1st Phone Call From Our Son, Deployed By Military To GWOT Frontline
 

I want to tell you about my weekend, and ask you to post about who you will be voting for.....and why?

Last night, my stepson, who is serving in his first tour of his US military duty in a combat zone....in a predominately islamic country that our government describes as featuring a "jihadist" front in the GWOT....managed to telephone us for the first time. Unfortunately, my wife....his mother, was not at home, and missed the call. Owing to the sensitive nature of his "specialty", he asked us, when he received his deployment orders, not to mention where he is or what he does.

With that in mind, I carefully limited my questions to details of his well being and living conditions, I relayed news to him about other family members, reminded him that we were very proud of him and of his service, how much we miss him, and that we were praying for him.

Other parts of my weekend were devoted to posting on Paq's <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=109790">Can't we all just get along?</a> thread....and to reading obscenities like these:
....I haven't felt as sincere as I would like to be when I've praised my stepson for his service. I know that he is wrong about what he thinks that he is fighting for. He buys into the same line of shit....hook, line, and sinker, that many of you here have posted your support for. He trusts Mr. Bush and his policy pronouncements, and the government.

To me, any POTUS who would appoint a Richard Stickler to administer the safety regs of mine workers, or a John Negroponte to the "Intelligence Czar" job.....to "keep us all safe", a POTUS who oversees agencies that rebrand and rename the same ole, unconsitutional "TIPS"....seems more of enemy of the American people, than a "leader" of them.

I'm feeling sick to my stomach, and I'm wishing that my stepson didn't call, this weekend....that I didn't reflexively recite what are becoming empty platitudes to him. We've had the conversations where I've showed him my posts at TFP politics. He politely listened, at times....and at times we both yelled back and forth. I couldn't reach him, and I can't reach many of you.

Can any of you who still support republican politicians, please post some information that will reliably inform the rest of us as to why you keep your support for that party and those politicians? Are they more honest, less hypocritical, more constructive, more accomplished, more open, less intrusive, more representative of working class concerns, and of our constitional rights, than I am thinking, this weekend...that they are?

Tell me what principles and rights, my stepson is fighting for....if republicans maintain total control of the government, after this coming election. Post about why you trust republicans over democrats. Is it their fiscal discipline, or their ethics and openness?

I'm not asking you to "win me over" to all things republican. I'm just asking for reasons why I should be proud of my stepson's service, and of his commander in chief........why I should overlook what I see and what I post about on these threads. What is the "higher calling" that you, as republican supporters must see....to continue your support and defense of the status quo....that I don't see? What would Nancy Pelosi do....if she became House Speaker, that would be worse than what Dennis Hastert has done..... he fired the ethics committee when it found against the ethics of Tom Delay....

Sorry host, but youre absolutely a gutless, selfish, and arrogant human being that you think so little of your stepson and that you refuse to put aside your political leanings for one bloody second. The man is putting his life out on the line for your country (probably something you never did) and you just berate him like that. I wish you never posted your story; I liked you a lot better when I thought you were just a misinformed, misguided liberal

:mad:

Yeah, I know I'll get a PM from a mod on this, but this type of shit is dispicableand some things deserve a harsh reply.

For what it's worth, Host has previously bragged, in these forums, about being a recipient of Jimmy Carter's carte-blanche pardon of all Vietnam era draft dodgers.

Unsure of Host's age and/or eligibility for service in any other campaigns.

Host, my thanks to your stepson for his service, and the obvious dedication he brings to his responsibilities, both in life, and in his current assignments.

I am unsure who I will be voting for...but I can assure everyone it will not be for any irrelevant democrat. The two party only system is really starting to bring me down. It's a shame the differance between the two is so strikingly insignificant.

-bear

That's a pretty weird situation to be in. I think the only thing to be proud of is that in his mind he's trying to do the right thing. Although, if you showed him the evidence of lies that have been fed to us it makes me wonder how he can serve this system.

I will be voting for Libertarians first, then non-incubents second. The reason is that I have no faith in the two party system, and would like to support the party that believes in freedom. The non-incumbent vote is because all those in congress are criminals except for a select few, unfortunetly the select few aren't in my state.

ok, i don't know if i'm in any position to respond

but
1. i can respect that your stepson feels that way and i am thankful there are people like him fighting for what they believe is correct. I can find no fault and nothing but honor in that.

2. Bush could say it was raining in DC and i would have to take a flight and stand outside where he was standing to believe it. I could see him standing in a monsoon saying it was wet, and i'd still have to go there to see it in person. IE, bush can not say anything that i would believe at face value. So, i'm mainly signing up to see reasons why he has the support he has.

i am confused.

ncb's post is written in a way that matches its content,
but something seems screwy:

ncb, did you actually understand host's post?
i mean did you follow the sequence of events?
i am not sure that you did.

when you used the word 'berate" what did you mean by it?

or, another way:

what do you imagine that host said to his stepson, ncb?


clear this up please

However anything was meant... thank you to your stepson for serving in special ops. He is willing to risk his life in a way that I never was.

Unfortunately part of his job is to go where Bush sends him.

NCB ..... I tried to combine my thoughts and my feelings into words ....... and you did, too. I hope that others will also post thoughts, feelings put into words, or a combination of both.

When we all knew a lot less....before the US invaded Iraq, my other son enlisted in the military, motivated primarily by the 9/11 attacks. He was injured during training and was discharged. He sees the present situation just as I tried to word it in my last post. When he enlisted, he had a strong sense about what he was going to be fighting for. The government and the political leadership had not yet been exposed as unreliable and misleading as to why and where our troops have been ordered to fight, as to whether...or not...there is a "terror" threat...to the US..... of a stature that rises to justify attacking and occupying other countries, as to the foreknowledge of and decisions made, by the leadership, before, during, and immediately following the 9/11 attacks, and the actual intent of the leadership with regard to the steady transfer, outside the law, and by changing the law and the makeup of the courts...of our constitutional rights from us....to the executive branch.

All of those affronts to our trust and our rights are known, and documented, much more definitively now. I could be reflexively supportive if my stepson harbored some doubts.....had some questions about the integrity of the government, the leaders, and about his mission. He is still cocksure, and he claims that the people who he serves with, all are, too.

I haven't "worked on him"....to change his opinions...not in any meaningful way. We have had discussions, all along....since 9/11. I've mentioned before that he is much more intelligent than I am. As time went by, and my questioning of authority increased, and the answers that I found, influenced my declining faith in the integrity of this leadership, his opinion stayed rock solid. I spent ten minutes in a discussion with him in september, where I showed him two of my posts on this forum, and drew his interest when I convinced him to read my post about Cheney saying in 2001 that "it was pretty well confirmed that Atta met with Iraqi government agents in Prague, and then denied in 2004, in an interview with Gloria Borger that he [Cheney} had ever made the strong Atta/Prague meeting connection.

My stepson asked for more proof, and I showed him the pages on the whitehouse website that contained Cheney's comments.

I want to understand....I don't want to feel like I an reluctant or against supporting my stepson's decision to fully support the administration and it's "terror" war fronts. I asked for others to point out what supports their belief systems....in spite of the "no one could have imagined that terrorists would hijack airliners and fly them into buildings, not once, but"...blah, blah, and the Negroponte appointment, the Gonzales appointment, the John Bolton recess appointment, and the Zalmay Khalilzad appointment, and the secrecy, and the fake Lodi, CA "jihadist" cell example, and the manipulation of the color coded terror warnings, and the false assertions that the "insurgency in Iraq is in it's last throes, if you will", and the "to tell you the truth, Kelly, I don't think about him [Bin Laden], and the "we don't torture" statements, and the 700 signing statements, and Patriot II and the "end run" around the FISA court, etc., etc., etc.......

In 1970, it was easy for me to decide not to make myself available or to cooperate with the military draft intended to provide replacements for other draftees completing combat tours in Vietnam:
We've reached a similar juncture in the US now...it is obvious....certainly to someone as smart and talented as my stepson is, that it is past the time to entertain doubts about the neccessity of Bush's long and hard ,GWOT.

NCB...the actions and the deceit of the leaders of our government have split our family, and again, as in 1970, our country. Nothing that you can say to me, certainly not in a discussion begun because of my reaction to that set of facts, seems very controversial or anything like the slap in the face...twice now in my adult lifetime.....that deceit involving avoidable war and death of our troops stings the cheek of my sensibilities, currently.

My other son understands, my wife understands, our son who blindly trusts and fights for the shifting policies and the disappearing rights described by this administration as "freedom" and "American ideals", and others who support this deception...this false GWOT, are not understood by us.

You can react to me and what I post, as you see fit..... consider though, that my concern is that my son currently serving, and those who serve alongside him, are in danger of dying...or killing for nothing. This is what I believe, this is why I have to forcie myself to tell him that we are "proud of his service".

Instead of reacting the way you did, please tell the rest of us what you believe that our troops are fighting and dying to achieve, under orders of president Bush, that is neccessary, legitimate, defends the US against a signifigant and a looming threat, and is in the spirit of the constitutional rights and freedoms that we were guaranteed before 9/11/2001, and were paid for by the blood and sacrifice of US troops on Omaha beach and US marines on Iwo Jima?

I didn't see it rise to that level of justification in Vietnam, I don't see it rising to that level of justification in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, I don't see a serious effort to fight a "war on terror", and I am losing respect for a son who puts himself in harms way, as he unquestioningly and fully supports a POTUS and CIC who has spent fully, one year of that "wartime" period...clearing brush on his own ranch, and the rest of his time making key appointments of shitty, substandard choices like Negroponte and Khalilzad, and endlessly repeating his "stay the course" mantra, ordering even more of our troops to their deaths, in order to postpone the day when even he realizes that every death of a US soldier has been in vain....changed nothing in Iraq or in Afghanistan, made American "no safer", and "defended" less and less "freedom" and "individual liberties", than before the first US soldier died.

nevermind.

MOD NOTE

While I find your opinion on the matter to be perfectly acceptable, I find your delivery to nothing more than an attack on Host and a plain and simple flame.

That said, I am going to leave this for all to see. Host's reply is a perfect example of how to reply to a flame without escalation.

Or perhaps, you are the one who is wrong.

You know where my feelings are, and I wish your son success in his mission, its far more important than posting endlessly on the interweb.

Host, I'm not going to be drawn into a Political matter on this (even though it's in Politics).

What your Son-in-Law wants to hear is how proud you are of him, how brave he is, and how you hope he and all his buddies make it home. Never talk with him (until long after he gets back for good from the war) about the politics of the war. Never talk to him about what and who he is fighting for is wrong. Never tell him how you believe Bush bombed the WTC, never tell him how you believe he should be impeached or how you hate the Republicans.

He knows by now your stance, he just simply will not want to hear it. All he should do is keep his mind on his mission at the moment. If he starts to question, his mind will wander. There's a saying I've heard before by a marine buddy of mine, "Wandering minds end up in a red mess." This was his company's saying to newbies hoping to keep their mind on the battlefield.

So, just tell him what he wants to hear. Telling him what you think he deserves to know, or converting him to your political leaning is selfish. You will have his entire life to argue and convince him when he comes back, but right now he needs your support. I know you'll state that telling him whats going on is supporting him, how opposition is patriotism... but it's not in the mind of a battlefield soldier just wanting to do his job.

The delivery does leave a lot to be desired. And for that, I apologize to the mods and the other members here for that. However, I will not and cannot apologize to host.

I find it gutless and arrogant that a parent needs to question whether or not to be proud of their childs service to their country solely based on their political leanings. Look, I get not being able to support the war. Heck, I can even get that Americans would like to see bad news come out of Iraq for it would lead to our failure and vindication of their own political idealogy. What I cannot get, nor will I ever, is the failure of parents to support their children in something as honorable as military service despite their own beliefs. Its what parents do!!! Hell, host even goes as far as berating his son! Sorry, but thats unforgivable and deserves nothing but contempt.

I'm done with this now and want to reiterate my apologies to the mods and other members for my rant. As people know, I have always been a team player on this board (ie....I've changed avatars before because people were offended by it, I've edited posts that some people may deem hostile, ect....). However, some comments deserve our scorn and host's comments are one of them. As for the inevitable post that will suggest that I have twisted host's words into something that other than what he intended: if anything, host has never, ever lacked the precision in his written communications here.

The people who killed themselves to destroy the WTC where fighting for what they believe is correct.

Fighting for what you believe is correct is valour -- but valour isn't enough.

Valour simply magnifies your ethical choices, it doesn't make your choices ethical.

I find the only thing that is questionable is that Host posted family matters on here.

This is what Host posted :

That is all he said to his stepson. That is support. Parents can't always be sincere when they feel their child is doing something wrong. Host has strong beliefs in the GWOT and thus, he may not be able to show support as sincerely as possible, BUT HE SHOWS IT..... He even stated he shows it.

Where is Host berating his stepson, where is he doing anything but not supporting his stepson?

Jesus Fucking Christ, this man is posting on here asking hardline Bush supporters to explain their stances and beliefs so that he may better understand his stepson, and you fucking attack him for things he never said. You didn't answer his questions, you didn't answer why you believe what you believe..... you simply put words and events that didn't exist and attacked the man.

Ok, I have a son, he goes to a war I don't agree with. He believes in it, I don't, I fear my son will die in vain and for something I am morally against.

I explain my side to my son, but he still believes and goes..... I give him my love, my support and my tears, nut I still cvannot believe in what he does.

He calls, we talk, I offer support and love. But I feel like a bad father because I couldn't put my heart into what I was saying..... (again, not because I do not love my son, or am proud of how he has taken responsibility.... but because morally I am opposed to the war.)

Then I ask supporters to help me understand their side, what is it I am missing, that my son sees? Because I need to.

Instead, you call me names because of things you want to add to my post?

wow....

My best to you Host..... Your son is doing something he believes in even though you can't, but maybe that loyalty and responsibility is what you taught him.

He'll be alright, and someday when it's all over the 2 of you will be able to truly talk about these days and understand the stances you took, and maybe you'll find out you both learned from and inspired the other.

Your son is a good man. It sounds like he has two battles to fight. I wish him the best in both.

And I won't be voting for bush on Nov. 7. or in 2008.

yakk, good point, but from their POV, i can find that they did what they thought was honorable, which is honorable in a way, just not a way i can agree with :)


Seriously, though, my remark was in relation to people who serve in the US military, and i failed to make that distinction. as R Lee Ermey once said, I never met an officer i didn't like.

on the other hand, i must admit to having a grudging respect for people who are willing to die of their own free will for something they believed in. not sure if that applies to the WTC people in the 'free will' department.

it gets confusing from there

at any rate, i have nothing but respect for the US soldiers doing what they believe.

:thumbsup: I feel the same.

It is unfortunate that in 3 years my son's half brother will be of age to enter the military, and that the only way he believes he will get to college is by joining the military and possibly a war that he doesn't want to go to but may have to. He sees his mother's brother suffer everyday from Gulf War Syndrome and he knows the pain of war. I am ashamed that my country has given our children that belief and that we here at home don't change that reality.

Let us remember, that not everyone in the military or in the war believe that this war is righteous or even moral, but they do what they must to stay alive. The men and women who fall into this category also deserve our respect, pride and prayers, perhaps even moreso because our country gave them no hope to a better life.

:rolleyes:

They have these things called student loans out there. Apparently, most anyone can get them with only a mere promise to pay them back when he graduates.

Really and now that the interest rates are going up, the government is pulling subsidiaries and trying to make them private loans.... how do you expect an 18 yr. old to qualify? Plus, the loans barely cover tuition, what about room and board, books, etc?

Plus when he sees friends siblings, parents and so on getting shitty wages and expected to pay back loans and still live, the military sounds a lot better.... Education paid, money for college.... etc.

They already are private loans, pan. They just all have govt backing. And yes, 18yo can qualify. Also, why not a part itme job to help? I know you see soup lines around every corner, but its not nearly as widespread as you seem to want it to be.

Somebody in this thread deserves a 30-day break.

'Sall I'm saying.

what'd i do?

seriously, though, i think this thread is pretty civil after the first part and that seemed to be a misunderstanding more than anything.


i'm still waiting for the original intent of this thread, IE, why bush supporters are still behind bush

Pan, your son is very much misinformed. So what if interest rates are going up, a loan for school is THE BEST investment. People have no problem getting a loan for a car, I think an eduation most certainly trumps that. Typical student loan packages will cover tuition, room, board etc. There are lots of ways to cover it.

In my case, I went to community college then transferred over to a state school. Saved 2 years worht of tuition by doing that and it was easier getting into the state school as a transfer student than as a high school applicant. Also, wise budgeting will yield great results. In fact, I always had money left over from each quarter due to my good spending habits.

Please PM me for more detail and I will be happy to share all my "secrets". If I can go to college, ANYONE can.

I mean c'mon, if all the illegals at my school can get funding, don't you think your son can?

P.S. - If your son wants to join the military, then he should, but not because he has no choice. But I would recommend he do the officer programs in either the Navy or Marines. Better training, better pay, better everything (in my opinion).

Seems like a great, well intentioned question from Host. It's a damn shame that no one can step up and answer the question. Fitting and not surprising...

i work with a lot of hardcore republicans and i ask them the same question as everything piles up...

this is about the expected response...let's just say the subject changes quickly

Read my post. His question is not what the point should be at in my opinion. What matters is how certain things that can be said will affect his step-son. If Host speaking his mind about his beliefs on Bush, how he speaks of the war as a conspiracy for oil and to hold onto the reigns of power, and how he is responsible for the WTC.... well that will negatively affect his step-son.

I'm not going to defend my beliefs on the war, there are countless posts on the topic.

I"ve posted about my OP subject matter on these thread, before....

<b>I've taken time to consider the "feedback" that I've been receiving here... and my reaction is to ask if there is inconsistency in what I've posted here, and in the two preceding, older posts.....versus what I've continued to communicate, as far as words (and feelings) of support to my stepson ?</b>

I've posted in the past that president Bush had my support, when he spoke from the rubble pile at ground zero, in Sept., 2001. My close scrutiny of current events began when my son enlisted in the military in 2002....he wrote to me from bootcamp that his DI and trainers stressed that he would be going to Iraq very soon. I was taken by surprise and assured him that there was little to indicate that this was a possibility.

My opinion evolved from the point when president Bush had my attention and support in Sept., 2001. I can track and share the information that has changed my opinion. When I supported the president, after 9/11, and when my son enlisted, in 2002, the leadership of the CIC and his administration, and the justification for military action that they articulated, supported their case for using the US military to neutralize the capacity of enemies to directly threaten the US....reinforced by the actual example of the 9/11 attacks.

Time passed....invasion and occupation of Iraq was stressed as justified because of a direct threat to the US....then that changed....no WMD were found.....flaws in the credibility of Bush and his admin. were revealed...<b> and my opinion moved away from the post 9/11 justification for US military action, as more information poured in..... the same process that influenced me to agree with Mr. Bush and support what he said that he would do....that day in Sept., 2001....in his ground zero speech.</b>

The justification for military action, defense of the US from a direct threat, the stakes, the mission, the moral imperative that Mr. Bush described during his ground zero speech, <h3>were impervious to "liberal criticism". BULLETPROOF.....How can my stepson's belief system now....and some of your own....be so fragile that "liberal opinion" could impair US military recruiting efforts, measurably undermine the GWOT effort, or compromise his safety or "mission", if there was any remaining substance to justify continued US military action?</h3>

How does my concern that my highly intelligent stepson's support for and participation in continued US military action.....knowing what he should know by now.....my concern that supporting him with no reservations, when I know that not only his life may be at stake....but also his soul, is the wrong thing to do? I have become convinced that the US is engaged in illegal warfare on several fronts. I can't see that killing people in other countries who resist the occupation of US troops in their countries....can any longer be considered moral. Doing so, anyway, when you have the responsibility of keeping the integrity of your own soul....your moral fiber....simply by turning a blind eye....ignoring or explaining away the available information.... brings you down to the level of the US administration....maybe even lower....because they certainly can't believe their own propaganda.....

Those of you who disagree with me, know what I'm talking about. Not even one justification has been posted to defend the worthiness, truthfulness, of the US administration or of it's latest arguments for continued military action.
What have you got to justify continued killing of people who inhabit Iraq and the "stans" by US troops, or to defend US policy pronouncements, or the truthfulness of our leaders?

I didn't transform Mr. Bush's objectives, articulated in his ground zero speech into something so fragile that it can be threatened by "criticism of liberals"...like me. He and his colleagues accomplished that, themselves. We are sending our troops into harms way....and they are killing and dying for nothing. If there is a god who sits in judgment....participation in the killing may be costing our soldiers their souls. If it is justified, if it is "worth it", you should have somethings to post in defense of it....you should "know how you know." Instead, we witness your silence and your condemnation of me. We witness, in the news report below, the politicization of the US military leadership by the political objectives of the civilian command, and the repeat of the traitorous, anti-American, Cheney bullshit of the 2004 campaign....<b>Vote for US or we'll "get hit again".....

What have you got, besides the following? It's no wonder that some of you and my stepson are so concerned that the "war effort" is so fragile that it can be damaged signifigantly by critical opinions.....you can't even defend it, anymore....or consider that there is a reason that a "dose" of skepticism can be described as "healthy":</b>

host, you asked a lot of questions in your opening post.
But what is the thread about is it about this?
or is it about this?
or both?

If this thread was able to help you find a way to be proud of your stepson would you need to have justifications for waht Bush is doing?

Must the two go hand in hand or is there a way that we can help you find a way to be proud of your stepson?
The reason that I ask is even if every Bush supporter in the world were to list all their reasons, would any of them convince you? You said it yourself that you are not looking to be convinced.

What are you looking for from this thread?
- Are you looking for a way to be proud of your stepson?
- Are you looking to find a way to understand the Bush camp?

I don't think that those two must happen together, but I am not in the situation you are in with your stepson.

Is the deeper question here (these questions are for everyone, not just host):
Can a parent be proud of a child even though that child is not acting accordiong to the parent's beliefs (morals, ethics, lifestyle) and values?

- What if your child was a republican and you are a democrat?
- What if your child wanted to marry somone outside of your religin and religion is important to you?
- What if your child operated a business that is legal but that you consider moral and unethical?

Can you be proud of that child?
These are hard questions. But deep down, I think that a good parent has to find a way to still give the child what he needs but without necessarily condoning what they do?

host,
is there a way that you can be proud of your stepson (if that is what he needs)?
- Can you be proud of the good job he does?
- Can you be proud of the respect he commands from his peers, those below, and those above him?
- Can you be proud of the way he is strong enough to stand up and take action for what he believes in?
- Can you be proud that he is able to have discussions and arguments with you and still respect you (I am guessing on this one but I assume he does)?

Does this help at all?

This has got to be the biggest, most unadulterated steaming pile of shit I've ever read on this forum. Host wants the soldiers, including his stepson, to come home. Host wishes the soldiers, including his stepson, had never been sent off to fight this illegal, immoral, and completely unjustified war. It's an amazing and idiotic world when the people foaming at the mouth to send young kids overseas to die and be maimed by the tens of thousands are "supporting" the troops, while those of us who want them safely at home bouncing their children on their knee are suddenly anti-soldier. It's complete Orwellian bullshit, and it never ceases to amaze me how many people buy in to it without even bothering to question the matter.

No he is not. He is putting his life out on the line in an effort to make us more unsafe. He doesn't realize it, but that's exactly what the war in Iraq has done. I of course hold no animosity for the soldiers who are over there - they're following orders - but I do feel terribly for them that they are fighting and dying in order to bring us further away from our goal.

He's not berating the kid- - - the kid IS swallowing the same line of crap that fewer and fewer Americans are accepting. And I can understand why - the kid only has access to news that the government WANTS him to have access to. They don't get NPR in the desert. You take a kid and isolate him from the world and then tell him that a bad man in the desert is helping the people who attacked us and hell yes, he's gonna be gung ho for his cause, and well he should be. The shame lies with the snivelling dogs back home (most of whom did not themselves serve as you seem to think is so terribly important to have done in order to have an opinion on this) who tell baldfaced lies in order to send those kids off to die.

host would you be proud of your son if he got himself 20 years in military prison for going awol in a combat mission or something of that nature because he suddenly saw your version of 'TRUTH' as true?

If so seek psychiatric help, if not let the kid do his job, come home and then try to sway him to your point of view. His soul will be just fine.

I find the current political dichotomy to be very curious, as an actual conservative. Both the Republicans (neo-con socialists) and Democrats (greater-good socialists) want the same thing -- an all-encompassing federal government which can do any damned thing it wants. The only difference seems to be that Democrats want to mask that power as "for the greater good" while Republicans want to disguise it as patriotism. Sure, Republicans offer a tax cut every so often but all the while federal government spending grows and its power becomes even greater. Republicans are not conservative, Bush is not a conservative.

Now you may ask yourself, "why don't Republicans and Democrats just put aside their differences for a moment and work together to turn the USA into Soviet Russia?" The answer is that if they did so -- if they both showed their true colors, the American people would balk. Republicans and Democrats NEED their disguises for incrementally more socialist and facist policy. Americans had 12 years to see Republicans in power and in action. Since then we have had more rights stripped away and bigger government glut. Come November, they will have to examine their values and what they can do about the current situation. Most likely they will vote Democrat instead of Republican, which will of course bring about no positive change. It's only when people look beyond the two nearly-identical major parties that we will see truly "progressive" policy to clear away the regressive socialist chains that have been pulled tight across this country.

The answer to host's question -- why anyone who supported Bush can still support him -- is simple: denial. Denial of the death of conservative policy in the two major parties, and denial of the need for change lest we become the United Socialist States of America in 20-50 years. The only way people can avoid noticing the oncoming train is by closing their eyes, covering their ears, and walking on the tracks while mumbling about how patriotic/selfless they are.

Seretogis,

That was a great freaking post. Thank you.

-bear

I agree. (need to put in ten characters)

kinda sad that seretogis's post speaks so loudly to conservatives and liberals on this board.

i didn't think i'd agree so much with it, but it's true.

definitely...time for a change

the link in seretogis's post is from an article by the "heir" to Ayn Rand's estate and to her simplistic and incomplete "objectivism"....the sentiments in seretogis's post, IMO, do not take into account the fiscal discipline and reversal of federal deficit spending in the 1993 to 2001 period, a time when the growth of the non-military portion of the federal government was actually reversed...the non-military government employment total grew smaller, in addition to a reduction of 284,000 mostly civilian DOD positions. Annual federal debt increases were reduced from $360 billion, in the fiscal year ending on Setp. 30, 1993, to just $18 billion in the Oct. 1, 1999 to Sept. 30, 2000 budget period.

The actual record that I just described, vs. the last four years of "one party" rule, seems to me a total contradiction of the "broad brush" of dimissal and the lumping of both major politcal parties' flaws, together in seretogis's article. There is enough of a difference in the records of the two major parties' "accomplishments" to justify voting for immediate transfer of control from "one party" that is responsible for a sudden fiscal reversal into disaster, of at least one house of the federal legislature. Following the themes in seretogis's articles would justify leaving the political imbalance in place for at least two more, predictably disasterous years.....because "one party is the same as the other". The record of budget, taxation, and spending management of the last 25 years proves the core point of seretogis's article is wrong.

seretogis's article is largely influenced by the "work" of Leonard Peikoff...his article is the only linked item in seretogis's post. I do not agree with most of the ideas of Peikoff, as this example of his overly simplistic, militaristic and self centered, "work", clearly is the opposite of my understanding of the political challenges of the post 2001 period:

Substitute Iraq for Iran, and it appears that Mr. Bush ended up following Dr. Peikoff's "remedy", almost exactly. It was neocon, islamophobic, ignorant propaganda when Peikoff wrote it, and paid the NY Times to display it, and it is a monument to his failed and richly flawed thinking, in hindsight. The risks were much greater, and the results, so far..... much smaller and more expensive, than Peikoff's narrow mind could have envisioned....

A vote based on the advice and the thinking of Peikoff is a vote wasted. The two major American political parties have nearly opposite fiscal management credentials, and change...away from Peikoff's, and republicans failed and bankrupting foreign policy and restoration of at least some.....any...checks and balances in government must happen now.....not in some undetermined future..... certainly not one that will ever be effected from the signifigantly less compelling, pompous, myopic, anti-intellectual "spin" of the dean of the failed school of objectivism. Rand offered no solutions for "the rest of us", and Peikoff offers no solutions at all.....

You don't have to be proud of his commander in chief, but be proud of your stepson's willingness to defend that right to not show your support for Bush. Your stepson took an oath to defend his country against all enemies foreign and domestic and to obey the orders of the President of the United States. He took that oath voluntarily and today is fulfilling that promise.

Very true. You can be proud of his loyalty and integrity--that he's a man of his word--without necessarily agreeing with the thing he's given his word to.

i have been hesitant to post to this thread for a number of reasons, not least of which is the complexity of the situation that it at its core and my sense of being unable to say anything meaningful about it.

another reason is that i do not really understand the main verbs that litter the conservative set responses: pride in particular, what it means in this context.
i do not see any necessarily linkage between "being proud" and being coherently supportive, unless the underlying assumption is that what is really required in such a situation is a kind of paternal blessing, which works under the assumption that there is something infantilizing about the situation in which host's stepson finds himself, and what is required to deal with it is the beneficient gesture of the paterfamilias. and maybe there is something infantilizing about it.
but playing into it seems useless, given the political divisions within this family, which is not concealed, is a part of conversation, is known to all players.
that on its own would seem to me to rule out any facile recourse to the discourse of "i am proud of you"--simply because it seems that it would be delivered as a message as already hollowed out.

i am proud...i approve of what you are doing...i approve of what you are doing in the context of a situation that i approve of...

how about saying what i assume from the op can be said and meant... something like: "i love you and i worry about you and how you are faring and i hope that you keep yourself safe and to stay safe you have to stay focussed on what you have to do."
something like that?

in the end, seaver's post 12 contains the same core, though still decorated with the discourse of pride, which i really dont think functional in this context. psychodad says a parallel thing above.


which brings me around to the main reason i hesitated to post here:

i think something about it is fundamentally unfair.

now i say this as someone who opposed the iraq debacle from the outset and who has been very vocal about that opposition, both here and elsewhere.

what seems to me unfair about it is the central question the op poses: which amounts to:

ok you assholes tell me something that i can believe in about this stupid, unnecessary, incoherent, politically motivated debacle of a "war on terror" that i can tell my stepson who, unlike you conservatives who post here from the safety of your homes or offices, is actually putting himself on the line for all this in real time.

what i do not understand is why any conservative would answer such a question and go much beyond what seaver said in post 12 (and psychodad's post directly above this one). to do so seems an act of almost mind-boggling presumption...

host posed questions that should have been unanswerable for you folks--you would have done better to have posted nothing, said nothing--or to object to the question itself--rather than walk directly into a self-evident trap--which you tried to bluster your way through using--well what?--half-baked reactionary memes mixed with an appalling refusal to remember that there is a human being behind the name host who is talking about a real problem that none of you are have to face.

how is this possible?
do you really think that the people who oppose you politically are thereby not deserving of simple respect as human beings?

it's funny--at the core of the new right's mythological "history" of vietnam there is the myth of the returning solder being spat upon by people who opposed the war in vietnam politically. it never happened, but no matter, it is a functional myth--which apparently has generated a kind of boneheaded sanctimoniousness amongst some conservatives that makes them feel justified in spitting on a human being they disagree with politically who posts something about an obviously complex personal situation....so the myth that the far right has taken for an allegory about the war in vietnam they now repeat in reverse. except they actually do it.
so it follows that there are dimensions of conservative ideology that function to dehumanize all who oppose it, if that ideology is taken as a total worldview.
nice demonstration, lads. i am sure that you did not set out to provide one, but you did. well played.

.....this was asked before, by someone else....I'll ask it again.... how do you know that the fighting, dying, and killing, done by US troops in Iraq or in Afghanistan, today, is
..... that premise seems to be the opposite of the actual result, judging by the new, unconstitutional authority that congress voted to transfer from the people and their former right to "due process", to the POTUS, just last month..... so swiftly after a SCOTUS ruling confirmed that the executive had already illegally attempted to diminish or remove the right to "due process" of some US residents, citizens, and enemy "combatants".

The reported record is that the current US executive administration is not only attacking our consitution, but making career ending "examples" of US military lawyers who attempt to defend and uphold it's clauses; and how good will the legal representation of US soldiers under military jurisdiction, be, in a certain future where all military lawyers know that their career ambitions depend on avoiding vigourous, successful defense of their clients in military courts? My very intelligent stepson fully supports the obvious undermining of his own rights to legal protections, at the hand of the CIC, who he totally supports:
No US soldier fighting today, in either of those two war fronts is defending "my right" to not show [my] support for [the US president]", anymore than a US soldier fighting in the Vietnam war was accomplishing that.

Our soldiers are not defending the US consitution from an "imminent threat" and the GWOT has been an excuse, and a device, used by the executive and a compliant and/or brainwashed congress to first circumvent, and then undermine the US consitution.

It is five years after "9/11", and the fighting in Iraq and in Afghanistan is, as it was in Vietnam, is pitting US forces against a resistance of the indigenous populations of those countries.....populations who have opted out of fighting to preserve the US orchestrated and supported, central governments in those countries. US troops, in all three instances, can instead be observed, risking their own lives in order to kill folks who fight to bring down the governments that the US supports...... while the original mission.... US troops building an indigenous force to defend the US installed and maintained governments, fails miserably.

My stepson is a smart guy. He's helping to perpetuate this tragic and impossible to accomplish Vietnam "mission" redux. He's also risking his life, and I believe....his soul....by fully committing to dying or killing to support the continuation of central governments in countries where those governments cannot attract enough local men, under arms, to support them.
I'ts three years later, now, John McCain.... the signifigant, local, armed resistance is decidedly projected US troops and the central goverment of Iraq that exists only because US troops obey orders to die and kill to defend it's continuance......., the same situation that permits that continuation of the 4-1/2 year old Kabul government.

I can support, somewhat, his decision to follow orders....when he enlisted, what I just described was not clear, as it is now.....but he doesn't have to fully agree with what he is under orders to do. It is wasting and grinding US military capability, and the soundness of the US treasury, and driving away support for the US government in the world.

These war fronts actually reduce the certainty that the remaining individual rights in the tattered US consitution that our leaders once took an oath to uphold, will always be successfully defended against imminent threats.

I'll get to this bit of distraction later on.

Wow. In seven years the federal debt increases (the amount that we pile on the debt) was lowered, and that is an accomplishment? Progress, perhaps, but not what we should be expecting from seven-plus years. Add to this the gross over-spending endorsed by both parties involved since 2000 and any temporary gain is negated completely.

Since when has our government employed the use of budget, taxation, and spending management? (Before you copy/paste, the previous was tongue-in-cheek.) You are missing the point completely, imo, that being that the government has overstepped its bounds and is no longer serving its primary need of defending its citizens from foreign invaders and criminals but is instead injecting itself into nearly every facet of our daily lives. Democrats AND Republicans encourage this, either "for our own good" or to embolden or justify the "American Way™." Both parties are ideologically antagonistic to the very principles this country was founded on, particularly individual rights, and have been for decades.

As for the "disaster" of leaving Republicans in office for two more years rather than voting Democrats into their place, that is laughable. I myself am prepared for a struggle of 20+ years to restore this country to what it should be -- a nation concerned with the safety and success of its free citizens, not emptying its pockets to foreign dictatorships or treating its people like cattle while granting political favors which lead those cattle to a slaughterhouse. The problem with this country goes far beyond the range of the moment, far beyond the last five to seven years or the next two years. Step back and take a look at what we have become and how terribly we have allowed our individual rights to be violated for the sake of convenience or a false sense of security.

You seem infatuated with my linking to Peikoff's article which -- you fail to notice -- I disagreed with. His suggestion is for conservatives to vote Democrat, something which is not a long-term solution for our needs as a country. I certainly do agree with many of his less-recent essays, but not the one I linked which is why I felt it necessary to link in the first place. Nice try though.

As far as "overly simplistic" views in general, freedom and dedication to espousing its virtues is very simple indeed. It is when issues are clouded with unnecessary [and ultimately immoral] complexity that freedoms are taken away and replaced with conditional "freedoms." Taking earned property (taxing) one group in order to provide for the well-being of another is immoral, and a very simple issue. It is only when the issue is muddled with ridiculous rhetoric ("What about the one-legged pregnant single mother who can't provide for herself?") and induction of guilt (Christianity and other self-destroying ideologies) that those in favor of the infinite ballooning of government can hope to win.

For once, I agree with you. Voting for a Democrat in hopes of avoiding a Republican theocracy is a vote wasted. The next two years in the grand scheme of things means little, and so should be used to speak out as individuals interested in true liberty.

Also, we DO need checks and balances, however that balance will not be the "national healthcare" Democratic party, but a third party which has serious intentions to eliminate government waste and simplify its purpose to the most essential services, primary security of our nation and its citizens. That balance must be a party which is opposed to war for war's sake, and opposed to any "military actions" which do not primarily benefit the United States. It must be a party which believes in free, unregulated, trade and not be a slave to various special interest groups. For the above reasons and more, this party of balance can no longer be the Republican or Democratic parties.

so seretogis, i am curious: which militia group do you belong to?

That response is below you. I'm shocked.

just trying to position you from the way your posts work--nothing offensive in it, and my apologies if it gave offense. it is not unreasonable to try to figure out where folk are coming from it is? i am sure you do the same.

you are obviously coming from a very particular position, and your way of using the category of "real conservative" and "individual rights" and a "return to the original principles upon which the nation was founded" indicates to me a very specific political space. a strict constructionist i would imagine. the objectivist dimension fits in the background...

so the question is reasonable.
if there was a problem, it was only that i did not put this post in front of it.
my mistake--i put it behind.
so.....

Littered by the conservative set of responses? Host specifically asked I know I don't have to tell you this, but pride is that of which one is proud. soooo.....nice try.

Thats kind of smug of you, no? How do you know others on here don't have family members or friends in iraq or afghanistan right now? You don't know. You are wrong. Many of us do.

stevo--i would have assumed it obvious that i was reacting to the posts and not going beyond them. but if it wasn't obvious, then the above should make it clear.

Yikes, I'm just goin to step in after reading the first part of Host's OP and say this - I don't give a rat's red ass what your political beliefs are, your responsibility is to encourage your step-son and offer him your love and the love of his mother, your wife. It is not to cause him to question what his mission is, Host. It's not to cause him to question his Commander-in Chief, no matter how much YOU may despise him.

(whoooosh) That was the exit of the total loss of respect that I have for Host.

Edit to add: These are the remarks of the daughter of a late WWII vet and sister of a Marine Corps vet)

starting a new thread in the hopes of furthering discussion and not bashing host's familial issues.

Host clearly said he is offering support to his stepson - otherwise he would be condemning the kid rather than praising him. It would be nice if some of you would read what he actually wrote, rather than reading what you would like to THINK he wrote so you have an excuse to get angry.

It would then be nice if you would back off instead of condemning Host for having thoughts different from yours.

No, suppose you can tax everyone for about 20% of their income, and use that money to generate an additional 5% per year economic growth.

After 4 years, everyone is as well off as if they didn't have the 20% tax. After 5 years, they are better off. Etc.

Or what about a 20% tax that increases the average income by 50%, in a highly distributed manner? (it could easily be the case that 20% of the nation's income could provide for cheap and difficult to meter resources, like high quality roads, water purification, and sewage. You know, "public goods".)

As an aside, what do you base your morality on?

Are your claims about morality based off economics, or off gut feeling, or philosophical thoughts?

Just wondering if you have some useful information for me to learn!

Thank you, Shakran, if not for posts like yours, I might be convinced that thinking it and saying it are somehow synonymous.

I didn't say it.... and he doesn't read this board....he made no effort to record or bookmark the TFP forum url on the one occasion when I asked him to read, over my shoulder, one of my posts here, displayed on the screen of my laptop.

I pray for my stepson, and I love him, and I'm concerned for his safety, and about his relationship with God, just as sincerely and without any reservation as I always have....it's just that I am not as proud and supportive of what he is doing, primarily because of his attitude about it, than I was the day that he graduated from training.

I wish that I <b>felt as sincere as I would like to be when I've praised my stepson for his service.</b>

I read some of the posts on this thread and the thoughts expressed in them convince me that the authors of those posts, have no idea of what it is like to be conflicted about the morality and the merits of the US military presence and actions on the "frontlines" in the GWOT. I'm convinced that our soldiers dying and killing is not making us safer or preserving our "freedom", they are not killing the people who attacked us on 9/11, or who aided the people who attacked us. Almost all of the people our soldiers kill are folks fighting to remove foreign troops from their own countries, just as anyone who reads this would want to do if circumstances were reversed.

The conclusions that I've reached, influence my sentiments and interfere with the reflexive, total commitment to my stepson and his foreign military service, that the stepfather part of me naturally would want to commit to and convey. I can't simply "switch on"
reflexive, total commitment to my stepson and his foreign military service, and recognition of that, made me feel "sick to my stomach"....

Host, sorry to have condemned you after just one reading of your original post. I should have gone back and read it more than once, even though it (as usual with your posts) has so much crap attached to it that it makes my eyes bleed. :)

I am with you in your desire to praise your step son, Host. He is serving his country with honor and distinction, regardless of the politics at work. That is what a soldier/sailer/airman/marine/coastguardman is trained to do. That is why he is doing what he is doing, nothing more, nothing less.

I think what you are looking for, personally, is a set of facts that can help you support him, giving you an intellectual basis for your support. Given your political views, my friend, I do not think you will be able to find one. You are convinced that President Bush is wrong and his prosecution of this war is wrong, so it is a lost cause on this front.

The only path that remains for you is to support him on the basis of what is evident:

1. There are those who want to destroy the US and democracy
2. Our military is what keeps these people from succeeding
3. He is part of what keeps us safe

Therefore, he is worthy of our support. I know there are questions about what Iraq means in the GWOT, but Osama himself said that it is the place of WWIII, and since he has pretty much been accurate so far, I think we should believe him. It's best that we (the US) be on top of things there, than be underneath them and lose out in the end.

Host, I know it is difficult for you and your wife to come to terms with all it means for your son to be in such a dangerous place. I remember when my brother was in the Marine Corps when President Carter ordered the rescue of the Iranian hostages, and my brother was next up for getting on a helicopter. It's an awful feeling, that a family might be called upon to give the ultimate sacrifice of their loved one.

But I would like to ask this - what if Iraq becomes a budding, flourishing democracy? What if it spreads to the rest of the Middle East? What if the Middle Eastern countries as a whole become our true allies? How would that translate into world peace, in these days of Islamic Extremism?

Wouldn't your stepson view his service as being "worth it"?

Just a though, my friend.:icare:

I dooubt this will answer your question, but simply put. The fact that America is plit right down the middle with very little political grey area really sucks, for a lack of better words.
The war in Iraq is not just going to go away the second a Democrat becomes president. We have far too much invested in that country to just walk away.
If a Democratic president gets elected, and it will happen in 08, will you say the same things about that president if they choose to not pull out of Iraq?
Hilliary Clinton has already siad that pulling out of Iraq completely would be a stupid thing. I would venture as far as to say that most dems agree with her.
You have to agree that there are probably more corrupt politicans on both sides of the fence, who are more concerned with lining their own pockets then actually empowering the people of America. Human beings in general are flawed and a survival instinct is inside allof us and you simply cannot ignore it or shut it off sometimes. This survival button has cuased politicians to pull for whatever team digs deeper into their pockets.
I really hate to say this but I really think this is how its done now. It makes me sad, but its the golden rule. He who has the most gold makes the rules. I am by no means making excuses for anyone, because both sides are guilty of this and I hope that it simply werent the case.
Iraq may be the result of a very powerful lobbyist or a personal agenda for Bush, but I guarantee Bush os not in this one by himself. He is really not that smart.
Your son is fighting and continues to fight so that places like TFProject can remain open and free from government censorship. His life should be more important than any political agenda or your feelings on why he's there. It simply does not matter. He is there and there is nothing you can do aboutit except support him. Be there for him. He has seen and done things you could only imagine and he will be foreve changed. you will never get him to see things the way you think they are and he will never be able to change your mind. Understand that he is there and he knows things that youwould never understand or believe. we in America are controlled by the media and we believe whatever they tell us. We are not in Iraq. We cannot see things for ourselves and IMO the Media reports only what they want and it is never the whole story. Be strong and love your on, beproud of him. He is standing up for what he believes in, just like you are only he is doing it with his life.

Besides how on earth do we know who is right about the war in Iraq. Every argument has a counter and both sides feel they are more right. Nobody knows why we are in Iraq and it may be better that way.
If we knew every government secret, we would most liekly live in fear for the rest of lives.

Extremely good points Florida and well written.