Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
"Support the Troops, not the War"
Published on November 18, 2007 By Dr Guy In Politics

Since the anti-war movement got cranked up, one of the slams against them was that they were tarring the troops with their rhetoric and actions.  After the shame of their actions during the Vietnam War, this was a very sensitive subject as most (definitely not all) people understood that the soldiers were doing the job they were ordered to do, and not setting the policy of where and when to wage war.

To that end, there have been repeated denials by members of the anti-war movement that they did indeed support the troops, just not the war.  But those denials ring false.  Words, it is said, are cheap, and actions define your true intentions.  And to that end, we have seen Moveon.org blast the General in charge before a word was spoken (Betrayus), and the members on the left for the most part refusing to condemn them.  Ok, a general does have more say in how a war is waged, but they still do not have a say on the where or when.

Now comes the latest in the "facto non verbo" demonstrations of the anti-war crowd.  It seems that the illustrious (?) city of Cambridge Mass. has decided that collecting care packages for US Troops is a forbidden activity.  This activity, one carried out by the Boy Scouts - an organization already on the black list for the left - was not to affirm or decry the war itself, but to make the lives of the troops who have volunteered to defend this country a little less stressful.

And Cambridge said no way. 

This is America.  That is their right in a free society.  It is also their right to lie, and that appears to be what this is all about.  Not their freedom to speak the truth, but their freedom to lie.  For the facts clearly indicate they do NOT support the troops.


Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Nov 19, 2007

Been there.

And yet many would deny your own experience since it will not conform to their preconceived ideas.

on Nov 19, 2007

Anyone who would consider collecting for care packages to US troops is too braindead for words.

The crowning irony here is that the ones playing politics are the ones denying the Boy scouts.  Not the boy scouts.

on Nov 19, 2007
The vast majority of Iraqis know damn well that the day after America pulls out the bloodbaths will ensue.


Indeed. Iraq was a bloodbath before the invasion and it will be again if the troops withdraw.
on Nov 19, 2007
"pacifism"
noun
The idea that tyranny and mass murder is to be preferred over war because war is wrong.

(From the American Liberal Dictionary.)
on Nov 19, 2007
"peace"
noun
A scenario in which ethnic and religious minorities are slaughtered by nationalist dictators without hope of rescue. This constitutes stability and is a good thing (see "progressive").

(Same source.)
on Nov 20, 2007
Peace (Noun): A scenario that exists when Americans are being killed.

War (Noun): A state of emergency that only exists if Americans shoot back.
on Nov 20, 2007
War (Noun): A state of emergency that only exists if Americans shoot back.


Actually, that happens to Israel a lot.

When a Lebenese militia shoots rockets at Israeli towns for five years: Not a war. Not even worth worrying about.

When Israel starts shooting back: A war started.

However, the media were not bold enough actually to report it like this:

"A war started between Israel and Lebanon thus July when the first non-Jewish victim was identified. The Lebanese had killed several Jews over the last five years but that obviously wasn't a war because the victims were only Jews. (And on that subject, Saddam Hussein's slaughtering of Shiites was also no war and should have continued.)"

Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, a Republican, and an anti-war activist who just came from a rally protesting the latest Arab war against Israel are in a race. Who wins?

The Republican wins because the other three are figments of the imagination.
on Nov 20, 2007
Leauki: Too True!!
on Nov 20, 2007
War (Noun): A state of emergency that only exists if Americans shoot back.


Actually, that happens to Israel a lot.


Ted and Leauki are both right. Unfortunately.
on Nov 20, 2007
It seems that the illustrious (?) city of Cambridge Mass. has decided that collecting care packages for US Troops is a forbidden activity.


This is the sentence I was questioning. They didn't decide the activity was forbidden -- they decided it couldn't take place inside the polling place. Also, to your point about how it was political--I don't know. I wasn't trying to defend what happened, but rather shed light on the nuances of the situation. Also apologies for being condescending -- it wasn't intentional. As for whether or not I use fact -- Disagreeing with the evidence I use to support my arguments doesn't always mean I didn't have evidence, just that you disagreed with it. But that is an argument for a different blog -- and we are apparently never going to agree.


You are right, they (and many hear at JU) are showing their true contempt.

Ted-- Is this directed at me? If so, I wouldn't be so quick to judge others -- I support the troops through actions, not words on a blog site.

on Nov 20, 2007
Shades. I meant anyone who considers a few scouts collecting stuff for care packages as "political" is showing contempt.

Also, to your point about how it was political--I don't know. I wasn't trying to defend what happened, but rather shed light on the nuances of the situation.


Apparently you don't.
on Nov 20, 2007
Apparently you don't.


Cool.
on Nov 20, 2007

This is the sentence I was questioning. They didn't decide the activity was forbidden -- they decided it couldn't take place inside the polling place. Also, to your point about how it was political--I don't know.

There appears to be some misunderstanding.  I think much of it mine.  I assumed too much on your original post.  I appolgize for that.  As my wording in my article was not exact and that is my fault.  I jumped from one point to the other with no connection (other than in my mind - or others who saw the same thing).

I think Parated made the connection, and you responded in that you do not agree with the connection.

As for the facts, that was a statement made in haste.  Yet still true.  Just because an orange is orange does not mean that all apples are red.  Your statement that I was referring to was that the legalization of abortions reduces them.  yet none of your links showed any such causality in any kind of scientific way.  Indeed none of them were anything but PR pieces that bore no relation to the statement.

Comparing Harlem to Manhattan may make people feel good for their reasons, but is not a valid or in any way statistical comparison.  And so that was with your links.  Comparing Africa to Europe is akin to saying you dont like fish because you have tasted beef.

3 Pages1 2 3