The Myth Laid Bare

"Support the Troops, not the War"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311908,00.html
from JoeUser Forums

Since the anti-war movement got cranked up, one of the slams against them was that they were tarring the troops with their rhetoric and actions.  After the shame of their actions during the Vietnam War, this was a very sensitive subject as most (definitely not all) people understood that the soldiers were doing the job they were ordered to do, and not setting the policy of where and when to wage war.

To that end, there have been repeated denials by members of the anti-war movement that they did indeed support the troops, just not the war.  But those denials ring false.  Words, it is said, are cheap, and actions define your true intentions.  And to that end, we have seen Moveon.org blast the General in charge before a word was spoken (Betrayus), and the members on the left for the most part refusing to condemn them.  Ok, a general does have more say in how a war is waged, but they still do not have a say on the where or when.

Now comes the latest in the "facto non verbo" demonstrations of the anti-war crowd.  It seems that the illustrious (?) city of Cambridge Mass. has decided that collecting care packages for US Troops is a forbidden activity.  This activity, one carried out by the Boy Scouts - an organization already on the black list for the left - was not to affirm or decry the war itself, but to make the lives of the troops who have volunteered to defend this country a little less stressful.

And Cambridge said no way. 

This is America.  That is their right in a free society.  It is also their right to lie, and that appears to be what this is all about.  Not their freedom to speak the truth, but their freedom to lie.  For the facts clearly indicate they do NOT support the troops.

politics
12,696 views 43 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Three events in Iraq that I support and the left don't:

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
People in northern Iraq are building cities and name them "American Village"; they copy the looks of American fast food restaurants (but hopefully not the food), they learn English and try to be more American.

Children in Anbar province paint graffities of Iraqis and Americans joining forces to fight Al-Qaeda terrorists. Muslims in Baghdad are calling for Iraqi Christians to return to the country and attend service in St. John's Catholic church to show their loyalty to their Christian neighbours.

Why is it that the US and George Bush are now more popular in Iraq than among liberals? Liberals hate George Bush for what he is doing to Iraq. Iraqis love him for it.

G-d bless Iraq and the Iraqis.

Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Iraqi Kurds are rebuilding Kurdistan, love Americans.


And providing shelter to the Kurd rebels who is attacking Turkey
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sometimes I wonder if you even read the articles that you link to...the issue wasn't whether or not to send care packages -- it was whether or not you could collect donations in a polling place. Remember, no political activities can occur in the polling place --that's why the poll workers have to stand in the freezing cold!

And, in the last paragraph the Mayor said that the removal was a communication breakdown and that the city would work with the boy scouts to make sure that their care package drive is a success.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
You know Doc, if you looked into the whole thing you'd probably find this emanated from an ***hole who is either over-officious, unpatriotic, or, worse, thick as a beaver's tail. It beats me how fools get onto committees!
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
People in northern Iraq are building cities and name them "American Village"; they copy the looks of American fast food restaurants (but hopefully not the food), they learn English and try to be more American.

Children in Anbar province paint graffities of Iraqis and Americans joining forces to fight Al-Qaeda terrorists. Muslims in Baghdad are calling for Iraqi Christians to return to the country and attend service in St. John's Catholic church to show their loyalty to their Christian neighbours.

Why is it that the US and George Bush are now more popular in Iraq than among liberals? Liberals hate George Bush for what he is doing to Iraq. Iraqis love him for it.

G-d bless Iraq and the Iraqis.


Leauki, I respectfully disagree. I think that the average Iraqi is about as thankful for the American occupation as the average Lebanese is grateful to Israel for benevolently bombing half of Lebanon back to the stone age last year. You cannot bring peace and democracy to a country at gunpoint. I'm sure that all the Iraqis do indeed love George Bush as you state above. They must especially love him for his compassionate treatment of Fallujah, and even appreciate his sense of humour for the good-natured pranks carried out at Abu Ghraib. Even more so, I'm sure they also cheer the free market reforms which he brought to their country which subsequently plunged unemployment to levels far worse than when Sadam was in power. They've even been introduced to the magic that is out-sourced contractors. I'm sure they're thrilled with the fact that a Blackwater employee can kill their own citizens at will and be completely immune to any sort of prosecution or punishment (except of course being fired by Blackwater, oooh that sure taught him a lesson!)

Violence has gone down in Iraq somewhat. This is not because of the extra 30,000 US soldiers were the magic bullet that calmed everything down. There are more Shiite militia members (many of whom are also part of the various government security services) than there are US soldiers in Iraq. Add on to it thousands of remaining Sunnis that until recently were shooting at U.S troops. Neither of these factions have any love for the US, but both groups have learned the lesson that if they lay low the Americans will get out of dodge sooner- but by no means have they layed down their arms yet. They are biding their time, and they won't just one day say "hey, these Americans are good guys, let's all live happily ever after!!". All it will take is one proclamation from the Ayatolla in Iran and the U.S forces in Iraq will be in more trouble than they can imagine. If you think TET was bad, just wait till you see the footage when the green zone gets overrun.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just keep in mind that success in Iraq is bad politically for the left side of the aisle anything good that comes from America, any support that comes from America and her people to Iraq is like a dagger driven into the heart of the liberal left movement, that is why after years of headlines screaming about all the bloodshed in Iraq, suddenly there is a void now or news from Iraq is now a 10th page story.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Leauki, I respectfully disagree. I think that the average Iraqi is about as thankful for the American occupation as the average Lebanese is grateful to Israel for benevolently bombing half of Lebanon back to the stone age last year.


But oddly enough Iraqis still vote for a government that wants the Americans to stay and celebrate with the Americans, name cities for America, copy American fast foo restaurants, and paint graffities speaking of the Iraqi-American alliance.

How do you explain all these things? (And on what information do you base your own interpretation?)

As for Lebanon, it doesn't seem to me that Hizbullah is more popular among the majority of the population than Israel.

 You cannot bring peace and democracy to a country at gunpoint.


Please. You are speaking to someone who grew up in Germany, in American-occupied West-Berlin. I happen to have seen it. I know that you can bring democracy to a country at gunpoint.

This "cannot bring democract to a country at gunpoint" seems to me, I am sorry, a stupid slogan that has no basis in history. It's a convenient mantra but it is not an argument.

 

 I'm sure that all the Iraqis do indeed love George Bush as you state above. They must especially love him for his compassionate treatment of Fallujah, and even appreciate his sense of humour for the good-natured pranks carried out at Abu Ghraib.


You are assuming that the majority of Iraqis had great sympathy for the Baathists that were tortured in Abu Ghraib. Why do you assume that? The majority of Iraqis are Shiites who hated and hate Saddam and his ilk with a passion. They cheered when Saddam was executed, they do not have strong feelings of love for the people who oppressed them for so many years.

 Even more so, I'm sure they also cheer the free market reforms which he brought to their country which subsequently plunged unemployment to levels far worse than when Sadam was in power.


Average income has gone up considerably since the end of the sanctions. It is possible that employment was higher under Saddam. After all, the man killed those he didn't like (Shiites, Kurds, Jews etc.) and gave their jobs to his supporters. The argument "but under Saddam there was less unemployment" is about as stupid as the old "under Hitler there was no unemployment" mantra. It doesn't work that way.

Tell me one thing the Americans did that caused unemployment. My guess is that unemployment is caused by the terrorists blowing stuff and people up. Proof? In Kudistan, which is terrorist-free but also under occupation, unemployment is going down.

So please tell me, what are you basing your observations on? I am seeing reports of Iraqis celebrating American troops and from that I deduce that Iraqis are celebrating American troops? What, apart from sarcasm, do you have to back up your statements?

To be quite honest, I do not believe that you have ANY information on Iraq except what the press report. And the press don't seem to report the good things. Did you know that Iraqis are naming cities after America? Did you know that graffitis in Sunni provinces celebrate the Iraqi-America alliance? Did you see pictures of what life was like for Kurds and Shiites under Saddam?

If not, why not? And if you ask yourself that question, consider whether you have any idea of what's going on if you haven't heard of or seen any of those things.

 

 

 

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

just wait till you see the footage when the green zone gets overrun.


Oh, I am sure the footage will be terrible. And I am also sure that the press will NOT report that the green zone in Baghdad is only a small part of Iraq and that Anbar and Kurdistan (i.e. the north of Iraq) are almost completely quiet.

That reminds me: the majority of Iraqi Shiite are secular and have fought in Iraq's war against Iran. They are NOT just sheep that follow any Iranian mullah regardless of what he says. Even Saddam knew that and trusted it. You have a very warped view of Iraqi Arabs. I blame the media.

You might not realise this but the government of Iraq was elected by the Shiites. And the president is a Kurd. Both the president and the government have thanked America and asked the troops to stay. If you think that Shiites and Kurds would rather live under Saddam, you are insane or very very ignorant. They might not _love_ America and George Bush, but they sure like America a lot more than they like the Ba'athists and Al-Qaeda. And I'm not sure how happy they are with the "support" they get from western liberals.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think [...]


And that's the point exactly. You "think". I reported what I read. You "think" that the situation is not as it looks in the reports I found. But can you tell me why you "think" that the Iraqis do not like the American troops? What do you base the idea on? Is it so obvious to you that the American troops are hated, by a population that has faced Saddam and Al-Qaeda?

Iraqi _children_ are drawing graffitis that show the Americans in a good light and want their pictures to be taken by Americans. So what makes you think that they don't like the American troops?

I have seen the reports in CNN. They always focus on whatever bad news can be gotten without talking to people. But what they do not do is report anything about the people at all. So whatever you "think" must be your own imagination. Or did CNN tell you that Iraqis dislike American troops?

I remember that a German news site reported that Iraqis don't like the occupation. But they did not report how they know and why Iraqis vote so differently from their alleged opinions. Why do Iraqis name cities after America? Why do Iraqi children draw graffities celebrating their relationship with American troops? What did the Iraqis do or say that make you "think" that they hate the occupation?

Don't tell me you base your opinion on what the "resistance" are doing. The "resistance" are mostly foreigners from Jordan and Saudi Arabia and are well-hated by the Sunnis, the Kurds, and certainly the Shiites. Al-Qaeda and the Ba'athists do not actually represent Iraq, except in the minds of liberals.

 

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

And providing shelter to the Kurd rebels who is attacking Turkey



I have not read anywhere that they are providing shelter, only that Kurdish terrorists hide in the mountains on the Iraqi site of the border. Where did you read that they provide shelter?

In fact, it doesn't look to me as if the Kurds in Iraq want very much to do with Ocalan's socialist and nationalist PKK. Ocalan and his ilk are Kurds, but they are on the other side in this conflict. Iraqi Kurds are more pro-western and capitalist.

 

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Iraqi Kurds are rebuilding Kurdistan, love Americans.


For the most part, I agree. But this point is in real danger. Not from Liberals or America, but from Turkey. The kurds are a people divided by 3 nations, and right now, the only place they really have a say in their lives is Iraq. And the other 2 countries cannot tolerate that.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why is it that the US and George Bush are now more popular in Iraq than among liberals?


IN Iraq, Bush is doing what they want. In America, he is not doing what the liberals want (aside from Hari Kari).
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
And providing shelter to the Kurd rebels who is attacking Turkey


Depends upon your viewpoint, right? I guess those nasty colonials did that 230 years ago on another continent, and to another nation.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sometimes I wonder if you even read the articles that you link to...the issue wasn't whether or not to send care packages -- it was whether or not you could collect donations in a polling place. Remember, no political activities can occur in the polling place --that's why the poll workers have to stand in the freezing cold!


Well, thank you for gracing my blog. And I sure did read it. What part of "put a stop to a Boy Scout troop's Election Day drive to collect care packages for American soldiers in Iraq" do you not understand? And HOW is that political?

And where did I say it that their "excuse" did not entail labeling the Boy Scouts work Political? And can you explain how it is? Please do! I would love to see this contortion act in progress!

And, in the last paragraph the Mayor said that the removal was a communication breakdown and that the city would work with the boy scouts to make sure that their care package drive is a success.


And as for that? Oh, Your Honor, please excuse this murderer. The victim would have died in 60 or 70 years anyway. That is so lame and a cop out! For someone who just got handed his lunch!

I will hand it to him though. It is more than San Francisco did (talk to the press) about the Marine Commercial.

Friendly Advice Shades? Take it or leave it. You accuse me of being condescending to you all the time. I freely admit at times I am. When you start the condescation. The rest of the time, I guess your definition of condescation is asking for facts to back up your claims. And that will never change.

At least this time you came with facts, not opinions stated as facts and not supported. We only disagree on the effect of those facts.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
who is either over-officious, unpatriotic, or, worse, thick as a beaver's tail.


I think you nailed it pretty well. Except for the part about the pre-disposition.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Violence has gone down in Iraq somewhat. This is not because of the extra 30,000 US soldiers were the magic bullet that calmed everything down. There are more Shiite militia members (many of whom are also part of the various government security services) than there are US soldiers in Iraq. Add on to it thousands of remaining Sunnis that until recently were shooting at U.S troops. Neither of these factions have any love for the US, but both groups have learned the lesson that if they lay low the Americans will get out of dodge sooner- but by no means have they layed down their arms yet. They are biding their time, and they won't just one day say "hey, these Americans are good guys, let's all live happily ever after!!". All it will take is one proclamation from the Ayatolla in Iran and the U.S forces in Iraq will be in more trouble than they can imagine. If you think TET was bad, just wait till you see the footage when the green zone gets overrun.


I got to admire your skills at the written word. You basically stated all the nay Sayers talking points in a concise and complete manner.

Only 2 problems with that. First, "Iraqi" shares a birthright, not a mind. Second, you have no more proof of this (other than anecdotal) than Leuiki has of his point. The truth is probably somewhere between the 2 extremes you both paint. Some (a majority or plurality or a minority) do believe as Leauki stated. And the others believe as you stated. The real question that no one can really answer, is how many of each?

And as far as the "coincidence" of the surge and the reduction of voilence, maybe they got scared. Maybe they thought if they laid low, it would go away. And maybe it just plain worked. That is another truth that no one here, and perhaps in this world, can authoratatively answer. The one reality we know is that the surge came, deaths and violence went down.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just keep in mind that success in Iraq is bad politically for the left side of the aisle anything good that comes from America, any support that comes from America and her people to Iraq is like a dagger driven into the heart of the liberal left movement, that is why after years of headlines screaming about all the bloodshed in Iraq, suddenly there is a void now or news from Iraq is now a 10th page story.


This is very true, and directly to the point. To the point that some would deny some modest relief from the trials of Iraq (as one of our own recently documented from experience) in order to make a point. They made the point, and the stink of the light of day now have them equivocating. That is actually good. For perhaps the next group that decides to shaft the soldiers with lame excuses of "Politics", will think twice about it. I am willing to bet a years salary that not all of the GIs that were denied by this action like Bush. We have an example here at JU of one that detests him, yet does his duty (and I am not talking about the Faux Col klink).
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Leauki


Go for it! I love tangents and you are doing well! Thanks.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

Second, you have no more proof of this (other than anecdotal) than Leauki has of his point.

Actually, he has no _anecdotal_ proof either. He just stated his view, he didn't refer to any reports saying so nor did he explain why Iraqis would think like he claims they do.

I base my opinion on the facts that I have heard and read about. The villages named in English and after America are real, and so are the pro-American graffitis and the election results in Iraq. The Iraqi president, who has again and again thanked the coalition for liberating his country (his words), is real.

But whether or not the liberals base their view on reality is a different matter.

The Iraqi president:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007289

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070531-18.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_btIGD-sTPg&feature=related

On the other hand, the Youtube commenters who decry the video have absolutely no idea what Iraq was like under Saddam and what it is like today.

Iraq under Saddam, for the majority of people:

http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/

http://halapja.9neesan.com/

This is not stuff that conservatives or Republicans or Tony Blair have made up. It is the bitter reality of the stable, peaceful Iraq that liberals soi much prefer over the current "disaster". Even the terrorists attacking Iraq today cannot compete with Saddam's killer machine.

For Shiites, it was a Holocaust. For Kurds, it was being gased. And it was France or Germany that sold Saddam the gas. Can you imagine how proud I am of my birth country, that in the name of "peace" (i.e. the pictures above which apparently represent "peace") we stood up to George Bush and tried to keep Saddam in power? "Our friends in the security council" he called France and Germany.

Both countries denied to be his friends, of course. But when it comes to friendship (and French oil deals) deeds are more important than words.

Face it, America is hated by those who gas children. And if I were American, I would be proud.

 

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

And as far as the "coincidence" of the surge and the reduction of voilence, maybe they got scared.

One of the articles I linked to explained exactly what happened.

Incidentally, the "resistance" in Iraq do not blow up mosques and assasinate sheikhs because Iraqis love them and hate Americans. They do it because the "insurgents" hate Americans, Iraqis, Shiites, Kurds, everyone. They are the enemy. The US can either defend Iraq against them or hand the Iraqis over to them.

 

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

This is not stuff that conservatives or Republicans or Tony Blair have made up. It is the bitter reality of the stable, peaceful Iraq that liberals soi much prefer over the current "disaster". Even the terrorists attacking Iraq today cannot compete with Saddam's killer machine.

No, you do not understand spin (and I will qualify that by saying that Artysim is above it, regardless of how similar his opinions may be at times)).  To them, reality is irrelevant.  Only their warped perspective is real.  And so, yes, it is made up.  And no amount of proof (and forget God stating anything since they do not believe in one) will change that.  We are not talking about rational thinking people.  Just ones that have a single agenda.  Hate.  And there is no rational answer to hate.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

the "resistance"

Hmmm....hand Iraq over to the NV?  I wonder why that has never been tried.

I get your point.  I read the article.  But refer to response above. 

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wow. Cool thread. Amazing what passes for political discourse these days. Everyone's got opinions, few have real knowledge...me included. I do know this, that there are a lot of folks who keep saying they support the troops but hate the war. Are the two things really so opposite that they cannot exist in the same brain? Get real. Nobody...and I mean NOBODY...hates war as much as the kids who have to fight it. What the lefties (and anyone else who quotes this mantra) really mean is they could not give a crap less about the troops, they just want to make some political capital with a stupid, meaningless slogan.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nobody...and I mean NOBODY...hates war as much as the kids who have to fight it. What the lefties (and anyone else who quotes this mantra) really mean is they could not give a crap less about the troops, they just want to make some political capital with a stupid, meaningless slogan.


Indeed.

However, note that war is not always the worst thing that can happen. It is unfortunate and the left will deny it, but it's true. The left seem to accept any number of deaths caused by violence as long as it doesn't happen in a war.