B
Bill C
Guest
On Apr 1, 3:04 am, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, that's based on your "The Left are all monsters" mindset, Bill. I said that
> based on my own experiences - having family friends, neighbors and relatives die over
> there was eye-opening for all of us. Watching as a neighbor was informed her husband
> was killed. My dad being on flights bringing back coffins. Those are a fewof the
> reasons people I knew got more and more vocal in their oppostion to the war - we
> wanted the soldiers home. Why on earth do *you* think there was so much public
> opposition to the war in Vietnam?
>
Howard you KNOW that's not my mindset. The mindset is that many of
them have done a lot of really shitty things, that had some really
horrendous consequences, and some continue to do them.
You keep telling me none of that happened.
I really think the biggest factor driving the anti-war effort was the
draft. Pure self interest, Combine that with a boatload of propaganda
from the other side that sounds great and it's an easy sell.
I know there were plenty of the people you describe. We both know a
bunch. You try and paint the left as 99.9995% saints, I disagree.
There're a ton of decent people from the center to the right too, but
you'd never know it listening to you either.
> > >Second, it's worth taking a look at who has spent more time focused on the
> > > conditions of troops, during and after they've been over in Iraq. The most
> > > vocal people talking about the various issues that are involved in that have
> > > been left-leaning. In fact, the rightwing parts of the media have steadfastly
> > > denied there are problems with the care of returning wounded soldiers,the
> > > quality of the armor (yeah, I think you know one fine example of that in here), etc.
>
> > I totally agree with you on this. No question that this has happened.
> > I also think the major reason, for most of them, is that they are
> > convinced they can't win an election on the "Hate the babykillers"
> > platform today. If not for that I don't think you'd see much in the
> > way of support.
>
> Please name a successful politician who ran on this "hate the baby-killer"
> platform. Politicians for the last couple of years have done well by opposing the
> Iraq war because it is pretty obvious that the war is incredibly unpopular..
>
>
John Kerry all through the 70s.
>
>
>
> > > > Noone believes that the folks who spit on them, supported the enemy,
> > > > abused them in every way possible, all of a sudden care about them.
> > > > They're hatred of those folks blinds them, and makes them predisposed
> > > > to believe the neo-cons BS. Not saying it's right, just explaining it
> > > > to the folks who aren't close to military communities, and their
> > > > supporters. They are expecting the liberals to break out the Al-Q
> > > > flags and T-shirts any day now and hold press conferences with
> > > > BinLaden.
>
> > > Yeah, I suppose that's going to be very hard to combat, especially when
> > > the military has Rush on but blocks any broadcast that seems to lean too far
> > > left, as well as left-leaning websites. So the troops are only hearingone
> > > perspective. Who benefits from that?
>
> > I know you want them to hear 24/7 that what they are doing is totally
> > useless, illegal, immoral, and worthless.
>
> You have a very distorted idea of what goes on in the blogosphere. I want them to
> have a choice in where they get their info. That is the American way, no?
>
Yes it is, and almost alI hear coming from the left is how worthless
everything going on there is.
> > I think they know what's going on, most think they are doing good thingswith
> > the giant pot of **** they were handed, and don't want to see the folks they've
> > been trying to help slaughtered when Obama or someone else yanks them out
> > like Vietnam, and abandons them and the people there.
>
> Essentially you're saying that limiting the troops' sources of infois okay
> because you don't want them exposed to the words of someone who'll call them
> "babykiller" in the future. Sad... You know, there are many guys over there who do
> read left-leaning news sources and blogs (or would if they aren't being blocked) -
> what's wrong with letting them read about, for instance, the bad care theyseem to be
> destined for by the VA? There have been surveys out fairly recently that indicate
> that a large percentage still believe they're in Iraq to defeat the peoplewho caused
> 9-11. That kind of thing is perpetuated by limiting their info sources to those that
> are pro-Bush administration.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Whatever happened to
> Leon Trotsky?
> He got an icepick
> That made his ears burn.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
Yes they should be allowed to hear everything and it needs to be
balanced. If you want to create another generation of military who
hate the left keep telling them everything they sacrificed for,
everything they gave up, when they are convinced they are gaining on
it, and they are helping people, is worthless, and then yank them out
and let all the people they were dying and getting maimed to help get
slaughtered and abused. The troops are big folks and should read all
of it, but you have to admit the effect on morale, and mental health,
even now, is very negative. We support you is a slogan, that's got to
be combined with something other than what you are doing is useless,
worthless, and we're going to totally destroy any good you've done by
re-enacting Vietnam.
It happened once, and Obama in particular, along with the anti-war
movement wants a replay.
Bill C
> Well, that's based on your "The Left are all monsters" mindset, Bill. I said that
> based on my own experiences - having family friends, neighbors and relatives die over
> there was eye-opening for all of us. Watching as a neighbor was informed her husband
> was killed. My dad being on flights bringing back coffins. Those are a fewof the
> reasons people I knew got more and more vocal in their oppostion to the war - we
> wanted the soldiers home. Why on earth do *you* think there was so much public
> opposition to the war in Vietnam?
>
Howard you KNOW that's not my mindset. The mindset is that many of
them have done a lot of really shitty things, that had some really
horrendous consequences, and some continue to do them.
You keep telling me none of that happened.
I really think the biggest factor driving the anti-war effort was the
draft. Pure self interest, Combine that with a boatload of propaganda
from the other side that sounds great and it's an easy sell.
I know there were plenty of the people you describe. We both know a
bunch. You try and paint the left as 99.9995% saints, I disagree.
There're a ton of decent people from the center to the right too, but
you'd never know it listening to you either.
> > >Second, it's worth taking a look at who has spent more time focused on the
> > > conditions of troops, during and after they've been over in Iraq. The most
> > > vocal people talking about the various issues that are involved in that have
> > > been left-leaning. In fact, the rightwing parts of the media have steadfastly
> > > denied there are problems with the care of returning wounded soldiers,the
> > > quality of the armor (yeah, I think you know one fine example of that in here), etc.
>
> > I totally agree with you on this. No question that this has happened.
> > I also think the major reason, for most of them, is that they are
> > convinced they can't win an election on the "Hate the babykillers"
> > platform today. If not for that I don't think you'd see much in the
> > way of support.
>
> Please name a successful politician who ran on this "hate the baby-killer"
> platform. Politicians for the last couple of years have done well by opposing the
> Iraq war because it is pretty obvious that the war is incredibly unpopular..
>
>
John Kerry all through the 70s.
>
>
>
> > > > Noone believes that the folks who spit on them, supported the enemy,
> > > > abused them in every way possible, all of a sudden care about them.
> > > > They're hatred of those folks blinds them, and makes them predisposed
> > > > to believe the neo-cons BS. Not saying it's right, just explaining it
> > > > to the folks who aren't close to military communities, and their
> > > > supporters. They are expecting the liberals to break out the Al-Q
> > > > flags and T-shirts any day now and hold press conferences with
> > > > BinLaden.
>
> > > Yeah, I suppose that's going to be very hard to combat, especially when
> > > the military has Rush on but blocks any broadcast that seems to lean too far
> > > left, as well as left-leaning websites. So the troops are only hearingone
> > > perspective. Who benefits from that?
>
> > I know you want them to hear 24/7 that what they are doing is totally
> > useless, illegal, immoral, and worthless.
>
> You have a very distorted idea of what goes on in the blogosphere. I want them to
> have a choice in where they get their info. That is the American way, no?
>
Yes it is, and almost alI hear coming from the left is how worthless
everything going on there is.
> > I think they know what's going on, most think they are doing good thingswith
> > the giant pot of **** they were handed, and don't want to see the folks they've
> > been trying to help slaughtered when Obama or someone else yanks them out
> > like Vietnam, and abandons them and the people there.
>
> Essentially you're saying that limiting the troops' sources of infois okay
> because you don't want them exposed to the words of someone who'll call them
> "babykiller" in the future. Sad... You know, there are many guys over there who do
> read left-leaning news sources and blogs (or would if they aren't being blocked) -
> what's wrong with letting them read about, for instance, the bad care theyseem to be
> destined for by the VA? There have been surveys out fairly recently that indicate
> that a large percentage still believe they're in Iraq to defeat the peoplewho caused
> 9-11. That kind of thing is perpetuated by limiting their info sources to those that
> are pro-Bush administration.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Whatever happened to
> Leon Trotsky?
> He got an icepick
> That made his ears burn.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
Yes they should be allowed to hear everything and it needs to be
balanced. If you want to create another generation of military who
hate the left keep telling them everything they sacrificed for,
everything they gave up, when they are convinced they are gaining on
it, and they are helping people, is worthless, and then yank them out
and let all the people they were dying and getting maimed to help get
slaughtered and abused. The troops are big folks and should read all
of it, but you have to admit the effect on morale, and mental health,
even now, is very negative. We support you is a slogan, that's got to
be combined with something other than what you are doing is useless,
worthless, and we're going to totally destroy any good you've done by
re-enacting Vietnam.
It happened once, and Obama in particular, along with the anti-war
movement wants a replay.
Bill C
