i guess I was confused. Didnt you post "they signed up to kill people. sorry it's not more pleasant for them"? That to me sounds like, well...you believe they signed up to kill people, and that if things are bad over there that its their own fault? Your position is all over the place.
Why didnt you post something more measured, and that took into account the complexities of war?
If I met someone that said "they signed up to kill people. sorry it's not more pleasant for them." I would think they were against the war, but couldnt care one iota what happened to the soldiers. Maybe thats your view.
no, my position is not all over the place. i'm very clear on what i believe. if you read my second post you will understand. maybe. i can't be any clearer than that. and i'm not going over the same thing i already said before. i've explained my position, and i never once said i couldn't care one iota what happened to the soldiers.
in fact i did say, 'i'll support, and continue to campaign for, their need for quality health care, pensions, mental health assistance and a safe, immediate return.'
no more war.
There are a few reasons why you still support our troops. As many have mentioned the Troops did not decide on the Surge, Obama and his military advisers did so. Before that it was Bush. And you can argue this was all started by a little attack on 9/11 which is why so many young people joined the military.
I get what you are trying to say that you are against all war so therefore you can't support our troops, however the ONLY way they will be sent home quickly at this point is if they are in a box or a bag. I'm assuming you are not rooting for that to occur so we should all support our troops for a safe return home. And we should also thank them whether you are for or against the war because every country has a military and ours is one of the only ones that is 100% volunteer. So thanks boys for signing up to protect us. It's not your fault we have such a crappy foreign policy.
the only way they are coming home is in a box or a bag?
tell that to the vietnam anti war protesters, who literally stopped a war.
in fact that's why some of us are so fired up over this stupid fucking war. people are dying, every day, including our troops. and the best way to bring them home is to end the war.
and people rail against he anti war movement about how its become ineffectual and pointless...and fuck allthat. that's giving up. the whole reason i am agianst war is because of the senseless killing.
the best way to support the troops is to end the goddamn war.
There are a few reasons why you still support our troops. As many have mentioned the Troops did not decide on the Surge, Obama and his military advisers did so. Before that it was Bush. And you can argue this was all started by a little attack on 9/11 which is why so many young people joined the military.
I get what you are trying to say that you are against all war so therefore you can't support our troops, however the ONLY way they will be sent home quickly at this point is if they are in a box or a bag. I'm assuming you are not rooting for that to occur so we should all support our troops for a safe return home. And we should also thank them whether you are for or against the war because every country has a military and ours is one of the only ones that is 100% volunteer. So thanks boys for signing up to protect us. It's not your fault we have such a crappy foreign policy.
the only way they are coming home is in a box or a bag?
tell that to the vietnam anti war protesters, who literally stopped a war.
in fact that's why some of us are so fired up over this stupid fucking war. people are dying, every day, including our troops. and the best way to bring them home is to end the war.
and people rail against he anti war movement about how its become ineffectual and pointless...and fuck that. that's giving up. the whole reason i am agianst war is because of the senseless killing.
the best way to support the troops is to end the goddamn war.
exactly commy. that's what i've been trying to say for two pages.
i'm tired of repeating myself in this thread, friends. you want to support the troops? there's more too it than just thumping your chest and proclaiming to 'support' them while they are there. supporting the troops goes a lot further than that.
how many of you are even aware of the obstacles and poor conditions the vets are faced with daily at Walter Reed Hospital? or that 1/3 of our homeless people are veterans? do you know that our vets sometimes have to wait up to 12 months for an appointment at a veteran' hospital? I am so pissed that we are sending our soldiers to a war that nobody can justify. why do some of you act like you give two shits about them when they are there, and then forget they exist when they come home? that requires little thought apart from just banging the drums. is there anyone here who can give me a damn reason to justify our going to and continuing the war in Iraq? feel free to enlighten me.
you really want to support the troops? fight to bring them home now.
supporting the troops by saying a prayer for them and patting them on the back and kissing their ass is completely different than supporting them by demanding of those in power the common courtesies and grattitude they deserve, most importantly take care of them and help them cope when they get home, don't just discharge them into a world where they may not even find steady work in the private sector.
i missed this post earlier. well said gimmesometruth.
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I am not surprised at all. This is just the beginning of "Obama's War." If we expect to make a difference over there, we will be there longer than speculated and more troops will be called. It is just like the Vietnam. We are going to unfamiliar ground where our guys never know who the enemy is until guns are fired. We will kill many innocent people and lose a lot of troops. In the end, we will evacuate and nothing will have been changed.
you are aware we've been there since 2001 right?
you are calling it obamas war. what was your name for it prior to that?
It is Obama's war because he is the president at this time. It is only going to escalate from here. Therefore, this is Obama's war. Don't jump the gun. I didn't come up with it on my own.
I've read a lot of dumb threads on this board, but this has to be in the top three....reading it just makes me realize one thing....
None of you have a clue as to what you're talking about.....none of you could be more off with your assement of military, or current world affairs.
On the rare occasion I've actually gain some insight on some post, its even turn my view point on things. But some of the comments in this thread alone are pure entertainment....please, please, please stick to what you know, some of you are going way out on a limb here.
how many of you are even aware of the obstacles and poor conditions the vets are faced with daily at Walter Reed Hospital? or that 1/3 of our homeless people are veterans? do you know that our vets sometimes have to wait up to 12 months for an appointment at a veteran' hospital? I am so pissed that we are sending our soldiers to a war that nobody can justify. why do some of you act like you give two shits about them when they are there, and then forget they exist when they come home? that requires little thought apart from just banging the drums. is there anyone here who can give me a damn reason to justify our going to and continuing the war in Iraq? feel free to enlighten me.
you really want to support the troops? fight to bring them home now.
And it's not just Walter Reed, it's ALL Vet Hospitals. A friend of mine who's a nurse worked at the local Veteran hospital and was disgusted at the speed, quality and coverage of treatments soldiers get when they come home injured. Comparing a vet hospital to a regular hospital was an unbelievable blow to her, and she left feeling terrible that the care was so bad. As bad, if not worse than an insurance company; soldiers get turned down for legit surgeries all the time. It really is unbelievable.
I, too, wonder about those "fully supporting" the troops. Because they're certainly not there when these guys come home war-torn and injured.
There were moments during President Obama's speech last night when if you closed your eyes, imagined the grammar a little mangled and a few words mispronounced, you could easily make the mistake of thinking you were listening to President Bush. Not only was the announced troop increase what one might have expected from the Bush administration, but much of the rationale for the decision was as well.
Early in the speech, Obama referred to Afghanistan's election as "although it was marred by fraud... produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution." This reflects what we have come to expect from the Bush administration when speaking about election, a tendency to too strongly conflate elections with democracy as well as a willingness to overlook fraud when the outcome of the election is what the U.S. would have liked.
Obama recognized the seriousness of the current economic crisis in language stronger than what Bush might have used, but after referring to "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression", did not even mention the economic impact of the continued war effort and how that will take resources away from our domestic economic problems. He also argued that "the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own", but again overlooked the obvious point that his plan in Afghanistan makes that task harder. While the president may not have stressed this, it is unlikely that this point was lost on the American people.
George Bush frequently underestimated the cost of the Iraq War which some experts now place at over $3 trillion. Last night Obama asserted that the cost for his "new approach" will be "roughly $30 billion for our military this year." Even if he is right, that is a lot of money, but unfortunately most wars end up costing significantly more than originally thought. There is little reason to think this war will be any different.
For much of the last five years of his presidency, George Bush consistently insulted the intelligence of the American people by referring to what was largely an American and British, and, since April of this year, just American, effort in Iraq as an allied effort. While other countries such as Poland and Georgia sent troops to Iraq who were courageous and served the effort well, the overwhelming majority of troops were from the U.S., and arguing otherwise was simply talking down to the American people. Obama did the same thing last night claiming that "I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies... there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead" and referring to a "broad coalition of 43 nations." Again, the sacrifices made by these non-American troops are real and should not be overlooked, but the estimates that 75% of the troops in Afghanistan will be American are real too.
Lastly, in a departure from previous statements, Obama seemed to reflect the elite bipartisan consensus that of American exceptionalism stating that "Our union was founded in resistance to opposition. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources." While one can expect the president of the United States to say things like this, the rhetoric is a little tired. Regardless of what the U.S. "seeks" to do, it occupies other nations, establishes military bases all over the world and aggressively covets other nation's resources. This rhetoric is dangerous because if we are constantly telling ourselves we do not seek to occupy other nations, it is easier to ignore the reality when we are doing just that.
Much of Obama's speech was different than what we were accustomed to hearing from President Bush as well. Obama voiced a strong critique of the decision to go to war in Iraq, downplayed the need for nation, actually state, building in Afghanistan and focused more on Pakistan and the need to look at Afghanistan and Pakistan together. However, he also a Bush like failure to explain why 30,000 more troops will be enough to achieve U.S. goals and what the exit strategy, as opposed to simply the timeline will be.
Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan is a surprise to nobody as it was clear that in recent weeks he had eschewed all other options. Obama did not make this decision rashly or quickly, but based it on months of deliberation and consultations. In that respect he was very different from Bush. Nonetheless Obama's decision, at the very least, raises many questions. Last night when seeking to explain why he is sending more troops to Afghanistan, Obama left too many questions unanswered and offered unconvincing and unoriginal answers to others. Obama has surprised us in the past, particularly during his campaign. It would be great if he surprised us again on this issue, but last night' s speech did not make this seem likely.
Comments
the only way they are coming home is in a box or a bag?
tell that to the vietnam anti war protesters, who literally stopped a war.
in fact that's why some of us are so fired up over this stupid fucking war. people are dying, every day, including our troops. and the best way to bring them home is to end the war.
and people rail against he anti war movement about how its become ineffectual and pointless...and fuck allthat. that's giving up. the whole reason i am agianst war is because of the senseless killing.
the best way to support the troops is to end the goddamn war.
i'm tired of repeating myself in this thread, friends. you want to support the troops? there's more too it than just thumping your chest and proclaiming to 'support' them while they are there. supporting the troops goes a lot further than that.
how many of you are even aware of the obstacles and poor conditions the vets are faced with daily at Walter Reed Hospital? or that 1/3 of our homeless people are veterans? do you know that our vets sometimes have to wait up to 12 months for an appointment at a veteran' hospital? I am so pissed that we are sending our soldiers to a war that nobody can justify. why do some of you act like you give two shits about them when they are there, and then forget they exist when they come home? that requires little thought apart from just banging the drums. is there anyone here who can give me a damn reason to justify our going to and continuing the war in Iraq? feel free to enlighten me.
you really want to support the troops? fight to bring them home now.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
It is Obama's war because he is the president at this time. It is only going to escalate from here. Therefore, this is Obama's war. Don't jump the gun. I didn't come up with it on my own.
None of you have a clue as to what you're talking about.....none of you could be more off with your assement of military, or current world affairs.
On the rare occasion I've actually gain some insight on some post, its even turn my view point on things. But some of the comments in this thread alone are pure entertainment....please, please, please stick to what you know, some of you are going way out on a limb here.
And it's not just Walter Reed, it's ALL Vet Hospitals. A friend of mine who's a nurse worked at the local Veteran hospital and was disgusted at the speed, quality and coverage of treatments soldiers get when they come home injured. Comparing a vet hospital to a regular hospital was an unbelievable blow to her, and she left feeling terrible that the care was so bad. As bad, if not worse than an insurance company; soldiers get turned down for legit surgeries all the time. It really is unbelievable.
I, too, wonder about those "fully supporting" the troops. Because they're certainly not there when these guys come home war-torn and injured.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-m ... 76718.html
There were moments during President Obama's speech last night when if you closed your eyes, imagined the grammar a little mangled and a few words mispronounced, you could easily make the mistake of thinking you were listening to President Bush. Not only was the announced troop increase what one might have expected from the Bush administration, but much of the rationale for the decision was as well.
Early in the speech, Obama referred to Afghanistan's election as "although it was marred by fraud... produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution." This reflects what we have come to expect from the Bush administration when speaking about election, a tendency to too strongly conflate elections with democracy as well as a willingness to overlook fraud when the outcome of the election is what the U.S. would have liked.
Obama recognized the seriousness of the current economic crisis in language stronger than what Bush might have used, but after referring to "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression", did not even mention the economic impact of the continued war effort and how that will take resources away from our domestic economic problems. He also argued that "the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own", but again overlooked the obvious point that his plan in Afghanistan makes that task harder. While the president may not have stressed this, it is unlikely that this point was lost on the American people.
George Bush frequently underestimated the cost of the Iraq War which some experts now place at over $3 trillion. Last night Obama asserted that the cost for his "new approach" will be "roughly $30 billion for our military this year." Even if he is right, that is a lot of money, but unfortunately most wars end up costing significantly more than originally thought. There is little reason to think this war will be any different.
For much of the last five years of his presidency, George Bush consistently insulted the intelligence of the American people by referring to what was largely an American and British, and, since April of this year, just American, effort in Iraq as an allied effort. While other countries such as Poland and Georgia sent troops to Iraq who were courageous and served the effort well, the overwhelming majority of troops were from the U.S., and arguing otherwise was simply talking down to the American people. Obama did the same thing last night claiming that "I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies... there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead" and referring to a "broad coalition of 43 nations." Again, the sacrifices made by these non-American troops are real and should not be overlooked, but the estimates that 75% of the troops in Afghanistan will be American are real too.
Lastly, in a departure from previous statements, Obama seemed to reflect the elite bipartisan consensus that of American exceptionalism stating that "Our union was founded in resistance to opposition. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources." While one can expect the president of the United States to say things like this, the rhetoric is a little tired. Regardless of what the U.S. "seeks" to do, it occupies other nations, establishes military bases all over the world and aggressively covets other nation's resources. This rhetoric is dangerous because if we are constantly telling ourselves we do not seek to occupy other nations, it is easier to ignore the reality when we are doing just that.
Much of Obama's speech was different than what we were accustomed to hearing from President Bush as well. Obama voiced a strong critique of the decision to go to war in Iraq, downplayed the need for nation, actually state, building in Afghanistan and focused more on Pakistan and the need to look at Afghanistan and Pakistan together. However, he also a Bush like failure to explain why 30,000 more troops will be enough to achieve U.S. goals and what the exit strategy, as opposed to simply the timeline will be.
Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan is a surprise to nobody as it was clear that in recent weeks he had eschewed all other options. Obama did not make this decision rashly or quickly, but based it on months of deliberation and consultations. In that respect he was very different from Bush. Nonetheless Obama's decision, at the very least, raises many questions. Last night when seeking to explain why he is sending more troops to Afghanistan, Obama left too many questions unanswered and offered unconvincing and unoriginal answers to others. Obama has surprised us in the past, particularly during his campaign. It would be great if he surprised us again on this issue, but last night' s speech did not make this seem likely.