|
|
And a very high percentage of these liberals, like me, are decorated
Vietnam era vets who really know what it was like to be in the service, a concept lost to "leaders" like AWOL bush, "had-better-things-to-do" Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of these chickenhawks who think nothing of sending our troops into battle to enrich themselves and their friends. Where were you from 1965 to 1972? Defending your country or shooting off your mouth like you are today? Capt. Jeff |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 20 May 2005, jps wrote: In article , says... When there's an election coming up, you hear a lot of talk about how liberals "support the troops" and in rare cases, it's true. There are certainly liberals out there who respect the bravery, sacrifice, and risks our troops take to keep this country protected from its enemies. However, the ugly truth is that there are a lot of liberals in this country, a large majority of them, who don't support the troops, who -- as one poster on the Democratic Underground put it -- look at the our troops as "Cannon fodder and killers doing what they're told to do". Can you please cite a single study which suggests a majority of liberals in this country don't support our troops? Where the **** do you get this information? Generally speaking, liberals aren't in favor of their countrymen giving up their lives to support our dependency on oil. Do you disagree? Do you think it's a good use of our countrymen and our taxes to bomb and kill innocent citizens in order to take over the second largest known oil reserve in the world under the guise of dethroning a dictator (which years earlier was our staunch ally and tool). We'd rather spend money on developing new forms of energy. Unplug your head from your ass and you'll see plainly that Saddam wasn't a threat to our country. The cocksuckers who hijacked our planes and killed our citizens were provoked. We befriended them, gave them arms, money and training to kill Soviet fighters in Afghanistan. Then we turned on them, just as we did Saddam, Manuel Noriega, and a host of other assholes around the globe. Wake up and smell the coffee dickwad. jps Are you so stupid you don't look at headers? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.58ckt iQA/AwUBQo6fKv5McEU5rTr2EQK8dwCaAjyeAPeYADs5YL7MdShqZM xa4WYAoMK2 OufumQrSDnMi65vZXZKsec8h =UpZU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org for abuse and hashcash info. |
I'm a liberal and I agree with the statements in your post. I'm
crossposting it to alt.politics and misc.legal because I don't think it belongs in rec.boats. I believe, as you mention, that soldiers are merely cannon fodder that have been brainwashed by their social groups (esp. the church) or economically forced into the military. Once you've been handed a gun and stuck on the battlefield to face death all you really have is your God, and that means they're usually very religious and conservative and breed more of themselves. And of course if you're hurt in the line of fire you're going to rationalize that you were fighting a "just" and "necessary" war, because it would be too painful to realize your life was ruined just to feed the people in power. I have to say you're right in general. "Freddy Smithers" wrote in message ... When there's an election coming up, you hear a lot of talk about how liberals "support the troops" and in rare cases, it's true. There are certainly liberals out there who respect the bravery, sacrifice, and risks our troops take to keep this country protected from its enemies. However, the ugly truth is that there are a lot of liberals in this country, a large majority of them, who don't support the troops, who -- as one poster on the Democratic Underground put it -- look at the our troops as "Cannon fodder and killers doing what they're told to do". Of course, since most Americans have a very high opinion of our soldiers, liberals would face enormous political ramifications if they were honest about what they thought. So instead, we get surreptitious assaults on our military. For example, part of the reason Abu Ghraib has gotten so much attention & the press keeps churning out 2 and a 1/2 year old stories about soldiers teasing it to smear the troops. "See? That's what they're all like behind closed doors! Sadistic savages." Here are some other examples that have come to light over the last couple of days that might not seem to be connected, but they're all products of the same liberal mentality when it comes to the military: Yesterday was the first day military recruiters have been on campus since the Garfield High School PTSA passed a resolution seeking to oust them from public- school campuses. The resolution, first of its kind in the state, passed May 9. "Given the seriousness of what they are requesting people to participate in, we'd just prefer they not be on school grounds, which are supposed to be protected space for students," said Hagopian. ...Other anti-recruiting movements are also picking up steam. In recent months, college students in California and New York have forced recruiters off campus, and in Boston, activists dumped 5 gallons of fake blood on the doorstep of a recruiting center. In the Puget Sound area, a group of students and parents stopped a Blackhawk helicopter from landing on fields at Bainbridge Island High School in April. The students said the helicopter, used for Army National Guard recruiting tours, was war propaganda. Earlier this month, a student at Foss High School in Tacoma sent e-mails to thousands of activists across the country, urging them to call school officials after plans for an anti-recruitment "teach-in" hit administrative roadblocks. Some students at Garfield are planning a walkout Monday and a march on Army recruiting headquarters down the street. Oh yeah, the liberals harassing military recruiters really "support the troops." So much so that they don't believe the military should even be able to recruit on their campuses. Here's mo NBC's "Today" show aired unsubstantiated claims on Tuesday that U.S. troops had desecrated the Quran on at least two occasions, in a report that echoed a now retracted Newsweek story that has inflamed the Muslim world and led to deadly riots. ...The NBC newsman then sourced an allegation by a female terrorist suspect who had been detained at Abu Ghraib, who aired her claim in an Iraqi newspaper. "[She said] she was raped every night by six American soldiers," Engel reported, before adding that U.S. officials deny the claim. Here's a question: you think the "Today" show would air unsubstantiated allegations that the ACLU desecrated the Bible at board meetings? If someone with the same level of credibility as a "female terrorist suspect," like let's say an escaped mental patient, claimed that she was gang raped at DNC headquarters, you think the "Today" show would report that? Not a chance in hell. But any old charge aimed at the military, no matter what it is, just gets tossed out there. Here's another story: The president of a group representing reporters worldwide is accusing U.S. soldiers of committing atrocities without offering any evidence to back the charge up. Appearing in St. Louis on Friday, Newspaper Guild President Linda Foley complained: "What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there’s not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq." In case anyone missed the point, Foley restated her allegation: "They target and kill journalists ... uh, from other countries, particularly Arab countries like Al -, like Arab news services like Al-Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios with impunity. ..." To believe that the troops are deliberately murdering journalists, you must have a very low opinion of them and apparently this belief is quite widespread in the media because we keep hearing it again & again. Does anyone believe that the military is going to be treated fairly by journalists who think the military has marked them for death? Sure, there are always going a few bad apples in the bunch. But, the work our troops are doing in Iraq and across the world is valiant, honorable, and should be praised, not constantly derided and treated with suspicion. Unfortunately, when we get to the point where ridiculous & unsubstantiated allegations against our military are constantly being hurled about and military recruiters aren't even welcome in American high schools, then liberal hostility to the military has gone too far and it's time for more people to call it what it is and speak up for the troops. -=- This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services. |
"jps" wrote in message ... In article , says... When there's an election coming up, you hear a lot of talk about how liberals "support the troops" and in rare cases, it's true. There are certainly liberals out there who respect the bravery, sacrifice, and risks our troops take to keep this country protected from its enemies. However, the ugly truth is that there are a lot of liberals in this country, a large majority of them, who don't support the troops, who -- as one poster on the Democratic Underground put it -- look at the our troops as "Cannon fodder and killers doing what they're told to do". Can you please cite a single study which suggests a majority of liberals in this country don't support our troops? Just watch your favorite news program. you will see plenty of liberals that don't like the US military. Where the **** do you get this information? From the public airways and printed media. Generally speaking, liberals aren't in favor of their countrymen giving up their lives to support our dependency on oil. Do you disagree? Do you think it's a good use of our countrymen and our taxes to bomb and kill innocent citizens in order to take over the second largest known oil reserve in the world under the guise of dethroning a dictator (which years earlier was our staunch ally and tool). Dependency on oil? We, all of us liberal and conservative, are dependent upon energy. It just so happens that oil and natural gas are the most abundant and economical sources of producing energy that theya are used the most. I guess that Sadam's killing fields should be over looked. Have you looked at your heating bill lately or filled up your cars gas tank? We'd rather spend money on developing new forms of energy. Fine, spend your money on it! Unplug your head from your ass and you'll see plainly that Saddam wasn't a threat to our country. You have a limited view of history and what is going on in the world. The cocksuckers who hijacked our planes and killed our citizens were provoked. We befriended them, gave them arms, money and training to kill Soviet fighters in Afghanistan. Then we turned on them, just as we did Saddam, Manuel Noriega, and a host of other assholes around the globe. Provoked? How? Our contry does what it believes to be the best course of action at that time in order to ensure that our country survives. This statement can be used by any country in the world. Wake up and smell the coffee dickwad. I'd rather have sugar in my coffee. |
"Tamaroak" wrote in message ... And a very high percentage of these liberals, like me, are decorated Vietnam era vets who really know what it was like to be in the service, a concept lost to "leaders" like AWOL bush, "had-better-things-to-do" Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of these chickenhawks who think nothing of sending our troops into battle to enrich themselves and their friends. Where were you from 1965 to 1972? Defending your country or shooting off your mouth like you are today? Capt. Jeff What decorations did you receive during your service to our country? |
Freddy Smithers wrote:
snip... Unfortunately, when we get to the point where ridiculous & unsubstantiated allegations against our military are constantly being hurled about and military recruiters aren't even welcome in American high schools, then liberal hostility to the military has gone too far and it's time for more people to call it what it is and speak up for the troops. I say let 'em back in when the recruiters start telling the truth about the 'real world' the soldiers will soon discover. |
"Don White" wrote in message ... Freddy Smithers wrote: snip... Unfortunately, when we get to the point where ridiculous & unsubstantiated allegations against our military are constantly being hurled about and military recruiters aren't even welcome in American high schools, then liberal hostility to the military has gone too far and it's time for more people to call it what it is and speak up for the troops. I say let 'em back in when the recruiters start telling the truth about the 'real world' the soldiers will soon discover. The truth is that if you join the military you might be put into a position where you could die in both training and in actual war. How many commercial fishermen die each year? That is a civilian occupation where you are more likely to die catching a fish than being a bullet catcher in the military. |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:51 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com