Standing Behind Our Troops

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hsim

Moderator
Just wanted to throw this out there for general discussion:

Cindy Sheehan asked President Bush, "Why did my son have to die in Iraq?"

Another mother asked President Kennedy, "Why did my son have to die in Viet Nam?"

Another mother asked President Truman, "Why did my son have to die in Korea?

Another mother asked President F.D. Roosevelt, "Why did my son have to die at Iwo Jima?"

Another mother asked President W. Wilson, "Why did my son have to die on the battlefield of France?"

Yet another mother asked President Lincoln, "Why did my son have to die at Gettysburg?"

And yet another mother asked President G. Washington, "Why did my son have to die near Valley Forge?"

Then long, long ago, a mother asked, "Heavenly Father, why did my Son have to die on a cross outside of Jerusalem?"

The answers to all these are similar -- "that others may have life and dwell in peace, happiness and freedom."

This was emailed to me with no author and I thought the magnitude and the simplicity were awesome ..

IF YOU DON'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS, PLEASE, FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM !!!

Amen
 
If supporting the troops means you cant ask the sitting administration questions I have a problem with that. Its a patriotic duty to ask questions of the government. I suppose all those folks who aksed questions about body armor for persons and vehicles were outta line? I guess some of the folks who asked questions about contractors as to why some money is going in a black hole and not to the troops are outta line? Everone in this country has a right to demonstrate and protest. I may not like or agree with what they have to say but thats the way it was meant to be. I also have the right to ignore those I dont agree with. Sometimes those who brave the crowd and popularity and ask the diffcult questions are the greatest patriots.

While I think Sheehan and a few others have wandered off the edge and gone over the cliff lately they still have a right to voice thier opinions, thats called freedom of speech.
 
So we have a a First Amendment, but you are wrong to exercise that right. Got it.

It sure is insulting to soldiers to make sure they are injured and killed in a good cause. I mean, it is only their lives. Better they should die than the cause justified.
It may be that Jesus had his moment of doubt and pain, but grieving relatives should be stronger than that. Commie bastards!

Who exactly dwelled in peace and freedom from Viet Nam? It looked like it was more about hegemony. Those generals we backed were not exactly pro democracy - they were oppressive and thieving. Early diplomatic solutions wouldn't have resulted in a worse situation.
Difficult questions should be asked and reasons justified. If the cause is right, what harm does it do to show that it is? What is there to hide? Not all wars in history has ever been about right and wrong. War may be politics by other means, but people die by this means. If the cause if just, it is a shame that good lives are lost, but it must be done. But otherwise, it is young men dying for the gains of others.
So support soldiers by making sure they suffer for a just cause, don't just assume it.
 
Iraq and Vietnam

It seems to me that there's a retrospective national guilt over the treatment given to those returning from Vietnam. When I came back in 1968 I was never abused (being 6'3", 225 pounds) but no one seemed to care about where I had been or what I had volunteered to do.
So now even those opposed to the war won't take it out on the troops. And that is a big improvement!
 
Well, Cindy Sheehan is against the war, and Bush is for the war, so I guess I have to....

CHOOSE NEITHER.

I can despise Sheehan, and despise Bush, at the same time. Bush as commander-in-chief is disgraceful, and Sheehan is disgraceful as well. This is not 'either-or' here.
 
The above post does not question anyones right to protest. It just indicates a disagreement with them. Also the guys who fought and died in Vietnam did so for the same reasons as our vets from WWI, WWII and others. The IDEA of freedom is worth dying for. Even if all the politicos get it wrong, those guys still go and do their duty. The antiwar people in this country always follow the same pattern. First they protest the war, and if that doent drum up the frenzied antiwar sentiment they want , then they attack the troops. They did it during Vietnam, and they are doing it now. I think that disagreeing with a policy is one thing. Questioning the legitimacy of the war is fine. After its over. Pointing out each mistake as it comes is counter productive, and demoralizing. Sometimes I wish the military could better control what gets out and when. Can you imagine the handwringing and wailing that would have taken place if mom and pop back home had known that the battle of the bulge was a collossal screw up? Or that hundreds of soldiers died in a traing accident in England during thr runup to D-Day? I'm not saying dont watch, and i'm not saying dont fix problems. Just maybe try to come to grips with the idea that all war is ugly, and imperfect. ERIC
 
The war in Iraq will not solve the terrorist problem. Yemen seemed to have more training centers really. Now it looks like a live exercise for terrorists. I'm thinking Iran and other places harbor many more terrorists. Terrorsm has no central capital and very little ground to hold.
It is right to fight for freedom, but killing everybody who disagrees with it is probably not productive. We don't really fight for the idea of freedom. We fight for our freedom.
As for WWII, that was something FDR wanted to enter earlier, but American opinion wouldn't let him (Congress had polls then too) until we were attacked. Then it suddenly became about freedom. Jews getting killed wasn't an attack on freedom. After getting pulled in, the first year was rough as it was a series of losses. But casualities seemed (from reading) to be accepted as the price.
Sure there were a lot of mistakes that led to the Battle of the Bulge being so screwed up. But even were that know at the time, people wouldn't have called for the end of the war, just the heads of the generals. Trying to mix the two situations is wrong, it simply doesn't compare. There was little question about our targets in WWII. We were bombed by one country and two others formally declared war.
The above post didn't question anybody's right to protest, just said that any questions attack and undermine the troops.

Sure a lot of this is because of guilt about how soldiers from Viet Nam were treated. At least the reaction from boomers are. So people learn.
 
This country was founded on certain values
Click to expand...

There are ten of them in the Bill of Rights. The first one is Freedom of Speech. The attack of 9/11 is not an excuse for not observing them for all citizens. I dont beleive we should abandon Iraq either. The notion that Iraq is the end all of terrorism is a bit far fetched for me, its a start but only that.
 
How many times does the same bunch have to attack you bfore you get the idea they are declaring war on you? If we all agree that we will have to fight these people sooner or later, why not now? why not there? I still fail to see how questioning every decision by their command structure, in fact screeching about how wrong this war is, is omehow not demoralizing to the troops. Almost everyone I talk to who is coming home cites that as the worst part of the trip. ERIC
 
Because there is the inevitable question of where it all ends. What about all the other Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries, plus Indonesia?
Why not Iraq? Why? I don't dissagree that some people are declaring war on us, but a problem is that governments aren't. Defeating the governments doesn't stop these groups. So are we going to try holding all the ground that these terrorists orginate from?
 
"This same bunch"? :confused:

I don't recall Iraq attacking the US in the last, well, EVER. Or are you lumping Iraqis in with all them damn dirty Ay-rabs what's tryin' ta destroy our Murrican way o' life? :rolleyes:
 
HA! Silly me.

I thought you were talking about the democrats.

Marines get get their eyes dug out of their heads. I don't here a thing from the liberal love crowd. Infact, the love crowd at MSNBC headlined that POOOOOR SADDAM is on a hunger strike, GAWD IM SICK OF THIS LIBERAL BED WETTING!

Murtha, Fienstien, KERRY, oh no we feed fruit loops to those sexy loving ARABIC killers, or wait, the politically correct way would be "detainees", and their just barbers from an innocent village, in GITMO.





BIG RUGER your right, It's the same damn bunch, weather in IRAQ or in AMERICA!
 
Last edited:
I suppose all those folks who aksed questions about body armor for persons and vehicles were outta line?
Click to expand...
+1

Supporting body armor should not be construed as not supporting the troops. Supporting checks and balances in our government should not be construed as not supporting the troops. Most humans (soldiers too) would rather not get shot at.

Those of us who have to do it, can't question it. If there was no Sheehan, if there was no questioning of motives, if there was no oversight, no public outcry against war, we would invade every nation on the planet. Well maybe not the UK, they look and talk (sorta) like us. If there is no question, there is no answer.

My point is, somebody has to make sure the government is doing what they are supposed to, or they won't.
 
O K, if you don't want to fight them over there, where and when will you say it is o k to fight? When they show up in Boston, Washington, Seatle?
 
carbiner,

that still doesn't answer my question. Who is "the same damn bunch"? I'm looking for a more precise definition of the enemy here.
 
Marko, the "same damn bunch" is difined very simply. Muslims. Accoridng to thier religion, if you arent a muslim you either convert or you get killed. Who attacked the WTC the first time? Muslims. Who attacked the USS Cole? Muslims. Who blew up the WTC the second time and the pentagon? Muslims. Who blew up the Khobar towers? Muslims. Who is killing our solders in Iraq and Afghanistan now? Muslims. Do we see a pattern devolping here? Im as much of a live-and-let-live guy as the next joe, but when you repeatedly attack me and mine, im going to drive you into the ground like a fence post. I dont care where you decide to fight. i will meet you on the field of battle and whup you butt. Id rather do it somewhere else but if you want it here, ill give it to you here. I cant say the "arabs" are the problem. "Arab" covers such a vast complex array of peoples that it would be criminal to say "arabs" are "the same damn bunch". While i dont condone the invasion of Iraq because the stated reason for going was incorrect, i do think it was a good idea. Spreading democracy to that part of the world is a wonderful idea. If Bush wanted legitimacy for his invasion he should have done it as removing a murderer and despot from office not "looking for WMD's".

SW
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top