• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Paratrooper's Mom Begs Obama: 'End It'

Catawba said:
They are the ones with the power to select who sets foreign policy. I do not underestimate them. They are the ones that brought an end to the Vietnam war and are bringing the Iraq war to an end.
Click to expand...

It's not majority rule on the battlefield. Unlike politics, once you commit in battle there is no "easy out" unless you're the winner. and even then...
 
EpicDude86 said:
Originally Posted by Catawba
They are the ones with the power to select who sets foreign policy. I do not underestimate them. They are the ones that brought an end to the Vietnam war and are bringing the Iraq war to an end.
Click to expand...
It's not majority rule on the battlefield. Unlike politics, once you commit in battle there is no "easy out" unless you're the winner. and even then...
Click to expand...

Not to forget that the Iraqi's brought an end to the war by adverting progress. The end didn't come in response to American-views.

Bush wanted to keep a strong military presence in Iraq. The Iraqis told him to no. Bush surrendered.
Bush wanted to establish permanent bases in Iraq. The Iraqis said no. Bush surrendered.
Bush wanted to have free reign to operate in Iraq. The Iraqis told him that if they wanted the U.S. they'd ask for them but, once off the reservations, the Americans would be under Iraqi command. Bush surrendered.
Bush wanted to use Iraq as a platform to extend American influence in the area. The Iraqis said no. Bush surrendered.
Bush wanted American troops and contractors to be able to operate above Iraqi law. The Iraqis said no. Once of the reservation both are subject to Iraqi law. Bush surrendered.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
My husband's dealt with a lot of issues but he'd never dare abandon the soldiers who DO look up to him and depend on him for support.

Fulfilling one's commitment and leaving is not abandoning anyone.

Not everyone has the means to put aside the only career path they've ever walked down to start a new life - especially in this failing economy. If someone's employed in the military, has little to no alternative career experience, and wants out - with 10.8% unemployment are they even going ot be able to find a job to support their familiy?

That is all to be considered before joining in an optional war.

That's just one reason why many stay in even if they don't want to.

I respect those who follow their own path - but when they're officers and others there's more ot things than just their feelings at stake.

Right like the integrity of Americans to conduct their actions in a moral fashion above all else.

The armchair generals were too busy getting doped up in Vietnam and spitting on our soldiers or attending Woodstock to do anything that made an impact on our country.

Evidently you were not around to see the protests that brought an end to the Vietnam war.

They, also, make up the vast number of Americans who don't vote.
Click to expand...

I would have to call BS on that.
 
Last edited:
EpicDude86 said:
It's not majority rule on the battlefield. Unlike politics, once you commit in battle there is no "easy out" unless you're the winner. and even then...
Click to expand...

Of course there is no easy-out. That is what makes it especially important to avoid the stupid-in.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Not to forget that the Iraqi's brought an end to the war by adverting progress. The end didn't come in response to American-views.

Bush wanted to keep a strong military presence in Iraq. The Iraqis told him to no. Bush surrendered.
Bush wanted to establish permanent bases in Iraq. The Iraqis said no. Bush surrendered.
Bush wanted to have free reign to operate in Iraq. The Iraqis told him that if they wanted the U.S. they'd ask for them but, once off the reservations, the Americans would be under Iraqi command. Bush surrendered.
Bush wanted to use Iraq as a platform to extend American influence in the area. The Iraqis said no. Bush surrendered.
Bush wanted American troops and contractors to be able to operate above Iraqi law. The Iraqis said no. Once of the reservation both are subject to Iraqi law. Bush surrendered.
Click to expand...

Bush did not surrender, he and the other Neocons ran out of time. His party was voted out of office for starting stupid wars and wrecking our economy.
 
Catawba said:
It seems to me if the mother really cared about her son she would insist the president bring her son home from an ill conceived war.
Click to expand...

That's a good example of what I mean by defeatism. I don't expect you to believe it, but that's not the quickest way to safety for our soldiers.
 
Catawba said:
Fulfilling one's commitment and leaving is not abandoning anyone.
Click to expand...

Yep- if someone's tour is up then they have fullfilled their duty.
I was speaking of Hoh with that, btw. Hoh did not fullfill his duty.

That is all to be considered before joining in an optional war
Click to expand...

The war is not optional for the soldiers, it is their sole duty. My husband joined the military when he was single, childless and 18. That was a very long time ago, Reagan was president.
There's no crystal ball - things change and no one can plan that far ahead.

Right like the integrity of Americans to conduct their actions in a moral fashion above all else.
Click to expand...

Well, the situation in Desert Storm was different than what we're doing, now - very different.

Evidently you were not around to see the protests that brought an end to the Vietnam war.
Click to expand...

Those protestors weren't what is labeled as the "armchair generals" ... That's a slang term for people who expressly *do not* attempt to participate in any way, shape or form. It's kind of cheesy - but it's sufficient. Anyone in that category just doesn't lift a finger to do anything - vote or protest. But they always have an opinion.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
That's a good example of what I mean by defeatism. I don't expect you to believe it, but that's not the quickest way to safety for our soldiers.
Click to expand...

The quickest way to safety for our soldiers is to bring them home. That is just being a realist.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Yep- if someone's tour is up then they have fullfilled their duty.
I was speaking of Hoh with that, btw. Hoh did not fullfill his duty.

How is that?

The war is not optional for the soldiers, it is their sole duty.

They volunteered did they not. They were not drafted. That makes it optional on their part.

My husband joined the military when he was single, childless and 18. That was a very long time ago, Reagan was president.
There's no crystal ball - things change and no one can plan that far ahead.

And how many times did he re-up? No one forced him to stay in. It was his choice.

Well, the situation in Desert Storm was different than what we're doing, now - very different.

We are still killing innocent civilians that enables the terrorists to grow in numbers. In that way, they are exactly the same.

Those protestors weren't what is labeled as the "armchair generals" ... That's a slang term for people who expressly *do not* attempt to participate in any way, shape or form. It's kind of cheesy - but it's sufficient. Anyone in that category just doesn't lift a finger to do anything - vote or protest. But they always have an opinion.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know about the armchair generals I was talking about the Americans that brought about the end to the Vietnam war.
 
Catawba said:
I wouldn't know about the armchair generals I was talking about the Americans that brought about the end to the Vietnam war.
Click to expand...

LOL I was talking about AG's - not what brought around the end of Vietnam :D

Glad we got that cleared up :)
 
Catawba said:
The quickest way to safety for our soldiers is to bring them home. That is just being a realist.
Click to expand...

Since when is retreat the quickest avenue to safety?
 
Lerxst said:
Funny, because that's exactly what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did when they blatantly rejected the Powell Doctrine in favor of short changing the strategy for invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

They were told repeatedly by planners they needed more troops and more time to prepare for the invasion and eventual occupation. Rejected. What did they do? Went in with insufficient resources and let Paul Bremer ass rape the entire governmental infrastructure of Iraq. Our troops have been left with their asses hanging ever since then.

You like apples?
Click to expand...

So, somehow that makes it ok for PBO to be screwing the pooch?
 
apdst said:
Since when is retreat the quickest avenue to safety?
Click to expand...

When your actions result in increased recruitment efforts by the enemy. We have sacrificed thousands of our young men and women, more than killed on 9/11, and all we have to show for it is 3 trillion dollars of taxpayer debt and more terrorists worldwide than there were before our 8 years of "war on terror."
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
When your actions result in increased recruitment efforts by the enemy. We have sacrificed thousands of our young men and women, more than killed on 9/11, and all we have to show for it is 3 trillion dollars of taxpayer debt and more terrorists worldwide than their were before our 8 years of "war on terror."
Click to expand...

See, I share similar views ... At some point things need to progress with success . . . or stop.
It's not an issue of pride. Surely we're beyond that in this day and age.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
See, I share similar views ... At some point things need to progress with success . . . or stop.
It's not an issue of pride. Surely we're beyond that in this day and age.
Click to expand...

The Russians killed a million Afghanis and could not win the war there. We have been there 8 years and there are more terrorists than when we started.

With each new day, we make our country and our soldiers less secure. Yes, it is time to stop a counter productive war that needlessly puts our soldiers in harms way.
 
apdst said:
So, somehow that makes it ok for PBO to be screwing the pooch?
Click to expand...

It sure does, this is our system, pitting the two sides against each other. The very moment that your team gets the ball, it is instant amnesia, it truly is remarkable, it still baffels me every time I witness this phenomenon.:doh
 
Catawba said:
When your actions result in increased recruitment efforts by the enemy. We have sacrificed thousands of our young men and women, more than killed on 9/11, and all we have to show for it is 3 trillion dollars of taxpayer debt and more terrorists worldwide than there were before our 8 years of "war on terror."
Click to expand...

Well, there aren't as many terrorists as there were in 2001. We've killed 50,000+ since then. The let's don't go to war because the enemy won't like us talking point is even more useless now than it was when ya'll first started using it.
 
Personally I am sick to death of people clamoring that we have some obligation to get behind this war and "support our troops" by not politicizing the issue or using the deaths of our sons and daughters as material for the anti-war cause.

This is bull****. The entire Vietnam War was an example of unnecessary, needless U.S. casualties and billions of wasted tax dollars. Back then hawks were arguing "Domino Effect" and non-interventionists were arguing "leave it alone, there will be no Domino Effect in SE Asia due to the situation in Vietnam." If you spoke out against the war you were a communist loving hippy ***** who hated the troops...whether you did or not. If you were in support of the war or you fought in it you were a baby killing war monger. Anyone ever heard of the Goldwater-Nichols Reforms? The Powell Doctrine? Anyone know why those came about? Anyone have any idea why those lessons were tossed completely out the window in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan?

So many people who use the "you can't use dead soldiers as protest material it undermines the war effort" are full of ****. Our dead and wounded are the first tragic result of this worthless and completely unnecessary campaign. They are one of the main reason we should be protesting. There was no legitimacy behind the war in Iraq because there was no necessity for it. So each and every kid that dies over there is one more reason to protest what's going on. And the absolutely botched up strategy in Afghanistan by both administrations is all the more reason to spotlight our dead troops...to say "this blood is the price of your ineptitude...fix the situation or bring our troops home so they don't have to die needlessly."

The baseless, completely stupid argument that somehow the protests by parents of dead troops negatively impacts or undermines the rest of the troops is beyond ludicrous. It's complete and utter horse**** logic with no basis in reality. It's an attempt by ignorant people to shout down others who don't agree with their myopic worldview. And usually those making those ignorant comments have no idea what is actually impacting troop morale the most.

This is so much "you're with us or your with the terrorists" nonsense.
 
apdst said:
Well, there aren't as many terrorists as there were in 2001. We've killed 50,000+ since then. The let's don't go to war because the enemy won't like us talking point is even more useless now than it was when ya'll first started using it.
Click to expand...

:rofl

We've killed 50,000 actual terrorists? Well I suppose you would have some objective source for this figure wouldn't you? Can we see it?
 
Lerxst said:
This is bull****. The entire Vietnam War was an example of unnecessary, needless U.S. casualties and billions of wasted tax dollars. Back then hawks were arguing "Domino Effect" and non-interventionists were arguing "leave it alone, there will be no Domino Effect in SE Asia due to the situation in Vietnam."
Click to expand...

Yet, after we left the Dominoe Effect actually happened and over a million people died because of it.
 
apdst said:
Yet, after we left the Dominoe Effect actually happened and over a million people died because of it.
Click to expand...

Then you apparently have no idea what the "Domino Effect" actually was.
 
Lerxst said:
Then you apparently have no idea what the "Domino Effect" actually was.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it wasn't when communists took over in Laos and Cambodia and killed hundreds of thousnds of civilians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom