Are anti-war protestors hurting our nation and our troops?

JaJae · 09-28-2006, 02:56 AM

This is a spin off from another thread. My point of view was that Clinton during his 8 years in office made America weaker... from a military standpoint. I don't see how this can be debated much considering he cut military, added controversy in the military, badmouthed the military, added roadblocks for the military and intelligence communities, prevented intelligence gathering and had a habit of fleeing or not responding when attacked.

When you add all this up I think it's clear that we were stronger as a nation before Clinton took office.

Now the response was that maybe we were weaker because of Clinton, but the Republicans had a hand in that with their harsh criticisms of Clinton and his military activities .. ie Somalia.

So now the question is, do anti-Iraq war protestors also make the country and/or military weaker? Whenever the question is brought up the argument of "You can support the troops and be against the war..." or "It's patriotic to dissent.." arguments always get brought up.

However, let's look at this from a different standpoint. Imagine going to a football game and having half the crowd booing the entire time. When asked why they were booing they say "Oh we just hate the game, but we totally support the players!" Is it not going to have an effect?

Does one not believe that our military would be more focused and conditioned if they feel the vast majority of their home nation supports them AND what they are fighting for? Will they fight harder and be more effecient if they are fighting a cause they feel their home country respects and admires?

I think that's better left to the people who have been in Iraq. I know kinggovernor has said in the past he doesn't give a shit what people think of him or what he did, but do you think the military suffers because of it?

Now I'm not saying you can't be against the Iraq war or you're unpatriotic. But don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to say that Clinton's military failures were in part due to the Republican dissent, yet completely negate the Iraqi dissent by the Democrats and left wingers?

[...And for those who like to argue syntax, not all left wingers and Democrats are liberals, so therefore it's greatly important for me to use this word as well in order to avoid a page full of trolling

]

So let's hear it... rhetoric aside. What do you think about the issue? Does the fact that so many Americans dissent Iraq have a negative role in our military activities there? Having a negative effect and being immoral or wrong is a separate issue. I am not saying dissent is morally wrong. Let me just get that out there. But if someone can say Republicans effected Clinton policy and military strength through dissent, how can the opposite not also be true?

ballz2wallz · 09-28-2006, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

However, let's look at this from a different standpoint. Imagine going to a football game and having half the crowd booing the entire time. When asked why they were booing they say "Oh we just hate the game, but we totally support the players!" Is it not going to have an effect?

Does one not believe that our military would be more focused and conditioned if they feel the vast majority of their home nation supports them AND what they are fighting for? Will they fight harder and be more effecient if they are fighting a cause they feel their home country respects and admires?

Great analogy

I think that's basically what it comes down to; who wants to fight for a country that doesn't even support them? Of course everyone is going to say 'I support the troops'; it would be completely ridiculous to say otherwise (well, a few have come out and said it; ie LA Times article). But do they really mean it? What does it mean to 'support the troops'?

I think the best thing to look at is the way the vietnam soldiers were treated when they came home. When one tries to determine why vietnam vets are always so crazy (aside from the normal effects of war on the mind) the only thing I can really think of is how they were basically spat upon by our country when they came back. For those soldiers to be over there fighting for their lives, and supposedly fighting for our country, and yet the whole country is completely unappreciative of it...I can't imagine it does anything but act negatively towards the military.

DosEquis · 09-28-2006, 09:23 AM

No, its not hating the game. The game is very neccessary some times. This is booing the coach for making our players go out in a hostile environment to play in a game that wasn't on the schedule, subjecting our players to unneccessary injury. What if we actually had to play in a REAL game, and have to use our 3rd and 4th stringers?

DosEquis · 09-28-2006, 09:29 AM

Furthermore we spend more than the entire world combined on defense. It is OK to cut the defense budget here and there because after it is said and done, we will STILL have the most formidable and powerful military in the world. How much weaker can you be when you have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet 200 times.

Even if we cut our defense budget from 445 billion to 345 billion we could still look at people and be like IM THE JUGGERNAUT BITCH.

How much is to much military spending? I am 98% sure we have probably 20 billion in pork, if not more, in that budget.

JaJae · 09-28-2006, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

No, its not hating the game. The game is very neccessary some times. This is booing the coach for making our players go out in a hostile environment to play in a game that wasn't on the schedule, subjecting our players to unneccessary injury. What if we actually had to play in a REAL game, and have to use our 3rd and 4th stringers?

That's also a problem. The vast majority of our soldiers don't feel that way. So in other words you're at the football game booing because you don't want them to play and get hurt.. when they want to play. Again, you're against what they're doing.

Scrum · 09-28-2006, 10:02 AM

Hmmm, why did Clinton cut the military? Because he hated them? Because he felt like it? Oh yea, the cold war was over. There was no longer a reason to keep such a large force operating. We moved on to a more tactical force, which has served us well. We are using most of the same military in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Protesting doesn't hurt the troops. It's sad that people try to put that together to try and silence people from using their rights.

What hurts the troops is sending them into a prolonged war for reasons that started out as lies and ended up in a situation that could actually hurt this country. That will hurt our troops.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-28-2006, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Hmmm, why did Clinton cut the military? Because he hated them? Because he felt like it? Oh yea, the cold war was over. There was no longer a reason to keep such a large for operating. We moved on to a more tactical force, which has served us well. We are using most of the same military in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Protesting doesn't hurt the troops. It's sad that people try to put that together to try and silence people from using their rights.

What hurts the troops is sending them into a prolonged war for reasons that started out as lies and ended up in a situation that could actually hurt this country. That will hurt our troops.

Started out as lies? Nice

How about started out with bad intelligence, now that we're there we can't just leave it a cluster fuck.

DosEquis · 09-28-2006, 10:27 AM

I love how when clinton closes some bases it is (the overly dramatic word) DESTROYING the military, but when bush does it they call it a "strategic realignment".

It would do some of you well to listen to General Eisenhower. We do need to spend money on defense but need to guard against the unwarranted influence that comes with it, so that we do not spend to much and have it get out of control. I think it is extremely out of control.

Scrum · 09-28-2006, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Started out as lies? Nice

How about started out with bad intelligence, now that we're there we can't just leave it a cluster fuck.

It started out as lies. PNAC wanted to go after Iraq all along. They were never a threat to us and Bush ignored intel that said as much. It's a lie of ommision.

I take it you agree with the rest of my post?

DosEquis · 09-28-2006, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

That's also a problem. The vast majority of our soldiers don't feel that way. So in other words you're at the football game booing because you don't want them to play and get hurt.. when they want to play. Again, you're against what they're doing.

I am sorry they feel that way. I will just give the coach a pass on the first big fuck up of the 21st century... so that i do not hurt their feelings.

lew · 09-28-2006, 10:29 AM

I dislike Clinton. But props to him for reducing military spending. We need to!

And I don't support the war. Or the troops. That's bullshit rhetoric and always has been. So, I don't hide behind it. These people knew what they were signing up for.

And while your footbal analogy is nice, it's not really accurate. What would be accurate was if we were watching an ancient roman gladiator game. Where there were two teams. And we were booing so that the whole thing could end, because we don't like to watch people being slaughtered.

DosEquis · 09-28-2006, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Protesting doesn't hurt the troops. It's sad that people try to put that together to try and silence people from using their rights.

In fact, protesting is one of the very rights they signed up to defend.

lew · 09-28-2006, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

It started out as lies. PNAC wanted to go after Iraq all along. They were never a threat to us and Bush ignored intel that said as much. It's a lie of ommision.

I take it you agree with the rest of my post?

While that may be true, I firmly believe Bush believed the neocons. I don't think he's some evil, bad man. I don't think he lied. He believed in what he was saying. He was just listening to the wrong people.

Scrum · 09-28-2006, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by lew

While that may be true, I firmly believe Bush believed the neocons. I don't think he's some evil, bad man. I don't think he lied. He believed in what he was saying. He was just listening to the wrong people.

That may be true, but that doesn't make what he said any more true.

It's still a lie even if he's not the one that made it up.

DosEquis · 09-28-2006, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by lew

While that may be true, I firmly believe Bush believed the neocons. I don't think he's some evil, bad man. I don't think he lied. He believed in what he was saying. He was just listening to the wrong people.

I can buy that. However, I do think he needs to be held accountable for his actions. At a minimum, censure, but I do not think impeachment is out of the question either.

It would be different after he recieved bad intelligence then he fired Tenet, but instead gave him a medal of freedom. It would be different if the guys who told him it would be 6 months and 60-80 billion dollars were fired. He holds nobody accountable. They have a job that is vitally important to our country. There is little margin for failure. They made a mistake that has cost 2600 lives and counting, and 300+ billion dollars and counting. Not to mention the Iraqi lives this has cost. They are failing. "Stay the course" is not an option. Sure lets stay and finish but lets do the job right. Other than elections there is no real significant progress, regardless of how many schools we paint.

lew · 09-28-2006, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I can buy that. However, I do think he needs to be held accountable for his actions. At a minimum, censure, but I do not think impeachment is out of the question either.

It would be different after he recieved bad intelligence then he fired Tenet, but instead gave him a medal of freedom. It would be different if the guys who told him it would be 6 months and 60-80 billion dollars were fired. He holds nobody accountable. They have a job that is vitally important to our country. There is little margin for failure. They made a mistake that has cost 2600 lives and counting, and 300+ billion dollars and counting. Not to mention the Iraqi lives this has cost. They are failing. "Stay the course" is not an option. Sure lets stay and finish but lets do the job right. Other than elections there is no real significant progress, regardless of how many schools we paint.

Right. But I think Bush still thinks they're right for some reason.

If I ever meet Wolfowitz in person, I'm going to fucking kick him in his balls. I hate him more than any other person in America, probably even more than Hillary Clinton and Michael Moore.

KatKanPlay · 09-28-2006, 01:32 PM

I like the Emperors new clothes, dont you?

motivez · 09-28-2006, 02:28 PM

Nope, using rights guarenteed to all Americans through our Constitution and other laws can only be seen as bolstering the fact that we are a free nation.

You may disagree with their message, and that's your privelege, but theirs is to be able to speak it.

Also, you can't say: "Now I'm not saying you can't be against the Iraq war or you're unpatriotic."

While asking the question: "If you are against the Iraq war -- and verbalize that position, are you hurting America?"

as if they're somehow unrelated.

JaJae · 09-28-2006, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Nope, using rights guarenteed to all Americans through our Constitution and other laws can only be seen as bolstering the fact that we are a free nation.

You may disagree with their message, and that's your privelege, but theirs is to be able to speak it.

Also, you can't say: "Now I'm not saying you can't be against the Iraq war or you're unpatriotic."

While asking the question: "If you are against the Iraq war -- and verbalize that position, are you hurting America?"

as if they're somehow unrelated.

So by dissenting the war are you helping America in some way?