Can you support out troops and still be against the war?

[Nammy]

I'd like to know your views on this. It seems there is percentage of Americans who think you can not be against the war and still support the troops?

Does this mean you cant be against what they're fighting for and at the same time hope they all make it home safely?

 

[saggyjones]

You can support the troops but not their mission if you want them to come home or be sent somewhere else which you believe is more useful. People who say you can't support the troops without supporting their mission are simply using a tactic to try to get more people to support the war.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

My thoughts in this are here: https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1140&postcount=11

 

[InterestedParty]

Supporting the troops doesn't end where your political beliefs begin. That is *not* support.

Supporting the troops means you stand behind them 100%. You can't claim to support the troops if you promote rhetoric that puts them in additional danger.

I am not in favor of war. I don't like war. Wars have taken people that I care about. BUT... I will not do anything that causes the job of our men and women fighting in a war more difficult to do.

I will put my personal feelings aside to give the military the support that they deserve. I owe that to them.

I guess a question I have for you and everyone else, do you owe it to them yourselves?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Supporting the troops doesn't end where your political beliefs begin. That is *not* support.

Supporting the troops means you stand behind them 100%. You can't claim to support the troops if you promote rhetoric that puts them in additional danger.

I am not in favor of war. I don't like war. Wars have taken people that I care about. BUT... I will not do anything that causes the job of our men and women fighting in a war more difficult to do.

I will put my personal feelings aside to give the military the support that they deserve. I owe that to them.

I guess a question I have for you and everyone else, do you owe it to them yourselves?

My main issue is like I noted in that link -- you don't have to send us goodies, don't need to write us letters, don't even have to fly a flag outside your house or say thank you to us in airports -- just don't make our jobs more difficult than they need to be.

You can be opposed to the war but still support the effort -- that is to say that even if you don't think going in was a good idea, you can still want the troops to succeed on our missions and still want the U.S. to win.

 

[InterestedParty]

Amen

I don't know how it could be any more clear.

 

[Nammy]

Well said USMC.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Well said USMC.

Thank you, sir. Just a Marine on the ground giving you his thoughts.

 

[Archangelwolf]

In 1952, a candidate ran for President during an unpopular war. He promised to bring the troops home by Christmas if he was elected. No one dared to question whether Dwight Eisenhower supported the troops or not; and he was elected President twice by landslides.

Yes, we can support our troops and question the validity of keeping them in Iraq. I have done it now for 6 years.

Arch.

 

[InterestedParty]

In 1952, a candidate ran for President during an unpopular war. He promised to bring the troops home by Christmas if he was elected. No one dared to question whether Dwight Eisenhower supported the troops or not; and he was elected President twice by landslides.

Yes, we can support our troops and question the validity of keeping them in Iraq. I have done it now for 6 years.

Arch.

I'd dare to question whether or not Eisenhower supported the troops. He didn't. For you to continue to declare that he did shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Eisenhower INTENTIONALLY LEFT up to 5000 of our men behind in North Korea and the USSR all because he wanted a "honorable armistice" with the North Koreans, Chinese and Russians. I should know, my Uncle was one of the soldiers left behind.

The 5000 number figure-Read the section titled Investigation in Progress located at

http://aiipowmia.com/ssc/ssc49.html

It is the Senate Select Committee website for POW/MIA's

Eisenhowers role as President during the Korean Conflict is located at

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/AMH...2/chapter8.htm

You will see page numbers for each secton. Scoll down to page 244 and 245.

Finally, read the testimony of Retired Lieutenant Colonel Phillip Corso to the Senate Select Committee on November 10, 1992 where he testifies that along with Eisenhower, he agrees to ignore and hide the fact that there were still known POW's alive and in the custody of the North Koreans and their allies.

Scroll down to Testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Phillip Corso, USA, Ret. about 3/4's of the way down the page.

http://www.aiipowmia.com/ssc/ssc49.html

And.... to put the icing on the cake, you should read about the
"sightings" of POW's decades after the Korean Conflict ended.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...2fKorean War

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...2fKorean War

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...Dwight David

How about this;

House Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Statement of Donna Downes Knox
Korean/Cold War Family Association of the Missing

http://www.aiipowmia.com/koreacw/knox.html


I could give you numerous links to access, but these should suffice.

Eisenhower was the worst example you could have used. He was a traitor to the men who servd our country in the 1950's.

 

[saggyjones]

Supporting the troops doesn't end where your political beliefs begin. That is *not* support.

Supporting the troops means you stand behind them 100%. You can't claim to support the troops if you promote rhetoric that puts them in additional danger.

I am not in favor of war. I don't like war. Wars have taken people that I care about. BUT... I will not do anything that causes the job of our men and women fighting in a war more difficult to do.

I will put my personal feelings aside to give the military the support that they deserve. I owe that to them.

I guess a question I have for you and everyone else, do you owe it to them yourselves?

So you should stop questioning things so soldiers' jobs can be easier? Doesn't that defeat one of the causes they are supposedly fighting for, which is our freedom, and with that comes freedom of speech?

 

[InterestedParty]

Saggy....

It's clear, you do not support our troops and their lives mean absolutely nothing to you. I get it.

You should be proud of yourself. Something tells me that with an attitude likes yours, you are the only one.

 

[saggyjones]

Saggy....

It's clear, you do not support our troops and their lives mean absolutely nothing to you. I get it.

You should be proud of yourself. Something tells me that with an attitude likes yours, you are the only one.

You didn't answer my questions, so I'll post them again.

So you should stop questioning things so soldiers' jobs can be easier? Doesn't that defeat one of the causes they are supposedly fighting for, which is our freedom, and with that comes freedom of speech?

 

[InterestedParty]

You didn't answer my questions, so I'll post them again.

So you should stop questioning things so soldiers' jobs can be easier? Doesn't that defeat one of the causes they are supposedly fighting for, which is our freedom, and with that comes freedom of speech?

It isn't that you should be hindered from questioning anything, it's the manner of how to raise the questions *responsibly* without bringing additional turmoil to the situation and adding to the level of potential harm to our soldiers. I know, I know, you don't care. Saggy, you aren't questioning though. You are projecting your opinion all wrapped up inside that inspiring little quotation you are using. You are playing games with other peoples lives.

The soldiers in the MiddleEast are fighting to remove any threat of terrorism like that which occurred on 9/11 on our soil. They are not there to protect your individual right of freedom of speech. Believe it or not, this is bigger than you.

 

[MarkVI]

You can be opposed to the war but still support the effort -- that is to say that even if you don't think going in was a good idea, you can still want the troops to succeed on our missions and still want the U.S. to win.

That's what I believe about this issue and with it coming from USMC who is over there fighting for us only reinforces it.

Our troops are there, whether we want them there or not, whether we agree with why they're there or not, or wether we agree how the situation is being dealt with or not. I still want them to succeed in their mission even though I disagree with some of what's been going on.


Perhaps it's ok to question, but to do so respectfully all the while being supportive of the troops. It's not their fault that they want to serve our country, as it's very honorable, but criticizing them in a derisive way is not good.