'Supporting the troops'?

[nakedemperor]

As late in the game as Dec. 6, 1941, 80% of Americans wanted nothing to do with WWII. Pearl Harbor made it a whole new ballgame. If that made them sheep, toeing the line, all I can say is, Bo-Peep is the wrong bitch to piss off.

-Who bombed us?
-Japan, sir.
-TO IRAQ!!!!


Makes sense

 

[musicman]

-Who bombed us?
-Japan, sir.
-TO IRAQ!!!!


Makes sense

Did you read the rest of the post at all?

 

[Bonnie]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20041118.shtml

Great article..........Sowell is brilliant!!

 

[Doc Holiday]

Well thank you for killing so the rest of us don't have to make that choice. I'm glad you have a "mindset" that you can use to justify it !

Somebody has to. I've heard it said that there are three kinds of people. There are the sheep, which consist about 80 percent of the world. The sheep just want to do their thing and be left alone. Then there are the 10 percent that are wolves. Wolves obviously make their living preying on the sheep. The last group are the sheepdogs. The sheep and the wolves both hate the sheepdogs but the sheep love the sheepdog when the wolves come around. The sheepdogs put themselves between the wolves and the sheep and protect the sheep, even though they don't like them.

You seem to be a sheep and I'm a sheepdog.

 

[dilloduck]

Somebody has to. I've heard it said that there are three kinds of people. There are the sheep, which consist about 80 percent of the world. The sheep just want to do their thing and be left alone. Then there are the 10 percent that are wolves. Wolves obviously make their living preying on the sheep. The last group are the sheepdogs. The sheep and the wolves both hate the sheepdogs but the sheep love the sheepdog when the wolves come around. The sheepdogs put themselves between the wolves and the sheep and protect the sheep, even though they don't like them.

You seem to be a sheep and I'm a sheepdog.

Wouldn't it be ironic if I was protecting you from someone else ?

 

[nakedemperor]

Did you read the rest of the post at all?

Yeah, I was scrutinizing the validity of likening Pearl Harbor as a valid impetus for entrance into WWII to 9/11 as a valid impetus for entrance into Iraq.

 

[Bonnie]

OK, you don't agree with this war, even though the evidence is piling up that it was in fact justified (the recent revelations that Oil for Food Program was diverting money from those who it was intended for and to fund suicide bombers in Palestine by Saddam is just the most recent example). I suppose that even after the latest round of revelations of just how corrupt the United Nations is, you and your leftist buddies still have faith in that gang of hoodlums.

I suppose the 300,000 (and counting) people whose bodies are being retrieved from mass graves doesn't help you change your mind. I suppose that if your liberal buddies were around when the allies liberated Auschwitz they'd be calling World War II an unjustified war as well.

I suppose further that regardless of how time after time, we hear from soldiers stationed out in Iraq just how demoralizing the constant negative news coverage and incessant whining from the Left is to their mission, that your liberal buddies insist on exercising their right to free speech and to hell with everyone else.

Frankly, I find this incessant sanctimonious braying from the Left regarding this war to be nothing more than expression of the self centered narcissism bred from the 1960s "me" generation.

Then when someone calls the Left on it, liberals wrap themselves in the flag and claim to be offended because one of the "great unwashed" dared question their patriotism! Oh, bless me Father for I have sinned! I'll be saying some extra Hail Marys tonight because I said some things that offended some compassionate liberals!

Am I generalizing? Yes, to some extent. But you must concede that a lot of you on the Left do just what I say. Repeat, like parrots, the propaganda of the New York Times, CNN and the Networks. As for generalizing and generating prejudice, the Left is far more guilty of that than the Right.

Tell you what....I'll stop comparing liberals to mindless, selfish, dimwitted sheep who fancy yourselves as some kind of modern day Gandhis when.....

Liberals stop comparing Evangelicals and Catholics to the Taliban,

Liberals stop sneering at those who shop at Wal-Mart and enjoy NASCAR as uneducated hicks,

Liberals stop characterizing Bush supporters as Nazi jackbooted thugs,

Liberals stop claiming that this president was chosen because of some unnamed conspiracy,

The Hollywood Hitler Youth stop providing aid and comfort to the enemies of America. That anti-American filth “Fahrenheit 9/11” was used by Castro, the Hamas terrorists, and other sworn enemies of this Land for propaganda against us.

The columnists for the "New York Times" and other newspapers stop dismissing the election of this president by millions of voters as nothing more than a "temper tantrum" orchestrated by right wing homophobic religious nuts.

I can’t imagine Nathan Hale, Thomas Paine or George Washington would be considered patriots today if any one of them had written articles or books denouncing the Revolution. Yet many of your left wing buddies insist on being labeled patriots for denouncing this war. They not only insult the sensibilities of those of us who have supported and continue to support this war, but insult the true patriots, those men and women who willingly put themselves in harm’s way out in Iraq to defend our nation’s interests and liberate the Iraqi people.

You said everything I was thinking and more!! :cof:

 

[sitarro]

"The rules of war, the Geneva Convention, do not protect soldiers who are not wearing their own country's uniforms. To get the protection of rules, you have to play by the rules.

Terrorists are not enemy soldiers covered by the rules of war. Nor should they be. They observe no rules."

Amen. These are human cockroaches and deserve no better treatment. Actually, they deserve worse. A cockroach can't help what it is.

Thomas Sowell for Pres.

No shit Merlin , Sowell would be incredible!

 

[sitarro]

I don't think so. I think that people are punished for taking innocent life. I don't believe that you are punished for taking the life out of evil doers intend on killing those innocents. If what you say is true, then if you killed someone who was about to kill another person, you would be the one punished? After all, the person you killed didn't kill the other person because you stopped them. That just doesn't make sense.

In France YOU go to jail for defending yourself . What a screwed up place .

 

[musicman]

Yeah, I was scrutinizing the validity of likening Pearl Harbor as a valid impetus for entrance into WWII to 9/11 as a valid impetus for entrance into Iraq.

President Bush promised to fight the war on terror wherever it took us. It took us to Iraq. In light of some of the other developments I've cited (Cronkite's unwitting explanation for missing WMDs, the oil-for-food scandal, Iran's about-face on it's nuclear policy), it doesn't seem like such a wacky or sinister idea now, does it? I mean, the unfolding facts seem to be bearing the President's judgement out, wouldn't you say?

 

[Mariner]

I don't get it. Why can't liberals oppose the war but support the troops? If a firefighter rushes into a burning house, can't I wish him the best even if I think that a different fire somewhere else was more important than the one the Fire Chief ordered him to fight?

It's not contradiction at all, which is why around here in liberal, anti-war Cambridge you do indeed see many cars with Kerry/Edwards on one side and a yellow ribbon on the other.

As for insurgents versus terrorists, the distinction is important. Many of the insurgents are Iraqis who are angry about our occupation. Many of them deplore terrorist tactics such as beheadings and kidnappings. How would you feel if another country invaded us "for our own good" and killed 100,000 Americans in the process? Not a few insurgents are parents who lost children during our invasion. If the tables were turned I have no doubt that you would take up arms against and invader, no matter how noble the invader's intentions were.

I apologize for repeating myself, but the following paragraphs, which I posted on a different forum here, seems applicable:

"Many people here seem to have very high expectations of Muslims' empathy for us, but don't give the slightest bit of empathy back. Isn't that asking a bit much? Historically, Muslims can just as easily see Christianity as wanting to destroy them as the other way around. Remember the Crusades, which involved killing as many Muslims as one could get one's hands on? Saladin is still a talked-about Muslim hero for driving back one of the Crusades. And at that time, the barbarians were the Christians--Arab learning and knowledge far exceeded that of the West for several hundred years in the Dark Ages. The fourth Crusade, which destroyed the largest library of the ancient world, was perhaps the most barbaric intellectual act of the past 2000 years, and set back European progress by maybe a century or two.

That's why I fear that anti-Muslim rhetoric of the type many of you display here feeds the us vs. them fires and makes us less safe. Nothing plays better into Al Qaeda's hands than for Americans to begin to hate Muslims or paint them all with a broad brush as terrorists. And besides, I thought hatred was un-Christian.

Just because a few American soldiers acted badly doesn't make us all bad, right? So just because a few Muslims are terrorists doesn't make them all bad either. If you want to argue the latter, you'd better be prepared for them to argue the former--and then we're all in very deep trouble."

Mariner.

 

[Bonnie]

Mariner the analogy you used regarding Fire-fighters is ridiculous. What you are saying is I support firefighters but not in this particular case because I don't think this house fire warrants attention, so I hope the firefighters fail, but I support them in general as long as they are fighting the fires I deem have merit.............Thats nuts!!

If you suport the troops then you support them wherever they are in harms way.....Period!!!!!!!!

 

[CSM]

I don't get it. Why can't liberals oppose the war but support the troops? If a firefighter rushes into a burning house, can't I wish him the best even if I think that a different fire somewhere else was more important than the one the Fire Chief ordered him to fight?

It's not contradiction at all, which is why around here in liberal, anti-war Cambridge you do indeed see many cars with Kerry/Edwards on one side and a yellow ribbon on the other.

As for insurgents versus terrorists, the distinction is important. Many of the insurgents are Iraqis who are angry about our occupation. Many of them deplore terrorist tactics such as beheadings and kidnappings. How would you feel if another country invaded us "for our own good" and killed 100,000 Americans in the process? Not a few insurgents are parents who lost children during our invasion. If the tables were turned I have no doubt that you would take up arms against and invader, no matter how noble the invader's intentions were.

I apologize for repeating myself, but the following paragraphs, which I posted on a different forum here, seems applicable:

"Many people here seem to have very high expectations of Muslims' empathy for us, but don't give the slightest bit of empathy back. Isn't that asking a bit much? Historically, Muslims can just as easily see Christianity as wanting to destroy them as the other way around. Remember the Crusades, which involved killing as many Muslims as one could get one's hands on? Saladin is still a talked-about Muslim hero for driving back one of the Crusades. And at that time, the barbarians were the Christians--Arab learning and knowledge far exceeded that of the West for several hundred years in the Dark Ages. The fourth Crusade, which destroyed the largest library of the ancient world, was perhaps the most barbaric intellectual act of the past 2000 years, and set back European progress by maybe a century or two.

That's why I fear that anti-Muslim rhetoric of the type many of you display here feeds the us vs. them fires and makes us less safe. Nothing plays better into Al Qaeda's hands than for Americans to begin to hate Muslims or paint them all with a broad brush as terrorists. And besides, I thought hatred was un-Christian.

Just because a few American soldiers acted badly doesn't make us all bad, right? So just because a few Muslims are terrorists doesn't make them all bad either. If you want to argue the latter, you'd better be prepared for them to argue the former--and then we're all in very deep trouble."

Mariner.

There are many I suspect who are liberal and support the troops, of that I have no doubt. The folks that bother me most are the ones who profess to support the troops and then turn around and oppose funding for their efforts or the equipment they need to accomplish their missions. The worst are those who say they support the troops and then use the media to denigrate their efforts and do their damndest to hurt morale in every way they can. I detest those type of people.

As for the Arab learning and knowledge during the Crusades all I can say is that it is too bad they stopped there. I suspect if one was to research the subject carefully, they would find that a lot of the knowledge came from the Greeks and Romans spread by Alexander the Great and other notables throughout history. Also, contrary to popular belief, knowledge and progress did not cease to advance during the "Dark Ages" in Europe. It is true that the means of disseminating that knowledge were seriously hampered and a good chunk of European knowledge ended up in the hands of various clergy.

 

[CSM]

There are many I suspect who are liberal and support the troops, of that I have no doubt. The folks that bother me most are the ones who profess to support the troops and then turn around and oppose funding for their efforts or the equipment they need to accomplish their missions. The worst are those who say they support the troops and then use the media to denigrate their efforts and do their damndest to hurt morale in every way they can. I detest those type of people.

As for the Arab learning and knowledge during the Crusades all I can say is that it is too bad they stopped there. I suspect if one was to research the subject carefully, they would find that a lot of the knowledge came from the Greeks and Romans spread by Alexander the Great and other notables throughout history. Also, contrary to popular belief, knowledge and progress did not cease to advance during the "Dark Ages" in Europe. It is true that the means of disseminating that knowledge were seriously hampered and a good chunk of European knowledge ended up in the hands of various clergy.

I have to ask. What library are you talking about that was destroyed during the fourth Crusade?

 

[Mariner]

The crusaders used the priceless pre-Christian manuscripts as kindling, greatly reducing later Europeans' access to the wealth of Greek and Roman knowledge. Aristotle and Plato inspired Europeans to look beyond the Bible. If there had been more such writing available, the transition from church-dominated Dark Ages to reason and science-dominated Englightement would have been faster, along with the related transition from feudalism and theocracy to democracy.

At least, that's what I remember from my long-ago PoliSci class with Dante Germino at UVa.

Mariner.

 

[Mariner]

re: the firefighter analogy. Why is it ridiculous? I never said I wanted the firefighter to fail at his current mission, only that I think it was the wrong mission. I can cheer him on as he works on the fire he was ordered to fight, even if I disagree with the order itself.

Yesterday's Boston Globe had an intersting piece concerning the about-face of increasing numbers of war hawks, who are beginning to see that our presence in Iraq is decreasing rather than increasing our safety. Even the conservative Cato Institute, which initially supported the war, states in its recent report:

"The occupation is counter-productive in the fight against radical Islamic terrorists and actually increases support for Osama bin Laden in Muslim communities not previously disposed to support his radical interpretation of Islam."

That's exactly why I didn't support the war. I think we were duped by a bunch of Iraqi expatriates who wanted our help in ousting Saddam, and by neoconservatives who have radical notions of very expensive nation-building in the Middle East. But that in no way means I don't support the troops themselves that are being asked to carry out these notions. I used to work in a Navy Hospital and in a VA Center. I have the highest respect for the people who defend my and our safety.

Mariner.

 

[CSM]

The crusaders used the priceless pre-Christian manuscripts as kindling, greatly reducing later Europeans' access to the wealth of Greek and Roman knowledge. Aristotle and Plato inspired Europeans to look beyond the Bible. If there had been more such writing available, the transition from church-dominated Dark Ages to reason and science-dominated Englightement would have been faster, along with the related transition from feudalism and theocracy to democracy.

At least, that's what I remember from my long-ago PoliSci class with Dante Germino at UVa.

Mariner.

You remember incorrectly then. the Library at Alexandria was burned long before the fourth Crusade. There are many stories about how the library was destroyed but the real who and why is a mystery. What is known however is that it was long gone before the Crusades.

Here is one link (there are many others if you care to look):

http://www.ehistory.com/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9

The Fourth Crusade essentially was the invasion of the Byzantine Empire and resulted in the sack of Constantinople.

While the loss of said library was undoubtedly a great loss, it wasn't the Crusaders who destroyed it.

 

[Bonnie]

You remember incorrectly then. the Library at Alexandria was burned long before the fourth Crusade. There are many stories about how the library was destroyed but the real who and why is a mystery. What is known however is that it was long gone before the Crusades.

Here is one link (there are many others if you care to look):

http://www.ehistory.com/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9

The Fourth Crusade essentially was the invasion of the Byzantine Empire and resulted in the sack of Constantinople.

While the loss of said library was undoubtedly a great loss, it wasn't the Crusaders who destroyed it.

If we really want to get into the history of who sacked who, lets start with the Muslims who destroyed many books of the Christian Bible as well as other priceless documents including taking over Cathedrals as Muslim places of worship, also we can talk about paganistic Vikings and their merciless rape and pillage of monastery monks who were sitting and translating the Bible into various languages. and on and on..........

 

[CSM]

If we really want to get into the history of who sacked who, lets start with the Muslims who destroyed many books of the Christian Bible as well as other priceless documents including taking over Cathedrals as Muslim places of worship, also we can talk about paganistic Vikings and their merciless rape and pillage of monastery monks who were sitting and translating the Bible into various languages. and on and on..........

true enough. Every society and culture as well as every nation both modern and historical has done its share of violence etc.

 

[Bonnie]

true enough. Every society and culture as well as every nation both modern and historical has done its share of violence etc.

That was a good post, because It's tiresome to constantly hear how evil christianity has been throughout the ages, when in point of fact, it has been other cultures that have done at least the same if not more in the way of conquering and destruction. You made an excellent point re the Byzantines etc. Look at what the Mongrol hoards did? And Atilla was not exactly fair minded to those who crossed his vision.