Patriotism includes shutting up at times

[AKC]

No, no, no, the Constitution only applies to those who have served.  Didn't you read the fine print?  The rest of us have to blindly follow the leadership or be un-Patriotic.  So, about half the country is unpatriotic...

304957[/snapback]

 

Obfuscation is the greater ally of cowardice. Deal with the facts of the string, not the distraction you try to apply to hide your own guilt.

 

My position is clear- feel however you want about a conflict our soldiers are fighting but control your public stance because history proves a public Anti-War stance ends up anti-soldier REGARDLESS of the intentions of those publicly Anti-War.

 

Was my bother's duty in Vietnam any less courageous or honorable than my fathers in WWII? No way, yet I've seen the reception they both recieved from almost all quarters of this country, from the diminished reception at Veteran's Day parades to the scorn shown for uniformed 'Nam vets. It's a disgusting effect of an Anti-War movement, and yet it's an undenable one. Even our pop culture portrays the WWI vet as an ageless hero while the 'Nam vet is either a My Lai child killer or a nutcase running loose back in the U.S.

 

You're lying to yourself when you refuse to acknowledge it. You're lying to yourself if you refuse to recognize the effect public whimpering has on recruitment. The facts fly in your face, so the only thing I can assume from your continued refusal to accept the facts is that you feel guilty. Go on with your self-loathing, I'll go on TRULY supporting vets in this country with my actions, words and most importantly the RESULTS of my words and actions. Hiding behind lies as you have chosen will do nothing to relieve your guilt.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

My position is clear- feel however you want about a conflict our soldiers are fighting but control your public stance because history proves a public Anti-War stance ends up anti-soldier REGARDLESS of the intentions of those publicly Anti-War.

 

305024[/snapback]

 

...because Darin, for example, publicly voiced opposition to the war in Iraq, and since hasn't been able to control his vocalization of contempt for the common enlisted soldier.

 

Do you have any idea how little sense you're making?

[AKC]

...because Darin, for example, publicly voiced opposition to the war in Iraq, and since hasn't been able to control his vocalization of contempt for the common enlisted soldier.

 

Do you have any idea how little sense you're making?

305074[/snapback]

 

This should not be an excercise in comprehension for objective persons- now for hypocrites the bar is set at a whole different level.

[Dan Gross]

What "facts" you have presented revolve around two things:

1.) a downward trend on recruitment,

2.) an upward trend in public support for the War in Iraq.

 

How does that "fly in my face?" Sounds like, from the data you present, the more people support the war, the fewer recruits we get...

 

The other "fact" that you hide is that it is only the Army that is failing to meet its recruitment goals. The other branches are doing fine, even exceeding goals. Source: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,1331..._040105,00.html

 

If public protests by strangers are the key factor in people not enlisting (and not fear of dying in combat), why is it that only the branch that is most heavily engaged in combat is having trouble meeting their goals?

 

Everything I've read points not to demonstrators as the greatest external influence on a person's reasons to enlist, but family and clergy. I haven't even seen public demonstrations mentioned, even in studies done for the government....So you are saying if you, as a parent of an eligible recruit, are not marching said son or daughter to the recruitment office to sign up for the Army, you are unpatriotic, not doing your duty, let alone if you do anything to come between the recruiter and your son or daughter?

 

Is there absolutely no connection between public protests and recruitment? I will not say that, but the effect is negligible relative to other factors. You have yet to point to any fact that undeniably correlates it. I have shown facts to the contrary. What protesting and speaking out against government policies does is inform the government that it does not have carte blanche to invade any country that "looks at us wrong." I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that, in order to "attain our goal" of making Iraq more like America that America needs to be more like pre-War Iraq.

[Campy]

This should not be an excercise in comprehension

305104[/snapback]

And strangely enough, it has become just that.

 

We know how you feel (anti-war=anti-troops). You know how many of us feel (anti-war=anti-war). Maybe it'd be best if we all agree to disagree?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

This should not be an excercise in comprehension for objective persons- now for hypocrites the bar is set at a whole different level.

305104[/snapback]

 

And you know anything about objectivity? You, who thinks people that hold a different opinion from yours should keep it private? Because that's what your opinion amounts to: you think that people who disagree with you on the war in Iraq should keep their mouths shut. All your drivel about "not supporting the war is criticizing the soldiers" is just that - drivel, and demonstrable drivel, as evidenced by the one single counterexample you can't even argue against without shouting "hypocrite!".

[AKC]

All your drivel about "not supporting the war is criticizing the soldiers" is just that - drivel, and demonstrable drivel, as evidenced by the one single counterexample you can't even argue against without shouting "hypocrite!".

305123[/snapback]

 

You continue to get lost in the real world.

 

I have no problem with not supporting the war. I have a serious problem with publicly decrying the war, hurting our men and women in uniform, and then promoting the lie the"I still support the soldiers". Can't be done- if you do anything that hurts them ( and PUBLIC resistance to the war without any doubt hurts them) you can't at the same time credibly claimn to be supporting them. The act of lying about "supporting them while I talk sh-- about the war" is a supreme example of hypocrisy. Sound slike that might be hitting a little too close to home for you!

[AKC]

And strangely enough, it has become just that.

 

We know how you feel (anti-war=anti-troops).  You know how many of us feel (anti-war=anti-war).  Maybe it'd be best if we all agree to disagree?

305121[/snapback]

 

That disagreement has never been in question- the further point is the apology I have asked be made to our troops and supported by the history of the Vietnam vet- why is it that liberals have been vociferously demanding apology after apology of the White House and yet when it's the liberals turn to step up and apologize to our troops they refuse? This is not a subjective point- we know troops are treated more poorly upon returning to the U.S. where there has been a loud Anit-war movement. It's impossible to disjoint the movement from the result. Therefore, you must acknowledge that public anti-war stance damage the reception of the returning soldier. If I understand your position it's that "an anti-war stance is not responsible for the negative results we know it causes our fighting persons".

[KRC]

This thread has more than run its course. Time to close.