Does freedom of speech prevent the liberals from saying anything positive about the troops. Judging by their history of posting, apparently it does. I'm not advocating suppression of free speech, but rather advocating that liberals quit trumpeting *only* negative news. Balance it out with some positives. Otherwise, they share common cause with the terrorists in trying to break Americans' will to win.
I have a good friend in the military and the best thing he ever told me was: Don't let the flag waiving, God bless America singing jackasses ever tell you that you don't support the troops. False patriotism doesn't support the troops. Tying a ribbon to your antenna doesn't help me. Enlisting helps me.
What does your friend say about Americans who smear the troops every chance they get? Does that help him?
My eyes are open. They are looking for the proof of your accusations. Talking about factual incidents where sometimes individual troops acted improperly isn't a lack of support for the troops. It is dealing with a factual incident. As far as the John Kerry thing, what are you upset about? Are you upset that there was report which listed incidents where the troops barged into houses in the middle of the night and terrorized elderly and handicapped and beat them with rifles? Are you upset that those incidents happened? Are you upset that Kerry read the Red Cross report and repeated the information from it, and said that kind of behavior is wrong for Americans to be doing? Which part of it shows a will to weaken America's resolve? I know there are a lot of questions there, but I am confident you can reply to them.
^^^ Nice, so I can include you in the group that thinks it is ok to taunt injured troops, jump to conclusions and assume the troops are purposefully killing innocent Iraqis, and thinks it is ok to call the troops 'terrorists'? If you don't understand how this weakens morale and undermines public support then frankly I don't know what to tell you. Bush was on tv yesterday saying as much. He hears it from the front lines. You don't.
You have failed to show me that the groups you talk about even exist, so it would be hard to be a member. Make all the baseless accusations you wish, but until you have evidence then it means nothing. Kerry didn't call the troops terrorists. He said they were terrorizing innocent Iraqis. Would you call dragging people out of bed in the middle of the night and beating elderly and handicapped with rifiles terrorizing people? These aren't things that Kerry made up. They are items from an official red cross report. Again why you don't put some energy towards fixing the problems instead of shooting the messenger. The bottom line is if troops didn't torture, didn't beat elderly, or any of those things, nobody would be talking about it. Those problems are serious and should be addressed. Adressing them and dealing with them only serves to help the honor of our armed forces. Having all soldiers behave professionally, and dealing with those that don't only brings more glory to our troops. Not less. That is what I am hoping for.
I will repost this, so that you can see it. I've given you evidence, and you have simply refused to see it. You also continue to duck the proof that showed liberals defending the taunting of injured troops as well as the accusations that American troops were jumpy and purposefully killed a van of children. It's time for YOU to answer the questions. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=104825 A thread where wnes slammed the troops for an accidental shooting, calling them “jumpy” and implying they were at fault http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthrea...hlight=hospital Liberals defending the taunting of injured US troops. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=105546 Liberals defending John Kerry’s reckless lie that American troops are terrorizing Iraqis.
Sorry Hayes, if I sounded snippy. Please accept my apologies. I think I was a little peeved at your statement that It seems like a pretty dismissive thing to say to another poster (even though it was not directed at me). Since I did go to a graduate school that requires critical thinking (law school), I thought I should speak up. I don’t think I ever stated that the narrative is not a legitimate way to gain insight on a topic. This whole discussion started with this post: While I disagreed with Azadre that reggietodd was trying to use this email as anecdotal evidence, I do agree, in general, that narratives used as anecdotal evidence “doesn't have much to do with critical thinking” (vwiggin). On the other hand, you claimed that: I think logical reasonaing is the essential element of critical thinking, but that’s just me, I guess. I never dispuetd the usefulness of narratives for other uses. Surely if you are a detective looking for clues to a crime, you would gather witness “narratives” in order to get a better idea of the situation, even if those narratives are not always accurate. Anecdotal evidence, on the other hand, use a sigle story to generalize the whole truth of a situation. How can a critical thinker support using narratives in that way? So, to sum up, I apologize for being snippy; I stand by my assertion that narratives as anecdotal evidence has very little to offer critical thinkers; and I agree with you that the narrative can be an important way to gather knowledge. Here are some specific responses to your posts: I think a critical thinker would read the example more carefully. I stated that the logical thinker would rely on the statistic “to determine the casualty rate of Americans in Iraq.” Did I ever say anything about using that statistic to prove or disprove the statement that “we’re doing fine in Iraq”? Narratives are not limited to personal experiences: Of course, even personal narratives can be used as political tools. Just look at the Swiftboat ads. Again, as I've stated above, not all narratives are personal narratives and not all of them are limited to a first hand accounts. Man this post is getting long. I think I'll stop before my fingers fall off.
Let me guess, you're probably of the school of thought that argues that Lyndie England and the rest of the troops in Abu Graihb that committed all those human rights violations shouldn't be criticized because it would demoralize our troops...
The Red Cross report shows that John Kerry was not lying but telling the truth about Americans terrorizing Iraqis. I will ask again is beating Elderly and handicapped folks woken up in the middle of the night not terrorizing Iraqis? In that thread nobody on this board is suggesting it is ok to taunt wounded troops. If troops fired on and killed a group of children, then I think WNES assessment that they were jumpy is accurate. They are in a war zone, and have every right to be jumpy. I don't see how this is insulting to the troops. I answered your questions though you haven't answered all of mine. Nothing in those threads is indicitive of Liberals wanting the troops to fail, or not supporting our troops.
Here's the difference between what the Red Cross reported and what John Kerry said: The Red Cross made the statement as a neutral third party, reporting on humanitarian conditions. John Kerry made the statement in an effort to gain political points and erode support for staying the course. You tell me which one damaged morale and puts out troops in danger. It's easy. Kerry should be reprimanded for speaking that recklessly. It's the same trash that he pulled during Vietnam.
The delusions are yours. NOBODY on this board "root for bad news out of Iraq." There is a HUGE difference between "root[ing]" for bad news and reporting problems. Yeah, if only we could rein in that whole freedom of speech thing, huh? Yes, he read an official Red Cross report that said exactly that. Again, reporting news is FAR from "root[ing]" for it. Torture that happened, was done by the troops, and has subsequently ceased or at least been minimized by the attention the issue brought. I would prefer some accountability from the leadership, but yet again you make the baseless claim that reporting factual information is somehow "root[ing]" for bad news. No, the posters put for the opinion that as a result of the bungled leadership, we may not be able to "win" the war the way some would like. They said NOTHING about the troops. A protest that was in poor taste, to be certain, but was in NO WAY directed at the soldiers in that hospital. Again, that protest was directed at the corrupt leadership, not the troops. When the preponderence of the news from Iraq is bad, that bad news will make up the majority of the reporting. The only people I have seen "getting fed up with it" are right wing pundits and the administration. I have seen very little that shows me that the reporting of factual information has any effect whatsoever on the troops' morale. No, the American public has started to realize that this was a wrongheaded action to start with. The lowered approval ratings have followed this realization. There is a first time for everything, isn't there? The only true statement in this entire pile of garbage you call a post. Or for us to alienate the entire Muslim world by waging a war on Muslims that were not terrorists, were not involved in any kind of attack, and could not even potentially have been a threat for a decade or more. The CIA even says that we are creating and trining more terrorists in Iraq than we are killing and capturing. You are a despicable liar whose every word is execrable. Mine are wide open. You need to take off those GWB colored glasses once in a while and visit a nice place I call reality.
In every one of the threads and discussions you mention, every one of the posters you decry has made the statement that they stand by the troops, but disagree with the leadership. People like you are in the same league with Joseph McCarthy and deserve derision for your lies.
Here is the difference. The Red Cross made a report. John Kerry saw the report and said those things aren't right. I want my nation and our brave troops to do the right thing. He made a statement, and addressed a problem. Good for Kerry. Kerry trying to correct the actions of soldiers who terrorize Iraqis is nowhere near as damaging as soldiers who actually terrorize Iraqis.
^^^ (pointing to moon's post) All that hate and rage and not a single shred of fact-based evidence. Talk to me once you control your temper and develop some type of reasoning skills, moon. Please excuse yourself from the thread while the adults debate this.
If john kerry wants the troops to comeback, what's wrong with quoting a report from the cia that supports his argument. I don't see why you guys are sitting here arguing with T.J., all his comebacks lead to if you are against the war you are against the troops if you are against the president, you hate the troops, blah blah freakin blah. you can't win a debate with right wing nut cronies.
