered"... what I'm getting from Murtha is that women aren't capable of shooting a gun at out troops? SEXISt REMARKS COMING FROM A LIBERAL!?!?! BLASPHEMY!!!:roll:

Source?

...
 
Iriemon said:
Source?

...

I would, BUT, I'm too lazy at this time. Look it up yourself. It was all over the news yesterday, or at least Fox covered it. And besides, if I remember my own post correctly, unless I'm thinking of another one, I stated that I saw it on Special Report: W/ Brit Hume.
 
Donkey1499 said:
Yesterday Murtha said that our troops "Murdered Civilians and that's why they need to be brought home, to stop the murders". So, now our troops are murderers just because some un-named sources said so? The military is doing an investigation. The troops them selves said they were fired upon; I choose to believe the troops, not an un-named source let alone Murtha. Murtha also said that children were murdered in the shooting.... maybe if he considers 16-17 year olds to be "children". Women were also reported (by Murtha's un-named source) that "women were murdered"... what I'm getting from Murtha is that women aren't capable of shooting a gun at out troops? SEXISt REMARKS COMING FROM A LIBERAL!?!?! BLASPHEMY!!!:roll:


That sounds like a story billboy would scream out.

Yes I support our troops 100%!
I support the mission of getting the sorry %$&%$#@ to stand on their own two feet so we can get the hell out of there.
 
Captain America said:
But...but...but....don't you guys say that anyone who doesn't support the war are against the troops? Please make up your minds.:rofl
You never heard ME say that!
 
Iriemon said:
Does that mean that if a soldier says this is a legitimate, moral and justified war that our government accurately protrayed to the nation, I have to agree with him? If I disagree with him am I "attacking" him?

No, and you can not be expected to agree in most circumstances, especially with what the public is being fed by the America-Jazeera media!

Many of the soldiers, like me, come home and are PI$$ED that the real stories are not being told! Instead of all the stories of us building schools, hospitals, improving electricity, kids running out to hug soldiers on patrol, the old woman coming out after voting and saying God bless the troops for being there, we get Durbin calling us Nazis and Kerry calling us terrorists, with all the media negatively slanted.

Its sort of like when I went away with the military, I thought I lived in one of the greatest places in the world. When I returned, I found the place where I lived was one of the most backwoods, outdated places on earth because of how sheltered from the truth, from life, and from other experiences they were. People know of the war and Iraq only what media here in the states wants them to know! I used to condemn Al-Jazeera for the blatant anti-U.S. lies they would broadcast as news stories.....believe it or not folks, its happening here, too! Not to the same extent as Al Jazeera, but the population is being manipulated every day by the media. As one reporter from CNN said, 'we don't tell the American people what news is important, we just tell them what to think about.'

So, before you disagree with a soldier coming back from over there, before YOU tell HIM how it is over there...ask HIM! Get an opinion from 1st hand experience, not from some reporter who has never left the Green Zone or someone who has never even been over there. If you really want the truth, you will listen to all sides and THEN make that decision for yourself. And when/if you make that decision for yourself, if you say the WAR is wrong then you are not attacking him. If you call him a Nazi or terrorists, YOU are wrong!
 
Last edited:
Donkey1499 said:
I would, BUT, I'm too lazy at this time. Look it up yourself. It was all over the news yesterday, or at least Fox covered it. And besides, if I remember my own post correctly, unless I'm thinking of another one, I stated that I saw it on Special Report: W/ Brit Hume.

Yeah, I figured it was bullshit.
 
My two cents; I think every American Male should have to serve in the military for a minimum of 2-years, preferably three, and if they go to school, they can have until their 26th birthday to start their required service. Perhaps then, the military will really be a true representation of our society. No deferments, and even Senator's sons have to serve.

A very Liberal notion from a very Liberal person. It gets even better; until an Equal Rights Amendment is passed, women will not be required to serve in my hypothetical scenario, and with the circumstances which occurred on 9/11 now a part of history, new fields of opportunities to give back to the country have opened for quasi-military service in the Homeland Security Department, specifically with border security, Nuke Plants, H2O treatment facilities and so on.

Which brings me to the support the troops question. If you join the Military you take an oath to protect the country and constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. It is that simple; they are not civilian leaders, and the brilliance of keeping Foreign Policy in the hands of civilians is something the Founders came up with-----so some 231-years later we could be having these discussions, which are meant to divide, but atually display the Freedoms we have been able to maintain because of that little requirement.

Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines do not dictate Foreign Policy, they enforce it with no public displays of doubt. Not one person in the Military has an option in their contract which states they get to go home if they do not agree with the Politics of the war they fight, or if they do not agree with the Civilian Leaders who send them off to War. The regular American Citizen is allowed to question authority, in fact, they are suppose to question authority----especially if the authority that sent our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, moms, and dads off to fight a war, may have skewed things, or started the war based on questionable motives-----it is the American Citizen's right, and their duty to ask questions, BUT it does not mean they do not support the Troops.

Support of the war equating to support of the troops is not requisite. Those who make it so are setting up excuses and reasons for failure. In my eyes, it is dishonest and based on support for the politics of the George Bush Presidency, NOT support for the TROOPS! And more than one person in the Forum seems to have latched on to this method of debate.

Vietnam is no comparison for Iraq-----unless it fits the views of those who believe PROTESTING is akin to being a traitor. "It was the Protesters who lost us the war in Vietnam.", how many times must I read this? Yeah, it had nothing to do with the FIVE Presidents who lied us into, and kept us in that War without a real plan for winning it.

They (Gung Ho Supporters of George) can bring up the Vietnam protests for example, but if you bring up any similarities about the prosecution of the war in Iraq and the Nam, they dismiss it faster than a vanishing Weapon of Mass Destruction. Do they see an inconsistency in their stance? Hell no. If life was really as Black and White as they imagine it is then perhaps they would have something to hang their hats on. Oh wait, it is that simple----YOU CAN support the TROOPS without supporting George. To think differently is evidence that politics are trumping common sense.

If the shoe fits----go ahead and wear it.
 
DiavoTheMiavo said:
My two cents; I think every American Male should have to serve in the military for a minimum of 2-years, preferably three, and if they go to school, they can have until their 26th birthday to start their required service. Perhaps then, the military will really be a true representation of our society. No deferments, and even Senator's sons have to serve.

I agree with you.

I do have questions though,What about MOS assigments?How will you keep the rich from sticking their sons in all the commissioned officer positions and the non combat positions?Because a POG(persons other than grunt/non-combat personel) does not have the same perspective as a grunt/combat soldier.Although personally I think the non-combat jobs should be reserved mostly for females.The only non-combat jobs males should have is combat support.
 
Last edited:
At 26, people are beginning to reallythink and there is no way in hell I would join the military after working my *** off in school to gain an education only to go off and potentially die in combat. Plus, at that age, you are way to individualized to go off and start taking stupid orders...invading countries for little reason, etc.

All should go into the military FIRST...many that might not go to college, like inner city youth, would gain a more even playing field by this as well, they would learn discipline and a trade and come out with real life experience, something most kids that go straight to college never get. As a employer, those are the things that I look for in employees. Not always of course...just adding to the discussion put forth.
 
BodiSatva said:
At 26, people are beginning to reallythink and there is no way in hell I would join the military after working my *** off in school to gain an education only to go off and potentially die in combat. Plus, at that age, you are way to individualized to go off and start taking stupid orders...invading countries for little reason, etc.

All should go into the military FIRST...many that might not go to college, like inner city youth, would gain a more even playing field by this as well, they would learn discipline and a trade and come out with real life experience, something most kids that go straight to college never get. As a employer, those are the things that I look for in employees. Not always of course...just adding to the discussion put forth.

I agree that everyone going into the military for at least 1 stint would be beneficial. you said there is no way you would even think of joining the military now...and you are not alone. There are many, however, that do make that decision/sacrifice, and people who are unwilling to do so should give a 'thank you' to those who make that decision, allowing them to go about their lives and enjoy the freedoms provided and protected by those wearing the uniform. Instead, we often have to deal with the attacks of guys like Durbin and Kerry who attack us to score political points against their opponents, taking for granted the fact that they are able to scam Americans, say what they want, make millions, and give themselves the best medical care for themselves and their families that the U.S. can afford, all thanks to the military members who keep this nation free!
 
cherokee said:
That sounds like a story billboy would scream out.

Yes I support our troops 100%!
I support the mission of getting the sorry %$&%$#@ to stand on their own two feet so we can get the hell out of there.

billboy??? I'm having blonde moments today...:mrgreen:
 
Donkey1499 said:
BS because I'm lazy? Or BS because it came from Brit Hume (even though he, Cavuto, and Shepard Smith are the most trusted guys on the channel)? Or both?

I can vouch for Donkey - Donkey is Lazy! :lol:

Like me, Donkey is sometimes lazy, but never un-truthful. :cool:
 
BodiSatva said:
At 26, people are beginning to reallythink and there is no way in hell I would join the military after working my *** off in school to gain an education only to go off and potentially die in combat. Plus, at that age, you are way to individualized to go off and start taking stupid orders...invading countries for little reason, etc.

All should go into the military FIRST...many that might not go to college, like inner city youth, would gain a more even playing field by this as well, they would learn discipline and a trade and come out with real life experience, something most kids that go straight to college never get. As a employer, those are the things that I look for in employees. Not always of course...just adding to the discussion put forth.

I respect and understand your position. However, IF some kind of national service was set into law, then those men 18-26 will have a choice. Life is full of choices we sometimes do not want to make. I don't like paying property taxes that put illegal immigrants through bilingual education programs at our schools----I can choose not to pay, or, I can choose to pay twice a year, or I can have them put in an escrow account by adding a little to my monthly payments. Each one a choice.

I grew up watching the Vietnam War on TV. My brother, cousins, and brother-in-law all went to Vietnam----I thought you grew up, graduated high school, and it was mandatory that you went into the military and then to Vietnam. Mostly because that is what our family does (Join the military), and the only choice you had was what service you were going to enter. I was too young to know about deferments and Senator's Sons. "It's a Rich man's war and a Poor Man's fight" is not something that is new in America----it has been repeated at least once during most every war we have been engaged in in our history. Personally, I want that issue to go away forever.

I believe this is where the issue turns full circle back into "Supporting the Troops". For instance, if the Kennedy Family, or the Bush Family had children serving in the line of fire, I wonder if their attitudes and decisions regarding the stewardship of our nation as it relates to war would be exactly as they are today. I bring up the elite of both sides of the fence politically, because contrary to popular belief, they are all dirty in Washington, because when you lie with pigs, you get dirty. It is first about Power and control, and the good of the Nation sits way out of reach on the back burner.

For some reason, the America I live in at present appears to only have a problem with certain issues if it effects people on a personal level. I joined the military at the end of the Vietnam era. Like it or not, it took around 20-years for that stigma against military service to be washed away. My graduating class in high school had a grand total of two of us enlisting in the military. There was a time when the short haircut and uniforms were not something one wanted to show off. The only time we are gonna get true and honest debate about the problems we face as a nation is when WE ALL Actually start sharing the burden----including rich people. If a person waits until they are 26, then they better understand that it was their choice, and hopefully they earned some educational props so they do not have to go in as a buck private.

I understand people's concern about politics playing a role in what the Senator's Son may get as a job when they serve----however, there was a time when it was noble to serve in the military, rich people, pro-athletes, and celebrities actually volunteered as a rule, and not an exception. If a cause is just-----if the civilian leaders are brutally honest with the citizenry, then the American people will NEVER WAIVER. If the American people (at least a good portion anyway) feel like they are getting smoke blown into an orifice of their bodies which could cause great discomfort-----well, now that's a different story.

I'm serious, you want to see a demand for some immediate changes that would make all of Washington D.C. squirm more than they are right now? Institute Mandatory Service. I would be willing to bet we would never hear the claim, "They never report the Good News!" again. When Biff and Temperance have to worry about Winston and Buffy serving in a dangerous land, representatives listen. That's because Biff and Temperance own GE---or at least a good portion of it.
 
easyt65 said:
I agree that everyone going into the military for at least 1 stint would be beneficial. you said there is no way you would even think of joining the military now...and you are not alone. There are many, however, that do make that decision/sacrifice, and people who are unwilling to do so should give a 'thank you' to those who make that decision, allowing them to go about their lives and enjoy the freedoms provided and protected by those wearing the uniform. Instead, we often have to deal with the attacks of guys like Durbin and Kerry who attack us to score political points against their opponents, taking for granted the fact that they are able to scam Americans, say what they want, make millions, and give themselves the best medical care for themselves and their families that the U.S. can afford, all thanks to the military members who keep this nation free!
Then you also have the Bushies and Roves that capitalize on military efforts.
 
DiavoTheMiavo said:
My two cents; I think every American Male should have to serve in the military for a minimum of 2-years, preferably three, and if they go to school, they can have until their 26th birthday to start their required service. Perhaps then, the military will really be a true representation of our society. No deferments, and even Senator's sons have to serve.

A very Liberal notion from a very Liberal person. It gets even better; until an Equal Rights Amendment is passed, women will not be required to serve in my hypothetical scenario, and with the circumstances which occurred on 9/11 now a part of history, new fields of opportunities to give back to the country have opened for quasi-military service in the Homeland Security Department, specifically with border security, Nuke Plants, H2O treatment facilities and so on.

Which brings me to the support the troops question. If you join the Military you take an oath to protect the country and constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. It is that simple; they are not civilian leaders, and the brilliance of keeping Foreign Policy in the hands of civilians is something the Founders came up with-----so some 231-years later we could be having these discussions, which are meant to divide, but atually display the Freedoms we have been able to maintain because of that little requirement.

Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines do not dictate Foreign Policy, they enforce it with no public displays of doubt. Not one person in the Military has an option in their contract which states they get to go home if they do not agree with the Politics of the war they fight, or if they do not agree with the Civilian Leaders who send them off to War. The regular American Citizen is allowed to question authority, in fact, they are suppose to question authority----especially if the authority that sent our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, moms, and dads off to fight a war, may have skewed things, or started the war based on questionable motives-----it is the American Citizen's right, and their duty to ask questions, BUT it does not mean they do not support the Troops.

Support of the war equating to support of the troops is not requisite. Those who make it so are setting up excuses and reasons for failure. In my eyes, it is dishonest and based on support for the politics of the George Bush Presidency, NOT support for the TROOPS! And more than one person in the Forum seems to have latched on to this method of debate.

Vietnam is no comparison for Iraq-----unless it fits the views of those who believe PROTESTING is akin to being a traitor. "It was the Protesters who lost us the war in Vietnam.", how many times must I read this? Yeah, it had nothing to do with the FIVE Presidents who lied us into, and kept us in that War without a real plan for winning it.

They (Gung Ho Supporters of George) can bring up the Vietnam protests for example, but if you bring up any similarities about the prosecution of the war in Iraq and the Nam, they dismiss it faster than a vanishing Weapon of Mass Destruction. Do they see an inconsistency in their stance? Hell no. If life was really as Black and White as they imagine it is then perhaps they would have something to hang their hats on. Oh wait, it is that simple----YOU CAN support the TROOPS without supporting George. To think differently is evidence that politics are trumping common sense.

If the shoe fits----go ahead and wear it.

Here's a compromise. Every teenager in thier Senior year of high school instead of just waiting on that admission letter and doing esentially nothing except wasting mom and dad's money on a dumb *** prom to get laid, they all be required for boot camp training and edcuation into international affairs 101. Translation the Swiss model.
 
DiavoTheMiavo

I hear you and well put.

I guess that I would only add, that if mandatory service were to be put into effect, that we also had representative's that represent the people and not a governement. The governement exists to protect people's rights...fighting strange wars like the current one does nothing to protect our rights...I would not fight in a war like the current one...there have been others as well that do nothing to protect our rights...they just help expand governement or big business interests.
 
Yet again, Diavo hits the nail squarely on the head and drives it home!
 
DiavoTheMiavo said:
I respect and understand your position. However, IF some kind of national service was set into law, then those men 18-26 will have a choice. Life is full of choices we sometimes do not want to make. I don't like paying property taxes that put illegal immigrants through bilingual education programs at our schools----I can choose not to pay, or, I can choose to pay twice a year, or I can have them put in an escrow account by adding a little to my monthly payments. Each one a choice.

I grew up watching the Vietnam War on TV. My brother, cousins, and brother-in-law all went to Vietnam----I thought you grew up, graduated high school, and it was mandatory that you went into the military and then to Vietnam. Mostly because that is what our family does (Join the military), and the only choice you had was what service you were going to enter. I was too young to know about deferments and Senator's Sons. "It's a Rich man's war and a Poor Man's fight" is not something that is new in America----it has been repeated at least once during most every war we have been engaged in in our history. Personally, I want that issue to go away forever.

I believe this is where the issue turns full circle back into "Supporting the Troops". For instance, if the Kennedy Family, or the Bush Family had children serving in the line of fire, I wonder if their attitudes and decisions regarding the stewardship of our nation as it relates to war would be exactly as they are today. I bring up the elite of both sides of the fence politically, because contrary to popular belief, they are all dirty in Washington, because when you lie with pigs, you get dirty. It is first about Power and control, and the good of the Nation sits way out of reach on the back burner.

For some reason, the America I live in at present appears to only have a problem with certain issues if it effects people on a personal level. I joined the military at the end of the Vietnam era. Like it or not, it took around 20-years for that stigma against military service to be washed away. My graduating class in high school had a grand total of two of us enlisting in the military. There was a time when the short haircut and uniforms were not something one wanted to show off. The only time we are gonna get true and honest debate about the problems we face as a nation is when WE ALL Actually start sharing the burden----including rich people. If a person waits until they are 26, then they better understand that it was their choice, and hopefully they earned some educational props so they do not have to go in as a buck private.

I understand people's concern about politics playing a role in what the Senator's Son may get as a job when they serve----however, there was a time when it was noble to serve in the military, rich people, pro-athletes, and celebrities actually volunteered as a rule, and not an exception. If a cause is just-----if the civilian leaders are brutally honest with the citizenry, then the American people will NEVER WAIVER. If the American people (at least a good portion anyway) feel like they are getting smoke blown into an orifice of their bodies which could cause great discomfort-----well, now that's a different story.

I'm serious, you want to see a demand for some immediate changes that would make all of Washington D.C. squirm more than they are right now? Institute Mandatory Service. I would be willing to bet we would never hear the claim, "They never report the Good News!" again. When Biff and Temperance have to worry about Winston and Buffy serving in a dangerous land, representatives listen. That's because Biff and Temperance own GE---or at least a good portion of it.

Good points.

One benefit of a draft would be it would motivate the anti-war movement in a situation like Iraq, where the war is unnecessary and illegititmate.

It is easier to get the citizenry to support a war when it is presented as a cost free event. The average American has no stake in the war, other than the abstract sense. They are not called upon to sacrifice themselves or their children involuntarily. Heck, they don't even have to pay for it. Rather than raising taxes to pay for the war, as responsible administrations have done in the past, this one has given people tax deferrments, err, cuts, and is just borrowing the cost.

If Americans had to put their blood and their money up to pay for this war, the growing outcry would be a defeaning roar. But that is why you will not see a draft or war tax instituted by this Administration. Borrow the money, pass the buck, and let the next president deal with the economic and foreign policy fiascos.
 
Last edited:
The main thing that gets me about the whole Iraq situation is that there are actually Americans who are upset about the war and blame it on the soldiers. Excuse me?

These soldiers don't make the plans. They do as they're told. If the war is pointless to you, then you should respect the soldiers even more for staying with it.

If somebody has a problem with the war, that person can take it out on the government, the president, or whomever is responsible for the war itself.

Don't take it out on the soldiers.
 
Magnvs I said:
The main thing that gets me about the whole Iraq situation is that there are actually Americans who are upset about the war and blame it on the soldiers. Excuse me?

These soldiers don't make the plans. They do as they're told. If the war is pointless to you, then you should respect the soldiers even more for staying with it.

If somebody has a problem with the war, that person can take it out on the government, the president, or whomever is responsible for the war itself.

Don't take it out on the soldiers.

There are actual Liberals like Kerry and Durbin who have called our military terrorists and the same as the Russian Gulag.........
 
Navy Pride said:
There are actual Liberals like Kerry and Durbin who have called our military terrorists and the same as the Russian Gulag.........
He said they were terrorizing Iraqi civilians. Which they do, any foreign military presence in a country doing what is necessary to combat an enemy terrorizes the civilians caught in the crossfire. He did not call them terrorists.

And our prison camps may not be as bad as Russian Gulags which makes it a very poor choice for a comparison but people do tend to disappear in them with no access to the courts or any way to challenge their imprisonment. Not to mention being subjected to harsh interrogation techniques (some consider torture).

They didn't say those things to insult or blame the troops on the ground but to insult and blame the men ordering them to do such things. It was meant for Bush and company not the troops. They are not the same thing, any slam against the war or how Bush is handling it is not also a slam against the troops.
 
Navy Pride said:
Hey listen, I was a troop.........If you don't support what I am trying to accomplish then there is no way you support me..........case closed.........

I was a troop in Viet Nam, and I followed orders like a soldier should. I certainly support the troops, and I want them home safely and helpin to fight the war on Terror. I just can't support the idiot that ordered the invasion of Iraq for no reason, and that idiot is responsible for the deaths of 2400 innocent Americans and thousands of Iragis citizens.............Case Closed.

God Bless the troops who are doing their best in a horrible situation. God bless the United States and it's constitution.

God please rescue us from the horrible president that some how got elected. W Bush. Please God, help the Neoconservatives reach their rewards in Hell quickly. Amen
 
Last edited:
Magnvs I said:
The main thing that gets me about the whole Iraq situation is that there are actually Americans who are upset about the war and blame it on the soldiers. Excuse me?

These soldiers don't make the plans. They do as they're told. If the war is pointless to you, then you should respect the soldiers even more for staying with it.

If somebody has a problem with the war, that person can take it out on the government, the president, or whomever is responsible for the war itself.

Don't take it out on the soldiers.

I don't know anyone who blames the soldiers for Iraq. Maybe there are some out there, but the most of us who object to the mistaken war in Iraq put the blame squarely where it belongs: On the Administration.

If there are soldiers who think invading and occupying Iraq is a swell idea, there is a difference of opinion. Some view that as not supporting the troops. To me, that puts the cart before the horse.

I certainly agree that blaming the troops for the Iraq fiasco puts the blame in the wrong place.
 
Back
Top Bottom