Not supporting the troopsgrimm24May 16 2006, 14:37:02 UTC
If this jerk really cared about the men and women serving our country in Iraq then maybe he wouldnt support politicians who denied a bill that would provide soldiers with body armor and armor for Humves?!?
That is what pisses me off about people who say they support the troops. When you support assholes like John Kerry your actually against the troops because they are against these bills that provide more protection for the men and women in uniform.:(
Re: Not supporting the troopsnever_wakeupMay 16 2006, 15:06:58 UTC
Am I missing something? Where does it say that DeLappe necessarily supports the politicians you mentioned? I think you're over-simplifying things a little.
Re: Not supporting the troopsexisMay 16 2006, 18:19:22 UTC
There was a lot of pork attached to the version of the bill that Kerry voted against. It's a common political strategy: attach a lot of excess crap to a bill that funds something important, and then decry people for denying people like soldiers important funding even though they're voting against the bill because it's a *bad bill*.
Kerry voted in favor of the funding when the bill was more palatable, but he didn't get time to explain his reasoning in-depth, because all you get on TV are little sound bites. "I voted against it before I voted for it" or whatever dumbass thing he said.
So if you want to complain about people not supporting the troops, blame the people who added all those extra riders to one version of the bill, knowing that it would make it so bad that people couldn't vote for it. Or perhaps just blame both sides. They all play the same game.
P.S. I support the troops, I want them to receive the best funding and protection possible. I do not, however, support this war, and I want us out as soon as possible.
But troops were apparantly sent over before being properly funded and body armored, and since nobody wanted to have armor-less troops they "had" to vote for armor and supplies.
I don't know why they didn't raise a stink about that.
Re: Not supporting the troopsgrimm24May 16 2006, 16:03:50 UTC
GW may not be the best president. Hell he's pretty bad i'll admit it.
But, to blaitintly ignore what is going on in the world like Clinton did has caused the world to have the shape its in right now.
WWII should have taught us that we can't simply ignore what is going on beyond our borders.
Pointless? I dont think the people of Iraq who were under the oppression of a madman like Saddam Hussien would think it was pointless.
Lied about? What about bad intel?
Badly planned? Then why did we capture Badhdad in less than a week?
The only thing that we messed up on in the Iraq war was we had no exit strategy (ala Donald "asswipe" Rumbsfeld).
Jeese you sound like Cindy Sheehan, a woman who blatintly ignores how her son sacrificed himself for our freedom. Casey Sheehan is a true american hero, as are all of the men and women in uniform who risk their lives everyday to protect our country.
Re: Not supporting the troopsgamersrantMay 16 2006, 16:21:48 UTC
Unfortunatly we have not had a president in a while that can manage this balancing act. Yes we cannot ignore what is happening beyond our borders but does that mean we have to ignore what is happening with in our borders. While I respect and honor every service man I still fail to see how Iraq threated our freedom. I said it before no matter what your views on the war is the only view that we should share is the safety of the men serving in the war.
Re: Not supporting the troopsorigamifrogMay 16 2006, 16:51:01 UTC
People keep telling me that American soldiers are dying to protect "freedom", but I suspect that a lot of people were more "free" before the war. The Patriot Act is a prime example, not to mention all the attempts at bills to restrict freedom of speech and basic human rights. I mean, I live in Canada, and I think I could quite successfully argue that I'm more free than the average American -- I can freely criticise about the prime minister without worrying about nice men in suits showing up at my door, I'm free to choose whether I want to marry a man or a woman, and nobody important discriminates against me for not being a Christian.
And seriously, why does some dude getting blown to bits on the other side of the world make me magically more free? Are the freedom fighters in Iraq really going to come all the way over to North America and attack unprovoked? As far as I can tell, the vast majority of them just want to repel the invading forces from their homeland. In fact, the guys who actually can and do plot to attack American
( ... )
Re: Not supporting the troopsbraindead1May 16 2006, 22:55:44 UTC
Hey i know a ton of people who disagree with the president on nearly everything. In fact pretty much every one in a hundre mile radius has something to say about one thing or another the president. Many of those people also say these things loudly, in public places, in front of cameras. And a LOT of people in my community aren't christeian and arn't white, and tehre is pretty much...zero discrimination. So I have no idea what crazy mixed up country your thinking of, america it is not. (Side Note: America is tredding a fine line with the various freedoms we hold dear. So its impertivie that we don't stick our heads in the sand. I've seen a few things america's goverment has done that are...troubling. Some in the here and now, others in the past. So its not an isolated incedent. That needs tending to
( ... )
Re: Not supporting the troopsacroamatisMay 16 2006, 17:08:44 UTC
"Blaitintly[sic] ignore"? Clinton was arguably one of the best negotiators in presidential history! There was less open conflict in the world during his term in office than there has been since before the Korean War
( ... )
Re: Not supporting the troopsrlstigersMay 17 2006, 19:54:34 UTC
It's been said that Clinton had the military active in more conflicts simultaneously than any other president before him. Some of those were small, while some were not. There certainly was nothing on the scale of what is going on today. Differences in scale aside, some (and only some) of the problems we are facing today in Iraq are a result of CLinton's presidency. His downscaling of the military has certainly made it more difficult for the US to field levels of troops in Iraq that might be more appropriate. But that's neither here nor there. If by that you mean that Clinton was one of the best negotiators in presidential history. He bargained with American lives by having the armed forces be involved in so many places
( ... )
Re: Not supporting the troopsbishop186May 16 2006, 17:22:20 UTC
How can you blame one man for the Army not having an exit strategy? I mean seriously. It's not like they were like "Rummy, you figure out the exit strategy. We don't want to actually *see* it, just figure it out and execute it when the time comes." That certainly can't be how it works -- the whole Cabinet, including the president, is to blame for the lack of exit strategy. I mean, didn't anyone during their meetings say at least once "wait... so how are we going to get our troops out?"
And we can blame Dubya for all of the shortcomings of this government because he is the head and it's his job to see that everything runs smoothly. Sure, 9/11 and Katrina themselves cannot be blamed on him. However, what happens after them CAN. He's the head of the country, and as such he shoulders all the burden and takes all the blame. That's just how it works. He's not the only one, though. His cabinet can also be blamed, as can Congress.
Re: Not supporting the troopsbillboy2000May 16 2006, 18:05:47 UTC
The president is primarily a figure head. Sure he makes some decisions, but not without the backing of the senate and congress. Those are the real people in charge of this country, but everyone holds W or any other president in office completely responsible for the welfare of this country - that's a cop-out.
Re: Not supporting the troopsakbarthegreatMay 16 2006, 19:04:47 UTC
A great president once (allegedly) had a sign on his desk which read "The buck stops here"
Truman knew what he was talking about. While he can't be the sole source of all problems, he's the boss. And as the boss, he gets all of the responsibility, credit, and blame. Sometimes it sucks, sometimes it's not fair, but that's the way authority works. The real trick to authority is knowing that the people you've got under you won't embarrass you by failing (such as the president's cabinet.. he assigns them, their failures are his)
At any rate, while I wasn't alive during his tenure, and I'm sure he wasn't the best in alot of respects, I've always found Truman's words to be quite valuable in terms of how a leader of a nation should conduct himself.
That is what pisses me off about people who say they support the troops. When you support assholes like John Kerry your actually against the troops because they are against these bills that provide more protection for the men and women in uniform.:(
Reply
Reply
Reply
Kerry voted in favor of the funding when the bill was more palatable, but he didn't get time to explain his reasoning in-depth, because all you get on TV are little sound bites. "I voted against it before I voted for it" or whatever dumbass thing he said.
So if you want to complain about people not supporting the troops, blame the people who added all those extra riders to one version of the bill, knowing that it would make it so bad that people couldn't vote for it. Or perhaps just blame both sides. They all play the same game.
P.S. I support the troops, I want them to receive the best funding and protection possible. I do not, however, support this war, and I want us out as soon as possible.
Reply
I don't know why they didn't raise a stink about that.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
But, to blaitintly ignore what is going on in the world like Clinton did has caused the world to have the shape its in right now.
WWII should have taught us that we can't simply ignore what is going on beyond our borders.
Pointless? I dont think the people of Iraq who were under the oppression of a madman like Saddam Hussien would think it was pointless.
Lied about? What about bad intel?
Badly planned? Then why did we capture Badhdad in less than a week?
The only thing that we messed up on in the Iraq war was we had no exit strategy (ala Donald "asswipe" Rumbsfeld).
Jeese you sound like Cindy Sheehan, a woman who blatintly ignores how her son sacrificed himself for our freedom. Casey Sheehan is a true american hero, as are all of the men and women in uniform who risk their lives everyday to protect our country.
Reply
Reply
And seriously, why does some dude getting blown to bits on the other side of the world make me magically more free? Are the freedom fighters in Iraq really going to come all the way over to North America and attack unprovoked? As far as I can tell, the vast majority of them just want to repel the invading forces from their homeland. In fact, the guys who actually can and do plot to attack American ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
And we can blame Dubya for all of the shortcomings of this government because he is the head and it's his job to see that everything runs smoothly. Sure, 9/11 and Katrina themselves cannot be blamed on him. However, what happens after them CAN. He's the head of the country, and as such he shoulders all the burden and takes all the blame. That's just how it works. He's not the only one, though. His cabinet can also be blamed, as can Congress.
Reply
Reply
Truman knew what he was talking about. While he can't be the sole source of all problems, he's the boss. And as the boss, he gets all of the responsibility, credit, and blame. Sometimes it sucks, sometimes it's not fair, but that's the way authority works. The real trick to authority is knowing that the people you've got under you won't embarrass you by failing (such as the president's cabinet.. he assigns them, their failures are his)
At any rate, while I wasn't alive during his tenure, and I'm sure he wasn't the best in alot of respects, I've always found Truman's words to be quite valuable in terms of how a leader of a nation should conduct himself.
Reply
Leave a comment