"I am behind the troops, but.." = "I am not racist, but..."

[Nubclear]

Saddam is worse than HITLER!!!

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Ned
WWII was a success in large measure because we did not have anti-war types "supporting our troops." When a country is fully behind the war effort, it is more easily winnable, minimizing casualties, etc. Trying to defeat a war effort while the war is on is not "supporting our troops."

Those days are gone, perhaps that was just a more niave time?

[st_swithin]

Originally posted by Paul Hanson
Remember that people - pacificism kills.

What ever happened to the Iran-Contra affair?

[Berzerker]

Ned -

WWII was a success in large measure because we did not have anti-war types "supporting our troops." When a country is fully behind the war effort, it is more easily winnable, minimizing casualties, etc. Trying to defeat a war effort while the war is on is not "supporting our troops."

Do you detect a lesson in there? Avoid wars that lack overwhelming support... and avoid wars where much of the support has to be obtained by fabricating evidence... GW Bush should have served in Vietnam, then maybe he'd understand the relevance of the Gulf of Tonkin... Or maybe not...

Well, BG and other anti-American types, I remember what "supporting the troops" meant in Korean and Vietnam where politics intruded too much into the conduct of the war. The half war that resulted in both cases only lead to tens of thousands of GIs KIA.

Bingo!!! And why did politics intrude into these wars? Because the politicians knew just how quickly they'd lose whatever support they did have if we tried to win and the Chinese and Russians escalated the war to the brink of nukes, in other words, these wars were designed to be lost or stalemated. Now, why would anyone support sacrificing their fellow Americans to at best a stalemate when it doesn't determine our survival? Yes Ned, you "support" the troops right into their graves and I'll support them right into an easy chair to watch football.

IMHO, we should never commit troops to combat with a clear vision of victory.

I'll assume you meant "without", and I agree, although a stalemate is preferable to being conquered.

"Supporting the troops" has become a euphenism for politicizing the war effort for the pupose of hamstringing it, changing its goals, or defeating it altogether.

No, that phrase is used by many opponents of war because many supporters of war accuse them of being unpatriotic, i.e., support the wars I like or you're a traitor. People on your side have also accused opponents of the war in Iraq of being Saddam appeasers. Now, let's think about that a minute - if these people who make that charge don't want to invade Cuba, China, and N Korea, are they appeasing Kim Il Jong, Castro, and the Butchers of Tiananamen Square? That double standard rears it's ugly head once again...

Regardless, all this does is encourage the enemy to not surrender or negotiate peace thinking that all they have to do is wait out it out until the anti-war types get enough votes.

You can't be serious! Did you get that claptrap from Sean Hannity? If another country invaded the USA, would your willingness to fight depend on opinion polls in the foreign country?

This ends up killing our troops - in the tens of thousands in Vietnam and Korea.

Where was the anti-war movement during Korea? And the bulk of the anti-war movement during Vietnam was over the draft, once Nixon ended the draft, the main demonstrations ended. Btw, how many of those troops would have been killed if Presidents Truman and Kennedy didn't increase US involvement leading to war? It's rather strange for someone who wants wars to blame opponents for the loss of life during those wars.

[st_swithin]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Hmmm, A Brazilian job... Is that kind of like a blow job?

It's a wax job for straw dogs.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by st_swithin


It's a wax job for straw dogs.

you may need to explain further, I know what is and that reference is STILL vague!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
WWII was a success in large measure because we did not have anti-war types "supporting our troops." When a country is fully behind the war effort, it is more easily winnable, minimizing casualties, etc.

Gee, and what do you think was the American public's support for entering WWII prior to Dec. 7, 1941?

Your lack of perspective when it comes to making specious connections between historical events is astounding.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Paul Hanson
Remember that people - pacificism kills.

It does, though rarely the people it should.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
WWII was a success in large measure because we did not have anti-war types "supporting our troops." When a country is fully behind the war effort, it is more easily winnable, minimizing casualties, etc. Trying to defeat a war effort while the war is on is not "supporting our troops."

The "patriotism" of this war was very different from the lazy-boy, beer swilling sham of a patriotism of today, since everyone knew someone or another inducted into the military, knew form their won daily expriences what Total war meant (cutting back on consuption, making war materials). Remember that it was DURING WW2 that the courts said students could not be forced to say the pledge of aliegence in school..that is a show of knowing what America stand for, not an emptyshout about "supporting our troops" while at home watchingfootball and having no clue about just were the troops are and what they are actually fighting for.

[Berzerker]

Btw Ned, how many troops have been killed since WWII? Maybe 120,000? All lost because the US became a "world power" with the "duty" to police the world which creates more enemies to fight. We didn't win the Cold War, Russia did. They are no longer committed to sending Russian soldiers all over the place, they can sit back and watch us waste American blood...

[Ned]

I say stop the debate after the war starts. Once it starts, we need to see that it comes to a swift and victorious solution. There is a distinction between those who oppose a war before it starts and those who demonstrate against it after. I have a real problem with the latter and no problem at all with the former.

[mrmitchell]

So wartime creates a reasonable excuse to be silent? Look, I don't know how hard it is for you to understand:

I don't support the war.

I don't want the troops killed, injured, or prisoned, however. I want them back home in America ASAP.

[Ned]

BTW, the vast majority of the American public supported the War on Saddam. Not 100%, to be sure. But well over 60%, IIRC.

Johnson had similar support behind him when Vietnam first began. His problem is that he listened too much to the anti-war types in Congress and did not trust in the confidence the American people place in him to win that war.

I have no idea why Truman went pacifist right in the middle of the Korean War. That war was winnable. But clearly he lost the confidence of the American people when he fired MacArthur. It is strange to have an anti-war type as president.

As I said earlier, I reacted with disgust when I heard the same crap out of some Republicans concerning Clinton's wars. Bull****. There is an old saying that sums up my attitude: Politics ends at the borders during the time of war. The enemy must know they face a united and determined American people.

[st_swithin]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Hmmm, A Brazilian job... Is that kind of like a blow job?

As I understand it, it involves wax and a bikini that reveals more of one's derriere than most people are willing to normally share.

[Sandman]

The enemy must know they face a united and determined American people.

What if the war is unjust?