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

[top gun]

I voted yes. I want the troops home, I believe that it is naive to think that this war is just. I was against it from before it started. I am also against us going into Iran, I think that would be foolish. These countries never posed a threat to us, Israel, maybe. Thats their problem. I have 3 sons that and I persuaded them against joining the military to fight a war of aggression. At first they didn't understand, now they thank me.
I have a great fondness for the troops, they are the best of the best. Yet their suicide rates are at an all time high, divorce is also out of control. When they get home they find nothing but grief when dealing with the VA. Their jobs are gone, the gov turns their backs toward them. In my state, the veterans hospitals are a joke, it takes them months to get in, then if they are lucky they receive treatment. The state cannot afford to keep them open as the federal gov cut payments.
I have taken part in protesting this war, and will continue to do so. I have the greatest respect for the troops and only want the best for them. Ask this administration why they have let them down, and when do they plan to give them the support that they deserve.

I have to agree. I was totally on board with going into Afghanistan to search for Bin Laden after 911. If you attack us and we can prove it or you are stupid enough to admit to it we should hunt you down like a dog and capture or kill you.

But this Iraq thing was just vanity run amuck. Bush didn't like Hussein for several reasons and by God he was going to take him out. He would not wait. He would not go along with the UN (and remember it was their sanctions that Hussein was breaking).

Now we are quagmired down. Brave American lives are lost on a daily basis and our treasury is spending tax money like we have never seen before funding Nation Building.

We must elect a president that has a position to end this occupation. I know some say Ron Paul but he will not be a candidate in the general election. All the other Republican candidates say stay. Vote symbolically up to the general election to make your points. That's very honorable. But if Ron Paul isn't there at the end please help the Democrats in the 08 election... it's our only chance!

 

[fschmeisser]

Redeploying our troops out of Iraq is the only way to truly support them. Currently, they are playing whack-a-mole trying to remove insurgents from areas, but since they are creating enemies of the families of those they kill, their brothers move back in as soon as our troops move on. This has been going on for years, and things seem to go from bad to worse. Since we do not have the troops (or the money) to hold areas, it is best to ship out.
The highly touted Iraqi army is no help, since they have no allegiance to the imposed "democracy".

 

[jeffbiss]

1. We are not at war, we are occupying Iraq.
2. Bush lied us into invading.

There is absolutely no connection between wanting to hold this adminsitration accountable for its crimes, unconstitutional behavior, and incompetence and support of our military personnel.

To simply equate support of the "war" with support of our troops requires one to accept that they are simply pawns of the administration in the quest to fulfill their agenda. This mindset has no place in our republic.

True support of our troops would come in the form of an open government that holds those in power accountable for their crimes, unconstitutional behavior, and incompetence. The fundamental question is whether we are a nation of laws or privilege. To simply "support our troops" is to live in a Banana Republic.

 

[nakedtruth]

In a poll over 70 percent of the troops in Iraq said they wanted the war ended in 2006! It's now 2007 so those numbers probably have only gone up. If we did what the troops wanted we'd bring them home yesterday.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

In a poll over 70 percent of the troops in Iraq said they wanted the war ended in 2006! It's now 2007 so those numbers probably have only gone up. If we did what the troops wanted we'd bring them home yesterday.

What poll do you speak of? Must've been polling the Desk Force because I don't know any Marines who are advocating surrender. Most, like myself, are upset that there aren't enough troops on the ground to hold the areas that secure and as a result, we have to pay for real estate two and three times. Iraq on the whole is making tremendous progress. It's really only Baghdad that needs securing. Another 50-75k would get the job done.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

1. We are not at war, we are occupying Iraq.

Wrong. We are at war against AQ and we have liberated Iraq.

2. Bush lied us into invading.

First, you can't prove that he lied. Secondly, if Bush lied then by default so did Hillary Clinton and the rest of Congress.

There is absolutely no connection between wanting to hold this adminsitration accountable for its crimes, unconstitutional behavior, and incompetence and support of our military personnel.

Please expound on exactly what part of the constitution the President has betrayed.

To simply equate support of the "war" with support of our troops requires one to accept that they are simply pawns of the administration in the quest to fulfill their agenda. This mindset has no place in our republic.

The fact of the matter is that the troops are fighting a war. Democrats and Republicans voted to send them to war -- the most serious decision any politician can make is to send members of the military to war. It is extremely disloyal to, if things aren't progressing at the ideal speed for the latte liberals, immediately call for retreat.

If you're going to send us to war, then you support us and our mission until that war is won.

True support of our troops would come in the form of an open government that holds those in power accountable for their crimes, unconstitutional behavior, and incompetence.

No, all that would do is screw up the political process even more. That's the worse possible option for the country and it's servicemen. We need less bureaucracy and politics -- not more.

The fundamental question is whether we are a nation of laws or privilege. To simply "support our troops" is to live in a Banana Republic.

I don't even know what this means.

 

[jeffbiss]

USMC,

1. We are occupying Iraq. When we invaded Iraq we removed the two things in Iraq the controlled al Qaeda: Saddam and the Baath Party. Iraq was invaded to control the region's oil reserves and had nothing to do with "fighting al Qaeda".

2. Bush lied about the threat Saddam posed. Bush set up a system by which all intelligence that was not in support of invading Iraq was ignored. Hillary and the rest of Congress didn't lie because they were presented with the skewed intelligence.

3. Bush ignores the constitution because he believes in a unitary Executive. For example, his use of ignoring the law through signing statements is unconstitutional. His lying to the American people and Congress is unconstitutional.

4. Our troops are not fighting a war. They are providing security in Iraq. We invaded Iraq and the war ended when we took Baghdad. The Congress should never have allowed Bush the authority that is theirs alone. The constitution grants the authority to declare war to Congress and so Congress has the authority to declare an end to war.

You dont' have a clue about Iraq do you? Retreat from what? From keeping a puppet government in place? From allowing Iraqis to live their own lives? They warned us NOT to inject sectarianism or ethnicity into their politics yet we did because the Bush administration is stupid. What we needed were people who understand Iraq and the region and what we got were ideologues.

5. So, you don't like the tenets on which our republic is founded? You want an authoritarian state? Maybe you should try China. It surprises me that a serviceman would speak against the form of government that the constitution sets forth. We wouldn't be in the situation we currently are in had the American people done their job and enlightened themselves of the facts. Also, Congress saw fit to fall at the feet of a unitary President. Good governance requires smart debate, you call for blind loyalty.

6. If we are a nation of laws then Bush and Cheney would be impeached for his crimes and removed from office. The problem is that with power comes privilege, just as in any Banana Republic, which is why Bush is still President.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

1. We are occupying Iraq. When we invaded Iraq we removed the two things in Iraq the controlled al Qaeda: Saddam and the Baath Party. Iraq was invaded to control the region's oil reserves and had nothing to do with "fighting al Qaeda".

By what measure was AQI under “control”? Beirut (83), Lockerbie (88), WTC (93), Air Force Housing Complex in SA (96), U.S. embassy in Kenya (98), U.S. embassy in Tanzania (98), U.S. Cole (00), Pentagon/WTC1,2,7/flight 93 (01), Zarqawi, Nidal, Zawhiri…

If you honestly believe that we went there for oil then I shouldn’t even waste my time responding to anything you say.

2. Bush lied about the threat Saddam posed. Bush set up a system by which all intelligence that was not in support of invading Iraq was ignored. Hillary and the rest of Congress didn't lie because they were presented with the skewed intelligence.

First – everyone , Democrats/Republicans, Americans, international forces believed that Saddam posed a threat. How quickly you forget:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weep on stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

there’s plenty more…

3. Bush ignores the constitution because he believes in a unitary Executive. For example, his use of ignoring the law through signing statements is unconstitutional. His lying to the American people and Congress is unconstitutional.

Again, I’d like an Article/Section number of the Constitution that the President has betrayed.

4. Our troops are not fighting a war. They are providing security in Iraq. We invaded Iraq and the war ended when we took Baghdad. The Congress should never have allowed Bush the authority that is theirs alone. The constitution grants the authority to declare war to Congress and so Congress has the authority to declare an end to war.

Not exactly. Congress can end the war because they have the “power of the purse” to use a colonial era term, but if you remember there never was no official declaration of war (which is why Ron Paul voted against it).
The troops won the war against Saddam with the Thunder Run on Baghdad, but we are now engaged in a war against Islamic fascism – and the front for that war right now is Iraq, although it is slowly shifting to Iran and Syria.

You dont' have a clue about Iraq do you? Retreat from what? From keeping a puppet government in place? From allowing Iraqis to live their own lives? They warned us NOT to inject sectarianism or ethnicity into their politics yet we did because the Bush administration is stupid. What we needed were people who understand Iraq and the region and what we got were ideologues.

You really are an idiot. The “stupid” Bush Administration injected sectarianism into the conflict, not AQI/Zarqawi’s Somarra Mosque bombing?

And retreat from what? Retreat from the fledgling democracy that is trying to get on its feet. It wasn’t until 1800 that America really became a viable country. That’s a good 24 years after our Independence. Iraq was given independence in 2003. It’s 2007.

5. So, you don't like the tenets on which our republic is founded? You want an authoritarian state? Maybe you should try China. It surprises me that a serviceman would speak against the form of government that the constitution sets forth. We wouldn't be in the situation we currently are in had the American people done their job and enlightened themselves of the facts. Also, Congress saw fit to fall at the feet of a unitary President. Good governance requires smart debate, you call for blind loyalty.

Where do you get this silly idea from? I don’t want to screw up the failing political process even more for vengeful proceedings and trials of some imaginary “crimes”. When Clinton was being impeached, I remember telling one of my buddies that every president from here on out was going to be brought up on impeachment hearings. Bringing impeachment trials on Bush makes a mockery of the Constitution (specifically Article 2, Section 4). People like you make me think back to the days of Charles Sumner and the Radical Republicans. (Go ahead and Wikipedia him to see if you can make the connection.)

6. If we are a nation of laws then Bush and Cheney would be impeached for his crimes and removed from office. The problem is that with power comes privilege, just as in any Banana Republic, which is why Bush is still President.

You have still yet to substantiate these cries for impeachment.

 

[jeffbiss]

USMC,

1. You are very confused, as most Bush supporters are. Al Qaeda is one thing and Saddam was another. Saddam controlled al Qaeda because he was a secular leader and a tyrant. By default he controlled al Qaeda.

2. What people believed is of no relevance. We were in the process of actually discovering precisely what, if any, threat Saddam posed. UNMOVIC was allowed back into Iraq on Nov. 27, 2002 and was in the process of inspecting the country for alleged WMDs. Bush couldn't allow them to complete their inspections in the event that they proved Iraq actually had no WMDs so he made an ultimatum for Saddam and sons to leave Iraq, thus forcing UNMOVIC out on March 18, 2003.

3. The Executive branch is supposed to enforce the entire law not just part of it. Bush has chosen to enforce legislation selectively which is unconstitutional. He also illegally and unconstitutionally spied on US citizens, so see the court rulings. The President is not supposed to lie, especially about the reasons to go to war.

4. They have the power of the purse and the authority to declare war and thus to undeclare war. The President is simply the top officer of the military. He can run the military but he has no authority to start or continue conflicts, unless allowed to by Congress.

5. Correct, Bush added sectarianism and ethnicity into the equation. the Iraqis desires for creating a government were ignored. For the most part Iraqis didn't perceive themselves according to sect. They warned us not to parse out power according to sect or ethnicity but we did so we created the environment for the strife we see now.

6. You can't force democracy down a people's throat. What we need to do now is to back out and provide a regional political solution. Our absolute ignorance is precisely why Iraq is the way it is.

7. You seem to like an authoritarian form of government. I don't like what my government is doing and will not support it. I believe that Bush lying about the threat Saddam posed itself is an impeachable offense. I think that Cheney's actions are impeachable. I don't accept the Unitary Executive theory you seem to support because I see that the constitution provides for three co-equal branches and that the Executive is to be held accountable for their crimes.

 

[Beetle Bailey]

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?

It is a set up question to begin with. A rhetorical device of the right wing. Many of us have family and friends serving in Iraq, but are not exactly happy about it. So who really supports the troops? Those of us who risk and maybe sacrifice loved one's? Or people who just talk about supporting the troops? You know. Like some of the people who post on this forum. Always happy to have other people do their fighting for them. That way they can sit at home and tell us what a good job we are doing in Iraq.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

USMC,
1. You are very confused, as most Bush supporters are. Al Qaeda is one thing and Saddam was another. Saddam controlled al Qaeda because he was a secular leader and a tyrant. By default he controlled al Qaeda.

If he did have control as you contend and AQI carried out these attacks under his control -- then we were perfectly justified in going after Saddam as he was the root cause of 9/11.

2. What people believed is of no relevance. We were in the process of actually discovering precisely what, if any, threat Saddam posed. UNMOVIC was allowed back into Iraq on Nov. 27, 2002 and was in the process of inspecting the country for alleged WMDs. Bush couldn't allow them to complete their inspections in the event that they proved Iraq actually had no WMDs so he made an ultimatum for Saddam and sons to leave Iraq, thus forcing UNMOVIC out on March 18, 2003.

Give me a break. They'd been inspecting Saddam's weaps since 1997. They had plenty of time so you're not convincing anyone with your "Bush didn't give them enough time to do their job".

3. The Executive branch is supposed to enforce the entire law not just part of it. Bush has chosen to enforce legislation selectively which is unconstitutional. He also illegally and unconstitutionally spied on US citizens, so see the court rulings. The President is not supposed to lie, especially about the reasons to go to war.

Again, point exactly to an aspect of the Constitution that he betrayed. I've asked you three times and you still refuse to do it. Furthermore, what U.S. citizens (as in give me their names) did he spy on? U.S. troops were using Zawhiri's rolodex to tap phone calls coming from Iraq into the U.S. It would be the height of irresponsibility to not tap these calls.

Lastly, at least try to make a case that the President "lied". Just repeating it over and over again doesn't make it more true.

4. They have the power of the purse and the authority to declare war and thus to undeclare war. The President is simply the top officer of the military. He can run the military but he has no authority to start or continue conflicts, unless allowed to by Congress.

Except that Congress didn't declare war. This is a moot point anyway.

5. Correct, Bush added sectarianism and ethnicity into the equation. the Iraqis desires for creating a government were ignored. For the most part Iraqis didn't perceive themselves according to sect. They warned us not to parse out power according to sect or ethnicity but we did so we created the environment for the strife we see now.

No, not correct. Zarqawi and al Qaeda in Iraq added secterianism into the conflict with the Samarra Mosque bombing in Feb of '06. Now you have the Shia entities of Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon to thank for continuing the secterian violence.

6. You can't force democracy down a people's throat. What we need to do now is to back out and provide a regional political solution. Our absolute ignorance is precisely why Iraq is the way it is.

Approximately 70% of Iraqis turned out to vote in spite of death threats. They love freedom and democracy. We're hardly "forcing democracy down peoples' throats".

As for providing a regional political solution -- I'd like for you to go into the solutions thread and tell me how to do this.

7. You seem to like an authoritarian form of government.

On what basis do you make this accusation?

I don't like what my government is doing and will not support it. I believe that Bush lying about the threat Saddam posed itself is an impeachable offense.

So Clinton and Kerry and Gore were also lying about the threat?

I think that Cheney's actions are impeachable. I don't accept the Unitary Executive theory you seem to support because I see that the constitution provides for three co-equal branches and that the Executive is to be held accountable for their crimes.

Where do you get the idea that all three brances were supposed to be equal? The Founders, wanted the Congress to have the most power, then the President, and the courts to have the least power (because they are appointed, not elected).

And I don't support any "Unitary Executive theory" but I, like Adams, Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR think that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary responses. Now I wouldn't go as far with Adams with the Alien and Seiditon Act or Lincoln with the suspension of habeas corpus or sending dissenters to Canadian prisons, or Wilson with the Espionage and Sedition Acts, or FDR with the interment camps -- but all considered, there needs to be one central leader in times of war, as these previous wartime Presidents understood.

You can't have 100 Senators and 435 Representatives, all with different goals and agendas, micromanaging a war. It didn't work in Vietnam and it's not working in Iraq.

There needs to be a clear-cut strategy from the nation's highest military commander -- the President.

 

[top gun]

USMC,

1. We are occupying Iraq. When we invaded Iraq we removed the two things in Iraq the controlled al Qaeda: Saddam and the Baath Party. Iraq was invaded to control the region's oil reserves and had nothing to do with "fighting al Qaeda".

2. Bush lied about the threat Saddam posed. Bush set up a system by which all intelligence that was not in support of invading Iraq was ignored. Hillary and the rest of Congress didn't lie because they were presented with the skewed intelligence.

3. Bush ignores the constitution because he believes in a unitary Executive. For example, his use of ignoring the law through signing statements is unconstitutional. His lying to the American people and Congress is unconstitutional.

4. Our troops are not fighting a war. They are providing security in Iraq. We invaded Iraq and the war ended when we took Baghdad. The Congress should never have allowed Bush the authority that is theirs alone. The constitution grants the authority to declare war to Congress and so Congress has the authority to declare an end to war.

You dont' have a clue about Iraq do you? Retreat from what? From keeping a puppet government in place? From allowing Iraqis to live their own lives? They warned us NOT to inject sectarianism or ethnicity into their politics yet we did because the Bush administration is stupid. What we needed were people who understand Iraq and the region and what we got were ideologues.

5. So, you don't like the tenets on which our republic is founded? You want an authoritarian state? Maybe you should try China. It surprises me that a serviceman would speak against the form of government that the constitution sets forth. We wouldn't be in the situation we currently are in had the American people done their job and enlightened themselves of the facts. Also, Congress saw fit to fall at the feet of a unitary President. Good governance requires smart debate, you call for blind loyalty.

6. If we are a nation of laws then Bush and Cheney would be impeached for his crimes and removed from office. The problem is that with power comes privilege, just as in any Banana Republic, which is why Bush is still President.

Well here's another person that's got it right! Way to lay it out my friend!

 

[jeffbiss]

1. I reread my statement and it is very confusing. When I say that Saddam controlled al Qaeda I mean that he did not allow their activity in Iraq, not that he was their leader. So, he controlled them through his absolute power. The only region in which an affiliate of al Qaeda operated was in the Kurdish region where Saddam had no control.

2. You get no break on this one. UNMOVIC was inspecting in Iraq while Bush was lying about Saddam's weapons. They were in the process of determining the truth from Nov 2002 to March 2003. What they were not able to accomplish in the past was of no relevance because they were on the ground and inspecting just prior to the invasion.

3. You can't use a general abuse and look it up for yourself?

a) In re to illegal wiretaps: The Fourth Amendment protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures and the FISA law provides a legal framework for legally surveilling. Bush acknowledged on Dec. 17 that he had ordered the NSA to intercept Americans' communications without seeking judicial approval.

b)In re to signing statements: Article 1 Section 7 states that the President can either sign it or reject it; The President cannot selectively enforce sections of legislation that he signs because it is all or nothing.

c)With re to lying about the threat Saddam posed, you can read pages 4 and 5 Rep. Conyers report "The Constitution in Crisis.

4. Bush did lie. There are more than enough sources out there for you to find that explain how he manipulated and filtered intelligence.

5. Al Qaeda moved into Iraq AFTER we removed Saddam and the Baath Party from power. They were able to use Sunni disenchantment to their advantage but even Iraq's Sunnis don't trust al Qaeda nor would al Qaeda last long in Iraq if we left. Research the Baath Party and you'll understand why.

6. We are forcing the government we want them to have and not one that they would have supported. This is proven by the violence we see. For one, if they loved democracy so much and this met their criteria there'd be no violence and for another democracy can simply be mob rule. The facts on the ground prove that this is not democracy as they want it.

7. Your view that we must follow the leader indicates that you are authoritarian.

8. You should read about our government. The branches were given different authorities but equal power. In fact, the Judiciary was considered the primary defence against the tyranny of the majority because the majority could act through the Legislature and the President yet the Judiciary could strike down legislation deemed uncoanstitutional. You should read James Madison' thoughts on this.

9. The lesson from Vietnam was not about micromanaging a war but that we sought a military solution to a political problem. Iraq is simply another case in which the military was used as the primary tool when regional diplomacy was the correct tool.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

We're just going in circles here. Maybe if I can find some time, I'll respond.

 

[John]

Support the troops???

I feel the survey was flawed in that the complex question was asked in a very simplistic manner. First of all is the definition of "support our troops".
I saw the phrase first used by the radical left wing 6 years ago and it simply meant that "I am totally against the war and President Bush, but I don't want to be viewed as not supporting the troops as congress did at the end of the Vietnam War". I don't want to be viewed as a Jane Fonda (even though that's exactly what I am). This was at best disingenuous.
As the US involvement in Iraq continued the meaning remained the same but it became embraced by some Republicans and most Democrats and it also became politicized so that those who were anti (fill in the blank) felt more comfortable using the term. It became chic.
How would I have voted? I suppose the same way most of the troops would have voted. It is hard to conceive that many troops on the ground would have voted "Yes". They recognize that support does not mean turning tail and running out in defeat even though most of them want to be back with their families. They believe in duty, honor, mission and at the same time realize what would happen it we suddenly puled out. They do not feel that the only way to truly support the troops is to remove them from harms way. They are not defeatists. Most accept the risk and hope for peace with honor. So ask yourself are you on the same side as the troops? Do you feel as they do? If not how could you have voted, "yes".