sorry for that...damn touchpad is too sensitive.

I am the troops. I am a mid level NCO in the Army. I have been in the military for 10 years. Nobody I know wholeheartedly supports the Iraq conflict. None of my soldiers think that we should be there or that we are doing the right thing by being there. They do it for the money. They do it for a paycheck. They do it because the alternative is prison and not being able to provide for their families. Better to do a job that you disagree with than to have no job at all. Or something like that.

Only a minority of troops actually support Bush and the Iraq conflict. A handful think that what we are doing there is the right thing to do. The rest of...

sorry for that...damn touchpad is too sensitive.

I am the troops. I am a mid level NCO in the Army. I have been in the military for 10 years. Nobody I know wholeheartedly supports the Iraq conflict. None of my soldiers think that we should be there or that we are doing the right thing by being there. They do it for the money. They do it for a paycheck. They do it because the alternative is prison and not being able to provide for their families. Better to do a job that you disagree with than to have no job at all. Or something like that.

Only a minority of troops actually support Bush and the Iraq conflict. A handful think that what we are doing there is the right thing to do. The rest of us do it because we have to. Oh yeah..we have a choice. We can refuse to go..but the outcome of that decision is not acceptable to us either.

You don't give a damn what the troops think, you just care about what you think

n2sooners, you're completely missing the point. The point is, whenever someone dares to criticize Bush's war plans, some conservative is always jumping out of his chair shouting "Support the troops! Support the troops!" The point here is that the troops are human beings too, with independent minds. They have a whole range of opinions. They don't all think alike. Supporting them doesn't just mean blindly accepting what the president says and ignoring everything else.

The point is, "support the troops" doesn't have to mean "STFU if you have a criticism of the government." It might mean, vote for a ...

You don't give a damn what the troops think, you just care about what you think

n2sooners, you're completely missing the point. The point is, whenever someone dares to criticize Bush's war plans, some conservative is always jumping out of his chair shouting "Support the troops! Support the troops!" The point here is that the troops are human beings too, with independent minds. They have a whole range of opinions. They don't all think alike. Supporting them doesn't just mean blindly accepting what the president says and ignoring everything else.

The point is, "support the troops" doesn't have to mean "STFU if you have a criticism of the government." It might mean, vote for a government that's not gutting veteran's benefits. It might mean raising money for body armor. It does not necessarily mean slapping a magnet on your SUV, voting Republican, and keeping your mouth shut.

Clipmarks has a majority of extreme left-wingers, who I sincerely believe, revel in the failures of our military and our President, regardless of the cause. Flame on...

Is this really true, sparling?? I am being quite sincere. As much as I hate going "Straw Man" or so far off topic I'd really like to know. I identify as extreme left pretty much for one reason...to separate me from the extreme right. A very dear long time conservative friend of mine and myself once decided that if there were actually a political party to suit me, it would be "Idealist"
I only discovered clipmarks through what I thought was a cool firefox add on. Unless there is a firefox conspiracy of...

Clipmarks has a majority of extreme left-wingers, who I sincerely believe, revel in the failures of our military and our President, regardless of the cause. Flame on...

Is this really true, sparling?? I am being quite sincere. As much as I hate going "Straw Man" or so far off topic I'd really like to know. I identify as extreme left pretty much for one reason...to separate me from the extreme right. A very dear long time conservative friend of mine and myself once decided that if there were actually a political party to suit me, it would be "Idealist"
I only discovered clipmarks through what I thought was a cool firefox add on. Unless there is a firefox conspiracy of left wingers.... *L*
It seems to me that if more people here (and everywhere) would step out of the "left" and "right" positions, and sincerely try to understand each issue based solely on the facts (that we are able to discover, or as they come to light), this could be a place for an actual exchange of ideas. For dialogue instead of flamewars. (Hence the "Idealist" )
I think the internet is allowing us so much more access to varied sources for "news" that it is harder than ever to distinguish "spin" from truth. I believe we are all victims of this. Left, right and in-between idealists like me.

@n2sooners:

You mean exactly what the left is doing to anyone who disputes the facts in Carter's book?

I don't know about that. I haven't read Carter's book and I haven't been following the arguments about it.

I linked (above) to a 2005 column from Marine Corps League by Robert McNulty, who's a Vietnam vet and a lawyer who currently runs the NJ chapter of a veterans' organization. I clipped that article as well. If you want more, I'll see what I can dig up. I saw your clip. It's a good one. Certainly I trust FactCheck.org. But of course it is a little outdated being specifically in reference to the jockeying among Democrats for the 2004 presidential nomination. Anyhow, I'll...

@n2sooners:

You mean exactly what the left is doing to anyone who disputes the facts in Carter's book?

I don't know about that. I haven't read Carter's book and I haven't been following the arguments about it.

I linked (above) to a 2005 column from Marine Corps League by Robert McNulty, who's a Vietnam vet and a lawyer who currently runs the NJ chapter of a veterans' organization. I clipped that article as well. If you want more, I'll see what I can dig up. I saw your clip. It's a good one. Certainly I trust FactCheck.org. But of course it is a little outdated being specifically in reference to the jockeying among Democrats for the 2004 presidential nomination. Anyhow, I'll see what I can find. Maybe I'm wrong on this, I don't know.


@Thorne: I think "ad hominem" because sparlingphoto, not actually having a response to the point itself, answered by claiming that most clippers (by implication me) are just "extreme left-wingers" and, presumably, therefore no one needs to give a damn what we say. Maybe that's not technically ad hominem, since it's not directed at a specific individual, but it's a damn weak argument nevertheless.

I linked (above) to a 2005 column from Marine Corps League by Robert McNulty, who's a Vietnam vet and a lawyer who currently runs the NJ chapter of a veterans' organization. I clipped that article as well. If you want more, I'll see what I can dig up. I saw your clip. It's a good one. Certainly I trust FactCheck.org. But of course it is a little outdated being specifically in reference to the jockeying among Democrats for the 2004 presidential nomination. Anyhow, I'll see what I can find. Maybe I'm wrong on this, I don't know.

Here is how that works in Washington. The VA asks for some $6billion increase in it's budget. They only get some $5billion increase. They go and say th...

I linked (above) to a 2005 column from Marine Corps League by Robert McNulty, who's a Vietnam vet and a lawyer who currently runs the NJ chapter of a veterans' organization. I clipped that article as well. If you want more, I'll see what I can dig up. I saw your clip. It's a good one. Certainly I trust FactCheck.org. But of course it is a little outdated being specifically in reference to the jockeying among Democrats for the 2004 presidential nomination. Anyhow, I'll see what I can find. Maybe I'm wrong on this, I don't know.

Here is how that works in Washington. The VA asks for some $6billion increase in it's budget. They only get some $5billion increase. They go and say their budget was cut by $1billion. Only in Washington does an increase equal a cut. If it worked that way for the rest of us, you would go home and tell your wife they cut your pay when you asked for a $6 an hour raise and only got a $5 and hour raise instead.

Anyway, in the first four years of Bush's presidency, the VA budget went up by a larger percentage than it did for Clinton's entire eight years.

n2sooners: did you actually read the McNulty column I linked to at Marine Corps League? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on it. Budget numbers aren't necessarily the whole story. As conservatives love to remind liberals, allocating money doesn't equal meeting a need or solving a problem.

So hearing a uniformed servicemember criticize the US makes you sick?

This is a tough distinction to make, but try. Critiquing US policy is not the same as absolving the terrorists. Critiquing policies is not the same as "blaming America and absolving the terrorists." I know that's subtle and complicated, but just try that idea on for size.

Personally, here's how I feel on the subject. I vote and I ...

n2sooners: did you actually read the McNulty column I linked to at Marine Corps League? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on it. Budget numbers aren't necessarily the whole story. As conservatives love to remind liberals, allocating money doesn't equal meeting a need or solving a problem.

So hearing a uniformed servicemember criticize the US makes you sick?

This is a tough distinction to make, but try. Critiquing US policy is not the same as absolving the terrorists. Critiquing policies is not the same as "blaming America and absolving the terrorists." I know that's subtle and complicated, but just try that idea on for size.

Personally, here's how I feel on the subject. I vote and I pay taxes in the US, so, in some more-or-less direct way, I am responsible for the actions of the US military around the world. Thus I feel I have a right to express an opinion about what we should and shouldn't do in our foreign and military policy.

I do not elect, pay for, support, or otherwise influence the terrorists, and I don't think they read what I have to say on this board. Using Clipmarks to rant about how evil they are would be about as useful as complaining about how evil Hurricane Katrina was, as far as I'm concerned. Sure, we can all agree that terrorists are evil, but so what? What good does that do? Are they going to read this and give a sh*t what you or I have to say? I doubt it.

When FEMA screwed up, were people accused of being unpatriotic for not criticizing the hurricane? That's about how I feel about the idea that we ought to spend our time online ranting about how bad the bad guys are.

To me, it seems like a more productive use of energy and brainpower to think about our own responses to terrorism. What's working? What's not working? What's morally acceptable? You know, stuff like that. I know it requires a little more thought than simply making one assertion after another about how evil the other guy is, but from my perspective it makes more sense.

n2sooners: did you actually read the McNulty column I linked to at Marine Corps League? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on it. Budget numbers aren't necessarily the whole story. As conservatives love to remind liberals, allocating money doesn't equal meeting a need or solving a problem.

Yes, they are talking about FY2005. That year they asked for a little over $6billion increase. That would have been about a 10% increase in their budget. Instead they got about $5billion which was still an increase of about 8.33%. With inflation being extremely low, that is just a huge increase and far exceeds any increase received under Clinton.

I am a veteran, and so I definitely have ...

n2sooners: did you actually read the McNulty column I linked to at Marine Corps League? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on it. Budget numbers aren't necessarily the whole story. As conservatives love to remind liberals, allocating money doesn't equal meeting a need or solving a problem.

Yes, they are talking about FY2005. That year they asked for a little over $6billion increase. That would have been about a 10% increase in their budget. Instead they got about $5billion which was still an increase of about 8.33%. With inflation being extremely low, that is just a huge increase and far exceeds any increase received under Clinton.

I am a veteran, and so I definitely have nothing against increased veteran spending, but it is just flat out dishonest to make an 8.33% budget increase to be a cut or make Bush out to be anti-veteran just because he didn't give them a 10% budget increase (or the 14.5% increase many veteran groups wanted).