Originally posted by: Romans828
Easy friend......... Thats out of line
and you brand them liberal
I did not "brand" the parents as liberals, but either way thats not the point.
Your missing MY POINT altogether, I am saying to IMPLY at this point (prior to ALL THE FACTS BEING KNOWN) the sacrifice/death of our soldiers in this war is in vain or to serve some "aternate" reason than the obvious one, is self serving and cruel. History may very well record this men and women as heroes who played a key role in protecting ALL OF US!!!!!!!!
I hereby give you one "get out of hell free" card. Your eternal residence should not depend on one post, and I will apologize for that sentiment.
Let's break things down...
"Anti-war setiment is as old as was itself... This always comes up. I come from a long and storied military family and I can tell you that this attitude of "did he have to die" gets old real quick. Why is it so hard for certain people to understand that for SOME OF US duty, honor, and sacrafice are words to live by not just say. America's military might has been used to the good of the whole world, time and time again."
I come from a long and storied military family, as did those who lost this boy. Maybe this attitude gets old, but I wish it had surfaced in VN a lot sooner. Maybe I would have some friends from those days left alive. American might HAS been used for good. I also know that America produced Kermit Roosevelt. I know it created Pinochet's reign. We understand that duty, honor and sacrifice on the battlefield is noble. Both the Japanese and Germans in WWII displayed them. Perhaps it is not the soldiers who were the issue, but the leadership. We are in a democracy and it is the duty of the people to question the leadership, and oppose it if needs be. The President is NOT above being accountable to the people, and people certainly have every right to demand answers. In this case, these people have paid for that right with their own blood.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't you understand that this is why many of us get so pissed off at countries like France throw our fathers/grand fathers sacrafices (deaths) in or faces!!!!!!!!!!!! They forget what the US has done for them. Generations before us have fought and died for the good of mankind as has this one."
Ok, people don't like the French. I have problems with the French. We agree. Not to this particular point, but the French are annoying at best. That did not make them automatically wrong in not removing the arms that aren't there. BTW, my grandfather got a lungfull of mustard gas that crippled him for life over WWI, so we know about sacrifice in that generation too. This thread isn't about the French.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Tell you what, suppose someone you loved (joined the military of his/her own free will) and died in service to our country, how would you feel if people suggested to you on a daily basis it was a "waste".
"
I would probably tell them to piss up a rope. I will also tell you that when people start throwing around phrases like "they are protecting our freedom" they need to really think about slogans. "Guiness is good for you" too. It was not, and has not been demonstrated that this war in Iraq has in any way protected American liberty. Protecting American political interests IS NOT the same as protecting liberty.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" I do feel sorry for ANYONE who has lost a loved one in this conflict, but to even imply that is "was in vain" or "fought on a lie" is cruel and completely unappropriate. It may take decades for ALL THE FACTS to be known. In the mean time we DO KNOW that millions of people in Iraq has the promise of a better future. We also KNOW that Saddam will no longer be able to sponser terrioist activities."
You feel sorry for someone who lost a loved one. Ok, I accept that.
Now, when a President commits the US and the lives of troops, he had better be damned sure of his facts. Never before in the history of the US has this country been an aggressor when there was neither armed conflict occuring, nor due diligence in determining the facts of impending threat. It may take decades to get the truth. So the standard is now go to war and hope we can find justification after the fact? I am deeply troubled by this concept. George Will is too. Perhaps he is a closet liberal.
While we are on "facts being known", where is the clamoring of conservatives for accountability? Why are those staunch supporters of the "truth" so uncurious as to why there are no independent investigations of substance as to why we went to war over something that was clearly untrue, and this does not extend to ALL levels? I want to know the TRUTH if it supports my beliefs or not. Not so with many, and those who claim some kind of rightness are all the more hypocritical. What is untrue? We knew what and where the WMDs were.
Oh, yes Saddam cannot support terrorists. We have created an environment that breeds them. Look at the attacks in Iraq now. Saddam wanted no part of Bin Laden, but the fighters there now are courting them. Smooth move. Saddam cannot support terrorists, but we created conditions that do. Great. NEWS FLASH- There has been no mass exodus of Arabs heading towards Iraq, leaving us safe. My belief is that there are just more to go around.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our brave men and women in uniform deserve our praise and our support. Suggesting that thier efforts are in vain IS NOT SUPPORING THE TROOPS."
Yes they deserve our praise, and if you had been here long enough, you will see that I have called out those who snipe at them. You need to understand the difference between soldiers and civilian leadership. Soldiers were called, and they went. They are doing their duty. The duty of the President is to see that they serve the interest of the US PEOPLE, and that when we go to war it is not for the Gulf of Tonkin incident, nor exaggerated claims of threat by Saddam. I am going to support our troops. I am going to vote against the one who sent them to Iraq to begin with.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am sick and tired of liberals playing both sides of this issue. Saying they support the troops on one hand and then suggesting they were involved in a worthless endevor on the other........"
Just as I am of those of any philosophical bent who would justify an adventure by pointing out the worth of our soldiers. Guess what? None of them picked Iraq. Bush did that for them.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I did get upset. When lives are lost (American OR Iraqi) I want accountibility. I want answers to why a thing was needed. I don't want those reasons to be perpetually changing in importiance. I don't want to hear "wait and see" as to if what amounted to a guess was worth the blood. I want to know what we knew BEFORE shots were fired, and so do the honorable parents of this honorable son.
Edit: I want to make it clear that I am not posting to beat up on Romans, but we each bring a certain amount of baggage to a topic. Sometimes war is needed, sometimes lives must be taken and lost. I believe the highest standards need to be applied BEFORE the shooting starts as to both threat assesment, and execution of strategy in both diplomatic and military arenas. Conservative or liberal makes no difference to me. Johnson presided over an era where there was much progress in regard to civil rights. That was a good thing, but in my mind, that does not excuse his part in VN.
A thing is right, or a thing is wrong. Some argue for gray areas. Perhaps how to act is difficult to reconcile, however when I shoot a man, it cannot be for liberal or conservative cause. It need to be justified on the act itself.
Facebook
Twitter