Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Liberals, Democrats and others on the Left frequently state that they "support the troops." For most of them, whether they realize it or not, this is not true. They feel they must say this because the majority of Americans would find any other position unacceptable. Indeed, for most liberals, the thought that they really do not support the troops is unacceptable even to them.
Lest this argument be dismissed as an attack on leftist Americans' patriotism, let it be clear that leftists' patriotism is not the issue here. Their honesty is.
In order to understand this, we need to first have a working definition of the term "support the troops." Presumably it means that one supports what the troops are doing and rooting for them to succeed. What else could "support the troops" mean? If you say, for example, that you support the Yankees or the Dodgers, we assume it means you want them to win.
But most of the Left does not want the troops to win in Iraq. The Left's message is this: "You troops may think you are winning; you may think you are doing good and moral things in Iraq; you may believe you are fighting the worst human beings of our age and protecting us against the scourge of Islamic terror. But we on the Left believe none of that. We believe this war is being fought for oil and for Halliburton and other corporations; we believe you are waging a war that is both illegal and immoral; we believe you have invaded a country for no good reason and have killed a hundred thousand Iraqis [the Left's generally mentioned number] for no good reason; but, hey, we sure do support you."
Honest people on the Left need to understand that the two positions are not reconcilable. A German citizen during World War II could not have argued: "The Nazi regime's army is engaged in an evil war of aggression and is slaughtering millions of innocent people, and I therefore completely oppose this war, but I sure do support the Nazi troops."
One example is the claim made by Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and almost all other Democrats and liberals that the war in Iraq is "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." How does one support troops that are fighting a wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time? A few leftist writers have been honest enough to say, "Nothing personal, guys, but I sure don't support you." But the vast majority of the Left and all Democratic politicians have not been honest on this matter.
A second example is the oft-repeated line, found on liberal bumper stickers, "War is not the answer." Aside from the idiocy of this claim -- war has solved slavery, ended the Holocaust, destroyed Japanese Fascism, preserved half the Korean peninsula from near-genocide, and saved Israel from extinction, among other noble achievements -- the claim offers no support to those who do engage in war. How could one believe that "war is not the answer" and also claim to "support the troops," the very people waging what is "not the answer"? The answer is, by being dishonest.
A third example is the Left's opposition to military recruitment on most of the elite and many other college campuses. So deep is leftist disdain for troops that most on the Left regard the mere presence of military personnel on a university campus as a form of contamination. Yet, the Left claims to "support the troops."
Many on the Left express far more contempt than support for the troops.
A Democratic senator compares our interrogators to the Nazis and Communist torturers; the head of Amnesty International in America defends likening Guantanamo Bay to the Gulag; and liberals routinely speak of troops as coming from the lowest socio-economic rungs of society (maybe that's one reason they oppose recruiters on campuses, lest the best educated actually join the military). But, hey, the Left supports the troops.
An honest leftist would say: "Because I view this war as immoral, I cannot support our troops." What is not honest is their saying, "Support the troops -- bring them home." Supporting people who wish to fight entails supporting their fight; and if that fight is opposed, those waging it are also opposed.
Many on the Left angrily accuse the Right of disparaging their patriotism. That charge, too, is false. I have never heard a mainstream conservative impugn the patriotism of liberals. But as regards their attitude toward our troops, the patriotism of those on the Left is not the issue. The issue is their honesty.
Bonnie said:The Left doesn't support the troops and should admit it
Dennis Prager
July 12, 2005
link
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/printdp20050712.shtml
dilloduck said:At least the left has accepted the fact that troop bashing is NOT PC and so far avoided it yet they certainly ONLY support troops who are safely home in thier barracks or filling up sandbags for flood control. No doubt our troops can tell the difference between who really supports them and those attmepting to appear PC. Another transparent scam.
GunnyL said:"I support you, but I am against everything you are doing and every reason you have for doing it."
deaddude said:This is pretty much just dogma. You having access to your mind/emotions/whatever know whether you support the troops. Not have access to the mind ect of the liberals you are denounceing you do not know whether they support the troops or not.
It is very easy to say that someone who you do not like is doing something just to be politically correct, it is very difficult to prove that you aren't saying it out bias.
It is dogma.
Gabriella84 said:Yes, I must now admit that I don't support the troops. I don't want them to do their jobs in Iraq.
Instead, I would rather they come home and not get shot at. I don't want them to keep fighting a war that they have no chance of winning. I would much rather have Johnny hand off his rifle to Ali and say "dude, it's your country, you defend it. You have the supplies and training. We're outta here."
Instead, I am sure you will see Bush out there urging American to stay the course.
"My fellow Americans, we must stay and fight, until we have made Iraq safe enough that Halliburton can come in and spend billions of dollars rebuilding the infrastructure. My friend Dick Cheney will be out of a job in a few years, so he seriously needs the money."
dilloduck said:appreciate the honesty !
Fmr jarhead said:...and the naivete....too be young and full of energy, and no idea what you are doing...the good old days!
young and full of energy, and no idea what you are doing..
and just old enough :rotflmao:
Taking liberal dogma and attacking it with conservative dogma does not work.One example is the claim made by Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and almost all other Democrats and liberals that the war in Iraq is "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." How does one support troops that are fighting a wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time? A few leftist writers have been honest enough to say, "Nothing personal, guys, but I sure don't support you." But the vast majority of the Left and all Democratic politicians have not been honest on this matter.
Simple, they did not choose to fight this conflict, Bush did. So one can support the troops, as in "complete your mission, get back alive, we will be cheering when you come home" without supporting bush's decision to send them to Iraq in the first place.How does one support troops that are fighting a wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time?
So the guy takes a quote from a source which he admitts is a minority voice "A few leftist writers" and then smears the "majority of the Left and all Democratic politicians" by saying that they all think that way but the majority just lie about it.A few leftist writers have been honest enough to say, "Nothing personal, guys, but I sure don't support you." But the vast majority of the Left and all Democratic politicians have not been honest on this matter.
A second example is the oft-repeated line, found on liberal bumper stickers, "War is not the answer." Aside from the idiocy of this claim -- war has solved slavery, ended the Holocaust, destroyed Japanese Fascism, preserved half the Korean peninsula from near-genocide, and saved Israel from extinction, among other noble achievements -- the claim offers no support to those who do engage in war. How could one believe that "war is not the answer" and also claim to "support the troops," the very people waging what is "not the answer"? The answer is, by being dishonest.
A less dogmatic one would be "War is not always the answer." War has the unfortunate draw back of costing large numbers of lives. For instance in Vietnam the US lost 50,000+ soldiers the Vietcong lost 900,000+ and the South Vietnamese 400,000+ and it helped start the dictitorial reign of Pol Pot and begin the Genocide in Cambodia and lo and behold South Vietnam still became communist.solved slavery, ended the Holocaust, destroyed Japanese Fascism, preserved half the Korean peninsula from near-genocide, and saved Israel from extinction, among other noble achievements
Because the one doing the actual work, are not the ones who decide to wage the war. Much in the same way that a christian would say "hate the sin, love the sinner" a liberal could say "Hate the war, but love the warrior."How could one believe that "war is not the answer" and also claim to "support the troops," the very people waging what is "not the answer"?
A third example is the Left's opposition to military recruitment on most of the elite and many other college campuses. So deep is leftist disdain for troops that most on the Left regard the mere presence of military personnel on a university campus as a form of contamination. Yet, the Left claims to "support the troops."
Gabriella84 said:Yes, I must now admit that I don't support the troops. I don't want them to do their jobs in Iraq.
Instead, I would rather they come home and not get shot at. I don't want them to keep fighting a war that they have no chance of winning. I would much rather have Johnny hand off his rifle to Ali and say "dude, it's your country, you defend it. You have the supplies and training. We're outta here."
Instead, I am sure you will see Bush out there urging American to stay the course.
"My fellow Americans, we must stay and fight, until we have made Iraq safe enough that Halliburton can come in and spend billions of dollars rebuilding the infrastructure. My friend Dick Cheney will be out of a job in a few years, so he seriously needs the money."
Simple, they did not choose to fight this conflict, Bush did. So one can support the troops, as in "complete your mission, get back alive, we will be cheering when you come home" without supporting bush's decision to send them to Iraq in the first place.
Sure they will. I don't see why it is funny. Many liberals have kids, siblings, spouses in Iraq, I am pretty sure that they will be cheering to see their loved ones return home safely.dilloduck said:you bet---throngs of libs will be out the whooping it up
you're killing me !!
Things haven't changed since the last time you checked then.Abbey Normal said:Last time I checked, we do not operate a military draft in the USA.
Yes, but the fact that Liberals regard Iraq as a mistake does not mean the regard all wars as a mistake( I seem to recall almost 100% support of the war in Afghanistan). This means that the liberals can support them in their decision to join the armed services, because war is neccesary, it just so happens that libs see this war as a mistake.Abbey Normal said:The people "doing the work" all signed up, knowing full well that they could be called upon to fight anywhere, anytime.
Abbey Normal said:In fact, you must also contend with the fact that there are soldiers who signed up after the war in Iraq started.
He does have the personal responsiblity of any soldier, to refuse orders which would violate the Geneva Convetions, or have him commit any so called "crimes against humanity."Abbey Normal said:The difference in the sin analogy is that Christians "love the sinner" in the hopes that he will repent of particular sin and be saved. Those who claim to "love the warrior", claim that he has nothing to repent for; he's just carrying out Bush's evil plan and has no personal responsibility for doing it.
Yes they were responsible, see above.Abbey Normal said:Were Hitler's officers not responsible for their atrocities?
The current Pope was a member of Hitler youth, participation was mandatory and he was very young, so he is absolved of responsiblity. Had he been responsible for gassing any camp inmates he would probably have been killed.Abbey Normal said:Could we have "loved the Nazi, but not the Holocaust"??
Those lines were drawn in Geneva as far as war is concerned.Abbey Normal said:Where do we differentiate the inidvidual from his actions?
Max Power said:Should the right just admit they hate blacks, gays, and muslims?
Oh! I thought we were making stupid generalizations.
