On Nov 16, 11:24=A0am, "Michelle C" <bookbug...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Meeter" <antmee...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:29828792-256e-4923-8ba4-67885ab290d9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I don't question your respect for the troops. =A0That is not the issue
> there.
>
> You cannot consistently both sup****t them on the one hand and on
> the other say, "But I oppose the very thing they do." =A0"Sup****ting"
> them means affirming not just your respect, but their choices (the
> willingness to volunteer, and later, to kill people) and their actions
> (killing people).
> --------
>
> Okay, we are using words that have different definitions to us. =A0I see
=
the
> problem, and I see what you are trying to get across.
>
> The reason I insist on the idea that I do sup****t the troops, but not
the
> mission, is because I'm not against all military action. =A0Quite the
> contrary. =A0I think our troops should have been in Afghanistan, getting
=
the
> job done there, against the group that actually attacked us. =A0So it is
=
not
> even that I don't sup****t what the soldiers do; I just think they're
doin=
g
> it in the wrong place.
>
> -------
>
> To use your religious example, could you "sup****t", say, a minister
> who proclaimed a religious message that offended you because
> you thought it was 100% wrong? =A0I understand you might respect
> their zeal, intentions, work ethic, and so on, but would "sup****t"
> them by donating money, helping their proselytizing, and generally
> enabling their *mission*? =A0Of course not.
>
> ------
>
> There are many groups--religious and otherwise--that offend me, but I
> wholeheartedly defend their rights to free speech. =A0However, since we
h=
ave
> our definitions more clearly defined, to say more on this would take us
o=
ff
> on a new tangent. =A0With the clarification of what we both mean by
suppo=
rt,
> the religious example is no longer relevant.
>
> > So with the our soldiers, I know they have
> > an extremely hard job to do, they are doing because they love our
> > country--I
> > respect that--and I want them to come home safely, but as in the
exampl=
e
> > of
> > religion, I don't agree with their mission.
>
> ---------
>
> Already explained above.
>
> snipped for brevity, but read in full
>
> If you really object to their mission, then you don't want them
> killing people.
>
> -------
>
> As I said, I want our soldiers going after the people who actually
attack=
ed
> us. =A0Not opposed to the killing that a soldier must do. =A0Just want
hi=
m/her
> to target the people who attacked us. =A0Osama is still out there
because=
W
> dropped the ball. =A0That pisses me off. =A0And it should piss you off
to=
o.
> --
The world is far more complex than this. There is a baroque
infrastructure of nastiness consisting of people the enable and
sup****t
"those that attacked us" who themselves do no such thing.
The real reason for the Iraq invasion had little to do with Sadaam
and everything to do with Iran - a nation that has long harbored,
funded, and otherwise enabled terror action. The "mission"
of the Iraqi war was in large part to create a foothold to enable
serious pressure on the maggots running Iran - something very
difficult to do without military bases in the region because of the
topography and political layout Iran.
Bush is wrong about lots of things. This wasn't one of them. The
only thing I'd fault him for was the timing and the intensity of
the Iraqi conflict. He gave in to the drooling idiots in the State
Department who wanted to "rebuilt Iraq" way too soon. Once
the temp of the war in Iraq was established, he should have
taken the pointy end of the spear all the way to Tehran
(or threatened to do so) until they cried uncle.
Note that if the US does not do this, Israel will. Which do
you suppose has greater repercussions for the region and
the world? Israel CANNOT afford any of their sworn enemies
having the ability to project nuclear force. If the US does not
interdict, make no mistake they will - and THEN you'll have
a real mess on your hands.
|
