Whiskey Dick Posted April 9, 2005 Posted April 9, 2005 I'd be suprised if you ever served in the armed forces since you fail to realize the major difficulty of supporting an openly gay person in your own division. However "enlightened" you belive yourself to be, the miltary is not about "you". Your ability to function at the highest level requires a submission to the overall team. While some of us would be able to function with an alternative lifestyle soldier in the mix, you betray the upbringing of a large number of those who do have the courage to join the military who come from the outposts of America, form small towns in the South and Midwest. You'd in your ignorance require that these kids be FORCED to shower and bunk literally right next to an openly gay person simply to forward your political biases. You'd go so far as to blame them and their parents reliance on religion, etc., for being ignorant. But the reality is that these elements can seriously upset the ability of a fighting unit to function at its peak. You say YOU'D be OK with it yet you won't even sign up to serve! Hypocrisy is rampant in the weakest of our society! 300539[/snapback] What does one reply to stuff like this? Overzealous doesn't describe your condition, extreme might be more fitting.
AKC Posted April 9, 2005 Author Posted April 9, 2005 What does one reply to stuff like this? Overzealous doesn't describe your condition, extreme might be more fitting. 300545[/snapback] You should never let knowledge frighten you. Instead embrace elements of any discusion you don't understand so that you limit foolish outbursts like your uninformed "gays in the military" reference without considering other sides of the argument. There are, after all, points of view more informed and contrary to yours.
Adam Posted April 9, 2005 Posted April 9, 2005 It's become perfectly clear that the best thing that could happen for the courageous Americans serving in the Iraq War is to have the best and brightest of our young people joining them to close this chapter in the most efficient manner possible. Unfortunately, and due directly to the lack of Patriotism excercised by many in the anti-war crowd, instead of the best of our youth considering the military as an honorable endeavor many instead view it as a jaded choice. Today, when the best among us are achieving their daily goals in Iraq, the gutless jellyfish who insisted on "excercising their right to rebel" have caused recruiting goals to go into the red. Patriotism IS NOT the excercise of our rights, it instead is the ability to recognize WHEN the exercise of our rights is appropriate. There has been much talk in politics the past few years about "admitting being wrong". Oddly it is those who most fervently demanded contrition of political figures who have gone silent on admitting that their actions hurt, and continue to hurt our country. Today needless strains on the manpower necessary to complete the task in Iraq are inarguably the result of the lack of good judgement by the vocal opponents of the war. There is no shame in being absolutely wrong and admitting it, there is eternal shame for handicapping our fighting forces and refusing to at the very least cease the unpatriotic attacks that continue to damage our country. 299711[/snapback] Great post, I agree- and I did apologize in a post awhile back. Maybe our information was faulty, but the results are good.
AKC Posted April 9, 2005 Author Posted April 9, 2005 Great post, I agree- and I did apologize in a post awhile back. Maybe our information was faulty, but the results are good. 300676[/snapback] You are a patriot and one of the reasons we are beneficiaries of the greatest experiment in government in recorded history.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 9, 2005 Posted April 9, 2005 I would argue that the war ITSELF took as big or probably a bigger toll on the recruiting than the anti-war people protesting because a significant number of potential recruits now fear that they may have to actually go to battle rather than get a free ride to college by joining the armed forces. Are we to stop promoting the war because this hurts our troops, too?
Adam Posted April 10, 2005 Posted April 10, 2005 You are a patriot and one of the reasons we are beneficiaries of the greatest experiment in government in recorded history. 300687[/snapback] I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't feel I played any type of role in what happened over in Iraq. I met several marines who served over there, and have a lot of respect for them, and what they have done.
AKC Posted April 10, 2005 Author Posted April 10, 2005 I would argue that the war ITSELF took as big or probably a bigger toll on the recruiting than the anti-war people protesting because a significant number of potential recruits now fear that they may have to actually go to battle rather than get a free ride to college by joining the armed forces. Are we to stop promoting the war because this hurts our troops, too? 300689[/snapback] War should never be "promoted", instead it should be understood as the final and necessary arbiter of conflict which resists all other solution. It's not something that's in the grasp of everyone. Speaking of nonsense, Lamby and other WNYers will be attending the annual SoCal TSW West draft party on the mountain- reserve your room at the earliest possible time.
AKC Posted April 10, 2005 Author Posted April 10, 2005 I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't feel I played any type of role in what happened over in Iraq. I met several marines who served over there, and have a lot of respect for them, and what they have done. 300713[/snapback] The ability to revise your position in real time is a very American trait, to avoid becoming entrenched in a position and refusing to consider new developments.
Whiskey Dick Posted April 10, 2005 Posted April 10, 2005 The ability to revise your position in real time is a very American trait, to avoid becoming entrenched in a position and refusing to consider new developments. 300720[/snapback] And of course to agree with you.
AKC Posted April 10, 2005 Author Posted April 10, 2005 And of course to agree with you. 300722[/snapback] With regards to gays in the military and true support for our fighting persons that would be a good starting point for you.
Gene Frenkle Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 I would argue that the war ITSELF took as big or probably a bigger toll on the recruiting than the anti-war people protesting because a significant number of potential recruits now fear that they may have to actually go to battle rather than get a free ride to college by joining the armed forces. Are we to stop promoting the war because this hurts our troops, too? 300689[/snapback] So the troops aren't supporting the troops? It's so clear now!
Gene Frenkle Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 War should never be "promoted", instead it should be understood as the final and necessary arbiter of conflict which resists all other solution. 300719[/snapback] Do you think your very correct statement should have been more closely paid attention to by our leaders pre-Iraq invasion?
AKC Posted April 11, 2005 Author Posted April 11, 2005 Do you think your very correct statement should have been more closely paid attention to by our leaders pre-Iraq invasion? 301159[/snapback] The determination of the point at which it becomes the only option is too subjective to revisit and find an answer acceptable to everyone. In this case you have those whose opposition has been reduced to whining about "WMDs" and on the other side what seems to be a very logical argument in the fact that we as a country are facing a regional enemy and it was absolutely necessary that we establish a front in that region to lessen the likelihood of further attacks on our own soil. Not only does that argument make perfect sense to me, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that results confirm this.
Boatdrinks Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 Stupid people are suckered into believing liberals. You can NOT be against the war and for the troops. IMPOSSIBLE!! Either you are all in or all out. I have more respect for a person who is anti-war and anti-troops, than a person who is trying to ride both sides. At least the anti-war jerk has a true conviction. 299729[/snapback] So I cannot disagree with the war , yet still have compassion for our troops and hope they do not come home in body bags? This is "impossible" in your mind? This is not a true conviction. ( No I do NOT have one of those yellow ribbons on my vehicle...)
chicot Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 "Every time some jackass in a bar says to one of our returning heroes "Yeah, you were probably in Abu Ghraib" it will be the voice of the gutless who have protested the war that will bear the full responsibility." How exactly do you work that out? Antiwar protestors did not commit the abuses in Abu Ghraib, they did not blow the whistle on what was going on, nor did they report the stories. Yet somehow, if some drunk in a bar brings up the issue of Abu Ghraib, it will not be the responsibility of the soldiers that committed the abuses, not the responsibility of the soldiers that blew the whistle on them, nor of the journalists that reported it. No, it will be the evil antiwar protestors who will bear the "full responsibility". Truly remarkable
Adam Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 So I cannot disagree with the war , yet still have compassion for our troops and hope they do not come home in body bags? This is "impossible" in your mind? This is not a true conviction. ( No I do NOT have one of those yellow ribbons on my vehicle...) 301252[/snapback] Disagreeing, and publicly protesting are 2 completely different things
Adam Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 "Every time some jackass in a bar says to one of our returning heroes "Yeah, you were probably in Abu Ghraib" it will be the voice of the gutless who have protested the war that will bear the full responsibility." How exactly do you work that out? Antiwar protestors did not commit the abuses in Abu Ghraib, they did not blow the whistle on what was going on, nor did they report the stories. Yet somehow, if some drunk in a bar brings up the issue of Abu Ghraib, it will not be the responsibility of the soldiers that committed the abuses, not the responsibility of the soldiers that blew the whistle on them, nor of the journalists that reported it. No, it will be the evil antiwar protestors who will bear the "full responsibility". Truly remarkable 301321[/snapback] Wasn't Abu Gharab full of Al Quaeda anyhow? If thats true, it shouldnt bother them anyways
chicot Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 Wasn't Abu Gharab full of Al Quaeda anyhow? If thats true, it shouldnt bother them anyways 301356[/snapback] No, many of those in Abu Ghraib, in fact many of those in American custody are unlikely to be guilty of anything more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, which is why hundreds (if not thousands by now) have been released with no charge.
RuntheDamnBall Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 The ability to revise your position in real time is a very American trait, to avoid becoming entrenched in a position and refusing to consider new developments. 300720[/snapback] Wow, what a flip-flopper.
Alaska Darin Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 "Every time some jackass in a bar says to one of our returning heroes "Yeah, you were probably in Abu Ghraib" it will be the voice of the gutless who have protested the war that will bear the full responsibility." 301321[/snapback] I guess when the soldiers who are accused of being at Abu Ghraib kick the sh-- out of the perps, they can accuse the perps of being the same as the ones who attacked Air Force recruiters. That'll even it all out.
Recommended Posts