A Young Marine Speaks Out

[StraightAndNarrow]

Hardly. But if they try, they will deeply regret it.

Of course any nation has the right to try to invade the U.S. However, since we have firmly set the notion of "might makes right" they will fail.

 

[poncho]

No, we invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power and to eliminate Iraq's ability to manufacture weapons of mass destruction.

Most Americans, including me, thought that this was the wisest choice in March 2003. Now we know that it was not the best course of action. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Still trying to use the same old emphasis huh Ken? Hey, did you notice that Saddam's body wasn't even cold yet when the MSM started blitzing us with all these amazingly inaccurate documentaries on "Saddam The Dictator's Rise And Fall"?

Probably not huh? Well, check it out tonight virtually all the networks are running the same inaccurate "emphasis" just hours after his death. What a coincidence! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[LadyEagle]

But your analogy is flawed in some respects. Say an anti-gun nut was elected POTUS, had issued the order in the past, makes it crystal-clear that he wants to continue the gun grab, why would I sign up if I disagreed with the confinscation?

Except your analogy to show my analogy is flawed in some respects, doesn't add up - you see, I distinctly remember Bush saying there would be "no nation building" if he were elected President. And, anyone who signed up for the military post-911, did so (initially) because we were told there were WMDs. So, those who signed up initially may have agreed with the premise of what they were told by the administration, only to find out later the facts just don't support the reason for going to war......or staying there in that land of ingrates.

And my question still remains to those who say soldiers have no right to question, they just have to follow orders - if it were martial law and soldiers were ordered by the CIC to confiscate your guns & rifles, going door to door, would you still say they were supposed to follow orders and not question?

 

[777]

Except your analogy to show my analogy is flawed in some respects, doesn't add up - you see, I distinctly remember Bush saying there would be "no nation building" if he were elected President

Bush did say in 2000 that he wouldn't "nation-build", but then did just that. But that happened in 2003, it was this particular soldier's timeline that didn't make sense in context.

He went in in 2004, or 2005.

And, anyone who signed up for the military post-911, did so (initially) because we were told there were WMDs. So, those who signed up initially may have agreed with the premise of what they were told by the administration, only to find out later the facts just don't support the reason for going to war......or staying there in that land of ingrates.

Not by 2004, this "no WMD's" argument has been around since the spring of 2003. Even before then, I doubt every soilder enlisted between 2000-2003 just because Sadaam was said to have WMDs.

Republican President and Republican Congress the entire time.

And my question still remains to those who say soldiers have no right to question, they just have to follow orders - if it were martial law and soldiers were ordered by the CIC to confiscate your guns & rifles, going door to door, would you still say they were supposed to follow orders and not question?

With no "conscientious observer" option...yes, the executive branch's orders have to be obeyed.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

But we can invade Iraq to give them "democracy"?

Oh, and the law, the TRUE law says Thou Shalt Not kill.
No government has the right to say otherwise.
Granted, it isn't the role of the president to enforce justice in murder cases but our government as a whole allows abortion.
We need to get our own act together before you become policemen of the world.
Not that we should EVER be the policeman of the world.

Our objective hasn't been to be the policeman of the world. It was stated by Bush's advisors to be WORLD SUPREMACY.

 

[El_Guero]

There is a difference between a lawful order and an unlawful order - soldiers have the responsibility to follow lawful orders - without question and without blogging about their pet complaints.

If this is a real Marine, then he is only not punished by the grace of his commanders.

Except your analogy to show my analogy is flawed in some respects, doesn't add up - you see, I distinctly remember Bush saying there would be "no nation building" if he were elected President. And, anyone who signed up for the military post-911, did so (initially) because we were told there were WMDs. So, those who signed up initially may have agreed with the premise of what they were told by the administration, only to find out later the facts just don't support the reason for going to war......or staying there in that land of ingrates.

And my question still remains to those who say soldiers have no right to question, they just have to follow orders - if it were martial law and soldiers were ordered by the CIC to confiscate your guns & rifles, going door to door, would you still say they were supposed to follow orders and not question?

 

[carpro]

Carpro wrote:

I don't ever mind standing alone with the truth.


"Trained warriors like clear cut victories and the full support of the people back home.

They have neither."

is a true statement and can stand on it's own. No one is being "blamed" for anything.

To my suprise, I thought you were being negative about the way that the Bush Adminsitration was handling the war in Iraq and I can understand that since General Casey didn't deliver the desired results for the President. But to infer that the majority of Americans do not support the troops,well that took me totally by suprise. I wouldn't say the kind of thing that you stated to a U.S. soldier though, it would seem too demoralizing and unappreciative of their sacrifice and efforts.

They already know. Durbin, Kerry, Kennedy, et al are all on record with their opinion of the troops and their efforts.

It looks like liberals will never learn how to "support the troops". It just totally escapes them for some reason.:BangHead:

 

[Rufus_1611]

It looks like liberals will never learn how to "support the troops". It just totally escapes them for some reason.:BangHead:

Will you please define the expression "support the troops"?

 

[JonC]

I would rely on this young marine’s opinions about why we went to war, the legality of this war, etc about as much as I would rely on an entertainer’s opinion. While his service is commendable, he doesn’t have the resources or knowledge to make the call.

If he is bent on serving his country only when he agrees with its politics, the military is no place for him.

 

[carpro]

Will you please define the expression "support the troops"?

It's an overused expression, but what it boils down to is one thing;

One just can not support the troops without supporting what they are doing. It's like saying you are a Yankees fan and rooting for the other team.

 

[JonC]

It’s amazed me that the people displaying the anti-Bush stickers still feel they are supporting their country. (The same was true with the anti-Clinton stickers in the past).

Some people today can’t fathom what it is to support your country, or the troops. They don’t realize that “I support you, but not what you are doing in Iraq” is an insult, and actually think it is a complement.

 

[Petra-O IX]

It's an overused expression, but what it boils down to is one thing;

One just can not support the troops without supporting what they are doing. It's like saying you are a Yankees fan and rooting for the other team.

Here is what this boils down to
Yes you can encourage the troops to fight each battle to attain victory.

Yes you can encourage the troops to follow the commands of their leaders and tell them how proud we are of their willingness to serve during the tough times.

Yes you can encourage the troops to serve with honor and dignity and tell them how proud we are that they are doing so.

Yes you can tell the troops that we are praying for them and their families.

Yes we can actually support the needs of our troops by supplying them with basic necesssities such as tooth paste soap etc. so that they can send fulller portions of their paychecks back home

Meanwhile back home at the Capital we can be voices and critisize our Govenrment for there lack of planning and resolve to put an end to this debacle. Politicians make very lousy commanders and should do a better job of listening to our Generals who have actually had experience with matters of war. Our Great Decider who resides in the White House doesn't have the qualities of leadership, he just doesn't listen very well and only hears what he wants to hear. But neo-cons would prefer for it's U.S citizens to be quiet when it comes matters of disagreement with their policies.

 

[Rufus_1611]

It’s amazed me that the people displaying the anti-Bush stickers still feel they are supporting their country. (The same was true with the anti-Clinton stickers in the past).

Some people today can’t fathom what it is to support your country, or the troops. They don’t realize that “I support you, but not what you are doing in Iraq” is an insult, and actually think it is a complement.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." - Teddy Roosevelt [Emphasis mine] (Source: http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/quotes.htm)​

 

[Rufus_1611]

It's an overused expression, but what it boils down to is one thing;

One just can not support the troops without supporting what they are doing. It's like saying you are a Yankees fan and rooting for the other team.

Hmmm, speaking for myself. I am most definitely not rooting for the other team. However, I think that the lives of each and every one of the people in the theater of war are valuable. I would desire that their lives be spared and they no longer engage in a vain unconstitutional war that does not serve the interests of the citizens of the United States of America. I believe that 3,000+ dead and 45,000+ non mortal casualties is horrific. I would desire that no more of these professionals be harmed and that they be returned stateside to be with their families and to protect the United States and her Constitution. If this means I do not support the troops, then so be it.

 

[Petra-O IX]

Carpro wrote:



They already know. Durbin, Kerry, Kennedy, et al are all on record with their opinion of the troops and their efforts.

It looks like liberals will never learn how to "support the troops". It just totally escapes them for some reason.:BangHead:

I am dissapointed in You Carpro. Did you call a Sean Hannity help line to get this drivel. You forgot to blame Bill Clinton.:sleep:

 

[JonC]

Right or wrong? I think we were right in going to war with Iraq. I guess you don't. It doesn't really matter to me. Voice your opinion, but respect the elected official’s position. I was not too fond of Clinton, but I respected his office and the position he held as elected by the nation. Clinton was probably one of the most damaging presidents to the military, but he had the loyalty of the military.

There is a difference between not supporting the President’s position in Iraq and not supporting the President. There is also a difference in not feeling that we should be at war with Iraq, doubting the reasons we went to war, and not supporting the war.

 

[carpro]

Here is what this boils down to
Yes you can encourage the troops to fight each battle to attain victory.

Yes you can encourage the troops to follow the commands of their leaders and tell them how proud we are of their willingness to serve during the tough times.

Yes you can encourage the troops to serve with honor and dignity and tell them how proud we are that they are doing so.

Yes you can tell the troops that we are praying for them and their families.

Yes we can actually support the needs of our troops by supplying them with basic necesssities such as tooth paste soap etc. so that they can send fulller portions of their paychecks back home

Meanwhile back home at the Capital we can be voices and critisize our Govenrment for there lack of planning and resolve to put an end to this debacle. Politicians make very lousy commanders and should do a better job of listening to our Generals who have actually had experience with matters of war. Our Great Decider who resides in the White House doesn't have the qualities of leadership, he just doesn't listen very well and only hears what he wants to hear. But neo-cons would prefer for it's U.S citizens to be quiet when it comes matters of disagreement with their policies.

Good for you.

There seems to be hope yet, but then I already knew you had more sense than the typical liberal.

 

[Petra-O IX]

Right or wrong? I think we were right in going to war with Iraq. I guess you don't. It doesn't really matter to me. Voice your opinion, but respect the elected official’s position. I was not too fond of Clinton, but I respected his office and the position he held as elected by the nation. Clinton was probably one of the most damaging presidents to the military, but he had the loyalty of the military.

There is a difference between not supporting the President’s position in Iraq and not supporting the President. There is also a difference in not feeling that we should be at war with Iraq, doubting the reasons we went to war, and not supporting the war.

I think our timing was off and that we rushed into war based on some lies, it wasn't well thought out . I was proud of our President for taking a stand against the Taliban in Afghanistan but after that things went downhill. anybody know where Osama is? Oh yeah the evil mastermind of 911 isn't important to Bush anymore. I am not eager to pat the President on the back for his lack of real leadership on the war on terror.
If Clinton had the loyalty of the military it was begrudgingly. there were instances of active soldiers calling in to right wing talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh criticizing Clinton for his lack of leadership in regards to military action.
I respect our troops for their valiant service to our country and I do support them despite what anyone might say to the contrary. I also respect the office to the Presidency but as with Clinton I am deeply dissapointed in both Presidents for dividing our Country . I never voted for Clinton but the man I did vote for on both occassions has disgraced the Office of the Presidency just as Clinton did.

 

[carpro]

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
Carpro wrote:



They already know. Durbin, Kerry, Kennedy, et al are all on record with their opinion of the troops and their efforts.

It looks like liberals will never learn how to "support the troops". It just totally escapes them for some reason.:BangHead:

I am dissapointed in You Carpro. Did you call a Sean Hannity help line to get this drivel. You forgot to blame Bill Clinton.:sleep:

On the other hand, if you don't recognize the statements of the above listed three stooges as demoralizing to our troops, you still aren't quite where you need to be.:tear:

BTW
Haven't heard a Hannity broadcast in about a year. Is he using some of my material again?

 

[Petra-O IX]

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
Carpro wrote:



They already know. Durbin, Kerry, Kennedy, et al are all on record with their opinion of the troops and their efforts.

It looks like liberals will never learn how to "support the troops". It just totally escapes them for some reason.:BangHead:





On the other hand, if you don't recognize the statements of the above listed three stooges as demoralizing to our troops, you still aren't quite where you need to be.:tear:

BTW
Haven't heard a Hannity broadcast in about a year. Is he using some of my material again?

Don't people kind of ignore these politicians, who takes them seriously? I don't see how they can be very demoralizing when you take into account that they are total bufoons.

You have done better on your retorts to me in the past, this wasn't one of your shinning moments though but I am confidant that you will get back in form again.