Soldier responds to Michael Moore's Movie

[robbie]

Originally posted by PreDatoR
nevermind him... he can't help it he lives in canadia...

CA is short for CAlifornia!!!!
Rob

[blade]

Well, I don't hate this country. I love it. I just have a different vision about certain things than the rest of you. And that's ok, because this type of argument/split has been going on for as long as there was a Constitution. However, don't come back at me with this "if you criticize the war, you must hate the poor soldier," bull . It's not that way

As far as I have seen, it's just one person who says that bs?

I and I doubt any here think that of you, or others here. It's one persons usual twists.

I think it's mainly moore's movie is causing some of our soldiers to feel that way.

odamn

And remember, :bush

[Red Dawn]

Why should any American have to fight for the freedom of those who refuse to fight for it themselves?

[TruckStuff]

Originally posted by Red Dawn
Why should any American have to fight for the freedom of those who refuse to fight for it themselves?

So I guess we'll just ignore the fact that Iraqi forces are taking a larger role in securing their country every day, since obviously that's not fighting for their freedom.

At any rate, I want to congratulate you Red. You have just stated very clearly my biggest problem with liberals: self-centeredness. For the last 20 years liberals in this country have told the world time and again that American lives are worth more than anyone else's; that we don't give a shit about your soldiers because all we care about is ours. Lets look at the list: Vietnam, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, etc. You guys are "on board" with "peace keeping missions" until there is actual combat, then its like the world has come to an end. My how quickly you turn. hame

I don't understand how liberals can maintain there voting base in this country when they proclaim crap like "we want to be a friend of the internaitonal community," yet as soon as the international community needs us, liberals are running scared to bring the troops home as quickly as possible at any sign of resistance. Its like you want to look good to the likes of France and Germany, but you also don't want to consider the fact that you might do something that is morally right (like defending a new nation from terrorists wanting to kill any hope of democratic freedoms).

Its a dicotomy that I'll never understand and I wish Joe American would realize what is going on. But alas, I suppose its too much to dream that Joe would be educated in history.

[TruckStuff]

Originally posted by Lmandrake
Unless I missed something, Rogue makes one comment about US soldiers killing civilians. That occurred well after the "criticize the war - you must hate the troops" phenomenon kicked into high gear.

That's one sentence in the whole thread.

Wrong. Attacking the US military occured in post #1 of this thread when it was compared to a mindless orginization that is only into brainwashing citizens into believing what they think because, obviously, no one in their right mind would go to war if they had the choice. So spare me this junk about "we didn't criticize the military." You did (the royal "you"). In post #1. Like it or not.

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by TruckStuff
So I guess we'll just ignore the fact that Iraqi forces are taking a larger role in securing their country every day, since obviously that's not fighting for their freedom.

At any rate, I want to congratulate you Red. You have just stated very clearly my biggest problem with liberals: self-centeredness. For the last 20 years liberals in this country have told the world time and again that American lives are worth more than anyone else's; that we don't give a shit about your soldiers because all we care about is ours. Lets look at the list: Vietnam, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, etc. You guys are "on board" with "peace keeping missions" until there is actual combat, then its like the world has come to an end. My how quickly you turn. hame

I don't understand how liberals can maintain there voting base in this country when they proclaim crap like "we want to be a friend of the internaitonal community," yet as soon as the international community needs us, liberals are running scared to bring the troops home as quickly as possible at any sign of resistance. Its like you want to look good to the likes of France and Germany, but you also don't want to consider the fact that you might do something that is morally right (like defending a new nation from terrorists wanting to kill any hope of democratic freedoms).

Its a dicotomy that I'll never understand and I wish Joe American would realize what is going on. But alas, I suppose its too much to dream that Joe would be educated in history.

You could try to pigeonhole me as a Liberal but then I would shock you with some of my conservative notions. I'm an Atheist but I believe everybody has a right to worship as they please as long as I am not forced to follow it. I'm Pro Choice but them I would hope the choice would be life. I'm for Gun Control but only if it would keep the guns out of criminals and whackos hands, not law abiding citizens. I am for our Military actions in Afghanistan but I believe the Dub's excellent adventure in Iraq was ill conceived and actually has distracted our war against terror. I'm for the Death Penalty in special cases. I'm unsure about taxes though I admit it doesn't bother me that the Rich get taxed more. However if I was Rich I can assure you that it would.I certainly don't believe in the Welfare system as it is, I do believe in helping those unfortunate to be poor but only if they also help themselves. I didn't blame Bush for the economic downturn, of course I don't give him credit for it's recovery either. I don't believe that Kerry is the right man for President but then I do believe that the Dub is definately the wrong man. I think the UC Republicans are a bunch of hypocrites but so are the Liberal Democrats. I don't trust our government no matter which party is in power due to them proving time and time again that they aren't really trustworthy. I don't see us as the World's Policeman and that we should only intervene when it benefits us.

Most of all, if a good reason is given to support an agenda or action that makes since to me then it doesn't matter who is making that argument. When the Dub laid out his reasons to invade and occupy Iraq I originally supported it (serves me right for trusting him) but since his main reasons have been shown to be suspect at best I do feel that he mislead me and now I suspect everything he says. Maybe if I were a true Republican Partisan like you I could overlook his BS and maybe even defend or apoligize for it but since I'm not so I don't. Now if that makes me a Liberal in your eyes so be it. I just don't see myself that way.

[Lmandrake]

Its a dicotomy that I'll never understand and I wish Joe American would realize what is going on. But alas, I suppose its too much to dream that Joe would be educated in history.

The average joe? How about you...

Let's go through your list of wars the "liberals" got us into...

Vietnam: Tis true that Kennedy got us in there, Johnson made the big commitment and that infamous "liberal" Nixon ran in 1968 with a "secret peace plan" that evaporated after election day. But ask yourself what would have happened if Goldwater had won in 1964. Would there have been no war in Vietnam? I think not. Johnson's escalation of the war enjoyed broad bi-partisan support. In fact, no political leader of note from either party began to voice any real doubts about the war until 1968. Of course, you may subscribe to that school that believes we could have "won" in Vietnam if only the "liberals" had let us. I sincerely doubt it. At best we might have achieved a stalemate like Korea, except that the South Koreans actually believed in fighting for themselves. The South Vietnamese were a different story.

Iraq: The "liberals" got us into Iraq?????????????????????????????

I am not sure how you lump all these conflicts together anyway, but why let the facts get in the way...

"As soon as the international community needs us, liberals are running scared...."

I see. The international community was clamoring for us to go to war against Iraq? On what planet?

Obviously you have swallowed all this crap about liberating the poor Iraqis and believe it was our moral duty to do so. As if the Iraqis were the equivlent of the French, Dutch etc. during WWII. Well, pardon me, but however attractive that idea is, we invaded a sovereign nation that was not being occupied by a foreign power. We unseated a dictator, but if that was the principle at stake, there are lots of brutally repressive dictatorial regimes that we openly or tacitly support all over the globe. That's just a reality of international politics and I don't wring my hands about it all that much until we hypocritically call the Iraq war a "Crusade for freedom." Hell, aren't there a ton of other oppressed people we need to liberate? Why haven't we invaded Cuba? What about the brutal regime in Myanmar? What about General, I mean President, Musharif's regime in Pakistan - a regime that openly supports Kashmiri terrorists who regularly kill bunches of Indians.

Call a spade a spade. We invaded Iraq because President Bush felt it was the best thing to do from any number of policy perspectives. We got rid of bad guy who was a destabilizing influence in the region. In theory, he will be replaced by a stable government friendly to the U.S. that happens to control a ton of oil (not a bad thing if the Saudi Royal Family can't keep their undemocratic repressive regime together). Also, this new regime may counterbalance Iran and keep that country wedged between several U.S. controlled territories (although the Iranians are feverishly working on the A-bomb themselves - but I guess that doesn't count). The Kuwaiti's will sleep easier at night.

But none of the above makes for very good press. It all sounds too much like a naked grab for control and the aggressive violation of another nation's sovereignity that we repeatedly tell the international community we don't believe in. So the WMD's are trotted out and the spin doctors turn it into a war of "liberation" as if our soldiers were going to be met in Baghdad by throngs of rose-throwing civilians.

[TruckStuff]

Originally posted by Lmandrake
Iraq: The "liberals" got us into Iraq?????????????????????????????

No, you misunderstand. The liberals want us OUT of all of these conflicts. At the first sign of resistance, we pull our troops out and head for the hills. All under Democratic leadership, and all with the not-so-subtle implication that the life of an American soldier is more valuable than that of some poor bastard in a foreign country under an oppresive regime.

Originally posted by Lmandrake
"As soon as the international community needs us, liberals are running scared...."

I see. The international community was clamoring for us to go to war against Iraq? On what planet?

OK, if you going to quote me, at least quote me in entirety and in context rather than taking a page from "How to Quote a Conservative" by the New York Times. Let's complete this thought that you quoted:

Originally posted by TruckStuff
...yet as soon as the international community needs us, liberals are running scared to bring the troops home as quickly as possible at any sign of resistance.

At any rate, how about 350,000 Iraqis being slaughtered by 20 years of dictatorship? How about 12 years of useless UN sactions against Iraq? How about dozens of UN Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq and Saddam Hussein? If none of these are an international cry for help, I don't know what is.

Originally posted by Lmandrake
We unseated a dictator, but if that was the principle at stake, there are lots of brutally repressive dictatorial regimes that we openly or tacitly support all over the globe. That's just a reality of international politics and I don't wring my hands about it all that much until we hypocritically call the Iraq war a "Crusade for freedom." Hell, aren't there a ton of other oppressed people we need to liberate? Why haven't we invaded Cuba? What about the brutal regime in Myanmar? What about General, I mean President, Musharif's regime in Pakistan - a regime that openly supports Kashmiri terrorists who regularly kill bunches of Indians.

Well I happen to believe that all human life is worth saving, not just American lives. I wouldn't mind seeing as go into some of these places to end the terror and oppression there. We have a President who believes that there is a moral right and wrong in this world, and he is willing to fight for what is right, and I happen to support him in that.

Originally posted by Lmandrake
Call a spade a spade. We invaded Iraq because President Bush felt it was the best thing to do from any number of policy perspectives. We got rid of bad guy who was a destabilizing influence in the region. In theory, he will be replaced by a stable government friendly to the U.S. that happens to control a ton of oil (not a bad thing if the Saudi Royal Family can't keep their undemocratic repressive regime together). Also, this new regime may counterbalance Iran and keep that country wedged between several U.S. controlled territories (although the Iranians are feverishly working on the A-bomb themselves - but I guess that doesn't count). The Kuwaiti's will sleep easier at night.

Oh and there was something in there about terrorist wanting to kill Americans, but that's less important.

[Lmandrake]

Oh and there was something in there about terrorist wanting to kill Americans, but that's less important.

OK, How many terrorists were captured in Iraq and sent to Gitmo?

How many terrorist training camps did we overrun?

Where was Al-Qaeda in Irag before the war?

Where did we strike to eliminate known terrorist enclaves - Afghanistan or Iraq? Was Afghanistan just a mistake?

If there is one thing this war will accomplish, it will be that there will be more terrorists in the future, not less.

[TruckStuff]

OK, how many terrorists were captured in Iraq and sent to Gitmo?

Not as many as have been killed, thankfully. And before you start, yes I value human life, but I also value justice in this life or the next.

How many terrorist training camps did we overrun?

Plenty; we found lots of them as we swept through the country. Google for "iraq terrorist training camp" and the first few links all describe camps that were overrun shortly after we entered the country.

Where was Al-Qaeda in Irag before the war?

I'll point you to the same links above. And I'll ask a similar question of you: How do you know Al-Qaeda WASN'T in Iraq before the war? I'd rather not take my chances with such questions. Besides there was still the far more pressing issue WMD (which does appear to have been exagerated).

Where did we strike to eliminate known terrorist enclaves - Afghanistan or Iraq? Was Afghanistan just a mistake?

So did you tell the terrorists that they are only allowed to be in one country? Or did they miss that message? You might want to tell them that again since we have seen terror arrests all over the Western Hemisphere. Spain might have something to say about this after a couple of trains blew up there a few months ago.

If there is one thing this war will accomplish, it will be that there will be more terrorists in the future, not less.

And the men and women of our military will be standing ready to fight them when they rear their ugly heads.

Make no mistake, Lmandrake: America is facing a very real war. Islamic terrorists hate this country and everything we stand for. They don't draw distinctions along party lines; they just fly airplanes into buildings killing everyone. You can sit there and pretend that this threat doesn't exist, but the fact that you can't see them or don't want to see them doesn't make the terrorists, the threat to our nation's people, or the War on Terrorism go away. We are in the midst of World War III right now, whether you like it or not.

[Lmandrake]

You can sit there and pretend that this threat doesn't exist, but the fact that you can't see them or don't want to see them doesn't make the terrorists, the threat to our nation's people, or the War on Terrorism go away.

What the hell makes you think I am pretending the threat doesn't exist? Actually, given where I work, I am MUCH more likely to die in a terrorist attack than you are. I found out about the Pentagon getting hit by seeing the smoke plume as I was driving in late to work after watching the first plane hit the WTC on TV.

Does your workplace have procedures in place for CBR (chemical, biological, radiological) attack? Mine does.

If you think I don't believe we should hunt down terrorists and snuff them, you are dead wrong. But I disagree with your view that the Iraqi war was really about hunting down terrorists and eliminating them.

I also disagree with The Sov and others, certainly to lesser degrees, who believe that terrorism is simply a natural outgrowth of Islam. There are people in the Arab world who do not necessarily think of the US as evil. But its easy to see, particularly when you consider the mass quantities of lies they are fed in their media, how Arabs can distrust or dislike the US. We support Israel no matter what because of our internal politics. Accident or not, a US warship shot down an airliner full of religious pilgrims in 1988. As I recall, we never even publicly apologized to anybody for that. So just recall the outrage here when the Soviets shot down a Korean 747...

Do I think we should wring our hands, hang our heads in shame and kiss butt all over the world? No.
But if there was an anti-terrorist benefit from invading Iraq (as the links to Fox News and the National Review suggest - but very few others) it wasn't worth giving more fuel to the islamic extremists.

I say find them, kill them, take their assets, make them disappear - and do it as quietly as possible...

[TruckStuff]

Originally posted by Lmandrake
Do I think we should wring our hands, hang our heads in shame and kiss butt all over the world? No.

But that is what you and your freidns are advocating here. Kerry has said publicly that he will bring our troops home if he is elected. How is it possible that we can leave Iraq at this point without losing face in the Arab world? To them, it will look like we got stung and we ran away and hid. They saw that in Somalia, they saw that in Rwanda, and they saw that in Vietnam. Leaving Iraq now with the job incomplete will only strengthen that belief and further prove to them that America can be beaten into submission. They have already seen that with Spain and The Phillipines. The rest of the world doesn't think the same way as America (and vice versa).

Originally posted by Lmandrake
But if there was an anti-terrorist benefit from invading Iraq (as the links to Fox News and the National Review suggest - but very few others) it wasn't worth giving more fuel to the islamic extremists.

You say that as if they didn't have enough fuel already. Its not like these guys were "on the virge" of hating America and the war in Iraq is what pushed them over the edge. Its not like an entire generation of Arab children aren't being educated to hate America, and weren't recieving the same education before March of last year. They attacked us first; they brought the war to us. President Bush didn't go looking for terrorists to kill before 9/11. But that fateful Tuesday morning was a wake-up call for this country: "Guess what, there are people in the world who hate us and want to kill us." To say that this is "giving more fuel to terrorists" is to paint a rosy (and false) picture of the world before 9/11.

Originally posted by Lmandrake
I say find them, kill them, take their assets, make them disappear - and do it as quietly as possible...

Terrorists don't understand quiet displays of force. For 30 years, terrorists around the world (not just Islamic extermists, but the IRA, Red Army Faction, etc.) have made there name and attempted to change minds through very public displays of force. Why? Because they want to shock people into submission. They figure if Joe American or John Brit sees children dead on the evening news, they will give in more quickly. No, the only way to get through to these types is to hit them where it hurts. We have to show al-Qaeda and every other would be terrorist in the world that if you want to screw with the USA, this is the price you will have to pay. I've said it once and I'll say it again: Freedom in this world has a price, and so does the defense of it.

[Red Dawn]

Blah Blah Blah...the Dub's ill conceived excellent adventure in Iraq was pre-ordained prior to 9/11. If he would have just come out and been truthful about the reasons instead of BS'ing us I seriously doubt he would have gotten the support he needed in invade that sh!thole.

[TruckStuff]

Originally posted by Red Dawn
Blah Blah Blah...the Dub's ill conceived excellent adventure in Iraq was pre-ordained prior to 9/11. If he would have just come out and been truthful about the reasons instead of BS'ing us I seriously doubt he would have gotten the support he needed in invade that sh!thole.

:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh



There it is folks... the end of this thread.

[robbie]

WOW they are out there aern't they?!?!? Well, I wonder who they are going to go crying too when the terroriest do hit again? IF Kerry is in office (god help us all if he is) then I'm SURE they'll try to blame it on Bush somehow.
Rob