Should the troops support the people, or should the people support the troops? - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

wistahpatsfan · 02-03-2007, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fleabassist1

You have to understand; this is not an American war; this is a George Bush war. When faced with the difficult question if I was going to join the army or not, I decided not to - because I am not serving my country, I am serving Bush.

If I was alive during WW2, and Japan attacked our country - I would almost instantly volenteer. There is a massive difference between a war for you country and a war for your president.

Wow ...never thought of that.
Good decision.

scout · 02-03-2007, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

HAHAHAHHAHA Guess you weren't around during Viet Nam when ewe had a draft believe me none of the Kennedy kids (just an example of the privileged class) were in any position to get drafted. During my time in the USAF I didn't come across the children of the rich or politicians. Of course the AF was a big group.

Charlie wanted the draft to try and stir up the anti war effort. Sorta like Reid and Kerry whining about Global Warming today when they voted against Kyoto when it was before the Senate, just demagoguery.

Its statements like these that show a true partisan attitude and not one that is likely to re-consider given any evidence to the contrary. When someone brings up the military and then bashes the Democrats pertaining to serving shouldn't be posing for Goddess of Justice. Names you just dropped. Kennedy, the majority of Kennedy's who served in Congress served in the military. One still active in Senate. One active congressman in the House did not serve, although, I believe he has a fairly good excuse. Yes, there are Kennedy children during the Vietnam era that did not get drafted ( please link with any information on Kennedy avoiding the draft). Charlie (Rangel) served and received the Purple Heart and Bronze Star Medal Valor. Kerry (John) volunteered for Vietnam, fought in combat, took a bullet, saved a life (note: discredit anything about Kerry, do not dispute the above mentioned). Reid (Harry) did not serve. NOW, list your favorite Republican politicians of whom you have defended here and please list their service records.

***patsfan13*** · 02-03-2007, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

The draft laws were extremely unfair. Rangel's proposal, not that I support it, would supposedly close all loopholes. Obviously, even if the Congress decided on a draft, they would reject Rangel's bill and introduce one with plenty of loopholes.

Heres how Cheney (another example of the privileged class) avoided service:

http://www.slate.com/id/2097365/

Rangel didn't even vote for his own proposal when it was brought up. This is pure political grandstanding, sort of like the dems who attack Bush for not adopting Kyoto (Reid Kerry Kennedy, and a lot of other dems) when they all voted against Kyoto when it cam up for a vote in 97.

***QuiGon*** · 02-03-2007, 11:27 AM

One of the brilliant parts of our system is that the civilians and citizenry control the military, not vice-versa. Even if you've never served, you can still vote for our leaders and even if you've never served, you can ascend to be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. We, the people, decide what the military is going to do.

Having said that, I think the individuals who serve deserve recognition that they have a very dangerous job which causes great stress on families, prolonged separation, etc, etc. They deserve our support as citizens and they deserve to be given the tools to do the jobs we are sending them to do.

Real World · 02-03-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

Your post, with that picture, iks typical neo con garbage, by being very selective. It's the kind of thing that Hannity does.

The vast majaority of those opposed to the war respect the troops somuch that we, they, want them home alive.

How is continuing to allow these troops to be killed, and maimed, for the obvious lies of the CiC and his cronies, how is that supporting them?

If yuo supprted them, you would want them out of harms way doing something and putting themselves at risk on the basis of TREASONOUS lies and distortions.

Do you actually call the support of the ones whoput them there to be supporting the troops themselves?

If you do, then you are really not , what I would call, a good American, willing to continue to allow these brave men,. and women, to die for NOTHING.

You want to really support them? Then do your part to get them out of there, ALIVE, not in a body bag.

This from the guy who had no problem with that "contest" some writer had in guessing "how many troops will die in Iraq this year".

wistahpatsfan · 02-03-2007, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuiGon

One of the brilliant parts of our system is that the civilians and citizenry control the military, not vice-versa. Even if you've never served, you can still vote for our leaders and even if you've never served, you can ascend to be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. We, the people, decide what the military is going to do.

Having said that, I think the individuals who serve deserve recognition that they have a very dangerous job which causes great stress on families, prolonged separation, etc, etc. They deserve our support as citizens and they deserve to be given the tools to do the jobs we are sending them to do.

Well said. I agree totally.

Real World · 02-03-2007, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Rangel didn't even vote for his own proposal when it was brought up. This is pure political grandstanding, sort of like the dems who attack Bush for not adopting Kyoto (Reid Kerry Kennedy, and a lot of other dems) when they all voted against Kyoto when it cam up for a vote in 97.

Rangel's move was completely political. I've been telling people that this war is shamefully being used for politics in this country. People never want to listen to me though.

Boston Boxer · 02-03-2007, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

I was speaking from the viewpoint of the military. As Americans, they have the right to speak freely, but in the capacity of a US soldier, At least when I was in the AF, we were discouraged from speaking out in this manner publicly. That was for the brass. It is an inconsistency and a double standard...true.

i am still in the AF (Afghanistan right now), and you are right...we still are discouraged from speaking out against the GOV

Real World · 02-03-2007, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boston Boxer

i am still in the AF (Afghanistan right now), and you are right...we still are discouraged from speaking out against the GOV

God Bless you bud! No religious offense meant.

How goes the situation over there? My cousin was stationed in Kabul. He's in the Italian army. Said he never saw such poor people in his life. They were transported in a C-130 (he thinks it was a 130), and said he's never seen a plane that size in his entire life.

***Patters*** · 02-03-2007, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boston Boxer

i am still in the AF (Afghanistan right now), and you are right...we still are discouraged from speaking out against the GOV

How and why do they discourage you? I suppose, even as a liberal, part of it I can understand. They probably don't want you risking your lives while at the same time questioning those who are sending you to battle. On the other hand, the voice of the troops is always extremely potent and important in any political discussion, regardless of where they stand. The troops' position on Iraq can give political cover to or weaken the decision makers in Washington.