Support the troops?

Reasoning

Active Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
403
Reaction score
70
Points
28
April 18, 2010
Support the Troops on Facebook
Posted by Laurence Vance on April 18, 2010 06:57 PM

From a reader of mine who doesn’t support the troops on Facebook:

I recently got on a ‘Support the Troops’ blog on Facebook. The idea was you write in and express your ‘Support’ for the troops in whatever manner you wished. Of course, the thing was overwhelmed with cheap sloganeering and drippy boilerplate pronouncements of “Keeping us Free” and “Dying for our Rights,” and other disgustingly ignorant statements which were either educationally wrong (“Our Troops Give Us Freedom of Speech”) or geopolitically wrong (“Our Troops are Fighting those who Threatened our Freedom”) et al., ad nauseum.

Understand that my father was a decorated Marine (Navy Cross) of WWII and my Uncle a Bataan Death March survivor. BOTH men taught me both about military matters and the proper use of the military. Even though they supported their role in WWII (something now coming into question by prominent historians), they did NOT support Korea or Vietnam. They both understood that both conflicts were unconstitutional, and in many respects they both become somewhat ‘Pacifist’ in their beliefs. So, I am not a ‘Military-Hater’ bred in some ‘Red Baby’ commune.

So, I (foolishly) went on and stated that “I Support the Troops” and that the “best support is to immediately bring them home, punish all the politicians who put them there, and demand that our leaders adhere to the strict law forbidding our troops to be used in ANY situation other than DIRECT NATIONAL DEFENSE.” Well, I immediately was FLAMED by so many so called ‘Military Patriots’ that I couldn’t keep up with answering them all. And, the VICIOUS and UGLY emails I got from both soldiers and families was simply shameful. MANY told me either “Stand Behind Our Troops, Or Stand In Front of Them,” which I informed them was the same despicable, irresponsible slogan George Bush made (“If You’re Not With Us, You’re With the Terrorists”), insinuating that I should be shot by our own troops for NOT supporting the POLICY, just as Bush labeled any American a “Terrorist” for not supporting his policy.

So shameful were the comments, in fact, that I finally gave up and said, “OK, FINE. Keep em’ over there. Let em’ continue to be blown to bits by ‘IEDs’. Let them continue to be cut down by snipers. DON’T EVER BRING THEM HOME! Instead, send them into Pakistan and Iran. Let’s light off World War III. That seems to be what you want. However, let’s not forget that China and Russia are HEAVILY invested in that region, and will look upon any further aggression by the U.S. as a DIRECT THREAT to their national interests. And, in case any of you have forgotten, China alone has a standing Army of over 2.2 million FRESH troops, and can match every weapon we have. China’s FEMALE army is larger than our ENTIRE MALE army! And, I don’t think I need to explain the capabilities of Russia, either. Put them together in unison to defend their national interests against U.S. aggression, and the U.S. military will simply be OVERWHELMED. We will literally be WIPED OFF THE MAP (to coin a favorite NEOCON false statement of fact). So, go get ‘em, “HEROS”! From the ugly knee-jerk criticism you’ve (en masse) flamed me with, I can’t say I’ll feel sorry for you.”

Posted with permission of said reader. And as I told him, I think the American military mindset is hopelessly cast in stone.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,607
Reaction score
9,604
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
No where in the Constitution does it stipulate how or why the US Military should be used. The ONLY stipulation is that a Military budget can not be for more then 2 years at a time. Congress must pass a new Budget for the Military at least every 2 years.

As for Korea, Congress APPROVED of the action. Making it Constitutional. Vietnam, AGAIN, Congress APPROVED of the action, again making it Constitutional. Same for every action the military has taken since the end of WW2.

The current conflicts, again not only did Congress approve of them they reaffirm that approval EVERY year with new appropriations for those conflicts.

The President went before Congress and presented his plans , intent and reasoning. And Congress APPROVED them. Every year the President sends new appropriation requests for those conflicts and EVERY YEAR Congress approves them. Not just a Republican Congress but a Democratic one also.

I always love reading about morons and idiots. And how they just can not understand why people disagree with them.
 
OP
Reasoning

Reasoning

Active Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
403
Reaction score
70
Points
28
No where in the Constitution does it stipulate how or why the US Military should be used. The ONLY stipulation is that a Military budget can not be for more then 2 years at a time. Congress must pass a new Budget for the Military at least every 2 years.

As for Korea, Congress APPROVED of the action. Making it Constitutional. Vietnam, AGAIN, Congress APPROVED of the action, again making it Constitutional. Same for every action the military has taken since the end of WW2.

The current conflicts, again not only did Congress approve of them they reaffirm that approval EVERY year with new appropriations for those conflicts.

The President went before Congress and presented his plans , intent and reasoning. And Congress APPROVED them. Every year the President sends new appropriation requests for those conflicts and EVERY YEAR Congress approves them. Not just a Republican Congress but a Democratic one also.

I always love reading about morons and idiots. And how they just can not understand why people disagree with them.
You might have missed the more important overall message.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,607
Reaction score
9,604
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
No where in the Constitution does it stipulate how or why the US Military should be used. The ONLY stipulation is that a Military budget can not be for more then 2 years at a time. Congress must pass a new Budget for the Military at least every 2 years.

As for Korea, Congress APPROVED of the action. Making it Constitutional. Vietnam, AGAIN, Congress APPROVED of the action, again making it Constitutional. Same for every action the military has taken since the end of WW2.

The current conflicts, again not only did Congress approve of them they reaffirm that approval EVERY year with new appropriations for those conflicts.

The President went before Congress and presented his plans , intent and reasoning. And Congress APPROVED them. Every year the President sends new appropriation requests for those conflicts and EVERY YEAR Congress approves them. Not just a Republican Congress but a Democratic one also.

I always love reading about morons and idiots. And how they just can not understand why people disagree with them.
You might have missed the more important overall message.
I did not miss anything. I happen to believe we are in Iraq for a good reason. I also support our Afghan war as well. Isn't it amazing how those who do not support our self defense claim the wars are Unconstitutional? It simply is NOT true.
 
OP
Reasoning

Reasoning

Active Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
403
Reaction score
70
Points
28
No where in the Constitution does it stipulate how or why the US Military should be used. The ONLY stipulation is that a Military budget can not be for more then 2 years at a time. Congress must pass a new Budget for the Military at least every 2 years.

As for Korea, Congress APPROVED of the action. Making it Constitutional. Vietnam, AGAIN, Congress APPROVED of the action, again making it Constitutional. Same for every action the military has taken since the end of WW2.

The current conflicts, again not only did Congress approve of them they reaffirm that approval EVERY year with new appropriations for those conflicts.

The President went before Congress and presented his plans , intent and reasoning. And Congress APPROVED them. Every year the President sends new appropriation requests for those conflicts and EVERY YEAR Congress approves them. Not just a Republican Congress but a Democratic one also.

I always love reading about morons and idiots. And how they just can not understand why people disagree with them.
You might have missed the more important overall message.
I did not miss anything. I happen to believe we are in Iraq for a good reason. I also support our Afghan war as well. Isn't it amazing how those who do not support our self defense claim the wars are Unconstitutional? It simply is NOT true.
Do you not accept that 9/11 was blowback?
 

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,306
Reaction score
1,696
Points
205
No where in the Constitution does it stipulate how or why the US Military should be used. The ONLY stipulation is that a Military budget can not be for more then 2 years at a time. Congress must pass a new Budget for the Military at least every 2 years.

As for Korea, Congress APPROVED of the action. Making it Constitutional. Vietnam, AGAIN, Congress APPROVED of the action, again making it Constitutional. Same for every action the military has taken since the end of WW2.

The current conflicts, again not only did Congress approve of them they reaffirm that approval EVERY year with new appropriations for those conflicts.

The President went before Congress and presented his plans , intent and reasoning. And Congress APPROVED them. Every year the President sends new appropriation requests for those conflicts and EVERY YEAR Congress approves them. Not just a Republican Congress but a Democratic one also.

I always love reading about morons and idiots. And how they just can not understand why people disagree with them.
Speaking of people who can't accept or understand why people disagree with them...
 

Xenophon

Gone and forgotten
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
16,705
Reaction score
3,927
Points
48
Location
In your head
Even though they supported their role in WWII (something now coming into question by prominent historians),
That is something I have been teaching people here for a while now.

The men who fought did so couragiously and with great sacrifice, but the reasons for the war, how the USA became involved and the ultimate resoultion have now become extremly suspect.

The number one thing people who think WWII was a great crusade was the to end the holocaust, yet before and during the war almost nobody in the west knew of it and those that didn't didn't believe most of it, many still don't today.

Another common comment is 'Japan attacked us' which is true, but they never stop and consider why Japan, a much smaller nation would do so. The fact the USA broke international law time and time again regarding Japan and Germany is not discussed.

The next argument is Japan and Germany were 'evil' so it is OK to break the law to opose them. You can make a fine argument along those lines as both were brutal with little reguard for those they defeated, HOWEVER, and you knew that was coming, they were little different from the way the Britsih, the French and even the USA fought and handled defeated african and asian nations for over 150 years.

The USA for example, herded Indians into reservations in American, killed something like 100,000 phillipinoes in a brutal colonial war from 1900-1910 and then we have all the support that America gave to corrupt talin american dictatorships.

Then we have the problem of the Russians, the Nazi allies who became our allies. Most people don't realize that EVERY BIT of land teh Russians stole while allied to Germany they were ALLOWED TO KEEP in 1945. As for brutality, they never take a backseat to Nazis, the estimates of how many Stalin killed ranges from 30 to 60 million of his own people.

The point of all of this is, there were no real 'good guys' and in many wars there never is.

Don't blame the men and women who volunteer to serve in the military, people should support tyheir willingness to risk their lives for their country. Blame the jackasses who commit them for quite suspect reasons to war and fighting.
 

Soggy in NOLA

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
40,569
Reaction score
5,352
Points
1,830
9/11 was blowback?

Oh.. that's right, we probably oh those Al Quaeda guys an apology for something.
 

DiamondDave

Army Vet
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
18,169
Reaction score
2,824
Points
183
Location
MD, on the Potomac River
You might have missed the more important overall message.
I did not miss anything. I happen to believe we are in Iraq for a good reason. I also support our Afghan war as well. Isn't it amazing how those who do not support our self defense claim the wars are Unconstitutional? It simply is NOT true.
Do you not accept that 9/11 was blowback?
And here comes the onset of the winger material

From a vet... fuck off
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,607
Reaction score
9,604
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
Even though they supported their role in WWII (something now coming into question by prominent historians),
That is something I have been teaching people here for a while now.

The men who fought did so couragiously and with great sacrifice, but the reasons for the war, how the USA became involved and the ultimate resoultion have now become extremly suspect.

The number one thing people who think WWII was a great crusade was the to end the holocaust, yet before and during the war almost nobody in the west knew of it and those that didn't didn't believe most of it, many still don't today.

Another common comment is 'Japan attacked us' which is true, but they never stop and consider why Japan, a much smaller nation would do so. The fact the USA broke international law time and time again regarding Japan and Germany is not discussed.

The next argument is Japan and Germany were 'evil' so it is OK to break the law to opose them. You can make a fine argument along those lines as both were brutal with little reguard for those they defeated, HOWEVER, and you knew that was coming, they were little different from the way the Britsih, the French and even the USA fought and handled defeated african and asian nations for over 150 years.

The USA for example, herded Indians into reservations in American, killed something like 100,000 phillipinoes in a brutal colonial war from 1900-1910 and then we have all the support that America gave to corrupt talin american dictatorships.

Then we have the problem of the Russians, the Nazi allies who became our allies. Most people don't realize that EVERY BIT of land teh Russians stole while allied to Germany they were ALLOWED TO KEEP in 1945. As for brutality, they never take a backseat to Nazis, the estimates of how many Stalin killed ranges from 30 to 60 million of his own people.

The point of all of this is, there were no real 'good guys' and in many wars there never is.

Don't blame the men and women who volunteer to serve in the military, people should support tyheir willingness to risk their lives for their country. Blame the jackasses who commit them for quite suspect reasons to war and fighting.
Provide evidence the US broke "international" law by refusing to sell oil and metal to Japan. Provide evidence the US broke "international law" in any other way in regards Japan.

Japan misjudged what would happen, that is why they attacked. They foolishly believed that since we wanted no war they could attack us, grab what they needed then hold it till we fell back into Isolationism.

Whom ever taught you history did you a major disservice , you should ask for a refund.
 

QUENTIN

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
964
Reaction score
203
Points
78
Location
Texas
I did not miss anything. I happen to believe we are in Iraq for a good reason. I also support our Afghan war as well. Isn't it amazing how those who do not support our self defense claim the wars are Unconstitutional? It simply is NOT true.
Do you not accept that 9/11 was blowback?
And here comes the onset of the winger material

From a vet... fuck off
So the CIA, NSA, National Security Council, 9/11 Commission Report, Gen. Petraeus and Gen. McChrystal are wrong in your estimation in their assertions that the occupation of foreign nations results in blowback in the form of terrorist attacks from those nations' residents?

Please offer a counter-argument to their assertions, which are backed by all the intelligence they're privy to and the analysis of the government's experts on the matter.
 

Xenophon

Gone and forgotten
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
16,705
Reaction score
3,927
Points
48
Location
In your head
Provide evidence the US broke "international" law by refusing to sell oil and metal to Japan. Provide evidence the US broke "international law" in any other way in regards Japan.
You lose, as usual.



Next question.
 

DiamondDave

Army Vet
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
18,169
Reaction score
2,824
Points
183
Location
MD, on the Potomac River
Do you not accept that 9/11 was blowback?
And here comes the onset of the winger material

From a vet... fuck off
So the CIA, NSA, National Security Council, 9/11 Commission Report, Gen. Petraeus and Gen. McChrystal are wrong in your estimation in their assertions that the occupation of foreign nations results in blowback in the form of terrorist attacks from those nations' residents?

Please offer a counter-argument to their assertions, which are backed by all the intelligence they're privy to and the analysis of the government's experts on the matter.
Please explain, since you asserted 9/11 was a blowback... where we had occupation in Iraq or any ME cuntry that caused 9/11
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,607
Reaction score
9,604
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
Provide evidence the US broke "international" law by refusing to sell oil and metal to Japan. Provide evidence the US broke "international law" in any other way in regards Japan.
You lose, as usual.



Next question.
That is neither illegal nor breaking any International Law. Try again RETARD.
 

Xenophon

Gone and forgotten
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
16,705
Reaction score
3,927
Points
48
Location
In your head
Provide evidence the US broke "international" law by refusing to sell oil and metal to Japan. Provide evidence the US broke "international law" in any other way in regards Japan.
You lose, as usual.



Next question.
That is neither illegal nor breaking any International Law. Try again RETARD.
Were you born that stupid or did you work on it asshole?

They were all ACTIVE DUTY AMERICAN OFFICERS FLYING US SUPPLIED WARPLANES.

Really, grow a functioning brain, that chimp case you currently use is defective.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top