Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
Total Eclipse of the Son
Topic Started: Mar 31 2006, 04:38 PM (1,286 Views)
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
FrankM
Apr 2 2006, 06:07 PM
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.

There's a difference between strategy and tactics. You can disapprove of strategy and still support tactics as being the best way forward in the current situation.

In fact, Condoleeza Rice has just amplified this by saying that there have been thousands of tactical mistakes, but that the strategy was a good one. In other words, the army makes mistakes, but we don't. Oh, I'm sure she didn't really mean that, of course. A politician of her standing would know better, right?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
John D'Oh
Apr 2 2006, 06:20 PM
FrankM
Apr 2 2006, 06:07 PM
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.

There's a difference between strategy and tactics. You can disapprove of strategy and still support tactics as being the best way forward in the current situation.

In fact, Condoleeza Rice has just amplified this by saying that there have been thousands of tactical mistakes, but that the strategy was a good one. In other words, the army makes mistakes, but we don't. Oh, I'm sure she didn't really mean that, of course. A politician of her standing would know better, right?

John I agree. But you are providing substance where there is none in the statement I'm attacking. And I'm attacking it on principle because it's uttered to make the spokesperson appear to be taking the high road despite their objection to the war. But when you strip it bear, it's what we used to refer to in Brooklyn as suck talk.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
And I'm attacking it on principle because it's uttered to make the spokesperson appear to be taking the high road despite their objection to the war. But when you strip it bear, it's what we used to refer to in Brooklyn as suck talk.


And you are doing something that is a typical Bush tactic ... if you aren't with me 100% on each and every issue, you're the enemy. In the Bush Administration, there's no such thing as principled disagreement.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
In other words, if I disagree with what Bush is doing, I'm stabbing the soldiers in the back. This is bullsh!t of the highest order, and is typically used as a tactic by morally bankrupt politicians of both sides to stifle legitimate criticism.

What does 'I support the troops' mean?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
QuirtEvans
Apr 2 2006, 06:55 PM
Quote:
 
And I'm attacking it on principle because it's uttered to make the spokesperson appear to be taking the high road despite their objection to the war. But when you strip it bear, it's what we used to refer to in Brooklyn as suck talk.


And you are doing something that is a typical Bush tactic ... if you aren't with me 100% on each and every issue, you're the enemy. In the Bush Administration, there's no such thing as principled disagreement.

Quirt, Quirt, Quirt.

I said this has nothing to do with one's position on the war. I posted and then deleted a discussion of our progress on winning the peace in Iraq. I deleted it because I hadn't addressed the other side of the issue yet and it was already too long a post. It's a very complex topic and I side with neither those here who see it all one way or the other. (Please see my signature below.)

I'm simply attacking a statement that I continue to contend has, upon examination, no real substance. But let's drop it so as to not waste any more time on an issue of no real consequence.

later edit: sorry. didn't see your post before this one. I'm having trouble with my browser here lately and it's been a labor to follow-up on posts. OK, I accept that as a substantive meaning for the statementl Case closed! :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
suck talk.

good term
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
John D'Oh
Apr 2 2006, 07:04 PM
In other words, if I disagree with what Bush is doing, I'm stabbing the soldiers in the back. This is bullsh!t of the highest order, and is typically used as a tactic by morally bankrupt politicians of both sides to stifle legitimate criticism.

What does 'I support the troops' mean?

:smile:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
apple
Apr 2 2006, 07:21 PM
suck talk.

good term

I'm sure you'll manage to fit that in somehow at your Easter concert. :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Quote:
 

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.


Like I said, about 8 posts ago. I don't understand.

"I love you but I hate what you do" is the corollary, right?
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
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
FrankM
Apr 2 2006, 07:25 PM
apple
Apr 2 2006, 07:21 PM
suck talk.

good term

I'm sure you'll manage to fit that in somehow at your Easter concert. :D

that would be hard to do Frank..

The one thing i hate about playing at Easter is that i spend most of time on the organ.
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
FrankM
Apr 2 2006, 07:24 PM
John D'Oh
Apr 2 2006, 07:04 PM
In other words, if I disagree with what Bush is doing, I'm stabbing the soldiers in the back. This is bullsh!t of the highest order, and is typically used as a tactic by morally bankrupt politicians of both sides to stifle legitimate criticism.

What does 'I support the troops' mean?

:smile:

It's a good question, though, isn't it? Unless one is actively doing something to physically help soldiers, it doesn't mean anything, as I claimed in an earlier thread to a certain amount of derision, if my memory serves. Most people don't have bumper stickers saying 'I support the firefighters', or 'I support the IRS' (Mark?) on their car, so it must mean something. Does it mean 'I support Bush in his foreign war?'. If it does, it should say so.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
apple
Apr 2 2006, 07:28 PM
FrankM
Apr 2 2006, 07:25 PM
apple
Apr 2 2006, 07:21 PM
suck talk.

good term

I'm sure you'll manage to fit that in somehow at your Easter concert. :D

that would be hard to do Frank..

The one thing i hate about playing at Easter is that i spend most of time on the organ.

you veddy naughty girl! :tsktsk: :angel:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
just awful..

I'm sorry, i was just trying to participate in the suck talk.

i will creep to my punishment room with my head down.
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
John D'Oh
Apr 2 2006, 07:39 PM
FrankM
Apr 2 2006, 07:24 PM
John D'Oh
Apr 2 2006, 07:04 PM
In other words, if I disagree with what Bush is doing, I'm stabbing the soldiers in the back. This is bullsh!t of the highest order, and is typically used as a tactic by morally bankrupt politicians of both sides to stifle legitimate criticism.

What does 'I support the troops' mean?

:smile:

It's a good question, though, isn't it? Unless one is actively doing something to physically help soldiers, it doesn't mean anything, as I claimed in an earlier thread to a certain amount of derision, if my memory serves. Most people don't have bumper stickers saying 'I support the firefighters', or 'I support the IRS' (Mark?) on their car, so it must mean something. Does it mean 'I support Bush in his foreign war?'. If it does, it should say so.

John, you're kidding me, right? That's the very issue I just went through with Quirt. He did finally give me a meaningful explanation, as I noted above.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
apple
Apr 2 2006, 07:42 PM
just awful..

I'm sorry, i was just trying to participate in the suck talk.

i will creep to my punishment room with my head down.

OK. Just give me a minute or so to oil these leather straps and clean the chains from last time and i'll be right over.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
FrankM
Apr 2 2006, 07:43 PM

John, you're kidding me, right? That's the very issue I just went through with Quirt. He did finally give me a meaningful explanation, as I noted above.

Yes, I am mostly kidding. However, I'm not sure I completely agree with Quirt's description of what it means.

What I think it means is 'I don't like the war, but I'm not about to go slagging of the troops as some people did after Vietnam, thank you very much'.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
FrankM
Apr 2 2006, 04:15 PM
I'm simply attacking a statement that I continue to contend has, upon examination, no real substance. But let's drop it so as to not waste any more time on an issue of no real consequence.

As one who says this often -- and who truly does oppose the mission but supprt the troops, let me tell you what I mean by it.

It means I don't think they should be there.

It means I believe that George Bush should be roundly condemned for sending our troops into battle and then changing the reason he sent them on a regular basis until he finds one that sounds politically acceptable in a sound bite.

It means I think they should be brought home because they are being asked to achieve an impossible goal that they will never achieve -- and they are being killed and maimed when there is no chance of success because there is no defined goal.

It means I don't think this war worthy of asking the maximum sacrifice from those who have sworn to protect our country.

It means I am pissed as hell at the total and complete lack of planning for what our troops would have to deal with after the goivernment fell, thus putting more of them at risk.

It means I am pissed as hell that they were sent there without adeqaute body armor and their families had to buy it for them on Ebay.

It means I am pissed as hell that they were sent with vehicles that did not have proper armor on them and the soldiers ahd to rummage throught rash dumps to find sheets of steel to protect their vehicles.

It means I am pissed as hell at the cuts the Bush Admininstration has made and continues to propose making to veterans benefits, veterans hospitals and the benefits given to the widows of those who die in action.

It means I am pissed as hell that those who are there to protect this country have to live on wlefare and get Section 8 housing assistance just to feed and raise their families.

It means I am pissed as hell that this nation is denied seeing the coffins of those killed to allow us to fully appreciate the sacrifice so many are making in Iraq.

It means I am very pleased when I read a story like the one on the front page of the LA Times this morning about how good the medical practices are in the battlefield and how many of our troops are saved from death because of it.

It means I am proud to know that such things as the torture in Abu Graib was reported by lower level soldiers and I am pissed as hell the way the upper command, inclduing the President, has circled the wagons to protect their own and hang this on the soldiers, not on those who set the tone and the policy that brought this on.

It means that I am damned proud when I see pictures of soldiers in Iraq with children and shop keepers and common people in the street.

It means I watch often to see how many troops have been killed and how many maimed and injured and I keep them and their families in my prayers.

It means that I believe that when the troops come home -- no matter the condition they come home in -- that they should be treated for the heroes they are for doing what they were sworn to do, even if I believe the politicians who sent them there did so under false pretenses for purposes that have yet to be admitted to.

Now, Frank, if you want to claim that my oppositon to the mission but my support for the troops has no substance and is illogical, feel free to do so. You have every right to see it that way.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Which, when all the "it means" paragraphs are boiled down to their essence, it means that typical of a liberal and pacifist, you aren't interested in listening to what the troops think, because you consider your opinions to be so superior to anything they might think that you dismiss them entirely and assign your views to them - with no consideration to the possibility that you might just be wrong.

And you *are* wrong.

"I,I,I"..... that's all I see.

You think we shouldn't be there. People who are far more knowledgeable than you on the subject think we should - but most importantly, the majority of soldiers think we should. *you* owe it to *them* to support their decision, not assign your values and views onto them.

I could dismantle each of your points one by one in the same way, since all of them are incorrect. But - what's the use.....

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4