www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1564056/posts
LdSentinal NEW YORK In a piece sure to draw controversy or worse (he notes that he is listed in the phone book), Joel Stein opens his Los Angeles Times column with: "I don't support our troops." He says he has no problem with those in favor of the Iraq war expressing backing for soldiers by loading up on "those patriotic magnets and bracelets." But he feels "being against the war and saying you support the troops" suggests that "the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward." We know we're sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful." Other points: --"Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there -- and who might one day want to send them somewhere else." " --"After we've decided that we made a mistake, we don't want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object to a war we barely understood."
View Replies To: LdSentinal Yepper, moonbats are seeing the moon now and are reckless abandon idiots. It just boggles the mind at the shear hatred for this nation that they show.
View Replies To: LdSentinal He doesn't care how long they're there or care about them getting a safe and immediate return home. From his article: The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying.
For this to be true, the guy would have to be an honest liberal, willing to tell the truth about what he believes. That's so rare, I have to question it :-) It's almost one of those weird logical conundrums where one has to decide what to make of someone who insists that he's lying.
View Replies To: LdSentinal I wonder if he would feel the same if the 9/11 attacks had been directed against LA and not New York and Washington DC? Al Queda is commiting its resources to fighting us in Afghanastan and Iraq instead of in the streets of the US. These idiots think that withdrawing from the middle east is going to make the situation better, but all it's going to do is allow Al Queda to strengthen and plan new attacks against US interests.
View Replies To: LdSentinal What do you mean "we", Joel? hint: ignore your lefty entertainment buddies and do some research. Why do these libs insist that we are not fighting actually living, breathing terrorists over there?
View Replies To: Luigi Vasellini I just finished reading the piece on Drudge's web site and had to come over here to express how outraged I am. I have absolutely had it with leftists and their pollyannish view of the world. What they fail to understand is human nature, and one undeniable truth about human nature is that bullies will be bullies until someone gives it right back to them twice as hard. I learned that little lesson in grade school, but these overprotected, facile wimps think Osama bin Laden and company will just give up their murderous ways if only we would try to understand them and be sensitive to their needs.
Most lefties really hate the military from the top right down to the guys at the bottom of the chain. It's very rare that one of them will actually admit it, but I've heard it a happen couple of times.
View Replies To: LdSentinal Well at least he's open and up front about it - unlike all the "I support the troops but I don't support the war" leftist who could not live with the guilt if they really voiced how they feel.
View Replies To: LdSentinal thanks for bringing this to our attention, my response to this naive elitist: To think for a moment that a failure of the United States in Iraq would not instantaneously lead to an immediate fundamentalist militant strain of Islam gaining control of WMD that would undoubtedly kill tens of millions of citizens, in both the US and Western Europe, and would destroy business and cultural infrastructure beyond our comprehension, is to have a thought process that is grossly naive. To think for a moment that if we did not go into Iraq, all would be ok, is equally naive considering the geo-political conditions that existed prior to September 11th 2001. The US policy of appeasement towards Saddam was at its zenith, and Iraq was poised to be free of UN sanctions due to the success of intense and relentless diplomatic pressure from France, Germany, Russia, and yes, Dick Cheney at Halliburton; as well as many other influential American business lobbyists. Moreover, after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the United States and its allies allowed Sadaam to effectively retain control of his country (sans the no-fly zones) and did not seek to prosecute him for war crimes. Somehow, the Islamic Terrorist views this as an example of the West's hatred for Muslims. More misguided thinking of the Islamic Terrorist can be found in the story of the United States successfully brokering the Oslo Accords, and elevating Yasir Arafat to Nobel Peace Prize status. To the objective observer, one quickly sees that UBL's use of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a ruse serving his ultimate goal: The total destruction of Western Civilization. I don't understand the logic of the "peaceniks" reasoning that a conciliatory and compassionate foreign policy toward Iraq and the greater Middle East would provide more security to the citizens of our great Nation. It has been four years since the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, and we have not had a single terrorist attack successfully executed on our soil. Am I being asked by the NYT and the left leaning anti-43 crowd to believe that if we did not engage in a "forward-leaning", militaristic foreign policy towards the Middle East, that in this same four year period, we would have been just as secure? It's fortunately hypothetical posturing on my part, but common sense suggests that the attacks would have kept on coming, and would have become progressively worse. There seems to be a lot of confusion at the NYT & LAT regarding the distinction between the Administration approach to Bin-Laden (in response to 9/11), and the Administration's long term strategy for defending our way of life. The NYT & LAT and their their loyal readers think that the short term benefit of killing or capturing UBL deserves all the resources of our government; thus much of their reportage concerns itself with the Administration's wrong-headed focus on Iraq, with a relentless campaign, from both its news and editorial divisions claiming conspiracy and cover-up of Bush's Iraqi strategy, which both readily point out was developed in secret prior to September 11th 2001. The White House Iraq Group, or "WHIG" strategy, was 1) undeniably developed prior to September 11th, 2001, but 2) was put in place after the "Afghan-Taliban" strategy was executed. The NYT & LAT, along with their misguided loyal readership, have hung their Bush-hating hats on the first part of the WHIG story for far too long.
The only place I can agree with the author is when he points out that being against the war but supporting our troops is "for wussies." And despite his assertion that Viet Nam was a bad war but Kosovo is a good one, we don't know what would have happened if we had put down the Viet Kong, but we are still in Kosovo. Maybe he really thinks that the only good war is a war that allows us to stay on for years and years!
View Replies To: LdSentinal "--"All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return." And as for fighting our enemies, leave that to us limp-wristed journalists, we'll make them laugh till they die.
View Replies To: conserv13 Its these few moments when they finally are pissed off enough to stop lying about who they are and what they actually believe and tell each other at the cocktail parties and coffee bars they hang out at do we have the imperical evidence that we are completely ...
|
http://csua.com/feed/