Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Is it morally wrong to not support the troops?

Page 5 of 8 [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

well?
Yes, it's ungrateful and cowardly. Shame! 36%  36%  [ 8 ]
No, they are contributing to war. We shouldn't support them. 64%  64%  [ 14 ]
Total votes : 22

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

04 Jun 2011, 4:59 pm

psychohist wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
the total EU military budget is 317.21 billion ours is 687.105 europe does not even make it to half way but close (great eye)

I personally would be okay with that. Cutting our troop commitment in Afghanistan from Obama levels back to Bush levels would do that neatly.


common ground is a beautiful thing.
We should be out of afganistan nobody wins there.
how could afganis tell if they lost?
we should do the same thing we did in Iraq (pretend we won and back away)


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

04 Jun 2011, 5:15 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
psychohist wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
the total EU military budget is 317.21 billion ours is 687.105 europe does not even make it to half way but close (great eye)

I personally would be okay with that. Cutting our troop commitment in Afghanistan from Obama levels back to Bush levels would do that neatly.


common ground is a beautiful thing.
We should be out of afganistan nobody wins there.
how could afganis tell if they lost?
we should do the same thing we did in Iraq (pretend we won and back away)
Well they should finish reconstructing infrastructure, establishing a new Government, deterring other nations and organizations from attacking during this vulnerable phase, etc. before bailing out. Otherwise, you leave a vacuum for the extremists to fill like when the Soviets bailed out of Afghanistan without cleaning their own mess up.



psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

04 Jun 2011, 5:26 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
we should do the same thing we did in Iraq (pretend we won and back away)

In Iraq, we stuck around long after the Baathist government was defeated to ensure they got a semistable government. It wasn't a friendly government, but that can happen with democracy.

In Afghanistan, we haven't even defeated the Taliban yet. We should just admit that now that bin Laden is gone, we have no reason to stay there. Unlike Iraq, the area really isn't suitable for a stable government.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

04 Jun 2011, 5:33 pm

psychohist wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
we should do the same thing we did in Iraq (pretend we won and back away)

In Iraq, we stuck around long after the Baathist government was defeated to ensure they got a semistable government. It wasn't a friendly government, but that can happen with democracy.

In Afghanistan, we haven't even defeated the Taliban yet. We should just admit that now that bin Laden is gone, we have no reason to stay there. Unlike Iraq, the area really isn't suitable for a stable government.


I am completely in this with you brother. If it is a reason to get out I am prepared to agree with it.
two for two left and right without a fight. :lol:


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

04 Jun 2011, 7:15 pm

psychohist wrote:
Raptor wrote:
During the Bush administration we had (still have) an individual at work who rabidly despised George Bush for the war and claimed that the deaths of every American serviceman was on his hands.

All this "concern" for them but twice when we we took up collections to provide a platoon of Marines or US Army soldiers with Christmas dinner via Treats for Troops we could not squeeze a goddamn dime out of him although some of us pitched in $150 or $200 or more!

Voluntary charity is great, but speaking as a military veteran, I'd have hated to be supported by having money "squeezed" out of someone. The military is an honorable profession only when it defends a nation that provides to its citizens the liberty of making their own free choices.

His political views may have been hypocritical, and I have no problem with criticizing him for that, but I don't think refraining from making charitable contributions towards the troops, or electing to make them privately, really constitutes undermining of the troops as happened in the Vietnam war days.


"Squeeze" in this case is a figure of speech. We didn’t coerce anyone into contributing.
My point was that he had all this concern for the troops only because his president didn’t start the war and that’s where his concern ended. Now that his man is in the oval office he could care less what happens to them. In other words the troops were only a political excuse for his venomous hatred of George W.
This is someone I know and I can assure you that he didn’t make any private contributions and I assure you he can afford them.



minervx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,155
Location: United States

04 Jun 2011, 9:10 pm

I fully support the troops.

I find the greatest offense is when people say they "don't support the war, but support the troops".

What is that other than a platitude?

The soliders enlist (and reinlist) voluntarily to complete the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They perform those missions. That is what they do.

And if you don't support what they do, then you are against them.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

04 Jun 2011, 9:48 pm

minervx wrote:
I fully support the troops.

I find the greatest offense is when people say they "don't support the war, but support the troops".

What is that other than a platitude?

The soliders enlist (and reinlist) voluntarily to complete the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They perform those missions. That is what they do.

And if you don't support what they do, then you are against them.


agreed completely.
The mission is idiotic and they are stupid to do it.
and that's why I am against them.
And because I think the Patriotism is the first refuge of scoundrels
and a meme that promotes stupid and death I am not cowed into not saying it.
do I will them ill? of course not.
I think they should get real jobs and start contributing to society.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

04 Jun 2011, 9:53 pm

HerrGrimm wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Support as in what?
To me troop support means your supporting the them as fellow Americans (or allies) who are deployed in the theater of operations, regardless off your views on the legitimacy of the war.

During the Bush administration we had (still have) an individual at work who rabidly despised George Bush for the war and claimed that the deaths of every American serviceman was on his hands.

All this "concern" for them but twice when we we took up collections to provide a platoon of Marines or US Army soldiers with Christmas dinner via Treats for Troops we could not squeeze a goddamn dime out of him although some of us pitched in $150 or $200 or more!

One year we all put together care packages for the infantry squad of a young Marine who's mother works in one of our departments. Again, nothing from our concerned citizen.

He always had money to take trips to the French Riviera and London to see his American hating (and thats what they were) friends and relatives but nothing for those guys over in Iraq or Afghanistan living out of their back packs in a hostile environment.
Of course, since his buddy Barack has been in office no one has heard a word of concern for the troops from him yet they are still over there.

It makes me want to kick him in right in the nuts but I doubt he has anything down there worth kicking.

Just my usual humble thoughts..........


I believe Bush committed treason or some other serious offense by sending soldiers to Iraq. I support the troops, not the war in this case.

Kicking in the nuts is a childish maneuver. Face-down take-downs are much better.


Funny, I didn't hear much about it being treason when the invasion took place in 03.

The kicking in the nads thing was a figure of speech. If I had I'd be escorted off of the installation never to return.
Anyway, the guy didn't deserve any better.

You're just mad because I changed my avatar from the SS Panzer insignia you loved so much :wink:



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

04 Jun 2011, 10:17 pm

Quote:
I think they should get real jobs and start contributing to society.


The only one I've actually heard say that exact same thing later admitted that he had joined the air force at one time but had washed out of basic.
Sort of a "sour grapes" thing.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

04 Jun 2011, 10:41 pm

Raptor wrote:
Quote:
I think they should get real jobs and start contributing to society.


The only one I've actually heard say that exact same thing later admitted that he had joined the air force at one time but had washed out of basic.
Sort of a "sour grapes" thing.


I thought the military was the sort of thing one washed into.
The closest I every got to the military is turning down a DARPA grant.
sucks when they don't fit into stereotypes huh? :lol:

Oh wait I turned down a research Job at the D.O.D. once too.
<I would not have been able to pass the background check but they tried to recruit me.>
I did not want blood on my hands.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

04 Jun 2011, 11:43 pm

I support our troops, that's why I'm against sending them off to die in illegal wars of aggression based on lies for the benefit of a select few.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

05 Jun 2011, 12:10 am

JakobVirgil wrote:
Oh wait I turned down a research Job at the D.O.D. once too.
<I would not have been able to pass the background check but they tried to recruit me.>
I did not want blood on my hands.


You'd be surprised.

Passing the background check is about disclosure.

The Department of the Inspector General is not elected and does not deem that disagreement with the policies of the federal government amounts to disloyalty to the nation.

They just want to know what they're dealing with.

If they think you have a skeleton in your closet that you didn't pull out and shake in front of them, they won't clear you, because you might be vulnerable to blackmail.

If you air all your dirty laundry and it doesn't include any major felonies, they're generally ok with it. That way when the iranian spy corners you and says "I know about that thing you were doing 10 years ago" you can just laugh at them and say "So does my boss! f**k off!"



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

05 Jun 2011, 12:30 am

blauSamstag wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Oh wait I turned down a research Job at the D.O.D. once too.
<I would not have been able to pass the background check but they tried to recruit me.>
I did not want blood on my hands.


You'd be surprised.

Passing the background check is about disclosure.

The Department of the Inspector General is not elected and does not deem that disagreement with the policies of the federal government amounts to disloyalty to the nation.

They just want to know what they're dealing with.

If they think you have a skeleton in your closet that you didn't pull out and shake in front of them, they won't clear you, because you might be vulnerable to blackmail.

If you air all your dirty laundry and it doesn't include any major felonies, they're generally ok with it. That way when the iranian spy corners you and says "I know about that thing you were doing 10 years ago" you can just laugh at them and say "So does my boss! f**k off!"


I've been though a few background checks for security clearances and accesses, too.
You're pretty much right about the scope and objective of investigation.
Depending on the level of clearance they also want to know who you associate with or have been associated with, too.
Also, all foreign travel and contacts and even where you lived as a kid.
They wan't to know about your character and integrity as a human being, politics aside.
Radical beliefs in any direction can be a disqualifier, though.
In some cases the skeletons in your closet, even though identified and investigated, may not be acceptable, depending........
What it all boils down to is whether or not you can be trusted.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

05 Jun 2011, 12:37 am

Mack27 wrote:
I support the troops so much that I wish we'd bring them all home.


+1


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

05 Jun 2011, 12:42 am

Raptor wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Oh wait I turned down a research Job at the D.O.D. once too.
<I would not have been able to pass the background check but they tried to recruit me.>
I did not want blood on my hands.


You'd be surprised.

Passing the background check is about disclosure.

The Department of the Inspector General is not elected and does not deem that disagreement with the policies of the federal government amounts to disloyalty to the nation.

They just want to know what they're dealing with.

If they think you have a skeleton in your closet that you didn't pull out and shake in front of them, they won't clear you, because you might be vulnerable to blackmail.

If you air all your dirty laundry and it doesn't include any major felonies, they're generally ok with it. That way when the iranian spy corners you and says "I know about that thing you were doing 10 years ago" you can just laugh at them and say "So does my boss! f**k off!"


I've been though a few background checks for security clearances and accesses, too.
You're pretty much right about the scope and objective of investigation.
Depending on the level of clearance they also want to know who you associate with or have been associated with, too.
Also, all foreign travel and contacts and even where you lived as a kid.
They wan't to know about your character and integrity as a human being, politics aside.
Radical beliefs in any direction can be a disqualifier, though.
In some cases the skeletons in your closet, even though identified and investigated, may not be acceptable, depending........
What it all boils down to is whether or not you can be trusted.


Yeah. If you're into kiddie porn or something else that is essentially beyond the pale, you're out.

But run of the mill political eccentricities don't scare them.

Not that I have ever had a clearance, but I've been interviewed regarding friends and former coworkers who are getting a clearance a few times, and i know several people who have had various levels of clearance.

Friend of mine tells me that when his father was being checked out prior to his company being included peripherally in a nuclear arms program aeons ago, his mother took offense when she found out that the men from the government had asked all the neighbors if his parents were "swingers".

And she thought it was Just Rude that the G-men were going through the trash every week.

So she started labeling all the trash, and providing an index on the top.

And sent out my friend, age 5, to talk to the nice men in suits who were sorting the trash into the trunk of their caddy. ("hello mister, you look different from our regular garbage man . . . ")



minervx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,155
Location: United States

05 Jun 2011, 6:04 am

Jacoby wrote:
I support our troops, that's why I'm against sending them off to die in illegal wars of aggression based on lies for the benefit of a select few.


You don't send them off. They voluntarily enlist (and re-enlist).