YES! Because I've seen it first hand.

We assist various countries in the Balkans to establish a legitimate governing body, with some practical, feasible laws with a constabulary and due process and all of this was popularly supported.

we're no longer in Bosnia and right now we have the NG in Kosovo and are tapering off our safety and security operations.

You can't do it if the people don't want it, but they most certainly did. And don't tell me that those campaigns were any less dangerous and chaotic than OEF/OIF, because they weren't.

 

Point taken... But it seems you missed mine - I believe that soldiers and anti-war demonstators have much more in common than one side would like to think. In general, both sides claim to support our cause, but one side fails to see this. If the administration wasn't so secretive and unresponsive to criticism from the opposite party, and they actually acknowledged those who think things should be or should have been done differently, this country would not be so diametrically opposed at first glance. The cause is worthy, and if we are somehow able to pull this off, hats off to the designer of the operation. The only real problem I have is how it has been conducted. I think we may have over-stretched ourselves, which not only puts our troops in more danger, it leaves our homeland more vulnerable (debatable, sure) and adds another variable to the equation: $$$.

If you'd like to know my position, I'd like to see a gradual withdraw starting soon. I know, I haven't been there, seen it first hand, nor do I have any REAL idea about how many troops we need to maintain stability and build a self-sufficient gov't and military that can support ourselves, which, you may be surprised to hear, I DO see as critically important, as to fulfill our obligation. Not just to save face of the designers and leaders of the ops, but to give the troops a reason to be proud of their service and fulfill the definition of sacrafice for those who died for the cause. We must balance this need with that of practicality and prudence, then everybody can be happy and perhaps we can partly mend the gash that has torn our country apart over the last several years.

 

I understand how a soldier would feel this way, but that is the hard part of serving for a democratic gov't. Anyway, considering what troops genrally think of protestors, why would they care what they think or do? You must balance the fear of the threat to your life with the understanding that you are fighting for thier right to do what they are doing, without which America would not be what it is today. Yeah, I know I would have a hard time doing this myself, but given the high level of commitment and risk of any soldier, protestors back home should be the least of their worries. Especially considering most protests make it clear that they do support the troops (I know, you're thinking... 'how can they support the troops when they are putting them in danger by undermining thier cause?') Someone could just as well say, 'how could someone support the troops if they continue to put them at such risk?') Neither statement has any clout. It's all a problem of objectivity.


At best completely overlooked? This is flat out BS, I'm sorry. I have made it clear here that I greatly admire and respect those willing to die for their country. You may say they are the best representation of the administrations 'mistakes,' but what decision-making power do they have anyway, apart from deciding to follow orders? Sorry if this has offended you, but saying that every 'anti' is in effect chastising and overlooking the commitment and sacrafice, I must say, offends me.
Generalizing a group you disagree with isn't the best way to get your point across. Maybe try another method.

What did you just imply in your last paragraph? Sould I be calling your statements ignorant instead?

This is all good, honorable, and respectable. But it doesn't even speak to the point. Are you again trying to imply that those who aren't willing to sacrafice everything aren't as patriotic as your trio you named? Are you saying that the American people should shgut their mouths and be happy they live in a place better than most others? ...not trying to put words in your mouth, just interpretations that I see as accurate - please correct me if I'm wrong.

More baseless argument. What are you so sure that protestors are so oblivious to? Many of them are merely concerned with the troops' well-being and their lack of free will to, perhaps, question a decision made by their commander-in-cheif. Such specific questions should not have any bearing on how each soldier feels about the integrity of their duty and commitment to the country. And tying free thinking and dissent to lack of character, strength and self-sufficiency - though somewhat humerous - just REALLY detracts from the strength of your argument, and further, leads me to believe that you have nothing else to support your position. ... reminds me how Kerry was painted as a yuppie douchebag during the election - though maybe partly true, actually has little effect on his ability to lead and make decisions. Why did he take that damn windsurfing trip? That could have been the difference right there... I notice the American people like, and maybe prefer, the antithesis personality of Bush, but I don't think they appreciate haste, lack of discretion, or stubborness to listen to other views - which I believe is partly why his ratings have dropped (back to back catastrophic hurricanes can't help either, but in reality, he didn't cause them - people know this- and he could have used them to gain support by handling the situation more efficiently.)

Now this seems to be somewhat contradictory to your attitude thus far... did I get you wrong? Trust me, I'm trying not to assume anything and take your statements for what they are - but how do you really feel towards demonstrators? You support the right, but discourage doing so? Maybe you aren't discouraging it - if so, are you just upset over how some soldiers misinterpret the demonstrations or think too much of them to the point where they question their own service and cause? This, I agree, is too bad - and again I hate to say it, but the danger that American protestors empart toward our soldiers isn't as dangerous and counterproductive as thwarting any public dissent and eroding the freedoms that many soldiers have previously given their lives for. This is a catch 22 - it's hard to argue either way- but please try to understand what I'm saying.


Now you're thinking... Saved me some effort.

That would be a sight to see, yeah, but it may be becoming more probable than you may think. Would rolling back tax cuts be considered 'more taxes'? hmmmm.

...not trying to start a pissing match - just expanding on some already constructive, intelligent discussion - please don't take me wrong.

 

I'm not dismissing your statement, but to take another spin on it, loan sharks and bankers do as well; they just want their money back. It's the method they each use which clearly distinguishes them. You and I both want air, food, more parts for our cars, peace....but we are distinct.

That doesn't mean completely nor forever nor so distinct that we're sworn enemies. The future changes things. It changes regulations. It changes people, especially what's important to them. What's the stereotypical picture of a hippy in contemporary times? He's a joke. Washed up.

Now, you know that isn't true but unfortunately sometimes perception is reality. I bet that those old Vietnam War protesters still feel very strongly about the same issues that they did back then, but times have changed. Not to say that their general principles are no longer valid, but this is a completely new war, with all new players and new rules, and so on. I don't know if I'm being clear, but hopefully you catch my drift. All I'm saying is that if you were to take someone who is anti-war today, not just some anarchist protesting a .01% raise on the tax on chicken farmers; and put that person in a room with an old, Vietnam protester, they probably wouldn't feel like they really had much in common.

That's just the point. I hear what you're saying. I'm not saying that what you're asking for isn't valid, but remember this is the first war we've ever had like this.

To be honest, even with what I'm about to say, I wish the government were just a little more forthcoming, but it's not mine to say.

There are no laws stating that the public need be informed of every decision that the administration makes, even the most critical, high profile ones. The way that they run their administration is their prerogative. Obviously, if they do it so poorly, the built-in ramification is that they may not be reelected, or further could be impeached.

In the Army, we have what's called the 5 paragraph operations order, it's issued to subordinate elements as an instruction manual of how we will accomplish our mission. There's a lot of very detailed analysis and many folks work together to get it finalized. It's normally very long but it's usually 'selectively' read. What I mean is that the order is designed to give some very deep background on the situation, a lot of verbage as to how your boss intends to accomplish his mission (with instructions to you, the subordinate leader), then stuff for personnel, logistics, and some bogus baloney command and signal. ( sorry Salty)

Anyhow, the gist is what's called 'Commander's Intent'. If you disregard everything else in the order, you can still accomplish your mission if you just follow those one or two sentences in the intent.

Our president says, "We're gonna do this" or "I intend on mending this" That's the mission. Now, how he gits er dun is his prerogative, so long as he does it safely and ethically.

Now the role of the Commander (the American People) isn't to stand over the poor dude's shoulder and correct him at each turn, it's to let the man do his job. The commander must still supervise, but the good ones do it invisibly.

The Commander/constituents knows that he's always going to have to deal with subordinates (Presidents) who are more exasperating than some, but a good Commander realizes that he shouldn't make snap decisions about his subordinates because sometimes there are those who look all jacked up but in spite of their odd ways, they get the job done. That's all that matters.

 

C'mon man. I write a lot, but my ADD kicks in after a while.

I'll read that book you wrote later on. Good convo, though.

 

You had me at hello...

 

scoobsport98, I apoligize for saying "anti-patriot" and as soon as I posted that I knew it'd cause problems. What I guess I really meant was "anti-cause". And I do look at demonstrations on a case by case basis. Althought I don't think demonstrating is the best way to get a point across there are instances where I can understand it. If you don't agree with something (in this respect the war) then I can understand the reasoning in demonstrating (although I personally would never do it). I just get upset when people seem to protest things so far to the extreme it's not even relevent. For instance, I can understand people protesting the war but then some people take it a step further and protest the Army for everything from offering tuition benefits to a soldier being killed. Is it bad a soldier was killed? ABSOLUTELY, but that happens in war and soldiers know that is a real possibility when they sign up. I wouldn't want anyone to protest my sacrifice to my country because I know it can happen every day I look myself in the mirror.

And just like gpatmac said, the most depressing thing a soldier can see is to come home after time in a land where you can't close your eyes to sleep and feel safe to see that the people he fought for show no appreciation. It has become so common place it's almost routine. I was in New Orleans just the other day and had a guy give me the middle finger. In my uniform as I was doing search and rescue. This was the most disheartening thing I have ever experienced. If you had asked me before I would have said I wanted to shot him but I wouldn't disgrace the uniform or give him the satisfaction. Instead I just shook my head and went on my way. Imagine how the soldiers that leave the airport and have this happen to them (it does happen). Again, it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the whole bunch and these people are associated with the democratic side of the table (as extreme as they may be, just like the church cult is associated with the right side). If there was a demonstration against people who bad mouth troops and protested the war well then I'd be all for it because as soon as the left alienates the true "anti-patriots" their message will be taken much more seriously (at least from me anyway, I can't speak for everyone), hell, I might even jump ship.

 

What does this have to do with the issue we're debating? Are you trying to (man I hate that phrase - I'm overusing it, I know)... Are you implicating that any dissenter is a washed up hippy and their motives and activism [at any level- whether it be in a car forum or on the white house lawn] are nothing nore than a joke? If not, including this in your argument is unconstrucive and further detracts from your valid points and reasoning, which I do see, it's just these little baseless quips that get to me. You may not have meant to imply such, but I think you almost subconsciously generalize the opposing point of view.

This is the reason that dem's have a hard time being taken seriously, let alone be listened to. People try to tie any anti-rep. view to the far left and therfore disregard it as some half-baked argument some dirt hippie dreamed up while looking at his lava lamp. Just don't generalize, that's all I'm saying - take people's views at face value rather than immediately searching for a way to dismiss or ignore them.

 

We're not communicating.

I'm learning a lesson about communicating over the internet. My feeling is that you would understand clearer what I was saying if we were in person or speaking over the phone. There's no intonation nor gestures.

I have enough of a problem getting all of the bull**** rolling around in my head to come out in speech, but at least I've had a lot more practice than I have on a bbs.

Are you feeling the same frustration.

Whenever you disagree, I feel like it's not that you're disagreeing with my point so much as I'm not doing a good enough job getting it stated clear enough.

 

I totally agree. I'm sure if we all sat down with a beer in our hands our feelings are not all that different it's just damn hard to verbalize them over the internet.

 

I'm about to ask scoobsport for his ph#.

Wouldn't it be funny if he and I talked over the phone and not only was I able to make him a conservative and GWOT supporter but also convince him to enlist/commission?

 

If you do that I will personally buy you beer for the rest of your life.

If you really want to know how I feel you can call me. (803)517-3294.

 

I know this was your experience, and I have no way of knowing how I would feel in that situation, but as a third party, I don't think you should have taken that so seriously. As someone said before, there are many pro's and anti's who have based their views on much of what may be termed 'misinformation.' Given this, nobody should take the opinion or action of one single person or small group to heart so much. By making it the 'most disheartening thing you've ever experienced', you've given creed to his view and thus forced yourself to possibly think that anyone speaking out against the admin or their policies would also think little of you and would also give you the finger in that situation. This, as many other assumptions are, widens the gap between the two parties - which, once again, has much more in common than either side would like to think or admit. My guess would be that he isn't really concerned about the war or your part in that - I'd guess that he was just another frustrated citizen that was unsatisfied with the slow federal response to the disaster in their area, and yes, he blamed the wrong person. The former FEMA director or Bush wasn't around for him to show his dissatisfaction to, so, as a uniformed representative of the gov't, you have to expect to catch some of that flack, regardless of how much you had personally done to help, or how you personally would have handled the situation had you been in a position of power. By the way, not trying to make this a color issue, but what race was this lovely citizen who gave you the bird?

If he WAS in fact saying, in effect, f*** the troops, f*** the war, then you should be able to sluff off that BS - what valid reason would anyone have to show such disrespect directly to a soldier, who, once again, has little decision-making power beyond making the devotion to one's country? Perhaps, if you were a senator or the president, in that case you SHOULD take such displays of disrespect and disapproval to heart.

Again, this is a very tough issue, and I can see how it would be extremely hard for a soldier to listen to, let alone understand, a view that one may say puts them and their comrades in danger... When you signed up, you couldn't have realistically expected every American citizen to show support for every action of the military. Even though it protects the lives and freedoms of our nations entire population, you have to expect that some, maybe 10%, maybe 60%, may at one time disagree with the policies being employed by the administration. I think that rather than discouraging dissent to avoid a political rift, civilians, authority figures and political representatives alike should do all they can to listen to, embrace, and deeply consider the views of those who may appear to disagree or disapprove of the current state of affairs.

P.S. Don't let dirty hippies think for you.

 

Yes, I do understand that as a service member I do, in some form, represent the decisions of our ultimate leaders (congressman, local officials, the President) and this is what I used to try and formulate a reason why he would feel such malice towards me. I never expected even a majority to support my decision to join the service or the endeavors I make while in the service. I didn't sign up to get patted on the back because being from a military family, I know this doesn't happen. It is just upsetting because this person was too close-minded to realize what the situation would be like had I and the thousands like me not been there at all. It is also a little disturbing in the fact that he surely can not think that I am the sole reason things happened the way they did yet he still insisted on showing complete disrespect and a total lack of appreciation.

And the only think hippies do for me is make me these awesome organic pizza's at a restaurant I frequent.

 

I think, rather than 'disagreeing', I'm moreso pointing out the dangers and unconstructiveness of certain parts of your argument and what they may imply or incinuate. I know how distracting assumptions can be - and that's not what I'm doing - like I said, it's obviously harder as a soldier to have an objective view on this issue, since your own life is at stake. I believe that, though somewhat subconsciously derived, the incinuations I have pointed out embody the main problem with the lack of understanding and civil communication between parties these days.

I feel some of the frustraton, but I'm just doing what I can to help you understand the views of dissenters [now that may just **** you off - please don't let it]. In reality, I wouldn't even need to be one myself to argue the majority of the points I've been trying to make. Also, I don't think a phone convo would help much. In person, maybe - but we know that ain't happnin.' Written word allows the writer to articulate one's points the way he or she would like, and it also allows the reader time to think and try to understand something they may have thus far refused to or simply cannot understand for one reason or another, before responding with all things deeply considered. If you believe I'm assuming too much about your lack of understanding of the dissenters point of view and it's importance, please re-read some of my responses to your statements and try to find and see why I may think such.

Anyway, I don't know if you'd be able to get past my washed up hippie/stoner surfer tone of voice to hear what I had to say... "DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE! THE CORPORATIONS ARE RUINING OUR SOCIETY, MAN!" ....not really, and no, I dont really sound like that .