The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Friday, October 07, 2005

A strange definition of supporting our troops

The liberal and/or anti-war groups want to make the claim that they support our troops, but not the war. When you boil it down there is no other alternative but to realize they have first changed the definition of the word support and then used their definition when they say the support our troops. We will let their actions and words paint a true picture of their definition of support:

  • They express a sentiment of hoping our troops do not succeed in Iraq almost to the point of sounding gleeful when things go wrong
  • They try to criticize the "failures" in Iraq as being the fault of the Bush Administration, knowing that the strategy comes from the generals and the actions by our soldiers in the field.
  • They bypass discussion of the successes and good things happening in Iraq
  • They are nearly silent about the atrocities of the insurgency. The insurgency is not the will of the people of Iraq it is a core group of murderous thugs that have no morals or decency. There seems to be an under current of silently cheering on the insurgency to victory.
  • They constantly compare Iraq to Vietnam. This tells me the same people are behind this that were there after Vietnam to spit on our soldiers when they were coming home. They hate the military and all it stands for even to the point of personally hating the soldier.
  • The constant and growing protest against Iraq gives encouragement to the insurgency while demoralizing our troops. So no matter how many dead insurgents are stacked up like cord wood they are encouraged to fight longer and able to recruit more. A strong denouncement of the baby killers of the insurgency by all of the US and the world body added to their continually growing body count would deflate them.
  • True support of troops (if it even exists) comes far lower in the agenda than sticking it to the Bush Administration.
  • The attacks against recruitment for the US military on US owned or funded institutions shows a hatred for our military and a strategy to prevent victory in Iraq.
  • The ridiculous statement "We support our troops, bring them home now" if enacted would be catastrophic to the troops. A lack of victory just like Vietnam would in their minds nullify all the courageous and selfless sacrifices of our troops. Coupled with the massacre of Iraqi people that would certainly follow as it did in Vietnam would leave our brave troops with burdens far too heavy to bear for the rest of their life. While WWII vets have their post war problems, they are much less than those from Vietnam.
I am sure more could be added to that list. The fact is that this list shows that their definition of support is actually closer to loath, hate, fantasize of their failure, etc. The left saying "We support the troops" is the equivalent of crossing your fingers behind your back while spewing out a lie. The US needs to truly support the troops by doing whatever it takes to give them a gift that will last their whole life: victory over tyranny.


  • At 11:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Oh it's all too obvious that we can't pull out of Iraq now. However, it would be lovely to hear of an actual exit strategy. If they don't have one, fine, but at least have the balls to admit it. Vague generalizations about "staying the course" don't do anything to help bolster support for this war.

    No one that I know of who opposes this war cheers on the insurgents nor do they celebrate our failures, and I'm tired of those types of generalizations. I would NEVER wish harm upon the troops as a way to further my view of the war. It's as distressing to us as it is to you who support this war, though your type seems to delight in perpetuating this stereotype of the left. Are there moonbats out there that fit your description? I'm sure there are, sadly.

    As for the failures in Iraq, it's true that better leadership is required, and if you can't see how the Administration bears at least some of the responsibility for this, well... wow. Denying so is as bad as those on the left who claim Bush engineered Hurricane Katrina. Preposterous.

    And while on the topic of leadership in Iraq, how about, since we've put troops in the thick of things, we outfit our soldiers PROPERLY? As it stands currently, many of them are fighting with inferior equipment and/or purchasing their own protective gear (though I read recently that the DoD is now reimbursing -up to a point- those who have done so). That these troops are being asked to fight this war and not given the leadership or necessary equipment to effectively do so is SHAMEFUL.

  • At 2:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…


    No one that I can see is spitting on anyone. It does seem, though, that certain elements of the right have a vested interest in advancing this perception. To the extent that anyone feels spit upon, I unequivocally blame those who say to our forces "anyone who criticizes the president or his policy is spitting on you." I cannot politely develop this idea any further.

    Your reasoning fails to distinguish between the formation of policy, the administration of policy, and the execution of those policies. To be clear, it's the policy formation and the policy administration end of the spectrum that is amenable to pressure because it emanates from an elected branch of government. On this most important of political issues, of war, do you really expect there to be no debate? If this were your perfect world, what avenue would you say is available to me to express my dissatisfaction with the current war policy?


  • At 2:07 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    I would like to hear a suggested exit strategy that would not tip off the insurgents to wait it out until we are gone. I do not think that is possible to do.

    No active cheering of insurgents claimed. Passive support is a fair charge, though. If they can claim the US has blood on their hands because of inadvertant collateral damage, they should be consistent and protest insurgents who TARGET innocents. How is this vague, or a sterotype?

    On the equipment charge, I can't find a non-bias source that has proof that the troops are negligently under supplied. I know there are delays here and there, but hey the military is a beuracracy like any other government agency.

  • At 2:15 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    paw, my spitting reference is Vietnam, not Iraq (yet). The link to Vietnam is not my idea. It is those opposed to the war. Many critics today were from the Vietnam era. Hence the link. Comparison to Vietnam is a tactic to demoralize the troops.

    I think the true supporters of the troops think back on the treatment of Vietnam vets and have said never again! This is why you will see applause break out in various venues when soldiers are present. This is a clear message to the would be spitters it won't be tolerated.

    I think the only public demonstrations against war that are not demoralizing (and thus traitorous) are before or after war. Not during.

  • At 3:02 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    It was not my intention to be inflammatory when I used the word "traitorous". I merely meant that taking actions that will demoralize the troops is a betrayal of sorts.

  • At 9:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    They express a sentiment of hoping our troops do not succeed in Iraq almost to the point of sounding gleeful when things go wrong.


  • At 12:33 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    To the other anonymous who simply called me a liar with no other comment: you only have to look at how libs (probably including yourself) felt when we captured Sadaam Hussein during the election cycle. Were you happy about it, or did you only fear it would help Bush and the GOP? And don't bother lying to me, I know how you felt.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home