local 12 proud
Veteran
- Mar 5, 2004
- 4,265
- 4
Lib Hijacks memorial Memorial Day
- Thread starter local 12 proud
- Start date
wnbubbleboy
Veteran
The thing that makes me scratch my head is the tact that the Sixties liberals have taken now. "Support the Troops" but not the Mission.
I have been out of the service for a long time but when I was in I remember the Mission was the reason we existed. We are not there to deliver Pizza's. You Cannot support one with out the other.
With the protests on Memorial Day, this is America and you are allowed to do what you feel you need to do to protest. The result maybe getting punched in the nose by someone who is quitely honoring a relative who see's differently.
See those men suffered and gave the utimate sacrifice for this country. What does John Edwards know about personal sacrifice of that scope?
Getting Regular milk in his Latte instead of Skim Milk at the Starbucks doesn't count?
Gilding the Lily
Veteran
- Oct 30, 2006
- 1,466
- 2
Likewise; it makes me scratch my head that you cannot see how one can support the troops without supporting a particular mission.
For example, I support the troops and the mission in AFGHANISTAN. That military action makes sense in my mind. I do not, however, support the mission in Iraq. According to your logic... I can only support the troops in Afghanistan, but cannot support the troops in Iraq. That is crap.
I want all our troops to remain safe. If they are on tour, I want them to be well supplied (both with equipment and intelligence). Regardless of where they are, I want them to come home safely to their families and be proud of their decision to serve in the military. And wherever they are, I want them to work hard and listen to their superiors. I support these men and women... and pray that that good will come out of their actions. It is a bit of a ludicrous idea to suggest that I can only wish-well and encourage the troops fighting in Afghanistan.
The war in Iraq was not the collective decision of these troops. It was the decision of our Commander-in-Chief. I think he made the wrong decision and I do not support it. But I wish-well the troops going to Iraq... I write letters of encouragement to my colleagues in Iraq, and I welcome troops home when I come into contact with them.
wnbubbleboy
Veteran
Well that's very nice of you.
In the military you go to where the mission is regardless of your personal feelings. Their Mission is what so ever the Command in Chief deems it to be. Supporting troops but not supporting the mission sort of means ANYTHING they do in Iraq is wrong.
For example: "Here buddy here's a cup of coffee I am glad to see you. Hope your doing well. Glad to see you're healthy. Although, the Mosque you bombed to kill the insurgents was pretty harsh don't you think?"
That's the mixed message you are sending.
OP
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Mar 5, 2004
- 4,265
- 4
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #5
You don't support the War thats all well and good for you, but to take a sacred day that was set aside for honoring our fallen soldiers and use it to make a political statement by protesting like what john edwards has proposed on his website is disgusting. I did'nt care for his style before, Now I Abhor the Individual!
Freedom Seeds in Sorrow Sewn,
'Neath Blades of Grass and Pure White Stones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D02LsAp8xow...ted&search=
Freedom Seeds in Sorrow Sewn,
'Neath Blades of Grass and Pure White Stones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D02LsAp8xow...ted&search=
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,223
- 1,425
Sorry...but you can. This war would be a lot easier for many "libs" to support if it was actually our soldiers fighting the guys who attacked us. Not the guy who "might" attack us....not the guy who "tried to kill my daddy"...not the guy who "gassed his own people". Nope...we gave up the fight against the group that attacked us (okay...we left a token platoon in the "hunt for bin laden"..heck...bin laden "isn't that important" anymore.) So our soliders are fighting and dying NOT to protect any of my freedoms, but to try to stabilize a country that their decider in chief decided posed a bigger threat than the terrorists who attacked us.
Odd...I see very few who feel as I do who think that bombing the Mosque was a bad thing. AFter all...there were folks in there who wanted to KILL the soldier, what should we expect him to do? A better comment might be "Hope you're doing well, Glad to see you're healthy, but it's a shame that your comrade was killed by a suicide bomber and your brother was killed by a sniper. Oh yes...that same decider in chief urged the enemy to "Bring 'em on". And yet, the right leaning don't seem to mind their president URGING THE ENEMY TO ATTACK OUR TROOPS. I wonder how many families of fallen American Soldiers in Iraq are mourning the loss of a loved one because some ISLAMOFASCIST took up our decider in chiefs dare?
At the risk of being called an "America Hater"...the men and women who have died in Iraq gave the ulitmate...but it wasn't for protecting the freedoms or security of this country. It was to try to stabilize a country in an area of the world that hasn't been stable for time immemorial. And that's a shamefully sad waste of a soldiers life.
OP
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Mar 5, 2004
- 4,265
- 4
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #7
wnbubbleboy
Veteran
KC
I Agree with the war has been Grossly mishandled.
We need to handle it like the Phillippines. We should have leveled Falushia when those contractors were burned on the bridge. It's this is the kind of ruthlessness we need to make the population fear us more than the insurgents. They would rat them out in a heartbeat an make the soldiers job their alot easier.
Does this sound familiar.
While McKinley's decision to sacrifice American lives for the betterment of the Philippines may have pleased Teddy Roosevelt and other progressive expansionists of the day, it was also politically risky. The president's stated goal was, by the standards of the time, not much less ambitious than George W. Bush's commitment to establish a beachhead of freedom in the heart of a hostile Middle East.[7]
http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20031103.htm
Next:
Remember the Marine in the Falushia Mosque?
NBC’s Kevin Sites, who witnessed the incident Saturday while assigned to represent a pool of news organizations, reported Monday that the man was shot by a Marine who appeared to be unaware that the Iraqi was a wounded prisoner and did not pose a threat.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6496898/
Or Haditha?
A heroic Marine Lt. Colonel called by his superiors "a superb leader, who knows his men, knows the enemy, knows his business," is facing charges sparked by specious Time Magazine stories based on the testimony of known insurgent propagandists.
Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Chessani who commanded the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment in Haditha when members of the unit were ambushed by insurgents was recommended for promotion to colonel by his Division commander, who filed a fitness report calling him one of the most effective combat commanders in Iraq.
Yet Chessani now faces criminal charges arising out of the so-called "Haditha massacre" of November 19, 2005 — even though he was not at the scene.
According to Brian Rooney, a lawyer for the Thomas More Law Center which is voluntarily representing Lt. Col. Chessani, and himself a former Marine captain who served with the unit during the 2nd battle of Fallujah – one of the Corps' most hard-fought combat engagements - his client faces a dishonorable discharge from the Marine Corps, the loss of all his retirement benefits, and a possible 3 years in prison.
Described by Rooney as a 19-year Marine veteran and the father of 5 young children, who served in the Panama Invasion, the Persian Gulf War, and three tours in Iraq, Chessani, the highest ranking officer charged in the Haditha incident, was given the highest possible recommendation in his fitness report covering the time period of the Haditha incident.
Said Rooney, "The charges against Lieutenant Colonel Chessani were incited by an inflammatory Time magazine headline accusing Marine enlisted men of ‘massacring innocent civilians.' The story was planted by a known terrorist propaganda operative — since discredited. Anti-war Congressman John Murtha, with influence over military appropriations, in an unprecedented action, publicly accused Marine officers of a 'cover-up' even before the investigation of the incident was completed. The subsequent investigation specifically found no ‘cover-up' at any level of command."
Time subsequently was forced to admit that the story, written by their Jerusalem correspondent Tim McGirk, contained a series of egregious errors
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...0800.shtml?s=lh
This is what I mean regarding supporting the Troops. When the Military acts like the Military you get this:
A Pentagon probe into the death of Iraqi civilians last November in the Iraqi city of Haditha will show that U.S. Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood," a U.S. lawmaker said Wednesday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343/
I could go on but I am going to wrap it up. IRAQ is not the point it's the montra of "supporting the troops". When they act like they are suppossed to they are second guessed or worse.
I Agree with the war has been Grossly mishandled.
We need to handle it like the Phillippines. We should have leveled Falushia when those contractors were burned on the bridge. It's this is the kind of ruthlessness we need to make the population fear us more than the insurgents. They would rat them out in a heartbeat an make the soldiers job their alot easier.
Does this sound familiar.
While McKinley's decision to sacrifice American lives for the betterment of the Philippines may have pleased Teddy Roosevelt and other progressive expansionists of the day, it was also politically risky. The president's stated goal was, by the standards of the time, not much less ambitious than George W. Bush's commitment to establish a beachhead of freedom in the heart of a hostile Middle East.[7]
http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20031103.htm
Next:
Remember the Marine in the Falushia Mosque?
NBC’s Kevin Sites, who witnessed the incident Saturday while assigned to represent a pool of news organizations, reported Monday that the man was shot by a Marine who appeared to be unaware that the Iraqi was a wounded prisoner and did not pose a threat.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6496898/
Or Haditha?
A heroic Marine Lt. Colonel called by his superiors "a superb leader, who knows his men, knows the enemy, knows his business," is facing charges sparked by specious Time Magazine stories based on the testimony of known insurgent propagandists.
Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Chessani who commanded the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment in Haditha when members of the unit were ambushed by insurgents was recommended for promotion to colonel by his Division commander, who filed a fitness report calling him one of the most effective combat commanders in Iraq.
Yet Chessani now faces criminal charges arising out of the so-called "Haditha massacre" of November 19, 2005 — even though he was not at the scene.
According to Brian Rooney, a lawyer for the Thomas More Law Center which is voluntarily representing Lt. Col. Chessani, and himself a former Marine captain who served with the unit during the 2nd battle of Fallujah – one of the Corps' most hard-fought combat engagements - his client faces a dishonorable discharge from the Marine Corps, the loss of all his retirement benefits, and a possible 3 years in prison.
Described by Rooney as a 19-year Marine veteran and the father of 5 young children, who served in the Panama Invasion, the Persian Gulf War, and three tours in Iraq, Chessani, the highest ranking officer charged in the Haditha incident, was given the highest possible recommendation in his fitness report covering the time period of the Haditha incident.
Said Rooney, "The charges against Lieutenant Colonel Chessani were incited by an inflammatory Time magazine headline accusing Marine enlisted men of ‘massacring innocent civilians.' The story was planted by a known terrorist propaganda operative — since discredited. Anti-war Congressman John Murtha, with influence over military appropriations, in an unprecedented action, publicly accused Marine officers of a 'cover-up' even before the investigation of the incident was completed. The subsequent investigation specifically found no ‘cover-up' at any level of command."
Time subsequently was forced to admit that the story, written by their Jerusalem correspondent Tim McGirk, contained a series of egregious errors
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...0800.shtml?s=lh
This is what I mean regarding supporting the Troops. When the Military acts like the Military you get this:
A Pentagon probe into the death of Iraqi civilians last November in the Iraqi city of Haditha will show that U.S. Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood," a U.S. lawmaker said Wednesday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343/
I could go on but I am going to wrap it up. IRAQ is not the point it's the montra of "supporting the troops". When they act like they are suppossed to they are second guessed or worse.
Garfield1966
Veteran
For those who say that people be agaist the war but support the troops, who is going to tell that to the troops who support the trops but not the mission?
Some troops are disillusioned
Staff Sgt. David Safstrom:
But now on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber’s body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.
His views are echoed by most of his fellow soldiers in Delta Company, renowned for its aggressiveness.
But in Sergeant Safstrom’s view, the American presence is futile. “If we stayed here for 5, even 10 more years, the day we leave here these guys will go crazy,†he said. “It would go straight into a civil war. That’s how it feels, like we’re putting a Band-Aid on this country until we leave here.â€
Sgt. First Class David Moore:
“In 2003, 2004, 100 percent of the soldiers wanted to be here, to fight this war,†said Sgt. First Class David Moore, a self-described “conservative Texas Republican†and platoon sergeant who strongly advocates an American withdrawal. “Now, 95 percent of my platoon agrees with me.â€
Capt. Douglas Rogers:
When the battle was over, Delta Company learned that among the enemy dead were at least two Iraqi Army soldiers that American forces had helped train and arm.
Captain Rogers admits, “The 29th was a watershed moment in a negative sense, because the Iraqi Army would not fight with us,†adding, “Some actually picked up weapons and fought against us.â€
The battle changed the attitude among his soldiers toward the war, he said. “Before that fight, there were a few true believers.†Captain Rogers said. “After the 29th, I don’t think you’ll find a true believer in this unit. They’re paratroopers. There’s no question they’ll fulfill their mission. But they’re fighting now for pride in their unit, professionalism, loyalty to their fellow soldier and chain of command.â€
Some troops are disillusioned
Staff Sgt. David Safstrom:
But now on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber’s body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.
His views are echoed by most of his fellow soldiers in Delta Company, renowned for its aggressiveness.
But in Sergeant Safstrom’s view, the American presence is futile. “If we stayed here for 5, even 10 more years, the day we leave here these guys will go crazy,†he said. “It would go straight into a civil war. That’s how it feels, like we’re putting a Band-Aid on this country until we leave here.â€
Sgt. First Class David Moore:
“In 2003, 2004, 100 percent of the soldiers wanted to be here, to fight this war,†said Sgt. First Class David Moore, a self-described “conservative Texas Republican†and platoon sergeant who strongly advocates an American withdrawal. “Now, 95 percent of my platoon agrees with me.â€
Capt. Douglas Rogers:
When the battle was over, Delta Company learned that among the enemy dead were at least two Iraqi Army soldiers that American forces had helped train and arm.
Captain Rogers admits, “The 29th was a watershed moment in a negative sense, because the Iraqi Army would not fight with us,†adding, “Some actually picked up weapons and fought against us.â€
The battle changed the attitude among his soldiers toward the war, he said. “Before that fight, there were a few true believers.†Captain Rogers said. “After the 29th, I don’t think you’ll find a true believer in this unit. They’re paratroopers. There’s no question they’ll fulfill their mission. But they’re fighting now for pride in their unit, professionalism, loyalty to their fellow soldier and chain of command.â€
