So many confuse Natiuonalism with Patriotism. What I see at this site is blatant, single minded Nationalism. I served during the Vietnam war, I support the rational use of force, I support honesty and integrity, and I support all of our troops. However, support of the troops should not be confused with support for the war in Iraq, or support for the policy that placed us in this war.
There has been no demonstrataion of a nexus between terrorism and this war - the degree of terrorist activity in Iraq is the result of our being there; i.e., the terrorism wasn't there prior. And please, don't say that I a support Saddam Hussein or his regime - it was horrible, but there are also many other horrible regimes throughout the world, and we don't take unilateral and unprovoked action against them. We should not have gone to Iraq, and now that we are there and the stated reason for doing so has been shown to be false, we should withdraw as soon as possible.
Will there be chaos in Iraq? Sure, but probably no worse than it is now. The administration reports that the insurgency is not representative of the Iraqis, and that almost all Iraqis are on the side of democracy. If this is, then our withdrawal will not have a great effect on their progress. What a withdrawal will do is spare other people from having their children put in harms way, when such is not necessary.
We are not protecting our country from terrorism by being there, and I would say that we are honoring our troops by taking all necessary action to withdraw them from a war based on bogus reasons, rather than stubbornly staying there as an act of Nationalism (i.e., our country, right or wrong).
Kersniffaroonie..... Welcome to Free Republic.
If you intend on creating one.... you better do it soon.
Kittens are watching.......
Ping!
Pat Buchanan I knew you were a freeper!
You're a Troll, be gone Troll. back to DU where your ilk lives.....
IBTZ
"the terrorism wasn't there prior"
What an idiotic statement!
Get lost you phony!
There is no need to impeach Hanoi Kerry from the US Senate
He is there illegally!
WAKEUP AMERICA!
For those who "forgot" what Hanoi Kerry
did in the past read on and learn the truth.
Hanoi Kerry was still a USNR officer while he:
gave false hearsay testimony to Congress
negotiated with the enemy
helped the US lose a war
abetted in the deaths of millions
created a hostile environment for all servicemen
Why is Kerry still in the US Senate?
This is in violation of
U.S. Constitution Amendment 14 Sec 3
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
And the FBI has proof of his treason.
Hanoi Kerry Timeline of a traitor
includes FBI files
May 1970
Kerry and Julia traveled to Paris, France and met with Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of Vietnam (PRG), the political wing of the Vietcong, and other Viet Cong and Communist Vietnamese representatives to the Paris peace talks, a trip he now calls a "fact-finding" mission.
(U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953, declares it illegal for a U.S. citizen to go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power.)
http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html
a) A person charged with absence without leave or missing movement in time of war,
or with any offense punishable by death,
may be tried at any time without limitation.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#*%20843.%20ART.%2043.%20STATUTE%20OF%20LIMITATIONS
Distribute these url's!
Links to Anti Kerry sites
212 LINKS
News reports,
Viper's Vietnam Veterans Page
http://members.aol.com/ga1449ga/links/links.html
EXPOSE HANOI KERRY!
MUST SEE WEBSITE!!!!
http://www.kerrystreason.com/index.html
Full details on these url's!
http://stophanoikerry.150m.com
There is a backup site
if the 1st url is unavailable.
http://tonkin.spymac.net/hanoikerry1.html
Did you see this...?
(The 'Kerry's Promise Counter')
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=6628
Polipundit even tells you how to install it on your own page!
"I served during the Vietnam war"
What branch of the service?
The dates?
"...the degree of terrorist activity in Iraq is the result of our being there; i.e., the terrorism wasn't there prior. "
You are neither rational nor loyal. Your above statement alone is ludicrous, since most of the terror against Saddam's own citizens was in its rape rooms and mass graves. Get a clue. Here is an article to help you:
The left doesn't support the troops and should admit it
By Dennis Prager July 12, 2005
© 2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Liberals, Democrats and others on the Left frequently state that they "support the troops." For most of them, whether they realize it or not, this is not true. They feel they must say this because the majority of Americans would find any other position unacceptable. Indeed, for most liberals, the thought that they really do not support the troops is unacceptable even to them.
Lest this argument be dismissed as an attack on leftist Americans' patriotism, let it be clear that leftists' patriotism is not the issue here. Their honesty is.
In order to understand this, we need to first have a working definition of the term "support the troops." Presumably it means that one supports what the troops are doing and rooting for them to succeed. What else could "support the troops" mean? If you say, for example, that you support the Yankees or the Dodgers, we assume it means you want them to win.
But most of the Left does not want the troops to win in Iraq. The Left's message is this:
"You troops may think you are winning; you may think you are doing good and moral things in Iraq; you may believe you are fighting the worst human beings of our age and protecting us against the scourge of Islamic terror. But we on the Left believe none of that.
"We believe this war is being fought for oil and for Halliburton and other corporations; we believe you are waging a war that is both illegal and immoral; we believe you have invaded a country for no good reason and have killed a hundred thousand Iraqis [the Left's generally mentioned number] for no good reason; but, hey, we sure do support you."
Honest people on the Left need to understand that the two positions are not reconcilable. A German citizen during World War II could not have argued: "The Nazi regime's army is engaged in an evil war of aggression and is slaughtering millions of innocent people, and I therefore completely oppose this war, but I sure do support the Nazi troops."
One example is the claim made by Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and almost all other Democrats and liberals that the war in Iraq is "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." How does one support troops that are fighting a wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time? A few leftist writers have been honest enough to say, "Nothing personal, guys, but I sure don't support you." But the vast majority of the Left and all Democratic politicians have not been honest on this matter.
A second example is the oft-repeated line, found on liberal bumper stickers, "War is not the answer." Aside from the idiocy of this claim – war has solved slavery, ended the Holocaust, destroyed Japanese fascism, preserved half the Korean peninsula from near-genocide, and saved Israel from extinction, among other noble achievements – the claim offers no support to those who do engage in war.
How could one believe that "war is not the answer" and also claim to "support the troops," the very people waging what is "not the answer"? The answer is, by being dishonest.
A third example is the Left's opposition to military recruitment on most of the elite and many other college campuses. So deep is leftist disdain for troops that most on the Left regard the mere presence of military personnel on a university campus as a form of contamination. Yet, the Left claims to "support the troops."
Many on the Left express far more contempt than support for the troops.
A Democratic senator compares our interrogators to the Nazis and communist torturers; the head of Amnesty International in America defends likening Guantanamo Bay to the Gulag; and liberals routinely speak of troops as coming from the lowest socio-economic rungs of society (maybe that's one reason they oppose recruiters on campuses, lest the best educated actually join the military). But, hey, the Left supports the troops.
An honest leftist would say: "Because I view this war as immoral, I cannot support our troops." What is not honest is their saying, "Support the troops – bring them home." Supporting people who wish to fight entails supporting their fight; and if that fight is opposed, those waging it are also opposed.
Many on the Left angrily accuse the Right of disparaging their patriotism. That charge, too, is false. I have never heard a mainstream conservative impugn the patriotism of liberals. But as regards their attitude toward our troops, the patriotism of those on the Left is not the issue. The issue is their honesty.
Wow, How long do you think you'll be here?
DUmmies are so cute when they try to make adult talk. Go now and troll no more!
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I'll keep mine, though, because you're blatantly wrong. Meow.
you smell funny
RationalCitizen
Since Aug 18, 2005
Bla bla bla.. You-Voted-for-the-Other-Guy 3 Times?!!
Obviously, you are poorly informed, probably as a result of getting your info from leftist anti America web sites. Terrorist activity was well entrenched in Iraq, and has been since the late 1980's. Just because Leftist MSM chooses not to print the information does not mean it does not exist. Of course they weren't fighting us before we got there, think about the stupidity of your statement for a moment. Saddam's pursuit of WMD was also well documented, what do you think he used to gas tens of thousands of kurds? The UN was supposed to be monitoring stocks of these things that were tagged and counted, where did they go? Terrorism, or more accurately Islam Jihad has been growing and gaining momentum for the past 30 + years, largely ignored by previous Democrat governments, even after 238 marines were killed in Lebanon in the 70's. Saddam and Iraq were and are part of it. You need to open your eyes and understand what's going on in the world. Just because you served in Nam doesn't mean you know everything. Try looking and seeing what's going on around the world. From Sudan Algeria, to the Philippines and Indonesia, Islamic Jihad is everywhere. they are at war with us, whether you want to see it or not. Wars are not won by fighting them defensively. There has never been a war won that way in the history of mankind. If you want to maintain your freedom, you have to go out and fight for it, otherwise you WILL loose it. Has history not taught you anything? or have you even bothered to study it?
We are at war, you either fight for us, or you fight for the enemy. Right now, you are fighting for the enemy by choosing to remain ignorant of the situation in this world, and not understand who/what/where our enemy is.
This might help get you started
http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/
So many confuse Natiuonalism with Patriotism. What I see at this site is blatant, single minded Nationalism. I served during the Vietnam war, I support the rational use of force, I support honesty and integrity, and I support all of our troops. However, support of the troops should not be confused with support for the war in Iraq, or support for the policy that placed us in this war.So, what's a good, patriotic (and, of course, not nationalistic) citizen to do when wanting to support the troops and not the policy or the President?
Dissent is an American treasure. The clash of ideas is of the greatest of America's powers. The proper citizen will peacefully, legally, and honestly seek voice to raise dissent, if dissent needs be done. We shape ourselves, and define ourselves through the exchange, which is ultimately decided by the citizens' vote. It is the duty of the patriotic citizen to know and to balance all sides, all ideas, then make the decision with the ballot. And if you lose the election, you get back to work to win the next. Just because you lost doesn't mean you have to shut up. (Defeat may well offer some good advice...)
But what of dissent during war? The Constitution recognizes that war is different from other functions of the Government. The Constitution gives the Government extraordinary powers when prosecuting war. War, then, demands more of the nation -- and of the citizens. Some citizens are asked to defend. Others help the cause as they may, be it in industry, politics, or what. But even without a special role asked of the citizen, the citizen is expected to obey the law. Just as we must obey other laws, the citizen must obey the law of war.
War is so important we do not give it to one person to decide. Only the people can make the choice, which is why Congress alone has the power to make war. And the decision is so important that special rights of the minority, often reserved to it in protection in special situations (such as affirming treaties or amending the constitution) ar not given to it: a simple majority decides. Such is the obligation of the Government to the citizen.
Once war has been decided, it is the obligation of the citizens to support the law, for a vote to make war by Congress is an act of law. This law does not supersede other laws, but it can -- and it often does. So important is the right to make war and the powers given to it that the Constitution allows for the suppression of other rights -- including the right of dissent in speech and print -- in order to make it.
So you see, the declaration of war carries powers beyond normal making of law. In kind, you, the patriotic (and not nationalistic) citizen, have an extraordinary duty to that law. If you break it, the Constitution allows Congress extraordinary measures to enforce it upon you. That Congress chooses not to use those extraordinary powers is not license for you, the patriotic (and not nationalistic) citizen to oppose and to break the law. Here, too, dissent carries an extraordinary duty. The dissenter must know that in opposing the war he is obstructing the prosecution of that law.
So what's a poor boy to do? Hold you tongue. Vote. And then shut up again.
Once we're done kicking ass, you can go back to whining. Until then you support the troops by supporting the war. It's the law.
[And no, this is a legal war. There is a law passed by Congress and signed by the President that authorized it. It is the law.]
HMMMMMMM--have you noticed that we haven't been attacked again. Figure it out, honcho!