..I told you so (Pt II)
General Conway Remarks on War Support

Not supporting the troops

The always lively Maj. Chuck Z sends along a link to a world class dung beetle and proceeds to emasculate the punk in punky's own comments. While Chuck did lay some serious scunion on him, I will add a bit of fisking for fun.

“Support our troops” has got to be the most cynical use of language since a serpent told Eve that an apple would be good for her digestion.

Well that's just a stupid sentence and lame analogy, next slide

I’m happy to say that as a proud patriot, I don’t “support our troops.” At all. Ever. Not in the slightest. Not with a single cell in my body. Not, that is to say, in the accepted use of the term.

It's a phrase not a term, but you ain't real bright are ya'?

I believe the only way to support our troops is to keep them back home with their loved ones, where they can have a life like the rest of us. I’m happy to pay for their livelihoods via my taxes when they stay home, because I think every country needs a deterrent force. In other words, our troops are our first line of self-defense, there to discourage others from attacking us by their mere stay-at-home presence (like a never-to-be-used nuclear deterrence).

Yeah now there is a deterrent force for you, a bunch of couch potatoes watching American Idol with mama. Let me drop a smidgen of common sense here lil' fella'. If you have a gun, I may be deterred from stomping a mudhole in your ass. If I know that you will never fire it, I am no longer deterred by what is now essentially a paperweight not a weapon. Our nukes were only a deterrent to the extent the Soviets believed we would use them. You can still send our troops money if you want, although as a dirty, nasty, patchouli-smelling hippy you probably don't have any. Maybe you are a trust fund baby though and if so send it to Soldier's Angels who will make much better use of it than you.

However, when our troops are used to attack others, I don’t support them at all.

How did you figure our troops were going to kill bad guys if they didn't attack them? Retreat them to death? Dumbass!

Because what is really going on? I’m not being asked to support them to have a good life. No, I’m being asked to support them getting themselves killed. And for what? For some dubious political agenda.

Smoke all the doobies you want about a political agenda, we had elections and the public knew well and good that when we all started going soft W would care more about winning than whining.

Let me explain the difference between supporting our troops for real and “supporting our troops” for BS.

Take World War Two. This was a war where the allies had to defend themselves against an unholy threat, the Nazis under Hitler, who attacked first. That’s how you know someone is a threat: they attack you or your friends. If I had been alive then, I would’ve had no problem supporting our troops. In fact, I would’ve become one of them.

There was a draft you ignorant twat, and assuming they didn't pry to hard on the intelligence tip, you would be a perfect bullet sponge.

Vietnam and Iraq are a different story. They’re examples of political agendas that are further removed from defending our country than Paris Hilton is removed from Gandhi.

You need to make a point of avoiding analogies, you seem incapable of making any pertinent or coherent ones

They’re attacks on nations nowhere near us, and nowhere near a threat to us. I have never seen a threatening Vietnamese or Iraqi in my neighborhood, and I live in New York, where you get all sorts.

FFS, I don't even know what to say to something that stunningly dense. I realize it is hard to visualize actual threats inside the echo chamber womb of soft liberalism you live in, but your entire ability to torture logic, language and love of country is vouchsafed entirely by people with more moral clarity than your entire sad collection of associates living safely free of marauding Iraqis and Viets.

When Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain or Rudy Giuliani or my best friend tells me I should “support our troops,” or that they “support our troops,” I want to draw them over my lap and spank them with the Constitution of the United States till they cry uncle and promise never to “support our troops” again when our troops are fighting for Big Oil or god knows what in some foreign land.

I guess it would be a stretch to hope a twit like you could understand that the troops don't choose their missions, and your complaint is with the Congress and President. No, you chose your pitiful little meme and you are running right into traffic with it.

Hillary and Barack and John and Rudy are being pious hypocrites who should burn in hell every time one of our troops is killed or wounded. They should have their tongues torn out and eaten by cannibals. Shame on them.

I have no problem with Hilly on the menu, but unlike you these other folks believe in what they support therefore making them ineligible for the tag of hypocrite. You should have someone with a passing understanding of our language review your jibberings before you hit "publish".

The inference is that now that our troops are in harm’s way, it’s our duty to supply them with funds and body armor and whatnot to help them survive the terrible position they’re in. I call BS on that. The way to support them is to get them the hell out of there. Don’t support them with funds. Starve them of funds so they can’t fight anymore, and so their leaders have no option but to bring them home, which they should never have left in the first place.

That's not an inference that is a responsibility, you oughta try some it's bracing.

“Support our troops” is a species of sloganeering made up to replace rational thought. It sits on top of a big heap of claptrap phrase-making, which includes “taking the fight to the enemy,” “culture of corruption,” “war on terror,” (a biggie), “war on drugs,” “fighting the terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them here,” “ownership society,” etc. You know, polspeak. Orwellian propaganda. The opposite of common sense.

No that would be you.

When a pious Democrat says, “support our troops,” he or she wants to say, I don’t support our president but I support our troops. The implication is that unlike our president, our troops are innocent, and that supporting their innocence proves that this pious Democrat is a good patriot for whom you should vote. What a cynical use of the plight of our troops to boost a politician’s self-righteousness. (Off-topic but interesting: since our military code says no US soldier is obliged to execute an inappropriate order from a superior, a case can be made that being ordered to go kill Iraqis is not all that moral, which means the innocence of our troops is open to debate. Then again, a better case might be made that our troops are being duped.)

Great jumping Jesus you are a freakin' idiot. On topic and sad as hell is you opining on the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Shockingly you get it completely wrong as soldiers do not consider whether an order is "all that moral" only whether it is legal. And talk of our troops innocence or lack, is an area you might want to tread lightly punk ass.

When a Republican who backs Bush (not many of them left) says, “support our troops,” he’s trying to insinuate that those who attack the policy aren’t supporting American kids trying to stay alive. It’s total BS. It actually masks a flat-out betrayal of our troops. Of course, Bush is the Betrayer-In-Chief of our troops. You don’t send kids to get killed for BS reasons and then ask everyone to support them. Bush is really saying, “support me.” Translation: “support my failure.” It’s like a kid killing his parents and asking for mercy because he’s an orphan.

Analogies dude, trust me not your strong suit, but then I am unable to ascertain any suit you are not void in.

“Support our troops” is a species of sickening piety. It’s the good liberal trying to claim he or she is all for our soldiers but against what they’re fighting for, a kind of personality-splitting madness. It’s the crazy warmonger’s excuse to continue warmongering. I imagine some US general dying in Iraq like a latter-day Kurtz out of Conrad’s “The Heart of Darkness”, but instead of his last words being “the horror, the horror,” he moans “the piety, the piety.”

When will you stop? This is the type of mind needed to grasp a concept as deep as "Whadowee want? Troops home. Whendoweewanit? Now. Why don't you get baack to work on your papier mache puppet head you clown.

This pious monstrosity about our sacred duty to “support our troops” must be unmasked for the cynical hypocrisy it is. Because what lies behind it? Over 600,000 Iraqis dead. Women and children blown to smithereens with your tax dollars. 3,050 US troops dead. Thousands of them crippled, brain-damaged, faces blown off, armless, legless, traumatized for no good reason (unless you think oil is a good reason) and by now, worst of all, simply to save US face. Kids sacrificed so the feelings of the worst President in history won’t get hurt.

I would try to decipher your piety obsession, but I fear the fever swamp that is your melon.

If you want to support that, go ahead, “support our troops.” Put your hand on your heart while you do it. Enjoy your piety. Support their continuing death, maiming and trauma.

But I absolutely, completely and totally refuse to “support our troops.”

Sadly our commitment to this country means that even a dung beetle like this enjoys the fruits of the sacrifices of the very troops he refuses to support. You're welcome you miserable piece of s**t.

Comments