quote:We're soldiers, we don't need anyones compassion. Stop condescending to us. We still vote overwhelmingly Republican.
And therein lies a national lose/lose situation for Democrats. Show compassion and understanding for soldiers and they apparently call it condescension and vote Republican. Fail to show it and Republicans say Democrats don't care about the armed forces and they get beat up in the national media.
And we wonder why this country is so screwed up.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
But do keep telling people you're for the troops but against the war. That seems to be working very well for you.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Just trying to share with you Resh that the reason people say "I support the troops but not the war" is because it's the truth.
Sometimes the truth hurts. But that doesn't change it.
That was supposed to hurt? I just found it a bit of a stretch. I know plenty of people think they can support the troops, in a specific, "we just want you safe and sound right here in America" sort of way. My point is that the troops, in a general sort of way, think that's stupid. We don't like being in Iraq, but we hate having our work sabotaged by our "supporters" back home. We'd rather you were all... somehow made to shut up... and not allowed to speak such comforts to the bastards who keep trying to kill us over there.
I read about that poll, Morbo, and found some of its conclusions dubious. I've participated in similar surveys and the wording of the questions allow the surveyor to allow whatever conclusion they desire be made. Look at what the headline says, and look at what the actual poll says. The troops "signal desire to come home." But the poll says "only 23 percent... felt that the US should 'stay as long as needed.'" Plus it was conducted by Zogby and funded by a left-wing organization. So... I'm gonna call this one a "fail."
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is something called free-speech, you know. Something soldiers state they are defending? If you don't have people questioning something, how can you learn the whole picture? Plus, not all people from a group think exactly alike.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No of course not. I'm speaking generally here.
As for free speech, I'm all for it. Except when your free speech undermines the military's mission in Iraq and can be directly traced toward increased danger to the soldiers. Maybe you're exercising your freedom to speak. But you are also being seditious, and the line must be drawn somewhere. Kinda like saying pornography is free speech. You're just dressing up your filth and dishonor as some sort of virtue, like courage for standing up for what's right. It's amazing how we could have let our perception of right and wrong become so corrupted from what is actually right and wrong.
By you, I mean you people, not you specifically, Syn. Though if I remember correctly, I think you are on of those people.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh, sedition is a serious charge, and from what I'm reading here, there is no sedition going on here under current US law. If you refer moreso to a moral definition of sedition, well, this type of speech must be protected often, despite its potential harmfulness and moral repugnance. It is necessary in public life in a way that pornography is not, and that's where your analogy breaks down.
Here's why: I believe that everyone here and most everyone falling under "those people" in your definition intends by their speech expression primarily to affect the lawful civilian political process in order to effect change in the policy of our federal government by communicating constituency sentiment to representatives and to affect our representation by affecting the outcome of elections. As long as this is the case, the speech must be protected under the first ammendment, at any cost.
Even if it is reasonably perceived by some to hurt the US military cause abroad, if the speech can be construed as being primarily directed towards affecting the domestic political process, it should not be censored nor should the speaker be prosecuted.
I believe this serves our country better than accusing people of sedition.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well put, but what if the speech -if its primary or even sole purpose is to affect change in domestic policy- causes such a degree of harm to the current policy that what should be certain victory turns to certain defeat? And what if defeat is viewed as the most effective or perhaps the only way to achieve the policy changes the speaker desires? Should this speech still be protected?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well put, but what if the speech -if its primary or even sole purpose is to affect change in domestic policy- causes such a degree of harm to the current policy that what should be certain victory turns to certain defeat? And what if defeat is viewed as the most effective or perhaps the only way to achieve the policy changes the speaker desires? Should this speech still be protected?
Yes. That doesn't mean I think the speech should actually be expressed. But it should certainly be protected.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, I support the troops but not the war, in that I think they should be given every protection we can afford, and I support giving them that, but it's my preference that they be brought home.
If you want to see the difference between supporting and not supporting the troops whilst not supporting the war, look at the difference between this war and Vietnam.
No, you don't want to go back to that, you just want everyone who disagrees with you to shut up, it's the new American way!
Sorry but, soldiers have a duty to go where they are sent. Citizens have a duty to speak out when we think they are being sent to the wrong place. Silence got us into this mess. Silence won't get us out.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: Actually, he mentioned that his Brother-in-law's wife was in Germany. By being sent to Iraq, he was separated from her when he wasn't supposed to have been.
Thanks, sylvrdragon. I vaguely noticed those comments, but largely felt that I just didn't have the energy to correct someone who couldn't be bothered to read the earlier posts in the first place.
And I'd respond to Resh, but, apparently, he's departed Hatrack. Briefly, I find it hard to find fault with someone who re-applies in order to have some control over his deployment when threatened with stop-lossing; they might be bluffing, but he had no way to know that, and there have certainly been enough cases of it occurring for one to not think it a bluff. Given the incredibly small number of mental health counselors in Baghdad, I suspect it wasn't an empty threat. Frankly, he was lied to.
If anyone's interested, he's back in Germany, and apparently in a transition process that's going to lead to an honorable discharge for PTSD. Almost don't want to mention it for fear of jinxing him, knock wood.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't even catch Resh in here accusing people of sedition like a good lil' armchair generalissimo.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
