• 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.

This Liberal has got it right....

This guy is the quintessential douchebag.

I still support his right to say and feel what ever he believes, but I wouldn't feel sorry for him if ever received a nice beat down from some military personnel if they ever crossed him.
 
SixStringHero said:
This guy is the quintessential douchebag.

I still support his right to say and feel what ever he believes, but I wouldn't feel sorry for him if ever received a nice beat down from some military personnel if they ever crossed him.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the club...:2wave:
 
If there was no punishment for desertion, how many troops would have gone AWOL when the call to go to Iraq came? (Obviously hypothetical, given the number of problems picking and choosing their missions would cause! ;) )

If there was no punishment for desertion, we might see better how many of the troops actually support their own mission.

Folk who are against the war are clearly disagreeing with the decision made by the government. The actions of the troops are a consequence of those decisions. I imagine the split between the troops who support the mission and those who don't will roughly reflect the same figures as those of the general population at home but someone may be able to prove me wrong?

Now, do those troops who don't support their mission, presuming there are some, support themselves and their colleagues? Of course they do. Thus, they support the troops without supporting their mission.
 
Mancunian said:
If there was no punishment for desertion, how many troops would have gone AWOL when the call to go to Iraq came? (Obviously hypothetical, given the number of problems picking and choosing their missions would cause! ;) )

If there was no punishment for desertion, we might see better how many of the troops actually support their own mission.

Folk who are against the war are clearly disagreeing with the decision made by the government. The actions of the troops are a consequence of those decisions. I imagine the split between the troops who support the mission and those who don't will roughly reflect the same figures as those of the general population at home but someone may be able to prove me wrong?

Now, do those troops who don't support their mission, presuming there are some, support themselves and their colleagues? Of course they do. Thus, they support the troops without supporting their mission.
Click to expand...

Or we could just read the polls that show they overwhelmingly support their mission or we can look at the fact that they voted in mass for GWB in the '04 elections. This is a volunteer army after all.
 
Mancunian,

Perhaps these quotes will provide you with a clue...

Re-enlistment rates the past three years have been at least 6% above the service's goals for the 500,000-member active Army.
Click to expand...

Thirty-five percent of Army re-enlistments have come in combat zones, said Maj. Gerald Conway, who oversees retention policies for the Army.
Click to expand...

Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution, said the bonuses have encouraged soldiers to re-enlist, but that many soldiers are committed to fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sgt. 1st Class Edwin Allbaugh, a member of the 75th Ordnance Company in Michigan, said he re-enlisted because his job makes a difference and "I work with a great group of guys." Allbaugh's unit, which disarms and destroys improvised bombs, is about to deploy to the Middle East.
Click to expand...

Source.
 
Oldreliable67, I’m not disputing that many troops are joining up precisely because they do support the mission, nor am I disputing that the majority already in the forces support it. What I am debating is whether or not it’s possible to support the troops without supporting the mission.

Though in a minority, some troops don’t support the mission, but do they actively support the other troops? I would say they do. Navy Pride et al don’t.
 
Mancunian said:
Oldreliable67, I’m not disputing that many troops are joining up precisely because they do support the mission, nor am I disputing that the majority already in the forces support it. What I am debating is whether or not it’s possible to support the troops without supporting the mission.

Though in a minority, some troops don’t support the mission, but do they actively support the other troops? I would say they do. Navy Pride et al don’t.
Click to expand...

How can you be in the military and in Iraq and not be trying to defeat the terrorists?:confused:
 
Navy Pride said:
How can you be in the military and in Iraq and not be trying to defeat the terrorists?:confused:
Click to expand...

You don't have to support the actual mission in order to be able to carry it out. I'm sure everybody has aspects of their job that they don't like, but they do it anyway, because, well, it's their job.
 
Stace said:
You don't have to support the actual mission in order to be able to carry it out. I'm sure everybody has aspects of their job that they don't like, but they do it anyway, because, well, it's their job.
Click to expand...

I sure would not like someone covering my back side if they were into the mission.....
 
If it is any party in General who does not support our troops, it is the Republicans, see those interviews with Rumsfield and the troops over armor.

We must take an unbiased look at the war in Iraq, one not influenced with emotions. To do that we must seperate the war in Iraq into two parts, the mission, or purpose that our soldiers are fighting for, and the troops themselves. Our armed forces is made mostly of young Americans, those likely of geographic ignorance and politically unknowledged too. Many of us are not well informed of why we went into Iraq, more that half actually.

You are able to support the troops without supporting what they are doing, because of all fairness, it is not their choice, but the choice of our government who makes the order that they must follow to evade committing the act of treason possibly. Our troops did not sign up for a war which was based a lie and false intelligence. If those who signed up for the army in the last 3 years knew and was well informed of everything that is known today, I doubt there would be even enough troops to invade Iraq alone. Not to mention even with all the corruption in our media, our defense force is breaking up.

They are merely following orders. Orders, missions, or purpose which was made by our current government, the source of the command, or mission.

I strongly oppose the war in Iraq, but I support our troops by rallying whenever I can to make sure they are well protected for our self made enemies in Iraq. There is a difference.
 
Navy Pride said:
How can you be in the military and in Iraq and not be trying to defeat the terrorists?:confused:
Click to expand...
Hmm, could it be that we didn't go to Iraq to "defeat the terrorists"?
 
Navy Pride said:
I sure would not like someone covering my back side if they were into the mission.....
Click to expand...

Didn't you see Black Hawk Down? A couple of guys are talking, and a special forces guy is being asked why he stays in the military. The Special Forces guy said "for them." For the soldiers.

That's the sense I get from my military friends, more than anything, they stay or fight, so their friends don't get killed.

It's Quite easy to support the troops, and think the mission is a waste of time, or a bad idea. My step-father thought so, his staying in Vietnam, despising the country and the war (of course, his alternative was to go back to his parents and well, they were the reason he joined the marines).

Also, many of these kids don't know anythig else, any other meaningful life. Right out of HS and into bootcamp, been there years, and all they know is the military.

My Uncle is facing a crisis in his life, he is in his last (20th) year of Navy Service and is being forced to retire, he has no idea what he will do and he would rather stay navy.
 
aps said:
Yes, exactly! That statement from that guy was just plain ridiculous. We all know I cannot stand Bush, but I don't believe for one minute he is a racist.
Click to expand...

Kayne West could be on to something. Imagine if Katrina had hit in Malibu or Beverly Hills, George Bush would drop everything in a moment's notice to give aid.
 
You think it's hard supporting the troops without supporting the war, try supporting the war but only part of the intent :P
 
kal-el said:
Kayne West could be on to something. Imagine if Katrina had hit in Malibu or Beverly Hills, George Bush would drop everything in a moment's notice to give aid.
Click to expand...

Kanye West IMO is a racist moron.
 
shuamort said:
Hmm, could it be that we didn't go to Iraq to "defeat the terrorists"?
Click to expand...

Of course that is your opinion and you do know what opinions are like......
 
SixStringHero said:
Kanye West IMO is a racist moron.
Click to expand...

Yep, only in America can a moron top music billboard charts with hits like "Golddigger".:lol:
 
kal-el said:
Yep, only in America can a moron top music billboard charts with hits like "Golddigger".:lol:
Click to expand...

Like Michael Moore and his movies, he may get your money but not mine.........
 
Navy Pride said:
Like Michael Moore and his movies, he may get your money but not mine.........
Click to expand...

Opposed to Neil Young and his hit "Cowgirl in the sand.":lol:
 
I actually liked Jesus Walks. That was a good song.

Gold Digger is complete garbage, and Jamie Fox has delusions of granduer trying to emulate the great Ray Charles.
 
SixStringHero said:
I actually liked Jesus Walks. That was a good song.
Click to expand...

Yea, I like it too.

Gold Digger is complete garbage, and Jamie Fox has delusions of granduer trying to emulate the great Ray Charles.
Click to expand...

I don't know, Golddigger is catchy, at first I didn't like it, but it grows on you. I don't care for Jamie Foxx.
 
This is just one liberals opinion, lots of antiwar people disagree. I am against the war and think it was a bad idea, but I support the troops in that I don't want them to die and I hope that, even though we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons, all the lives will not have been in vain and the government is successful.
 
john831 said:
This is just one liberals opinion, lots of antiwar people disagree. I am against the war and think it was a bad idea, but I support the troops in that I don't want them to die and I hope that, even though we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons, all the lives will not have been in vain and the government is successful.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your honest answer..........Sadly there are a lot of liberals that would like for us not to succeed in Iraq for partisan political reasons and because of their hatred for this president.........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom