"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:

If you believe that the war is wrong then you must also believe that the
troops serving in that war are wrong.


Bullship, pure and simple, and the kind of response one might expect from
a simple-minded jackass.

Why is it "Bullship?" All of the troops are there because they said that
they would obey all lawful orders from those appointed over them.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"ed" wrote in message
...

This is just my opinion, but I disgree with the war in Iraq, think we
were lied to by our leaders and should have waited for the United Nations
backing. I do how ever support our troops, they have no choice in the
matter of being over there, putting their lifes in harms way every day
every minute while they are over there. Again, just my view on the war,
not asking anyone to agree or disagree.


All of our troops are volunteers. They are in Iraq because they willingly
signed on the dotted line.

D'oh, but if they are sent to Iraq, they have to go. Once you volunteer
for the military, it owns your ass.

So, if you don't want your ass owned don't volunteer.

Tell us about the dangers you faced as a stateside marine, bertie.

First tell us about your uniformed military service?

Now, go have a great day!

********

I will.

Tell me, John, which of the people on that carefully selected list of
Democrats was Commander in Chief and had the *power* to commit the
troops to battle?

Which of these people ran the Exectuive Branch and quote, "fixed" the
intelligence in the summer of 2002 to support the invasion of Iraq?

Which of these people represents the corporation that is raking in tens
of billions per month without contract, without competitive bid, etc?

I'd be very interested in your answer.

You have a nice day, too.

With all due respect Chuck, the troops are the war. You can't hate
one and love the other - they are one and the same.

**********
And with equal respect, that's not correct.

Surely you remember Viet Nam?

By the end of that mess, something like 80% of the public was sick of
either the flawed motivations for the war or the inept way it was being
prosecuted. When the troops came home, the were often shunned, and
sometimes even abused, by a portion of the people who opposed the war
that the troops had been sent to fight. That was wrong, but the excuse
that the bad actors who gave the troops such grief when they arrived at
home relied on *exactly* the same
logic, (in reverse). "The troops are the war. They cannot be separated.
If you support the troops you must support the war, and if you oppose
the war you cannot respect the draftees that were
hauled off to fight in it."

One of the lessons we should have learned from Viet Nam is that the
troops don't make the policy, they simply go where they are sent and do
the job they are ordered to do. I don't blame the troops for the war
in Iraq. Nobody yearns for peace more than a soldier. I can freely say,
"Mr or Ms Troop, while I disagree with the national foreign policy that
has sent you to fight in Iraq I respect your service to your country
and that you are obeying your orders to do your duty
in a perilous situation. I wish you a safe, and speedy, return."

Neither side should stoop to using the men and women serving in the
armed forces as pawns in the propaganda war concerning whether our
invasion and continued occupation of Iraq was (or continues to be) a
good or necessary thing that actually defends the American homeland.
That debate can go on without using the troops as whipping boys.

If you believe that the war is wrong then you must also believe that
the
troops serving in that war are wrong.

********

Funny, when the troops came home from Viet Nam and got the cold
shoulder (or the infamous stereotype "spat upon in airports") the
rattle from the right at that time was, "Even if you're against the
war, don't blame these guys who were just doing their duty!" My how
things change. Now it's, "Unless you want to confess to being a
communist, terrorist, or traitor who hopes that all of our service
people get killed or wounded in action, you *must* blindly and
enthusiastically support any ill-advised deployment of this people
anyhwhere in the world and for any purpose because failing to respect
the mission means you hate the people assigned to do it"

Why is it "Bullship?" All of the troops are there because they said
that
they would obey all lawful orders from those appointed over them.

*********

Precisely.

One can laud people for carrying out their orders in the face of
danger, without agreeing with the orders given. The troops don't have
the luxury of questioning their mission, but the society and freedoms
the armed forces were intended to protect grants the rest of us the
ability to question our leaders and debate the wisdom of their
decisions.

John H wrote:

On second thought, I have to disagree with you. I was not in favor of
going to
war in Iraq, but I do think the troops are doing commendable work over
there.
When fire fighters go to fight a fire, we don't have to be in favor of
the fire
to commend the fire fighters.

*******

Nicely said.

And you complain about *others* ruining perfectly fine threads Chuck?

This thread *was* about 2 young men, both Marines, that I am proud of yet
you had to turn it into a political one about the war.

Pretty pathetic Chuck.

Pretty pathetic Chuck.


*********

Which did you find more pathetic, JimH.

My remark that the job the troops were doing in Iraq was "heroic", or
my characterization of
thier deaths, mutilations, and multiple extensions of duty tours as
"national tragedies"?

wrote in message
oups.com...

And you complain about *others* ruining perfectly fine threads Chuck?

This thread *was* about 2 young men, both Marines, that I am proud of yet
you had to turn it into a political one about the war.

Pretty pathetic Chuck.


*********

Which did you find more pathetic, JimH.

My remark that the job the troops were doing in Iraq was "heroic", or
my characterization of
thier deaths, mutilations, and multiple extensions of duty tours as
"national tragedies"?


I already told you. You chose not to listen.