Alright, who did it!
Who deleted the Troops post. Not a mean word was spoken and no names called. What qualified it for deletion?[}:)]
0
-
I havent a clue what your talking about! Nor does anyone else!
... Right guys? [:D][:D][:D]0 -
The "troops ramped up" post. I made a reply to Hairy and "poof", it disappeared![}:)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jacob2008
I havent a clue what your talking about! Nor does anyone else!
... Right guys? [:D][:D][:D]
Right[:D][:D][:D]0 -
Sorry, Danny, but you apparently hadn't looked at it in a while.
I was going to put this as a reply until I decided to poof the thread. Then, I was going to start a thread with it. I will put it here instead.
I can't look my son in the eye and tell him, "I support you and your fellow soldiers, but I don't support your mission."
I can't. I won't. It's dishonest if I say it, and it's dishonest if someone else says it.
There it is. Take it or leave it.
Not aimed at you, Danny.0 -
quote:Originally posted by nunn
Sorry, Danny, but you apparently hadn't looked at it in a while.
I was going to put this as a reply until I decided to poof the thread. Then, I was going to start a thread with it. I will put it here instead.
I can't look my son in the eye and tell him, "I support you and your fellow soldiers, but I don't support your mission."
I can't. I won't. It's dishonest if I say it, and it's dishonest if someone else says it.
There it is. Take it or leave it.
Not aimed at you, Danny.
Thanks David. I wish you had got to read my reply. I think you would have liked it![}:)]0 -
"I made a reply to Hairy"
And now you need a bath[;)]0 -
THATS IT, BLAME TO MODS FOR THE *POOF* POSTS 0 -
quote:Originally posted by nunn
Sorry, Danny, but you apparently hadn't looked at it in a while.
I was going to put this as a reply until I decided to poof the thread. Then, I was going to start a thread with it. I will put it here instead.
I can't look my son in the eye and tell him, "I support you and your fellow soldiers, but I don't support your mission."
I can't. I won't. It's dishonest if I say it, and it's dishonest if someone else says it.
There it is. Take it or leave it.
Not aimed at you, Danny.
Thank you, Nunn. I'm buying every bit of what you have to say here.0 -
"I can't look my son in the eye and tell him, "I support you and your fellow soldiers, but I don't support your mission."
I can't. I won't. It's dishonest if I say it, and it's dishonest if someone else says it.
There it is. Take it or leave it".
That's absolutely correct --- you nailed it!0 -
That was a good post and one in which some excellent information was being exchanged. Oh well, better to clear someting like that out of the way to make room for 3-1/2 year old posts, like the dealing with Night Stalker's looking to buy a new pistol and searching for information...Dated from 2003! 0 -
I think it's odd that so many of the people who say Bush lied then turn around and say they support the troops but not the mission. To me, that's a lie unless the person is delusional. I think the vast majority of them are being dishonest... maybe even with themselves.
I don't know how you support the troops when you don't support what they're doing. This "I support the troops but..." sounds to me a lot like when politicians support gun bans and say "I'm a hunter, too, but..."0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
I think it's odd that so many of the people who say Bush lied then turn around and say they support the troops but not the mission. To me, that's a lie unless the person is delusional. I think the vast majority of them are being dishonest... maybe even with themselves.
I don't know how you support the troops when you don't support what they're doing. This "I support the troops but..." sounds to me a lot like when politicians support gun bans and say "I'm a hunter, too, but..."
Politicians swear to uphold the constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is a part of it (perhaps the corner stone after freedom of speech and private property rights) so their feelings about gun onwership should not even enter into the equation. Our troops must obey the lawful orders of their superiors and the Commander and Chief, whether they agree with their mission or not. I have no obligation to agree with any military or foreign polices which I feel are not in the best interst of this country- which is why I never felt that our being buddy-buddy with Sdadam and patting him on the back throughout the 1980's was a smart move!0 -
Hopefully, it's the sign of the times, and I'm all for it. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by dheffley
Who deleted the Troops post. Not a mean word was spoken and no names called. What qualified it for deletion?[}:)]
I thought it was against board rules to question why a post was deleted ?0 -
You all seem to confuse the mission with the conduct and planning of the mission.
Would you have supported the Battle of the Somme where men were ordered to walk into the teeth of machine gun fire?
The goal of a free and stable Iraq must be supported. But goals are not conduct or planning and to say you blindly support whatever may come because you haven't the wherewithal to tell your son that his Commander in Chief is a numbskull seems a little shortsighted.
Blind support, by definition, means you are not looking at the situation.0 -
You can't pick and choose -- you either support the troops and their mission, or you don't.
The democratic mantra of I support the troops and not the war is BS.
The next time you get stopped for speeding by a Highway Patrolman who has his life on the line every single day, try telling him that you support our laws, but not him -- or you support him, but not the laws.0 -
When we go to war there are two sides and the fence. You can "spin it" any way you want, but you are either on one side or the other, or you're simply not into the issue at all. 0 -
I don't disagree with you except for the fact that no one has given the surge a chance to work. Think about it, we are sending in the 82nd. Airborne and they're no slouches when it comes to fighting, plus some pretty tough Marines as well.
I'd also bet that we have increased the number of Special Operations personnel as well. These guys will fight until the battle is won, and won't quit -- if we keep them supplied with ammo, food and believe in them.
It's too soon to know if it's working or not, but a lot of bad guys must think somethings going to happen because they're leaving the country.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
You all seem to confuse the mission with the conduct and planning of the mission.
Would you have supported the Battle of the Somme where men were ordered to walk into the teeth of machine gun fire?
The goal of a free and stable Iraq must be supported. But goals are not conduct or planning and to say you blindly support whatever may come because you haven't the wherewithal to tell your son that his Commander in Chief is a numbskull seems a little shortsighted.
Blind support, by definition, means you are not looking at the situation.
You are the one confused EMM.
As for supporting impossible situations like Lee did at Little Round Top, or other disasterous battles/skirmishes we would have done things differently, like waiting until the odds were in our favor before making contact.
What you are getting caught up with are the details, the falacy here is that you can't see the big picture, or if you prefer, you can't see the forest for the trees syndrome.
Support EMM, is when one is big enough to give their opinion, but shut up, when the order is given to fix bayonets.0 -
What some folks, especially those who have never been in the situation fail to understand is this.
It's not how you feel about the war, it's what you say and what those words do to damage the men and women willing to die for you and your freedoms.
If you had a friend fighting cancer, and even if he were loosing the battle, you would not announce to one and all that he has lost the battle or that his fight was a loosing effort, even if you prefaced it by saying it was all the doctors fault. You would support him in his fight.
When you announce that the war is "lost", how do you think those fine young men and women who are fighting the goos fight hear it? Do you have the right to your opinion? Yes. Is it the right time or a good thing to express it now, especially for political gain? No way.
I've been there, done that, and unless you have, you don't have a clue how it feels or how demoralizing it is when the soldier knows the mouth speaking doesn't have a clue or know what they are talking about.
Despite what you think, it is received as a spit in the face of the soldiers some of you claim to support, and if you don't believe it, ask a Marine fighting in Iraq. Then, try to argue him down.
Defend your actions to speak as you please, it's still and insult and not the right time to do it. After they are all home safe, let the opinions roll. Until then, let's steal a line out of a few good men,
"I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post!"0 -
The only good thing that's happened with the dissention in our country is that the bad guys don't know what we're going to do.
We could never have drafted a disinformation campaign as good as the one that's happening now!0 -
quote:Originally posted by dheffley
What some folks, especially those who have never been in the situation fail to understand is this.
It's not how you feel about the war, it's what you say and what those words do to damage the men and women willing to die for you and your freedoms.
If you had a friend fighting cancer, and even if he were loosing the battle, you would not announce to one and all that he has lost the battle or that his fight was a loosing effort, even if you prefaced it by saying it was all the doctors fault. You would support him in his fight.
When you announce that the war is "lost", how do you think those fine young men and women who are fighting the goos fight hear it? Do you have the right to your opinion? Yes. Is it the right time or a good thing to express it now, especially for political gain? No way.
I've been there, done that, and unless you have, you don't have a clue how it feels or how demoralizing it is when the soldier knows the mouth speaking doesn't have a clue or know what they are talking about.
Despite what you think, it is received as a spit in the face of the soldiers some of you claim to support, and if you don't believe it, ask a Marine fighting in Iraq. Then, try to argue him down.
Defend your actions to speak as you please, it's still and insult and not the right time to do it. After they are all home safe, let the opinions roll. Until then, let's steal a line out of a few good men,
"I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post!"
"Spit in the face" is right on!0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
I think it's odd that so many of the people who say Bush lied then turn around and say they support the troops but not the mission. To me, that's a lie unless the person is delusional. I think the vast majority of them are being dishonest... maybe even with themselves.
I think it's amazing how badly people want controversy here. What if Bush didn't lie but was mislead into a very bad situation? What if people supported the mission to begin with and do not now? This isn't as black and white as you people make it out to be. Some people actually scare me here, as I wonder how bad or how far anything could go and still be supported by military men past and present. I doubt most people who scream about supporting the mission could even give a detailed explanation of what the mission actually is now. Securing Iraq is NOT an answer. That's simply a cop out. That's open for anyone's interpretation. I'm talking plan of action to get there. No, nobody knows. Our own government doesn't even know and chooses to fight with themselves over it. Well, while we squable over how to do whatever said mission is, people are risking their lives and dying.
I feel I can support a guy in uniform for doing his job for us, without supporting the debacle they've been thrown into. That is what it is now, a debacle, and nobody knows what to do with it.
It's hard to stay the course when you've lost the rudder.0 -
quote:Originally posted by vess1
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
I think it's odd that so many of the people who say Bush lied then turn around and say they support the troops but not the mission. To me, that's a lie unless the person is delusional. I think the vast majority of them are being dishonest... maybe even with themselves.
I think it's amazing how badly people want controversy here. What if Bush didn't lie but was mislead into a very bad situation? What if people supported the mission to begin with and do not now? This isn't as black and white as you people make it out to be. Some people actually scare me here, as I wonder how bad or how far anything could go and still be supported by military men past and present. I doubt most people who scream about supporting the mission could even give a detailed explanation of what the mission actually is now. Securing Iraq is NOT an answer. That's simply a cop out. That's open for anyone's interpretation. I'm talking plan of action to get there. No, nobody knows. Our own government doesn't even know and chooses to fight with themselves over it. Well, while we squable over how to do whatever said mission is, people are risking their lives and dying.
I feel I can support a guy in uniform for doing his job for us, without supporting the debacle they've been thrown into. That is what it is now, a debacle, and nobody knows what to do with it.
It's hard to stay the course when you've lost the rudder.
You're confusing compassion with support. If you are going to be an accepted part of our military personnel, then you will have to support their effort. To support their effort is to support their leaders, be they right or wrong. If, at any time, you can't do that, then as Chesty Puller once said, "...let him retire, because his usefullness has come to an end" - or words to that effect. Meaning it's okay to be different, but not an integral part of the team or its mission any longer. Meaning further, on the issue of support, you either support the effort of the troops or you do not. Here again, spin it anyway you like, but there are two sides and the fence that applies.0 -
quote:Originally posted by TexasVet
I don't disagree with you except for the fact that no one has given the surge a chance to work. Think about it, we are sending in the 82nd. Airborne and they're no slouches when it comes to fighting, plus some pretty tough Marines as well.
They just recently swept through Baghdad not long ago and met minimal resistance. Just saw it in the news. Who are more people going to fight? Is there truly an endless supply of insurgents to kill? Will 100 be killed tomorrow that weren't killed today? Or 5 or 6 over the next few days? I'd seriously like to know what is going on. Other than the occasional car bomb you hear about now and then, is everybody still going door to door every day? Are there still major gun battles between sides every day? I guess I just don't understand it.0 -
The bad guys are running away, to Iran? to regroup and fight somewhere else? Who knows.
The first goal is to clear and hold the Baghdad hot zone, and go from there. Seal the borders so no bad guys get in or out, and clear and hold each area.
The secret to this operation is "force multipliers" -- using indigenous troops that we've trained and so far it's working.
Some politicians and armchair Generals say it can't be done, but Bush and General Petrais assembled the best military minds in the world and has a battle plan that's the best shot we have at winning the war.0 -
What I find interesting and yes, disturbing, is not one Senator or Congressmen has said, "I spoke to the Generals and I think they are wrong. There plan is ill prepared and doomed." President Bush did not pull this out of his butt hole. He listened to the politicians. He listened to the bureaucrats. He listened to the men running the operation in Iraq.
If Nancy Pelosi thinks she knows better, then maybe she needs to get in her big new jet, go over to Iraq, and tell the men there what they need to do differently. I have yet to hear of one demcorat in Warshington seek out the opinion of those in leadership of the military.
Anti military? Perhaps.0 -
You're right Captain --
The politician's rule is never ask a question if you don't know the answer.
The Generals wouldn't give them the answer they want, so they won't ask.
Then you have the twin air bags Kennedy and Murtha constantly polluting the air up there with their garbage breath; maybe someday a garbage truck will tractor beam them into the back, compact them and throw them all in the dump where they belong.0 -
Kick out the embedded reporters and let the troops clean it up. What the hell is a journalist doing in a combat zone running around with a camera ? He or she ought to have a rifle. Ernie Pyle used a pencil and piece of paper when in a combat situation. What he didn't do it setting at a typewriter on a table in a battle zone. Why do you think we won WWII ? Talk to some of the WWII vets. If a sniper shot at them from a church bell tower, they blew it up with whoever was in there. Well, I feel better now. I have 2 nephews that has been in Iraq and Afganstan, 1 is on his second tour. Wars always been hell and still is. IMHO 0 -
I support the medical profession but don't like abortions.
I support the police but don't like police brutality.
You guys are poof happy and now you are deleting post for personal reasons. It is of little concern if you don't like it personally, does it violate the rules?
Why was this post deleted out of the thread and by whom?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
38 comments