| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Total Eclipse of the Son | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 31 2006, 04:38 PM (1,288 Views) | |
| Jolly | Apr 2 2006, 06:33 AM Post #51 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
I wrote about listening to real people, not newspapers. Newspapers have their own agendas, one way or the other. On a similar note...My wife was at a function last night where formal attire was required. Mixed in with the civilian's tuxes and gowns were the disinctive dress uniforms of all branches of the service. Marine dress blues, Army black, Navy whites, even the guys from the Air Force and one Coastie. Wonder if the guys would even feel comfortable wearing their uniforms in kathy's house?... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Apr 2 2006, 07:24 AM Post #52 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
What is the point of this comment, Jolly? Why do you guys insist on bringing discussions aorund here down to the personal level? |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Apr 2 2006, 08:41 AM Post #53 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
The point? Or points, to be exact. Obvious, I would think. 1. kathy likes to agree with what she reads, therefore she reads what she agrees with, and retains it. She is perhaps unaware of bias in newspapers, and the editors who work at them. 2. Much like you, I cannot recall her ever championing the United States military. That may be a reflection of modern politics, or it may be an aversion to the use of any force in the furtherance of a country's national interests. 3. She once wrote that she would truck her kids off to Canada, if need be, to prevent them from serving in the military. 4. Her hatred of all things Bush is well documented. The vast majority of the service people I meet are proud to serve their country, most of them are proud to call W their commander, and the majority of them do not agree with any of her positions on the Iraq War, or the subsequent time the U.S. has spent in that country. It is no great leap to deduce the attitude of the JF/KK household towards a pro-Bush, gung-ho devil-dog, especially if he were sitting there disagreeing with his guests over coffee. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Apr 2 2006, 08:44 AM Post #54 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
And your point of making this thread a personal attack on a specific poster is? |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Apr 2 2006, 09:38 AM Post #55 |
|
Finally
|
Yet re-enlistment goals are met. Again. By re-enlisting, GIs keep their Guard up Web Posted: 03/31/2006 12:00 AM CST Sig Christenson Express-News Military Writer Spc. Arturo H. Rivera last year logged 6,000 miles on Iraqi roads as a Humvee gunner and driver who came under attack three times while serving with the Texas Army National Guard's 36th Infantry Division. When it came time to re-enlist or quit, the ex-Marine decided his skills and experience would prove handy in a future wartime deployment and signed up for six more years of duty. "I'll drop everything to do it," Rivera, 34, of San Antonio said of going back to the war zone. "Don't get me wrong. I did miss my family when I was in Iraq, but every time I was there people I didn't even know appreciated what I did." Troops like him are making a difference for the National Guard. About one-fifth of the 5,900 Texas National Guard troops who've served in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, the Sinai Peninsula, Bosnia and Kosovo have re-enlisted. In all, 1,012 re-upped while overseas — half of those eligible. Seven in 10 of those re-enlisted in Iraq or Kuwait. The re-enlistment of troops in war zones ensures they'll get big, tax-free bonuses, but also helps settle the nagging question of whether war in Iraq would drive Texans out of uniform. Texas National Guard Spc. Arturo H. Rivera plays with his dog in front of his Southeast San Antonio home. Rivera has decided to sign up for another term of duty in the National Guard. "We just had not had any experience up to this point, not with the numbers we're talking about," the Guard's adjutant general, Army Maj. Gen. Charles G. Rodriguez, said Thursday. Though not every Iraq veteran will stay in the Guard, the business of keeping veterans in uniform — called retention — is being closely watched as the armed forces fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| kathyk | Apr 2 2006, 10:19 AM Post #56 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
When I menetioned my local newspaper, I also mentioned editorials (written by real people) you know - letters to your editor deals. What makes you think that I'd be uncomfortable around a soldier in uniform or vice versa? How in the world can you possibly draw such a conclusion? After three years of PW repartee, you really have no idea who I am. Don't you get the notion that one can fully support the troops but at the same time oppose the war? And to take it a step further, that an increasing number of those troops are voicing opposition to this war? |
| Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/ | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Apr 2 2006, 10:28 AM Post #57 |
|
Finally
|
Kathy, not meaning to be snarky® here at all, but I am one person that does not get that notion. If one is opposed to the mission of the soldiers, is one not, by definition, opposed to the soldiers. It's like a bad marriage argument. "I don't hate you, I just hate what you do." In all sincerity, please explain to me. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Apr 2 2006, 10:35 AM Post #58 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Seems to me it is more supportive of the military to not want to waste their lives on a misguided mission. Simply because of President orders troops into battle, does not mean all of those who support the military have to stand up and salute, especially if that person is convinced that the President is sacrificing American lives for the wrong cause and for the wrong reason. In fact, I would argue that opposing the mission is far more supportive of the military than those who send them into battle to lose their lives simply because a President makes this decision. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 2 2006, 10:37 AM Post #59 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
When you're dealing with someone who doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground, pointing out that she doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground, and why she doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground, is not a personal attack. It's a simple acknowledgement of the facts before you, and it has to be dealt with in order to explain to her how to find her ass.
No, and no one with an ounce of brains can get that notion either. That's just one of the stupid excuses you lunatic fringe leftists use to hide behind. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 2 2006, 10:47 AM Post #60 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
See, the reason you cling to such an ignorant point of view is because you refuse to let go of your warped ideology long enough to actually listen to how the soldiers feel about that battle. The fact is, the vast majority of soldiers in Iraq believe in what they're doing, and want to be there. They do *not* believe they are there simply because someone made them go. With that factored in, your antiwar stance is completely at odds with what the soldiers support, and as a result, you don't support the soldiers. What you actually do is what you lunatic fringe leftists *always* do - you can only accept your own view of things as truth, so you assume that all the troops either think like you do, or you make up excuses for why they don't that explains their opposition away such as Kathy did earlier, and then you argue from the standpoint that your view is the real view. I've got news for both of you idiots - the vast majority of soldiers in Iraq believe in what they're doing, not because they've been brainwashed as Kathy thinks, but because they are there and see the truth of what's going on in Iraq instead of the crap you antiwar, antiBush, antiAmerican assholes keep spreading. They see reality, and are all at the same time dismayed, confused, demoralized, and angry when they see and hear the propagandized crap you feed off of. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Apr 2 2006, 11:01 AM Post #61 |
|
MAMIL
|
I'm not Kathy, but I think that you can disagree with the war but still support the soldiers in doing a very difficult and demanding job. The soldiers don't dictate military strategy, they do a job of work. Not supporting the soldiers is a little like criticising the person who works in the Supermarket because they don't sell the right kind of artichoke, even though the person has just spent thirty minutes trying to help you find an alternative. I've noted before that there is a big difference in the way much of America views it's armed forces than is the case where I grew up. The Brit view of a soldier is much more along the lines of 'he's doing a job', and this has always been the case, and is very noticeable if you read letters and thoughts of regular soldiers from the various conflicts Britain has been involved with. America appears to view the soldier much more as doing a patriotic duty, and to some extent idolises their armed forces accordingly. I'm not trying to say that either way is better than the other, but I find the distinction interesting. If you consider the soldier as 'doing a job' why wouldn't you support him? If you consider that he represents the patriotic interests of your country, then maybe if you disagree with US foreign policy, then you also disagree with him? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 2 2006, 11:08 AM Post #62 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
When the vast majority of soldiers agree with the job they're doing, then yes, to portray what they're doing as wrong is not supporting them. The vast majority of soldiers in Iraq agree with what they've been asked to do. The vast majority would find Kathyk and Rick's views to be an insult to their intelligence, and would not accept their position, or their "support". They would, and in fact *do*, see them as the root of the problem in America regarding any attempt to defend it. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| kathyk | Apr 2 2006, 11:14 AM Post #63 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
I can't explain it any better than I have. Maybe this letter from an Iraq better will help you understand. I share his sentiments completely. An Open Letter to Bubba By Charlie Anderson, Iraq Veterans Against the War I’ve seen you around. I’ve seen you driving your gas guzzling SUV with the “Support Our Troops” ribbon on the back. I’ve seen you wearing your pro-war/pro-bush t-shirts as you walk right past me in my Iraq Veterans Against the War t-shirt as if I don’t exist. And I’ve seen you at anti-war rallies and meetings where I often speak, as you wave your American flag and call me a traitor. In this country we have freedom of speech. But you owe me and every other veteran of this war the respect of listening to our experience. Your magnet says “support our troops,” but what have you done for us? Not a penny of the proceeds go to us, instead they go to sweatshops in . You say that I am not supporting the troops when I say that they should come home. But I am, because I know that there was no threat to our nation from Saddam Hussein, I know that had no weapons of mass destruction, and I know that we were not welcomed in as liberators. I know that the war was not worth fighting. I know, because I fought there. You say I’m confused. But what do you know about ? You’ve never been there. You have the audacity to claim that by not supporting the president, I don’t support the troops. Yet, the president chose to send over 160,000 of us to unprepared and without a defined mission. We had no body armor, no vehicle armor, and poor supplies of ammunition. Our families spent thousands of dollars that they did not have to supply us, while President Bush did nothing. In fact he didn’t even scold his Offensive Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, when he told our forward deployed troops, “you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had.” Moreover, the mission was originally about weapons of mass destruction, but there were none. Then it was making a democracy, but yet the “insurgency” worsens. Now the president has decided that in order to honor those who died for nothing, more must die for nothing. At present, 2,241 of my brothers and sisters in arms have died. In some way, they may be the lucky ones. Over sixteen thousand others have been wounded in this war, thousands more than planned. The term wounded sounds sterile, bland, and inoffensive. But, in reality, many of them have been so horribly damaged that medical science had to create a new word to describe their wounds: polytrauma. These people would have died in earlier wars, but because of the gallant efforts of brave doctors and medics, they get to live. They get to live with teams of ten or more doctors just trying to get their broken, mangled bodies through another day, as their families look on in horror. They get to live in a physical and emotional hell, not able to recover and not able to voice the pain they feel or the psychological demons they face. All the while suffering with a Veterans Administration under funded by nearly three billion dollars and unable to care for them in the manner they deserve. So which one of us supports the troops? You, who has never set foot in Iraq and wants to leave my brothers and sisters there until they complete whatever the undefined mission of the week is, or me, the veteran of this war who has seen the carnage of battle, the rampant indifference of my countrymen, and just wants to bring my brothers and sisters home alive and care for them when they get here? |
| Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/ | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 2 2006, 11:20 AM Post #64 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Of course you share his sentiments. He's just as out of touch with reality and just as ignorant as you are. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 2 2006, 11:35 AM Post #65 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I did a little research on this group. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!! It started with 8 members in 2004. In spite of all the help they've gotten from Truthout, Cindy Sheehan's little group of wackos, and various communist organizations that have promoted them, in the 2 years they've been organized they now have a whopping membership of.... 150 people....... about half of which have never been in the military, but have joined from other lunatic fringe groups to help build membership. Now...... *that's* what I call an accurate representation of what the troops think about the Iraq war, boy....... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! It's just another bunch of Cindy Sheehans! You know - idiots - the ones Kathyk gets her information from...... |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 2 2006, 12:34 PM Post #66 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
And this is where we clearly disagree. I think anyone with an ounce of brains can easily understand and appreciate that notion. Really, it's not a hard concept. I can support the people who are in a difficult situation, not of their own choosing, even if I disagree with the choice that placed them there. Or did you support absolutely everything WJC did, militarily, while he was President? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 2 2006, 12:46 PM Post #67 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
It is with this qualifier that you make your disconnect with the reality of the situation. You are assuming it is not of their own choosing. Kathyk points us to a letter written by a member of an organization that has at most 60 members who were in the military, and tells us he represents the views of the American soldier. Yet in the meanwhile, there are more soldiers reenlisting for this war than any other war in the history of our country. Tens of thousands of soldiers *are* choosing to fight in this war, repeatedly. Also, last time I checked we have an all volunteer military. Do you really think, given that this war is several years old, that the soldiers signing up to join the military the last few years didn't know where they'd end up? This *is* a war of their own choosing. This constant portrayal of "I can support the soldiers without supporting the war because they are just 'doing their job' won't fly. *They* support this war by a vast majority - so if you don't support the war, you can't support them. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| FrankM | Apr 2 2006, 01:10 PM Post #68 |
|
Senior Carp
|
The implication of supporting our soldiers has always implied supporting their mission. Don’t confuse the role of soldier with the person inhabiting the uniform. You condemn their mission, implying they're risking their lives for no good reason, while saying you hope they don't get hurt. Does the wish they don't get hurt need to be expressed? Of course not. So what you mean by supporting the soldiers but not the war is trite. If you don't understand that, let me make it even simpler. The only logical alternative to your statement, given that you don't support the war, is "I don’t support the war and I don't care if the soldiers get killed or not." |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 2 2006, 01:58 PM Post #69 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
You misunderstand the concept of choice. Unless they worked in the Bush White House, they had zero input into the strategic decision to go to war. (And, if they'd worked in the Bush White House, the chances that they'd have a combat role are remote indeed.) Whether they agreed or disagreed, they were bound to fight the war. Therefore, it wasn't a war of their choosing. Their choice was limited to signing up for the military in the first place. Once they made that choice, all future choices were made for them, and they were bound to follow orders.
Let me be as clear as possible. That's a pile of horse crap. Suppose some Air Force pilots were given lawful orders, tomorrow, to drop nuclear bombs on Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing, simultaneously. Do you honestly mean to tell me that I'd have to support the mission if I want to express my support for those pilots, who are placed in an impossibly difficult situation? You may not like the idea of supporting the soldiers but not the mission, but it's eminently possible.
More horse crap. If you want the soldiers to come home, that's the same as saying you don't care if they get killed? Honestly, that logic is so warped, it's hard to respond. By the way, please remember my position. I think the war was a mistake, but now that we're there, I don't think we can withdraw any time in the forseeable future. I think we have to finish the job, and I think that we will have to be there for many years to do it. I sympathize with all the military, and all their families, who are in this awful position, but it's the job they signed up for. But I can certainly understand people who say that they support the military but disagree with the mission they are currently assigned. In fact, many Republicans felt EXACTLY that way under the Clinton Administration. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Apr 2 2006, 02:09 PM Post #70 |
|
MAMIL
|
I think we should round up everyone who attacked Clinton over the war in Yugoslavia and deport them. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 2 2006, 02:10 PM Post #71 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
If you don't know that this is bull ****, you're in trouble. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. I'll repeat - more soldiers have reenlisted for second and even third tours of duty in this war than in any war in history. Having "input into the strategic decision to go to war" has nothing to do with it - they knew there was a war in Iraq going on, and they *chose* to reenlist. If they weren't in support of the mission, they wouldn't reenlist. They don't have to be sitting in the situation room to know what's going on, and make a decision to join the effort. That was one of the most lame arguments you've put forth yet. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 2 2006, 02:23 PM Post #72 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Fair enough, Larry, those who have re-enlisted since war was declared knew what they were signing up for. Although it's theoretically possible that some of those are opposed to the war, chances are quite large that almost all who re-enlist support the war. It seems fair to say that those people chose to fight in the Iraq war. That still does not encompass a majority of the active military, not to mention the National Guard that are over there. So a large majority cannot be assumed to have made that choice. By the way, do you have citations for this statement?
And would that be raw numbers, or as a percentage of those whose enlistment period was expiring? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Apr 2 2006, 02:27 PM Post #73 |
|
MAMIL
|
Am I to take it that if soldiers start disagreeing with the war, we should pull out? Do soldiers dictate military strategy? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| FrankM | Apr 2 2006, 03:07 PM Post #74 |
|
Senior Carp
|
I said that is a trite statement. I once again say it is a trite statement. What does it mean to support them and not the mission if it doesn’t mean you don’t want to see them harmed? Does it mean you commiserate with them? You pity them? What? And if what you in fact mean is you don’t want to see them harmed, what the hell is the significance of that? Why does that need to even be said? It might sound good on the surface but, when you dissect it, it’s condescending pap. I have no doubt that politicians have uttered that kind of vacuous platitude. Just because politicians have said it, does that automatically imply it has substance? BTW, this is not about support of the war or otherwise. It's strictly about the superficiality of the statement I'm attacking. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 2 2006, 03:17 PM Post #75 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
OK, let me tell you what it would mean, IF I were saying it. It would mean that I oppose the mission and the choice to take on the mission, but that I hope the mission is successful anyway, because I support those who are on the ground following orders. So, using my bombs over Tehran example, I'd hope for a successful flight, a successful drop, no one shot down or harmed ... and I'd hope that the bomb malfunctioned and didn't go off. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |








10:34 AM Jul 11