Originally Posted by Bruce R.
You really can't read and comprehend very well can you? There's no sense continuing this as it's quite clear that you have an agenda and will not depart from it, no matter how wrong you are.
Well, let's review the bidding. Here is your first post on this thread. Prior to your post a joke suggesting some statistical rationale made life in Iraq less dangerous than living in Washington, DC was posted, which was attacked for being unrealistic, and belittling the dangers our troops face in Iraq. Your post was in response one by Shane that said:
"Armchair tough guys are the saddest of the human species alright."
Which, if you read it in context was refering to Rush Limbaugh, who was one of the people offering the statistical analysis in the joke.
Originally Posted by Bruce R.
[I]I'll back you on that Shane.
How many of those that consistently attack the troops and the government actually served?
How many have actually put their lives on the line to protect the idiots like FoTL and the others that denigrate them?
We have some here who are so proud of the fact that they wouldn't consider even protecting themselves that they state: I never served, and never will.....
True heroes,.... but only with their mouths, and other peoples lives...............
You brought the "attack the troops" into the thread more as an adjective intended to describe something distasteful that you were too lazy to actually describe in meaningful terms. I look at that as you using the troops to make a point in a political argument to help you make your case, without actually having one to make. They are your easy way out of thinking out your post. You used the troops in this case and you have done it repeatedly in the past.
To understand the context of your "attack the troops" comment, one has to know the pattern of your posts over the last few months, or years. All it takes to be accused of attacking the troops is to suggest they are needlessly killing and being killed in Iraq. Any situation that shines a less than complimentary light on progress to some definition of a successful mission is deemed to be attacking the troops. A convenient untruth, known as a red herring. Intended to mislead. The criticism is virtually uniformly directed at those formulating policy and the civilians political appointees running the various government agencies responsible for implementing these policies. The soldiers in the field have only been brought under criticism, as individuals when accused of war crimes or similarly unacceptable activities for those wearing the uniform of a branch of America's armed services.
In those instances reported where individuals in Iraq have done things that reflect poorly on all Americans - Abu Ghraib, various attacks on civilians, etc. - it is clearly individuals who have been accused, not the institutions as a whole, and it is clearly within reason for all Americans, whether they served or not, to have the expectation that when we send soldiers to represent us that they will do so with honor, that they will be carry out orders while honoring their training, that the orders will be lawful and honor treaties the nation has agreed to, and that those soldiers will not commit war crimes . While reporting these events, when they occur is traumatic for all troops and all American citizens, they need to be reported and addressed. The American public has the right to know and disapprove of actions being taken in their name. The cases need to be investigated, and reported on to the public, and individuals need to be punished if found guilty. That is not being against the troops. In fact, clarifying the mission and the boundaries between acceptable actions and unacceptable actions is vital. It serves the troops who serve with honor to remove ambiguities and those who would damage their efforts and reputations by crossing the line.
I think you should cite and justify how anyone's comments here are against the troops, or attacking the troops so we can understand when you believe this is happening. But to continue to use that slogan to stir emotions to make your case is abuse of the troops. They should not be reduced to a vicious adjective for you to invoke when you can't make your point otherwise. That is abusing them and their free choice to serve this country. You should stop it. Jim