So you support the troops but not the war?

Team Infidel

Team Infidel

Forum Spin Doctor
When we look at the care packages of knit purple hats and letters from 1st grade students, we're reminded that "Yes, you do support the troops".

And then we look at the way your elected representatives turn away from supporting us.

We see how the American Media tries to make it seem like complex roadside bombs emplaced by Shiite militias could be from somewhere besides Iran.

We see how American's fail to recognize the service of veterans when it comes time to offering discounts at commercial establishments.

We see how our very own government and military are failing to garner enough support from their American constituents to even do such much as provide basic services and comforts to disabled American combat veterans.

We know you can't muster an unconditional support for American troops. We know you're not capable of it. Its painfully obvious to us.

So when you say that you "dont support the war", trust me: WE KNOW.
 
If you support our troops, you support the fact that they have a job to do and are doing it, regardless of how much the enemies of America and the Allies gripe. I heard a politician say that the lives of our dead soldiers were wasted. As far as I'm concerned, that remark bought him a ticket to hell.

Most thinking people know that supporting our troops means accepting that they are put in harm's way by us, the people, because there is a threat to our country and it's best confronted somewhere other than in our neighborhoods.

I don't know if we, as their Parents, Brothers, Sisters, Wives Husbands, children, and friends, can ever repay what we owe them. But I know that running off at the pie hole about all the perceived reasons they souldn't be where they are discourages them and emboldens the enemy. I believe it was President Lincoln that said those people should be taken and hanged publicly. My sentiments exactly.
 
Missileer said:
If you support our troops, you support the fact that they have a job to do and are doing it, regardless of how much the enemies of America and the Allies gripe. I heard a politician say that the lives of our dead soldiers were wasted. As far as I'm concerned, that remark bought him a ticket to hell.

Most thinking people know that supporting our troops means accepting that they are put in harm's way by us, the people, because there is a threat to our country and it's best confronted somewhere other than in our neighborhoods.

I don't know if we, as their Parents, Brothers, Sisters, Wives Husbands, children, and friends, can ever repay what we owe them. But I know that running off at the pie hole about all the perceived reasons they souldn't be where they are discourages them and emboldens the enemy. I believe it was President Lincoln that said those people should be taken and hanged publicly. My sentiments exactly.
Click to expand...

So, if someone who was say, wounded in battle, and that someone said something you did not agree with about the War, you would what? Condemn them to hell?
 
Thats how Dems are. They pretend to support America's war on terrorism but they won't be glad if America wins it
 
Gator said:
So, if someone who was say, wounded in battle, and that someone said something you did not agree with about the War, you would what? Condemn them to hell?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for Missileer, but I pondered this question for a bit and thought that the wounded individual has earned his or her right to speak out, since they know how it is, and no one who hasn't been there can possibly argue otherwise. BUT, if said casualty becomes a tool for, say, a politician or media outlet, they've dishonored their fellow comrades IMHO.

I hate seeing vets (especially wounded vets) being used by civilian politicians and pundits to give credibility to their agenda, whatever that may be.
 
wounded vets being used for political/media purposes just isn't right. they should be respected for the sacrifce they've made, not used to further political agendas.
 
jequirity said:
What happens if the wounded vets become politicians?
Click to expand...

Senator Cleland (D) lost 3 limbs in Vietnam, although there was no battle going on at the time he lost his limbs, and Senator Cleland lost his reelection bid in 2002 to a Draft Dodger from the Vietnam War, the former Representative, and now Senator Saxby Chambliss (R). Senator Chambliss said he had a bum knee and couldn't make it to Vietnam to play with the others.
 
Vets (wounded or otherwise) becoming politicians strikes me different than politicians using vets (again wounded or otherwise). In the former, they are not tools and are expressing their own views with no strings attached (except for a personal ideal), but the latter example just feels wrong IMHO, since they are using their position to fuel the ambitions of others. I could be wrong, but this is just how it seems to me.

$0.02
 
So, if you lose limbs you're automatically going to be a great politician and everybody should vote for you?
 
I never said any [wounded] vet would make a great politician, I just think a vet who runs for office is not being used as a tool or campaign booster, and that would make me more inclined to listen to what he or she has to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top