Howard Dean's Message to the Troops: You Won't Win

and bush's 'bring it on' didn't get more of our boys killed? the hypocrisy is disgusting.

 

I laughed out loud reading that. Irony...

 

What Bush did plays no role in how I support my troops over there. Stop politicizing support for our troops... either you support them because they are willing to give it all up to go save your asses or you don't. And by support I mean SUPPORTING and CHEERING their cause on regardless of how you think we got involved... but nooooo, you bastards have to politicize EVERYTHING involved with Iraq. We are there, STFU and either support our troops or stop saying that you do.

"The democratic party supports our troops but disagrees with the President's policies..." yet they chose to vote to stay in Iraq just three weeks ago, if they truly believe that we should be pulled out how come more didn't vote? Because they didn't want to lose votes that's why... yet, that makes them a coward because they believe that we should pull out and they don't vote with their heart, they vote with their wallet and ballot box.

Supporting our troops is a "till the death" call, because that is what they give us, their lives... if you aren't up to supporting them until the death then don't say you support them one day and then call out "we've already lost" the next. And I show hypocrisy?

 

Wow, you caught a type-o... what are you, 12?

 

Canon

1. A member of a chapter of priests serving in a cathedral or collegiate church.
2. A member of certain religious communities living under a common rule and bound by vows.


Irony

1. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
2. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.

Knowing how "religious" you are, I just thought that amusing given the context. Carry on...

 

firstly i hate this nonsense. i dont know if you realize this but government and its actions are political. and to somehow be able to delineate some weird line between whats acceptable to be political and whats not is ridiculous.

secondly support our troops does not mean to send them into hellholes to fight missions which are absolutely based on a pack of lies and riddled with corruption, to let them die by the hundreds, to give them impossible tasks and pressure them into having to feel the need to torture prisoners, into cutting their benefits and salaries, into even having their caskets not be filmed on tape. if thats your god damn definition of supporting the troops your damn i dont.

and yes the democratic party for the most part is gutless. they were completely on the side of war because of their apparent political calculations. im glad you could figure that out. but the fact is that the republican party ruled the gov't when iraq happened and thus its responsible. and frankly given that OBVIOUSLY it is incompetant (as has been seen so far in iraq) to bash every other viable idea as being against the troops is stupid and irrationale.

do i agree with pulling the troops out immediately? no. but given that rumsfeld has been completely incompetant i fail to see how you can't at least debate nationally other viable ideas. and yes its political. thats this country. and thats life.

 

In other words, you will rant about your principles and love of human beings, democracy and freedom, all those great things. Once the troops of your country are out there, whether they are keeping peace, defending your own country, or invade other countries, or even further like in the history, some military committed horrible horrible war crime against human race, the ONLY thing you WILL and CAN do is to SUPPORT them and CHEER for them? When your military is sent out, you will drop your principles and own thought, even if those troops are suffering and fighting an unjust war, you will still cheer for them and make sure they stay the course and take more beating? Is that the way you are advocating to support your troops? No wonder, Germans and Japanese were celebrating on the streets for troops' marching.

 

Understood.

I totally disagree. If the cause is unjust and the reasoning decietful, I support the troops by desiring them home. Since when did supporting the troops mean one must forego rational thought and let them die needlessly? I cannot understand how people such as yourself rationalize "support the troops" as "support the policy". They are NOT the same!

Likewise.

The minor details surrounding the vote in question notwithstanding, I in no way wish to align myself with the republicrats. In fact, I wholeheartedly agree that they are (for the most part) a bunch of wishy-washy pansies as of late.

Once again, I think you are mixing policy and people. Unlike Vietnam, I really don't see a widespread "hate the troops" movement. It's all about the administration - which is justified through supporting the troops.

 

At some point, sooner or later, we will reassemble in secure camps then begin to pull out leaving Iraq to the Iraqis for better or worse. Yes it will probably begin in the mid term elections and conclude during the 2008 campaign.

Dean is just getting out in front on the issue so the democratic party can claim it rather than leaving it to the Republicans.

Declaring victory and leaving is the time honored way of disengaging form a guerilla war. The only way to win one is through utter ruthlessness and we have to leave that to the barbarians. Our intention was honorable but the reality is we underestimated the enmity within the Iraqi society. We will have some prescence there for the long term, CIA and special forces helping sympathizers but within 2 years, we will for the most part be gone.

 

Our military is fighting for a free Iraq, if you don't think that is a cause to fight for, then I pity you. We are there, and a deadly dictator is out of power... end of story. If you don't think Iraq is better off without Saddam in power I encourage to get off your asses and read the translated testimony of the witnesses in his trial who were tortured, witnessed tortured or had their loved ones tortured, killed and maimed. Supporting your troops when they are fighting for a cause that is worth fighting for is point number one. You bastards think that since we "went in wrong" that the war they are fighting now isn't right, and that baffles me. The Iraqi people are better off now then they were before... they are voting next week, yes voting. They have new schools, hospitals running water and thousands of free men lining up to sign up for the military and police. Is it perfect right now? No, but it sure as crap would be easier to get to that place we call victory if Dean and his ignorant followers would keep their mouths shut.

R. Lee Eermy from Mail Call (an Independent) wrote a great article in FHM this month, I'll transcribe it tonight... it isn't online, already looked.

 

can you please show us these statistics of how schools and hospitals and running water has improved today than it was lets say 5 years ago? (needless to say i'd say see how it was at the early 80s before we told saddam to go fight those evil ayatollahs and before we imposed sanctions...but still)

 

No, I won't... because the stories from thousands of US military personnel should be word enough. If you want statistics, find them yourself. I don't have the time or patience to try and help some jackholes figure out if our soldiers are doing good over there... well, I guess I can't really blame the ignorance of American people on the people as a whole, because when was the last time one of our major news networks decided to show the good in Iraq? Oh yeah, never.

http://www.defendamerica.mil
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/

or search google for "Iraq Success Stories" there are countless ones out there, but the anti-Bush crowd wants nothing to do with them. They want to say we are failing and have been failing from the start.

 

Another lie. If the GOP had allowed them to vote on Murtha's proposal, the vote would have turned out FAR differently and you know it.

 

does that make up for the 30k-100k deaths of iraqi civilians? because you can find 'success stoires'?

and i have never seen any US troops say that they have built more schools/water plants/electricity plants than were destroyed.

so what if two schools were built if the fact is that 10 schools have been rendered inoperable?

 

The success stories are there... feel free to find them. As for the Iraqi casualties thousands died a year under Saddam's regime due to torture, murder and starvation anyway, at least now they are dying for freedom... and who is it that keeps killing the Iraqi people? That's right, the VAST majority are killed by Terrorists who openly kill women, children and other innocents.

 

apparently Murtha and his cohorts don't have the courage of their convictions.

 

What does that matter? If they truly believe we should have pulled out they should have voted for it, only THREE representatives voted to pull out. If you are afraid to vote for what you truly believe for fear of political backlash, you are a coward...

 

bastards, pigs and jackholes - oh my!

im suprised that someone who makes such a big issue out of their "christianity" would talk like this. dont make me report you to the moderator for abusive language.

keep the d & d civil - deckard©

i sure wish one of yall could explain how its ok when republicans criticze our mission, but its not ok when dems do it?

i repeat -
where's the outrage at all the stuff republicans said during the kosovo campaign?

"You can support the troops but not the president"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

bunch of hypocrites

dont all of these statements hurt troop morale?

dont be a hypocrite!

 

and how about ol' monkey boy himself?

was he hating the troops with these gems?

In 1999, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war.

George W. Bush, 4/9/99:

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

And on the specific need for a timetable, here’s what Bush said then and what he says now:

George W. Bush, 6/5/99

“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

VERSUS

George W. Bush, 6/24/05:

“It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/28/in-1999-bush-demanded-a-timetable/[/QUOTE]

flip-flopping hypocrite