Say Anything Blog

There have been times that I have wanted them to lose why because their coach was a moron his offensive scheme sucked and all the supporters of the Panthers knew it.

Then you really weren’t suporting them, were you?  That’s called “selective” support.

The author of this piece conflates support of the men and women in the armed forces (the troops) with the administration and leadership that led the country into war, when in fact they are separate.  Liberals support the troops so much that they do not want them put into harms way unnecessarily.

The contention that liberals do not want the U.S. to win the war in Iraq or Afghanistan is absurd.  Most of us opposed going into Iraq, but now that we are there, of course we want to win; we have no other choice.

Oh so just like Prager if I have a thought that isn’t in line with the way you think then they are wrong but may be just selectively wrong.

The author of this piece conflates support of the men and women in the armed forces (the troops) with the administration and leadership that led the country into war, when in fact they are separate.

Are they really separate MI?  The mission in Iraq was drawn up by the President and his administration and is being executed by the troops.  Its a team effort over there.  An American effort.  I don’t see how one can separate the two out.  Like Carrick says, how can you root for the team but against the coach?

Though I’d say that Prager’s criticism probably isn’t directed at you as much as its directed at the some of the people who have been declaring their solidarity with the Iraqi “resistance” and other such nonsense.  This is not, in any way, supporting the troops.

Your position, one of supporting the mission while disagreeing with the genesis of it and parts of its execution, is a perfectly acceptable position as far as I’m concerned.  While I agree with the President that the war in Iraq was neccessary, there are some things about its exectution that I am unhappy about as well.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Funny, when I used to follow football, I would root for the Chicago Bears even if I thought Ditka was making awful calls.  When they won, it was like “they even overcame the adversity of shitting play selection"… what a team!  I never wanted them to lose because of their coach.

Just another spin.

I support the Panthers they are they team I like the most. There have been times that I have wanted them to lose why because their coach was a moron his offensive scheme sucked and all the supporters of the Panthers knew it.

Did it mean that I did not turn the TV on, buy a ticket,get concerned when a player got injured or cheer when they did score.

No I supported my team.

Being critical of ones team, child, government or yes even the troops can in fact be a form of support.

I find people like Prager to be more like blind followers than thinkers.

Great maybe you should try it the Bears are horrid and their front office sux.

When you constantly decry the mission, the objectives, the operations, the planning, and the leadership of our troops, how can you possible claim to also “support” them?

I think this is a little fallacious.

Are the troops responsible for devising the mission? No.
Are the troops responsible for its objectives? No.
Are the troops responsible for its for planning? No.
Are the troops indistinguishable from their leadership? No.

How, therefore, do attacks in these four areas (regardless of their rectitude - on which I pass no comment) constitute an attack on the troops, or at the very least disqualify one from claiming to support them?

At the very most I suppose it might be claimed that troops could be demoralised by criticism in these four areas - but that is another matter entirely.

I always took supporting the troops to mean that one appreciates their sacrifice and that one hopes that they keep safe. I think one can support the troops while not supporting the war. As to the football analogy, one can certainly slag the coach and still support the team. It’s an American tradition...it’s probably in your Bill of Rights.

My kid I graduated from high school with is fighting in Iraq right now. He opposed the invasion; he didn’t think it was necessary.

According to Prager, he opposes.... himself? He doesn’t support himself? Wha.......?

No, Dave, you’re missing the point I think.  Opposing the war in the well over a year “run up” to the invasion of Bagdad was a very valid position to take, and still is.  But that’s not what liberals by and large are doing.  They are calling for us to give up and come home, they are far too often on the side of our enemy in critizising our troops… does this friend of your do any of this? 

Your friend, although he opposed the invasion of Iraq, wishes for the end outcome to be victory and the spread of democracy, right?  I highly doubt he roots for failure in Iraq as many on the Left seem to do…

Liberals . . . are calling for us to give up and come home, they are far too often on the side of our enemy in critizising our troops

This is just false and absurd.  Liberals do not want to give up, as we realize that now that we are there, we’ve got to follow through.  And no one is criticizing the troops, but the administration and management of the occupation.

Talk about missing the point.....

The point was that you can not support the troops if you do not support the war.

Daves point was troops that are fighting there may not support the war while still supporting the troops.

In other words Prager is again one of those, “if you do not think like me you are wrong and I am an American so that makes you un-American”.

Wanting a clear cut stategy does not support out troops.

There is nothing “strategic” in a pull out plan.  Unless you are agreeing with me that giving up is the strategy of the Left…

Wanting a clear cut stategy does not support out troops. Seth you have have been smoking Likwids shit haven’t you.

While obviously not true for everyone, liberals are constantly calling for an “exit strategy” a “pull out date” and “bring our boys home”.  All of these messages are defeatest and anyone who slogans’s them cannot claim to support our troops.

Ok so then tell me Seth what is strategic about having no plan.

How long do you think the American people are prepared to put in to see such a victory through?

And to answer your question more directly (forgot to, sorry), I’d say the American people are almost ready to give up now… War is a very difficult thing to sustain in a country as free as ours.  WWII would have never been won if we had the type of media we do today.  I think that if great strides aren’t taken in the next year, we will be forced to leave prematurely because of public opinion. Especially in the run-up to the US elections next year (Senate and House), the pressure to “finish” in Iraq is going to be huge.

This is just a gut feeling of mine…

We win, then we come home. We will settle for no less.

I appreciate your candor. How long do you think the American people are prepared to put in to see such a victory through? Another year? Two? Five? Ten? Twenty?

What you are describing is the the goal, not the plan. Victory is what we want to accomplish; the path and means for reaching that goal is the plan.

Actually, you are right.  I guess I would have to say then that our “plan” to achieve our “goal” is to train a force to replace our exsisting force.  The only reason we are needed in that country today is the destabilization we caused by ousting Saddam.  Saddam kept that country relatively stable (dictators are good at that) and by getting rid of him, the country is very unstable.  Stability is growing and when they are capable of taking over for us, we will have “won”.  Is that better?

There is a plan in place, the same plan we had when we went in. We will leave Iraq when the job is done. It’s called VICTORY

What you are describing is the the goal, not the plan.  Victory is what we want to accomplish; the path and means for reaching that goal is the plan.

I manage web software projects for a living.  I work with Microsoft Project every day, managing the project plan.  The last line in the plan is “Site Launch”; that’s the goal.  Preceding that goal are 200, 500, maybe a thousand lines of tasks and milestones.  That is the plan.

I’ll assume you’re referring to having “no plan” for leaving Iraq?  There is a plan in place, the same plan we had when we went in.  We will leave Iraq when the job is done. It’s called VICTORY, richard.  We win, then we come home.  We will settle for no less.

What do I mean by win?  Well, that’s up for debate to some extent, but my definition is setting up a democracy in Iraq that is fully capable of defending itself from the threat of those who would wish to bring it down (both foreign and domestically).

As evidenced by the recent leaked “plan”, the governments of the UK and America are hoping to begin scaling down troop levels by next year.  Obviously, our troop presense will never be completely gone (just as we have troops stationed in Germany, Japan, etc to this day) but our “occupation” force will be cut in half by next year if they keep up the good work in training Iraqi forces.  That is the goal, anyway…

War is a very difficult thing to sustain in a country as free as ours. WWII would have never been won if we had the type of media we do today.

Could be although I believe that the public’s intelligence on such matters is usually underestimated. Wars are usually supported while the casualty rates are low and the required forces are in place. Once the reports of deaths and woundings begin to add up and the average guy starts to worry whether he’ll be called or his daughter will be called then the reasons for going in the first place had better be clear and sufficient.

What a slap in the face to all the liberal soldiers serving in Iraq right now. Prager owes them an apology.

Is that better?

Very much so!  In fact, your discussion in that post is much more compelling and persuasive than the previous one, which smacked of jingoism.  See, this is all we liberals are asking for: a rational, honest discussion of the situation.  But when we’re called traitors and sympathizers, it closes off any hope of real debate.

In fact, your discussion in that post is much more compelling and persuasive than the previous one, which smacked of jingoism.

I’ll take that as a compliment? Ha!

This is the reason I (and I assume you) love blogging, sharpening those debate skills and honing my exact opinions…

I’ll take that as a compliment? Ha!

That was the intention.

This is the reason I (and I assume you) love blogging, sharpening those debate skills and honing my exact opinions…

Exactly!  Sometimes I’ll debate something that I don’t necessarily feel strongly about, or maybe I’ll even argue a position I don’t believe personally, because it helps me to comprehend more of the question and refine my arguments.

You know what I love about blogging?  Posting something and then reading all the different reactions.  I even love it when the pies start flying.  Honestly, I love just being a spectator.  Which is why I don’t comment much to my own posts.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs: