What aids and abets the enemy more?

[calbear2000]

I say neither. I don't think insurgents care about what Americans are saying at home, including the President's slip of the tongue.

It seems like its a common pro-war tactic to suspend free speech and protest during war by citing the opposition's highly-tuned ears. Apparently a lot of Americans blame the loss in Vietnam due to this.

How does one express an anti-war stance without "aiding and abetting the enemy?" Or should they all shut up until the war is over?

 

[sandorski]

Nothing and everything does. It's all political claptrap.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: calbear2000
How does one express an anti-war stance without "aiding and abetting the enemy?" Or should they all shut up until the war is over?

They can support the troops AND the effort to rebuild Iraq. The second part (support the effort to rebuild Iraq) is where the anti-war protesters fall way short and they seem to be doing everything in their power, at least in the media and in forums like this one, to help ensure a lack of success in Iraq. All their whining does is make it that much more difficult for the troops, lowers their morale, and means we'll end up staying longer which ultimately does NOT support the troops. Public opinion is being used to sway people, both here and abroad, and it's having a definite adverse effect on the rebuilding effort in Iraq

They can still be against the invasion and do what I've described above. They don't, however, and that's why my eyes roll when I hear them say "We support the troops, we just don't support the war." Bullsh!t.

 

[EatSpam]

Neither. Bush's "Bring It On" comment was meant to rally his beer-bellied base. The anti-war protestors end up preaching to the choir. The fighters in the Iraq don't care.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: calbear2000
How does one express an anti-war stance without "aiding and abetting the enemy?" Or should they all shut up until the war is over?

They can support the troops AND the effort to rebuild Iraq. The second part (support the effort to rebuild Iraq) is where the anti-war protesters fall way short and they seem to be doing everything in their power, at least in the media and in forums like this one, to help ensure a lack of success in Iraq.

As soon as the U.S. troops leave, there will be a civil war. That's not "wishful thinking" or "not supporting the troops" or "hating free-dumb" or anything like that. Its just that the brutality of Saddam Hussein was the only thing that kept those waring ethnic groups in line. We're filling his shoes for now, but once we're gone, that constitution they're printing up will be used as toliet paper.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: calbear2000
How does one express an anti-war stance without "aiding and abetting the enemy?" Or should they all shut up until the war is over?

They can support the troops AND the effort to rebuild Iraq. The second part (support the effort to rebuild Iraq) is where the anti-war protesters fall way short and they seem to be doing everything in their power, at least in the media and in forums like this one, to help ensure a lack of success in Iraq.

As soon as the U.S. troops leave, there will be a civil war. That's not "wishful thinking" or "not supporting the troops" or "hating free-dumb" or anything like that. Its just that the brutality of Saddam Hussein was the only thing that kept those waring ethnic groups in line. We're filling his shoes for now, but once we're gone, that constitution they're printing up will be used as toliet paper.

More morale building? Way to support those troops.

You do understand, I hope, that your fervent and myopic wish to see Bush's litle adventure in Iraq fail not only screws over the troops who have worked hard to try to make this a success, but also screws over 25 million Iraqis who had hopes for a better future?

But I'm sure you have the best wishes in mind for them both, right? :roll:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: calbear2000
How does one express an anti-war stance without "aiding and abetting the enemy?" Or should they all shut up until the war is over?

They can support the troops AND the effort to rebuild Iraq. The second part (support the effort to rebuild Iraq) is where the anti-war protesters fall way short and they seem to be doing everything in their power, at least in the media and in forums like this one, to help ensure a lack of success in Iraq.

As soon as the U.S. troops leave, there will be a civil war. That's not "wishful thinking" or "not supporting the troops" or "hating free-dumb" or anything like that. Its just that the brutality of Saddam Hussein was the only thing that kept those waring ethnic groups in line. We're filling his shoes for now, but once we're gone, that constitution they're printing up will be used as toliet paper.

More morale building? Way to support those troops.

You do understand, I hope, that your fervent and myopic wish to see Bush's litle adventure in Iraq fail not only screws over the troops who have worked hard to try to make this a success, but also screws over 25 million Iraqis who had hopes for a better future?

But I'm sure you have the best wishes in mind for them both, right? :roll:

There is a difference between hoping for an outcome and predicting it. I think it's more intelligent to face reality head on than to think your words and desires can change reality. I realize this involves a small amount of nuanced thinking, but come on.

Edit: What I mean is that the war in Iraq is about winning in Iraq, not building troop morale. You better support the troops by trying to deal with reality than you do by brainlessly cheerleading whatever stupid idea Bush comes up with.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

They can support the troops AND the effort to rebuild Iraq. The second part (support the effort to rebuild Iraq) is where the anti-war protesters fall way short and they seem to be doing everything in their power, at least in the media and in forums like this one, to help ensure a lack of success in Iraq. All their whining does is make it that much more difficult for the troops, lowers their morale, and means we'll end up staying longer which ultimately does NOT support the troops. Public opinion is being used to sway people, both here and abroad, and it's having a definite adverse effect on the rebuilding effort in Iraq

They can still be against the invasion and do what I've described above. They don't, however, and that's why my eyes roll when I hear them say "We support the troops, we just don't support the war." Bullsh!t.

I actually agree with you for the most part. This is, of course, a collateral effect of embarking on such an ill-considered war, with effectively no exit strategy, in the first place, however, and it will become a highly problematic issue if we continue to lose meaningful numbers of troops for years with no end in sight.

For the time being, it seems to me the only possible chance for a successful outcome (and I consider it a slim chance) will require continued sacrifice and, potentially, a draft (leaving 100K+ troops in Iraq indefinitely is probably not possible without a large infusion of - no pun intended - new blood). It will cost US taxpayers a trillion dollars when all is said and done. These are bitter pills, but I'd really like to see us succeed, and I think we're just going to have to stick it out for at least a few more years.

Where I disagree is with the proposition that protests lower troop morale. I don't see it that way at all, and I have many friends in Iraq or on their way there. I don't know one who feels in any way undermined by protesters.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

All their whining does is make it that much more difficult for the troops, lowers their morale, and means we'll end up staying longer which ultimately does NOT support the troops. Public opinion is being used to sway people, both here and abroad, and it's having a definite adverse effect on the rebuilding effort in Iraq

They can still be against the invasion and do what I've described above. They don't, however, and that's why my eyes roll when I hear them say "We support the troops, we just don't support the war." Bullsh!t.

I think that not getting armor in a timely manner, extended tours, forced enlistment extensions and being shot at do more to lower morale than some lady sitting outside a ranch in Texas protesting the war.

I would also say that the lack of a backup plan in case we weren't greeted as liberators with roses being tossed at us is a primary reason for the extended stay with no withdrawal in site. If there would have been viable contingency plans, the reconstruction might be going faster and the Iraqis might be pumping out more oil to fund this epic blunder of a nation building exercise.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They can still be against the invasion and do what I've described above. They don't, however, and that's why my eyes roll when I hear them say "We support the troops, we just don't support the war." Bullsh!t.

Bullsh!t? Are you saying it's impossible to support the troops but not the war?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: calbear2000
How does one express an anti-war stance without "aiding and abetting the enemy?" Or should they all shut up until the war is over?

They can support the troops AND the effort to rebuild Iraq. The second part (support the effort to rebuild Iraq) is where the anti-war protesters fall way short and they seem to be doing everything in their power, at least in the media and in forums like this one, to help ensure a lack of success in Iraq. All their whining does is make it that much more difficult for the troops, lowers their morale, and means we'll end up staying longer which ultimately does NOT support the troops. Public opinion is being used to sway people, both here and abroad, and it's having a definite adverse effect on the rebuilding effort in Iraq

They can still be against the invasion and do what I've described above. They don't, however, and that's why my eyes roll when I hear them say "We support the troops, we just don't support the war." Bullsh!t.

For the last time, there is a difference between saying "I don't support the way Bush is fighting the war" and "I don't support the war".

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They can still be against the invasion and do what I've described above. They don't, however, and that's why my eyes roll when I hear them say "We support the troops, we just don't support the war." Bullsh!t.

Bullsh!t? Are you saying it's impossible to support the troops but not the war?

I think we already had a very long thread about that, and the upshot seemed to have been that some people would rather anti-war protestors spit on soldiers, called them baby-killers and wished harm upon them in Iraq. Or at least that's what I got out of it.

 

[Gaard]

I seem to recall TLC saying that it was possible for the Germans to support their troops but not the war during WWII

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: calbear2000
How does one express an anti-war stance without "aiding and abetting the enemy?" Or should they all shut up until the war is over?

They can support the troops AND the effort to rebuild Iraq. The second part (support the effort to rebuild Iraq) is where the anti-war protesters fall way short and they seem to be doing everything in their power, at least in the media and in forums like this one, to help ensure a lack of success in Iraq.

As soon as the U.S. troops leave, there will be a civil war. That's not "wishful thinking" or "not supporting the troops" or "hating free-dumb" or anything like that. Its just that the brutality of Saddam Hussein was the only thing that kept those waring ethnic groups in line. We're filling his shoes for now, but once we're gone, that constitution they're printing up will be used as toliet paper.

More morale building? Way to support those troops.

I do support the troops. I want them to come home to their families and communities. I don't want these people, some only 18 or 19, to waste their lives for Dubya's excellent adventure. Most of the troops have their whole lives ahead of them. Its beyond tragic to me when they die for a lie.

You do understand, I hope, that your fervent and myopic wish to see Bush's litle adventure in Iraq fail not only screws over the troops who have worked hard to try to make this a success, but also screws over 25 million Iraqis who had hopes for a better future?

I don't recall the Iraqis asking us to invade and conquer. It was only after the lack of WMDs was confirmed that we were suddenly there to "liberate the Iraqis."

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: calbear2000
How does one express an anti-war stance without "aiding and abetting the enemy?" Or should they all shut up until the war is over?

They can support the troops AND the effort to rebuild Iraq. The second part (support the effort to rebuild Iraq) is where the anti-war protesters fall way short and they seem to be doing everything in their power, at least in the media and in forums like this one, to help ensure a lack of success in Iraq.

As soon as the U.S. troops leave, there will be a civil war. That's not "wishful thinking" or "not supporting the troops" or "hating free-dumb" or anything like that. Its just that the brutality of Saddam Hussein was the only thing that kept those waring ethnic groups in line. We're filling his shoes for now, but once we're gone, that constitution they're printing up will be used as toliet paper.

More morale building? Way to support those troops.

You do understand, I hope, that your fervent and myopic wish to see Bush's litle adventure in Iraq fail not only screws over the troops who have worked hard to try to make this a success, but also screws over 25 million Iraqis who had hopes for a better future?

But I'm sure you have the best wishes in mind for them both, right? :roll:

There is a difference between hoping for an outcome and predicting it. I think it's more intelligent to face reality head on than to think your words and desires can change reality. I realize this involves a small amount of nuanced thinking, but come on.

Edit: What I mean is that the war in Iraq is about winning in Iraq, not building troop morale. You better support the troops by trying to deal with reality than you do by brainlessly cheerleading whatever stupid idea Bush comes up with.

Opinion holds a large sway in this world. Many people in the US and elsewhere don't have a clue what's going on in Iraq. But do you know why they are losing hope? It's because the media keeps pounding it into them every day that hope is already lost when hope still exists. We don't know for a fact that hope is lost and if anyone thinks public the defeatist attitude prevailing in the US concerning the rebuilding effort doesn't affect the Iraqis, I think they are sadly mistaken. Encouragement can go a long way, particularly when when things are teetering as they are now.

Certain elements have been predicting disaster all along, from the invasion, to the occupation, to the formation of the Iraqi government and, for the most part, they've been wrong thus far because the Iraqis have somehow muddled through and so have our troops. People need to stop demanding some artificial benchmark of perfection, realize that things are not going to go cleanly and swimmingly, stop overreacting to every single setback, and get with the program. The war is effectively over and done. It was done two years ago. Get over the ingrained bias and distaste for the fact that Bush did this and move on. imo, it would make a massive difference.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Neither. Bush's "Bring It On" comment was meant to rally his beer-bellied base. The anti-war protestors end up preaching to the choir. The fighters in the Iraq don't care.

You got a link to the beer bellied base A-hole? Once again a lib being a diplomat.

6"6" and 230 lbs! Pretty typical for most of the Republicans I know.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: calbear2000
How does one express an anti-war stance without "aiding and abetting the enemy?" Or should they all shut up until the war is over?

They can support the troops AND the effort to rebuild Iraq. The second part (support the effort to rebuild Iraq) is where the anti-war protesters fall way short and they seem to be doing everything in their power, at least in the media and in forums like this one, to help ensure a lack of success in Iraq.

As soon as the U.S. troops leave, there will be a civil war. That's not "wishful thinking" or "not supporting the troops" or "hating free-dumb" or anything like that. Its just that the brutality of Saddam Hussein was the only thing that kept those waring ethnic groups in line. We're filling his shoes for now, but once we're gone, that constitution they're printing up will be used as toliet paper.

I have to agree with you. Iran has been lusting after the terrotory for decades and will move in when we move out. For a nation to build itself, it must want to first.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I seem to recall TLC saying that it was possible for the Germans to support their troops but not the war during WWII

And we beat down the Germans and it only took us 6 years or so to rebuild and get their country running. All the while, the liberals pooh-pohed it practically every step of the way, claiming it was a disaster, a quagmire, and that the Germans could not possibly handle democracy.

Sound familiar?

Isn't it odd how history repeats itself?

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Neither. Bush's "Bring It On" comment was meant to rally his beer-bellied base. The anti-war protestors end up preaching to the choir. The fighters in the Iraq don't care.

You got a link to the beer bellied base A-hole? Once again a lib being a diplomat.

6"6" and 230 lbs! Pretty typical for most of the Republicans I know.

example

I also like that picture where the mulleted guy is holding a sign that says "Get a Brain, Morans!"

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Neither. Bush's "Bring It On" comment was meant to rally his beer-bellied base. The anti-war protestors end up preaching to the choir. The fighters in the Iraq don't care.

You got a link to the beer bellied base A-hole? Once again a lib being a diplomat.

6"6" and 230 lbs! Pretty typical for most of the Republicans I know.

Oh not this sh!t again. I'd be willing to bet there is very little difference in body type/physical fitness between the right and the left.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard
I seem to recall TLC saying that it was possible for the Germans to support their troops but not the war during WWII

And we beat down the Germans and it only took us 6 years or so to rebuild and get their country running. All the while, the liberals pooh-pohed it practically every step of the way, claiming it was a disaster, a quagmire, and that the Germans could not possibly handle democracy.

Sound familiar?

Isn't it odd how history repeats itself?

The liberals were against rebuilding Germany?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Neither. Bush's "Bring It On" comment was meant to rally his beer-bellied base. The anti-war protestors end up preaching to the choir. The fighters in the Iraq don't care.

You got a link to the beer bellied base A-hole? Once again a lib being a diplomat.

6"6" and 230 lbs! Pretty typical for most of the Republicans I know.

example

I also like that picture where the mulleted guy is holding a sign that says "Get a Brain, Morans!"

LOL. The picture where the guy is holding the sign saying "Get a Brain, Morans!" is a picture of an anti-war protester.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard
I seem to recall TLC saying that it was possible for the Germans to support their troops but not the war during WWII

And we beat down the Germans and it only took us 6 years or so to rebuild and get their country running. All the while, the liberals pooh-pohed it practically every step of the way, claiming it was a disaster, a quagmire, and that the Germans could not possibly handle democracy.

Sound familiar?

Isn't it odd how history repeats itself?

The liberals were against rebuilding Germany?

Apparently. Google on some of the old New York Times articles concerning the occupation in Germany. All you need do is replace Germany with Iraq and Truman with Bush and you'd swear you were reading a NY Times article from 2005.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: calbear2000
How does one express an anti-war stance without "aiding and abetting the enemy?" Or should they all shut up until the war is over?

They can support the troops AND the effort to rebuild Iraq. The second part (support the effort to rebuild Iraq) is where the anti-war protesters fall way short and they seem to be doing everything in their power, at least in the media and in forums like this one, to help ensure a lack of success in Iraq.

As soon as the U.S. troops leave, there will be a civil war. That's not "wishful thinking" or "not supporting the troops" or "hating free-dumb" or anything like that. Its just that the brutality of Saddam Hussein was the only thing that kept those waring ethnic groups in line. We're filling his shoes for now, but once we're gone, that constitution they're printing up will be used as toliet paper.

More morale building? Way to support those troops.

You do understand, I hope, that your fervent and myopic wish to see Bush's litle adventure in Iraq fail not only screws over the troops who have worked hard to try to make this a success, but also screws over 25 million Iraqis who had hopes for a better future?

But I'm sure you have the best wishes in mind for them both, right? :roll:

There is a difference between hoping for an outcome and predicting it. I think it's more intelligent to face reality head on than to think your words and desires can change reality. I realize this involves a small amount of nuanced thinking, but come on.

Edit: What I mean is that the war in Iraq is about winning in Iraq, not building troop morale. You better support the troops by trying to deal with reality than you do by brainlessly cheerleading whatever stupid idea Bush comes up with.

Opinion holds a large sway in this world. Many people in the US and elsewhere don't have a clue what's going on in Iraq. But do you know why they are losing hope? It's because the media keeps pounding it into them every day that hope is already lost when hope still exists. We don't know for a fact that hope is lost and if anyone thinks public the defeatist attitude prevailing in the US concerning the rebuilding effort doesn't affect the Iraqis, I think they are sadly mistaken. Encouragement can go a long way, particularly when when things are teetering as they are now.

Certain elements have been predicting disaster all along, from the invasion, to the occupation, to the formation of the Iraqi government and, for the most part, they've been wrong thus far because the Iraqis have somehow muddled through and so have our troops. People need to stop demanding some artificial benchmark of perfection, realize that things are not going to go cleanly and swimmingly, stop overreacting to every single setback, and get with the program. The war is effectively over and done. It was done two years ago. Get over the ingrained bias and distaste for the fact that Bush did this and move on. imo, it would make a massive difference.

Oh, certainly, having a positive attitude is good. But it's not the be all end all, and while this might not be the case, I get the impression from a lot of pro-Bush people that displaying the right attitude is ALL that matters. And I'm simply saying that there are problems that do need to be dealt with, and pointing them out doesn't mean someone is anti-war.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard
I seem to recall TLC saying that it was possible for the Germans to support their troops but not the war during WWII

And we beat down the Germans and it only took us 6 years or so to rebuild and get their country running. All the while, the liberals pooh-pohed it practically every step of the way, claiming it was a disaster, a quagmire, and that the Germans could not possibly handle democracy.

Sound familiar?

Isn't it odd how history repeats itself?

The liberals were against rebuilding Germany?

Apparently. Google on some of the old New York Times articles concerning the occupation in Germany. All you need do is replace Germany with Iraq and Truman with Bush and you'd swear you were reading a NY Times article from 2005.

Interesting...one of the things I found was some schlock from Rush making the same comparison (coincidence?). In any case, I don't know how much of a comparison between Germany 60 years ago and Iraq today. There are many obvious differences, and just because Germany turned out alright doesn't invalidade today's concerns.