"Liberals v.s. the troops"

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by hapaboy, Feb 9, 2007.

  1. Liberals Vs. The Troops
    By John Hawkins
    Thursday, February 8, 2007

    Want to make a liberal get so mad that he can't see straight? Well then, just tell him that he doesn't support the troops and wait for ranting and a stream of obscenities to begin. But, the truth is, despite their politically motivated protestations to the contrary, the majority of liberals genuinely do not like or support our troops. They view them as dumb, brainwashed, sadistic Bushbots who only deserve support if they're trashing the war, trashing Bush, or if they're deserters like Ehren Watada.

    This isn't something that's tough to figure out, nor is it a big secret: liberal contempt for the military keeps bubbling out again and again, over and over. For example, here are a few quotes that may ring a bell for you:

    "...This NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work." -- Liberal Washington Post blogger, William Arkin

    "One of the losers in the weekend oratorical marathon was retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who repeatedly invoked the West Point motto of "Duty, Honor, Country," forgetting that few in this particular audience (at the Democratic National Committee) have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military." -- Liberal columnist David Broder

    "American fighters of the Pacific War were not heroes. The desperation of island combat included exchanged barbarities of which no one would willingly speak for a generation. On the American side, there were foul racism, vengeful refusals to take prisoners, a generalized brutality that extended to a savage air war." -- James Carroll in the Boston Globe

    "For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted [and] in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal. But let me ask you this: Would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?" - From Ward Churchill

    (Later, in a question-and-answer period, Churchill was asked whether the trauma "fragging" inflicts on that officer's family back home should be considered, he responded: "How do you feel about Adolf Eichmann's family?")

    "Real freedom will come when [U.S.] soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors." -- Warren County Community College adjunct English professor, John Daly

    "In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation. It isn't happening now, but I will tell you, there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq." -- Seymour Hersh

    "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." -- John Kerry, in what he later claimed was a botched joke.


    "There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it's very dangerous. That's different from the media doing its job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor." -- Liberal ABC reporter, Terry Moran

    "Do our government's poorly paid contract killers deserve our 'support' for blindly following orders?" -- Ted Rall

    "If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq." -- Charles Rangel

    These quotes? They're not unique expressions of the left's contempt for our troops that are putting themselves in harm's way. If you don't believe that, look at anti-war protests where they carry signs that say things like, "Long Live Iraqi Resistance" and "We support our troops when they shoot their officers." Look at popular liberal forums like the Democratic Underground, where libs refer to our troops as "Cannon fodder and killers doing what they're told to do," and say that they're "deeply ashamed of them." Look at the liberal groups like Not in Our Name where they run a "Stop The Military Recruiters Campaign" or UC Santa Cruz, where left wing thugs brag about "booting military recruiters off campus." You can even look to the liberal Mecca of San Francisco, where the The Board of Education voted to end the JROTC program and in a direct slap at the military, "refused to allow the retired USS Iowa, a historic World War II battleship, to be docked in the Port of San Francisco."

    There is an extreme, pervasive dislike of the military amongst the majority of liberals in this country. It influences everything from the mainstream media's obsessive focus on Abu Ghraib, which was covered so extensively in part because they hoped to tar the average soldier by association to the left's wish to surrender in Iraq -- which is driven partly by their desire to humiliate the troops in the field and render their sacrifices meaningless.

    Today, liberals may be politically savvy enough not to spit on troops returning home as they did during Vietnam, but the loathing and contempt for our troops present in that gesture are still there, behind the libs implausibly claiming to "support the troops, but not the mission" through gritted teeth.

    http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JohnHawkins/2007/02/08/liberals_vs_the_troops
     
  2. From Washington times:

    Letters to the editor
    LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
    February 10, 2007


    War critics do harm morale
    I take issue with those who say "War foes will not hurt morale" (Page 1, Thursday). In 1966 as a young Marine corporal, I sat in one of the many foxholes surrounding the besieged perimeter of our base at Khe Sanh, Vietnam.
    One particular night, a friend and I were approached cautiously by a crouching Navy chaplain who asked if we were Catholics. When we answered that we were, he administered absolution, blessed us and wished us luck. The prospect of living through the next day was always chancy, as evidenced by the dead Marines who didn't make it to sunrise.
    I recall as clearly today as I did then, looking to the sky that particular evening and asking how President Johnson could cease air strikes to appease the so-called anti-war movement back home while we were sitting up there, surrounded and taking casualties. I felt utterly betrayed by my country that left us without air cover when we needed it most. My fellow Marines felt the same way.
    These thoughts occupy my mind today as I listen, once again, to so-called anti-war activists in the House and Senate raise their voices against funding, oppose reinforcements and threaten resolutions that tell our enemies to hold on because our frontline troops are about to be abandoned once again.
    Those who served and died can never be repaid for their sacrifice; those of us who served and lived can only shake our heads while watching it happen all over again.
    I love my country and volunteered when I was only 17 years old to serve in the United States Marines, but sometimes my countrymen and our elected officials disgust me.
    Sending American servicemen off to war, and then, in the middle of a long, hard, bloody fight, abandoning them, is simply shameful and unfortunately becoming the American way.
    The politicians did it to me and those of us who served in Vietnam, and they're doing it again — cloaking their words in the flag of patriotism. I have earned the right to say they're not patriots at all, but scoundrels, invoking patriotism in a time of national distress, to betray our troops once again. These wounds will never heal, and their actions do hurt morale.

    PAUL JOSEPH WALKOWSKI
    Dorchester, Mass.
     
  3. wiseone writes:

    Thursday, February, 08, 2007 9:24 AM
    Hawkins provides the evidence...
    but we have always known it is true.

    Liberal thinking is uniquely anti-logical in this regard.

    They "support the troops but not the mission".

    They support the UAW but hate cars.

    They support the working poor but oppose WalMart, which provides the working poor with jobs and inexpensive products.

    They support energy independence but oppose the use of coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear reactors to produce it. And under Clinton they initiated the program "Rivers run wild" to decommission hydro-electric plants as well.

    They support the abortion of innocent, defenseless fetuses by the millions but oppose the death penalty for convicted murderers.

    They support illegal immigration but oppose the loss of jobs for native citizens.

    They support big government but oppose the loss of individual freedoms.

    They support punitive damages but decry the ensuing rise in the cost of health care.

    They support the confiscation of corporate profits in the form of taxation but complain bitterly when a company goes bankrupt and the 401K's of its employees become worthless.

    To be a liberal is to oppose everything you think you are supporting. Why should the military be an exception?
     
  4. Why not ask why Blackwater got no bid contracts, and why their guns for hire earn $1000 day (sick war profits). in Iraq.

    The best part, their deaths do not have to be reported to the american people. A private army for Big Oil.

    How their thugs are not bound by any rules or laws. Their job is to kill as many darkskins as possible.
    Much like the North American indians were genocided.

    Imagine, all these racist guys with weapons, terrorists whose job is to keep the locals in line.

    Balckwater armed thugs also got the Katrina contract. They were ordering american citizens around at gunpoint.

    Oh well, go back to your game of "liberals".
     
  5. Foreign zionist implants like Helplessboy who spread and plant propaganda are the real enemy.


    Zionists like Helplessboy and these guys


    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html


    are responsible for providing the intelligence and the depleted uranium sharpnel that is getting american troops killed in Iraq.


    http://judicial-inc.biz/Snnipers_ambush_marine_comments.htm

    The zionists need an escalation of the middle eastern war. Next in line to be destabilized is Iran. Hence the mossad working overtime in Iraq planting shaped charges. It so happens Israel is one of the only 2 nations with access to landmines which use delpleted uranium . The other being america.


    <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RqWl3_71GAs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RqWl3_71GAs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


    Who is spying on you? This company is owned by the Mossad

    <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bFeYLtlLlGE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bFeYLtlLlGE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


    Wake the Fuck up.
     
  6. "Their job is to kill as many darkskins as possible"???

    You are such an idiot.

    By the way, is Canada such a boring country, or Toronto such a boring city, that you can't find any domestic issues to focus your conspiracy laser at?