Sunday, January 28, 2007

But remember, they "stand with the troops"

I have had up to *here* with the old kooky anti-war canards, "I don't support the war, but I support our troops", or, "We stand with the troops", or, "If you want to support our troops, then bring them home." I'm sorry, but you cannot have it both ways. You cannot support the troops by saying and doing things that embolden our enemies to continue their attempts to kill and maim our troops. How much shorter of a time it possibly could take for our job to be done overseas if we didn't have a fifth column dragging down our every attempt at bringing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a desirable conclusion.

You may have heard about the big anti-war rally that was held on the Mall in Washington D.C. over the weekend (just like you probably didn't hear about the huge anti-abortion rally that was held in the same spot last week; but I digress). Greeting these anti-war protesters was a small counter-rally. Among the counter-protesters was Josh Sparling, who lost a leg in Iraq. One of these anti-war kooks spit at Sparling. For those who would doubt my word, that bastion of conservatism, The New York Times, makes the call
There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration’s policies in Iraq.

Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.

Capitol police made the antiwar protestors walk farther away from the counterprotesters.

“These are not Americans as far as I’m concerned,” Mr. Sparling said.
Quite a unique way to "stand" with Corporal Sparling, is it not?

Good Day to You, Sir

12 comments:

CentFla said...

You don't get to decide what other people are for dude. It doesn't work that way in any part of life. I am a former Marine with Marine family members inIraq right now. I want them to come home from this waste of a war. The example you state from the Times is sick I agree, but those four or five people who said the wrong thing to that corporal also do not speak for me, not any more that you can.

This president has disrespected the troops much more than any anti war protestor has by creating this war out of thin air, not providing them with the tools neccesary and not making changes for the last four years as things continue to escalate.
You can be for the war, I can be against the war, but you do not get to say whether I care about the troops or not.

If you have the guts read the comments of the men and women like me from the military who agree with me that this war is a catastrophy

http://www.ivaw.org/membersspeak

Tell me how you feel, never tell me how I am allowed to feel.

Chanman said...

Yes, I know the truth can hurt sometimes, but it is still the truth. I'm not telling you how to feel, I am telling you how it is. If you don't like how that makes you feel, too bad.

The anti-war protesters are doing the same thing to our troops that they did after the Tet offensive in 1968. Even though we had absolutely destroyed the Viet Cong, the lack of spine at home from our media and the anti-war crowd gave the North Vietamese enough gumption to continue the fight rather than throw in the towel, which is what they had considered doing. The result was our eventual withdrawl and the southeast Asian bloodbath that followed.

Vietnam was a war with a respectful goal, but a politics mucked it up and our soldiers suffered for it.

The same thing is happening again to our troops in Iraq. They win every fight in which they are engaged, but a weak-kneed public, and yes, a weak-kneed administration undermine the troops at ever turn.

CentFla said...

I guess the truth does hurt because you are ignoring it completely. Are you aware of the IVAW? Did you follow the link I sent you?

The administration is weak kneed? Hilarious! How about gutless and without any leadership what so ever?
I realize that the Marine Corps and Army win their battles, but that doesn't mean we are winning the war. You complain about the public here that does not support our efforts but that is not the problem, it is the public over there that is causing us to lose this war. 60% of the Iraqis think killing Americans is a good thing! 80% want us to leave! If you think that is comparable to a parade over here then you have your head in the sand right next to your hero George.

Chanman said...

My "hero, George"? Apparently it is you with your head in the sand. If you took a moment to read any of my previous posts, you will see that George W. Bush is anything but my "hero".

Go appease someone else, dude.

CentFla said...

I apologize for assuming that you supported Bush, it is not a saddle I would want thrown on my back either. But can you now respond to my question about the IVAW? Thousands of men and women that fought over there say that this war is wrong. Do you believe that they are wrong as I am that this war is not winnable militarily?

Why do you support this war if you do not support W? What possible reason could anyone have for supporting this war at this point other than blind loyalty to a failed president?

Chanman said...

I support the reasons for fighting this war. Iraq was a potential threat that was working on a WMD program and a nuclear program, and despite the rote ramblings of the anti-war left, Saddam and al Qaeda were working with each other.

Funny how the same people who savage President Bush about the whole WMD issue say nothing about the fact that Clinton and his acolytes stated over and over again in the late 1990s that Saddam Hussein was actively working on acquiring WMD. What changed, besides the fact that Clinton is a Democrat and Bush is a Republican?

The bottom line is that I support the aims of the war in Iraq, but I wholeheartedly disagree with the way President Bush is pussyfooting around with the bad guys. Either let our men fight without having to follow a bunch of PC rules, or get them the hell out. I have said this many times.

The same holds true with Vietnam, which is why there was a Veterans group against that war, just like there is a Veterans group against this current war. You are right in the fact that the way we are currently fighting this war that it is unwinnable; but it doesn't have to be. Let loose the dogs of war, pound these pockets of terrorism into submission, and then let us get our Soldiers and Marines out of there.

CentFla said...

I wish I agreed with anything you said dude, you seem like a smart guy. But Saddam was a secularist, Osama hated him, AQ was only in the No Fly zone, dozens of countries were and are a bigger threat that was not a reason for an invasion, I could go on and I know you could too.

"The ones we wish would could hear us
have heard it all before" is from a great Rush song.

I like your blog - peace and Semper Fi.

Chanman said...

Sorry but I have to at least address the tired talking point that Saddam was a secularist and Osama is a fundamentalist so they hated each other and couldn't possibly have collaborated. The problem with that position is that those darned facts keep getting in the way. I have even posted about this before. Here is a link to a story by that bastion of conservatism, CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

If you can't get to that link, use the search feature at the top of my blog and put in "Osama Saddam" and you will find my post with a link to the article.

Aside from his links to Osama, if Saddam was such a secularist, then why was he giving $25,000 cash rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers? Why was he allowing radical Islamic terrorists to train at Salman Pak?

Sorry Centfla, you are going to have to update your talking points.

Thanks for reading my humble blog.

CentFla said...

Dude, update my talking points? The article you posted - yes I read it - was from four plus years before the invasion about a supposed offer from five years before THAT! (Nine years before the invasion) and the reason that Osama did not move there was because, as I stated, he acused Saddam of being a secularist - because he was a secularist. There are many other countries that have paid the families of Suicide bombers (note: those you mention were never paid to harm Americans)we didn't invade Jordan, Syria, Iran, Oman, Lybia, I could go on. None of these were reasons that the war needed to happen.

Chanman said...

Tell you what, rather than me spending an obscene amount of time copying information from a book, why don't you just go to the library or a bookstore and obtain "Disinformation: 22 Media Myths that are Undermining the War on Terror" by Richard Miniter. When you read that, get back to me. Sorry, but I stand by my words: Iraq and al Qaeda were linked, and the danger of al Qaeda obtaining what Iraq might have had to offer was too great a risk.

As for your other countries that you mention - Jordan, Syria, Iran, Libya, etc. - you are absolutely right; we need to be on these other countries like stink on poop, and we are not. Chalk up yet another reason for why I do not like GWB very much. Unfortunately, in the last two elections, our choice was between an asshole and an idiot, and I guess we had to settle for the idiot. But at least this idiot makes an effort to stand up to those who would do us harm... as awkward and incompetent as that effort may be at times.

CentFla said...

sure, you read a book by a man who is politically motivated and call it evidence. I will stick to the 9/11 Commission, not the media, who said that there was no collabaration between Saddam and AQ.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn
/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Chanman said...

There you go changing the argument. I never said that Saddam and al Qaeda were collaborating. They were however, communicating, sending out feelers, working with each other on setting up a relationship. It says that right in the 9/11 Commission Report. Yes, I can read the Report too. Osama contacted Saddam, Saddam contacted Osama, Iraqi officials contacted Osama, al Qaeda officials like al Zarqawi were in Iraq as early as 2002. When the Report came out, Lee Hamilton was rather perturbed that the mainstream media was strutting about saying there was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, because that wasn't true. There were plenty of connections, just not yet a collaborative effort to carry out attacks on our country. There is a huge difference.

Had Iraq and al Qaeda ever worked out a collaborating relationship, with Saddam's WMD program up and running, that would have been... bad.

Yes, I have read some of the 9/11 Commission Report that you revere so much, and it says right in there (and the "politically motivated" Miniter quotes from it in his book) that while they did not have a collaborative relationship, on several occasions, both bin Laden and Saddam reached out to each other, having in common their hatred of the Great Satan (Us). While al Qaeda may have had stronger relationships with other middle eastern countries that you have previously mentioned, those countries did not have the capability of producing WMD like Iraq did until we invaded... you know, the WMD that the Clinton adminstration and the congressional Democrats swore up and down that Saddam possessed? I still laugh about their blatant 180 on that subject.

Speaking of politically motivated, you are aware aren't you that one of the members of the 9/11 Commission was Jamie Gorelick, a Clinton-era Justice Department big-wig who instituted the gag order that kept the federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies from communicating with each other on terrorism matters. In other words, her policy helped 9/11 happen, and yet she was on the committee that investigated why 9/11 happened. Gee, I wonder how that affected the investigation?