|
Post by kevin on May 25, 2007 17:56:36 GMT -5
Whether you are for or against the war, how do you vote "no" for the latest troop funding bill and then defend it with this statement: Obama in Chicago, Illinois: "Let's put aside the fear mongering, and let's put aside the rhetoric, and let's put aside the politics, and let's come together and say all of us support the troops. That's our message to George Bush. That's our message to John McCain. That's our message to Mitt Romney. That's our message to Republicans in Congress. It's time to bring this war to a close." Um, how can you say you "support" the troops if you're not willing to "support" the troops? I realize there is more to this but he just slapped the face of every man and woman serving in Iraq. It may be a vote that he thinks will appeal to the far left and made it because he knew the funding would pass, but this pandering to the parties is getting way out of line.
|
|
lawman
Apprentice Cog
Posts: 237
|
Post by lawman on May 25, 2007 18:06:57 GMT -5
I don't agree with much Rosie does or says, But I firmly agree with her about this invasion of Iraq!
Rosie Fights Last Fight on 'The View'
NEW YORK - Rosie O'Donnell has fought her last fight at "The View." ABC said Friday she asked for, and received, an early exit from her contract at the daytime chatfest following her angry confrontation with co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck on Wednesday.
No one was feeling the love on Wednesday, when the argument with Hasselbeck began over O'Donnell's statement last week about the war: "655,000 Iraqi civilians have died. Who are the terrorists?"
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 26, 2007 8:32:00 GMT -5
Ummm, how many of these civilians were killed by military intervention? From www.iraqbodycount.org/ as of 8:20 CST, 5/26/07: Still quite a bit, but her count is off by a factor of 10. Maybe that many have been killed since the start of the "war", but if so, the balance have been killed by other Iraqis and Middle Easterners. I like this quote better: "Here's how it gets spun in the media. Rosie, big, fat lesbian, loud Rosie attacks innocent, pure Christian Elisabeth. And I'm not going to do it."
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 26, 2007 8:44:02 GMT -5
I disagree with the mantra "how can you oppose the war and support the troops? You can't.... ect".
I'd say I don't support the war but support the troops just as much with my tax dollars as much as and no less than the people that "support the troops". I'm a beat down tax payer just like everyone else. My money disappears and never returns so I'd say I support the troops against my will.
The above mantra is a dishonest and unthoughtful accusation.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 26, 2007 8:55:56 GMT -5
I disagree with the mantra "how can you oppose the war and support the troops? You can't.... ect". I'd say I don't support the war but support the troops just as much with my tax dollars as much as and no less than the people that "support the troops". I'm a beat down tax payer just like everyone else. My money disappears and never returns so I'd say I support the troops against my will. The above mantra is a dishonest and unthoughtful accusation. So how would you support the troops then? By a few words and that's it? In what other ways do you support the troops? I'm not making any accusations because I'm just as guilty as he next person, but in what ways do we show our support? Maybe I need to put it this way: what kind of message does Obama and Clinton send those troops if they vote against funding them? The fact is -- whether you like it or not -- they are there now and need funding to provide the very things that will enable them to survive. You pull the funding without a means to pull them out and you just force the military to cut down on necessary supplies, to the detriment of those serving. If I was Obama and Clinton, I'd worry less about getting liberal votes than assuring that the troops have the necessary supplies to enable them to survive. They can plan strategy to get them out of war in different, more coherent manner.
|
|
lawman
Apprentice Cog
Posts: 237
|
Post by lawman on May 26, 2007 8:57:25 GMT -5
Ummm, how many of these civilians were killed by military intervention? From www.iraqbodycount.org/ as of 8:20 CST, 5/26/07: Still quite a bit, but her count is off by a factor of 10. Maybe that many have been killed since the start of the "war", but if so, the balance have been killed by other Iraqis and Middle Easterners. I like this quote better: "Here's how it gets spun in the media. Rosie, big, fat lesbian, loud Rosie attacks innocent, pure Christian Elisabeth. And I'm not going to do it." Oh, OK, if that's accurate and that's all that have been 'slaughtered'......guess it's 'no big deal'--- Yeah right!
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 26, 2007 9:07:55 GMT -5
Didn't say it wasn't a big deal. Death of anyone is a big deal. I don't care who it is. I believe in capital punishment, but I don't believe in the taking of any innocent life. The fact is though that civilians do get killed in collateral damage. Another sad thing is that some of the cowardly tactics that those who oppose our military or even other Iraqis result in shedding of innocent lives. They often use civilian locations as their staging grounds where they fire their weapons at allied troops or other Iraqis.
I've never seen proof that this war was necessary, but I'm not a strategist nor do I have military experience. The only approach I can take is that of a person who believes in the sanctity of life.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on May 26, 2007 13:34:00 GMT -5
What a Bullshit argument.
You can support the troops enough not to see them killed by a FAILED POLICY and not support the stupid policy. A policy that isn't making us safer but growing the ranks of our enemies.
|
|
lawman
Apprentice Cog
Posts: 237
|
Post by lawman on May 26, 2007 15:53:26 GMT -5
Didn't say it wasn't a big deal. Death of anyone is a big deal. I don't care who it is. I believe in capital punishment, but I don't believe in the taking of any innocent life. The fact is though that civilians do get killed in collateral damage. Another sad thing is that some of the cowardly tactics that those who oppose our military or even other Iraqis result in shedding of innocent lives. They often use civilian locations as their staging grounds where they fire their weapons at allied troops or other Iraqis. I've never seen proof that this war was necessary, but I'm not a strategist nor do I have military experience. The only approach I can take is that of a person who believes in the sanctity of life. Just from Yahoo News....
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070526/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Military announces 8 U.S. deaths in Iraq By RAVI NESSMAN, Associated Press Writer 21 minutes ago
Al-ASAD AIR BASE, Iraq - Iraq's prime minister and two top American officials flew to the blistering western desert Saturday in a rare joint outing to highlight gains there in the fight against insurgents, hours before the military reported the deaths of eight U.S. troops.
One of those killed, a Marine, died in combat in Anbar province, once the site of some of the fiercest fighting in the country — and where the U.S. ambassador, the American commander in Iraq, and the Iraqi leader traveled Saturday.
And so it goes....and goes...and goes
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on May 27, 2007 6:07:24 GMT -5
Agreed, rich. While you and I come at many things from different angles, fact is fact. I adore my military. I miss serving in my military. I loathe the fact that win, lose, or draw in Iraq, my military will take years to recover from our undertakings there. The NCO corps will have to be rebuilt, just as after Vietnam. War takes a toll on a military in ways that most folks don't understand. Isn't is funny that most idiots who utter the mantra that "one can't oppose the mission and still support the military" haven't even served? The vast majority of the troops will be the first to to agree that such sentiments are bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 28, 2007 19:46:40 GMT -5
Benedict Arnold served.
The fact that one has or has not served in the military does not automatically mean that a candidate is the reincarnation of Sun Tzu. And yes that goes for BOTH parties.
As for the Democrat's vote, it is a sign of cowardice on their part.
If the majority of Democrat politicians want to end the war and they think that a majority of Americans want to end the war, then why not cut off all funding immediately?
Why fear any sort of repercussions from the electorate if you're really just following their lead? If the majority of American really want to retreat from Iraq, then there would be no 'blowback', right?
Assuming the polls they constantly cite are accurate, of course.....
|
|