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

[r0beph]

The war in iraq is not the war on terror politicalgrrrl, well it wasn't, considering saddam had no patience for anything outside his regime going on in his country. We are in a supposed war on terror, yet, we created the terror in iraq...how is this logical? On the other hand while I despise everything going on in iraq, I'm pretty supportive of the going ons in afghanistan, we do need to be there, we went there to FIND Bin Laden, which was acceptable at the time. I'm still confused as to why the hell Iraq is associated in ANYONES mind with 9/11, the war on terror, or anything even slightly resembling that. Iraq was a completely different situation and had nothing to do with the war on terror. We shouldn't have gone into iraq...Plain and simple...Now we're there we need to do something, and what is going on right now, is not that something. It's a big mess, a debacle, a ****storm, and nothing is going as it should. It's becoming a moneypit, an oil pricing expounder, and a get rich scheme for amoral commercial entities. It's disgusting that Americans can support that.

 

[ArmChair General]

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?

I was against Hitler's wars, but I still supported the Nazi's.

 

[ArmChair General]

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.

No, you ****ing retards.

1. If I am against guns, I'll also be against those guns' bullets.
2. If I were against Hitler, I would also be against his Nazis.
3. And if I am against this WAR, I am not going "Support those who are fighting in it"!!! Goddamn! It's only people as ignorant and mis-educated as modern USA citizens, who would even think to, straight-faced, say something as ILLOGICAL as "If you don't support the war, at least support the troops"!

 

[ArmChair General]

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?

Inclusion is an American Mandate.

And no intolerance...will be tolerated.

ALL HAIL THE GREAT (and spine-less) SATAN!

The only thing that matters to these philistines is whether they're convincing in their continuous deception (most American's are ****ing pussies who stand for nothing; and hence, they stand, impeccably, for "the American way").

 

[ArmChair General]

So, if there are fewer deaths overall while ultimately conceding defeat as a result, that is acceptable to you? I wonder how all the soldiers that have made the ultimate sacrifice would interpret your support when they realized their sacrifices were for nothing simply because you didn't have the constitution to see it through. I support the troops and I say that without hesitation because I support their mission as so many did for my brothers in '91.

-Castle

Obviously these soldiers' sacrifice doesn't amount to much, considering how hostile the climate of our culture is for anyone who argues against the current "givens"...

 

[ArmChair General]

Of course a person can be against the war and still support the troops. I can't believe a few of the opinions shared in this thread.

Two of my friends lost their sons in Iraq - one about a year ago (October 17) and the other, just the other day. I live in a military town and I don't know of many *military families* that support the ongoing debacle that is the WoT. Is that to say they don't support their LOVED ONES serving?

Hell no. To say otherwise is insultive and ignorant.

said like a typical, brainwashed, spineless American.

 

[r0beph]

No, you ****ing retards.

1. If I am against guns, I'll also be against those guns' bullets.
2. If I were against Hitler, I would also be against his Nazis.
3. And if I am against this WAR, I am not going "Support those who are fighting in it"!!! Goddamn! It's only people as ignorant and mis-educated as modern USA citizens, who would even think to, straight-faced, say something as ILLOGICAL as "If you don't support the war, at least support the troops"!

I think you're wrong here. In fact, I know you're wrong. Guns and Bullets are integral, bulllets without guns, aren't very useful, nor are guns without bullets. As for hitler, there's a slight difference between being against someone who calls for mass torture and murder of unarmed civilians while all the time KNOWING DAMN WELL they're civilians, and then supporting those who are willing to carry out such a malicious act. The problem with this is that I don't support Hitler and at the same time I don't support the Nazis, but then that is expected because they both represent the exact same thing. Soldiers do not represent this war, they are in the war because they are soldiers, but would be soldiers, war or not.

I don't support our actions in Iraq, I DO support our actions in Afghanistan, in fact I feel that we're doing TOO much in Iraq while we're laxing in Afghanistan.

This all aside as stated before, a soldier is a soldier, war or not, I do support those soldiers here AND abroad.

__________________

I wonder why we cant use pics on sigs?

 

[ArmChair General]

I think you're wrong here. In fact, I know you're wrong.

Actually, I'm correct.

Guns and Bullets are integral, bulllets without guns, aren't very useful, nor are guns without bullets.

Wars without soldiers to fight them wouldn't be much use either....

As for hitler, there's a slight difference between being against someone who calls for mass torture and murder of unarmed civilians while all the time KNOWING DAMN WELL they're civilians, and then supporting those who are willing to carry out such a malicious act. The problem with this is that I don't support Hitler and at the same time I don't support the Nazis, but then that is expected because they both represent the exact same thing. Soldiers do not represent this war, they are in the war because they are soldiers, but would be soldiers, war or not.

You don't know any better.

All soldiers are ALL mindless pawns and it is ILLEGAL for them not to be.

And we're not just talking jail-time, because if any of the mindless pawns steps out of line, it is punishable up to death, under several statutes of the UCMJ.

EXAMPLE

Unfortunately (I think), we almost never hear of such harsh punishments being enacted. Not only because the rare instances are suppressed... but, also, most military personnel are too cowardly to take any stand, and risk the punishment.

This all aside as stated before, a soldier is a soldier, war or not, I do support those soldiers here AND abroad.

Then you also support their actions, which include the wars they fight.

 

[vyo476]

I think we should all ask ourselves what this whole, "Do you support the troops?" thing really means.

For me, the whole "Do you support the troops?" thing is purely psychological.

When you sign up to be a soldier, you sign up to be a willing tool of the United States, for use especially in times of need. You forfeit your right to outwardly protest the actions of your superiors, except in times of absolute extremity, because to be able to do so would be counterproductive; that's what civilians are for anyway. You do not have a choice in where you are sent or who you are told to kill.

When someone asks if you support the troops, they mean to ask if you're planning on spitting on them when they get back and calling them "baby-killers." Had this been a "justified" war, with the support of the public, they'd have come home to ticker-tape parades and the general trappings of complete heroism. As this is not a "justified" war in the eyes of the public, what they are doing over there has a stigma attached to it. For them, though, there must be no difference between these two types of war. War is war. It is what they do. It is no more pleasant to kill a random stranger when the public thinks he deserves it than when the public thinks he does not.

When they return to America, many will no longer be soldiers, and all will be reintroduced to our society (which has different rules and customs from the life of the combat soldier). They will be returning to family and friends who have not had the same depth of experiences they have had. When they see a bumper sticker that says, "I support the troops!", to them it says, "We still love you. We know the government made you do something terrible. But we still love you."

 

[palerider]

We know the government made you do something terrible. But we still love you."

Like dogs who are trained to fight but really aren't responsible for their actions? I am sure that they appreciate your condescending love now as much as I appreciated it when I returned from viet nam.

I signed up for what I did and went into it with my eyes open as do the vast majority of soldiers today. They signed up and went because they felt that it was the right thing to do, not because the government "made them do something terrible".

The vast majority of soldiers who are in iraq and afghanistan today are there because they want to give the people there the chance to live a life of freedom rather than a life of opression under some dictator's thumb.

 

[Popeye]

Like dogs who are trained to fight but really aren't responsible for their actions? I am sure that they appreciate your condescending love now as much as I appreciated it when I returned from viet nam.

I signed up for what I did and went into it with my eyes open as do the vast majority of soldiers today. They signed up and went because they felt that it was the right thing to do, not because the government "made them do something terrible".

The vast majority of soldiers who are in iraq and afghanistan today are there because they want to give the people there the chance to live a life of freedom rather than a life of opression under some dictator's thumb.

Who are you kidding? The vast majority in Vietnam were draftees. Poor and minority draftees at that.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, you have a great many soldiers who were already members of the military when 9/11 broke. Since then they have been deployed, redeployed, and redeployed, and redeployed. No WMDs and no staying at home, I bet they're loving it.

 

[palerider]

Who are you kidding? The vast majority in Vietnam were draftees. Poor and minority draftees at that.

And once again, you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that most of what you believe is based on false information. Your world view is based on lies popeye. What does that say about you?

The truth is that 1/3 of those who fought in Vietnam were drafted. The rest were volunteers.

86% of those who died in Vietnam were white. 12.5% were black, a smaller number than their actual percentage of the population at the time. The balance were "other".

76% of the those sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class backgrounds, not poor, and 75% had family incomes above the poverty level, 23% had fathers with professional, managerial, or technical occupations, 79% of the men who served in Vietnam had a high school education or better. A higher percentage than that of the general population at the time. Compare that to 63% of Korean vets who had completed high school upon separation from the service and an even lower number as you go back through WWII and WWI.

Furthermore, if you came from a family that was more well to do than average, your chances of dying were elevated above those of the average draftee since they tended to be pilots or infantry officers.

You just gobble up whatever people tell you if it fits your already skewed beliefs. It is clear that you rarely, if ever, actually research anything on your own, you just parrot whatever the leftist d'jour tells you to say.

Go learn something popeye. Your neverending stream of uninformed, mistaken, and simply wrong BS has long since lost any "endearing" appeal that it might once have had.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, you have a great many soldiers who were already members of the military when 9/11 broke. Since then they have been deployed, redeployed, and redeployed, and redeployed. No WMDs and no staying at home, I bet they're loving it.

Since you aren't the sort who serves, you really aren't in a position to say what "they" think and feel are you?

 

[Popeye]

And once again, you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that most of what you believe is based on false information. Your world view is based on lies popeye. What does that say about you?

The truth is that 1/3 of those who fought in Vietnam were drafted. The rest were volunteers.

86% of those who died in Vietnam were white. 12.5% were black, a smaller number than their actual percentage of the population at the time. The balance were "other".

76% of the those sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class backgrounds, not poor, and 75% had family incomes above the poverty level, 23% had fathers with professional, managerial, or technical occupations, 79% of the men who served in Vietnam had a high school education or better. A higher percentage than that of the general population at the time. Compare that to 63% of Korean vets who had completed high school upon separation from the service and an even lower number as you go back through WWII and WWI.

That 76% were from lower income families tells you something right there. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and other current Republicans can tell you all about avoiding the draft through the National Guard or college deferments.

You're right, draftees were a minority of the total US armed forces. In the Army, though, they accounted for almost 90% of the infantry riflemen. Can anyone say front lines? Thusly, draftees accounted for more than half of Army battlefield deaths. Sounds to me, as if draftees were used as nothing more than cannon fodder.

Since you aren't the sort who serves, you really aren't in a position to say what "they" think and feel are you?

Are you ready to apply the same logic to the current administration?

 

[Popeye]

Since you aren't the sort who serves, you really aren't in a position to say what "they" think and feel are you?

So, I guess you would say these Republicans are in no position to know what "they think and feel" either.

Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
Tom Delay: did not serve.
Roy Blunt: did not serve.
Bill Frist: did not serve.
Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
Rick Santorum: did not serve.
Trent Lott: did not serve.
John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
Jeb Bush: did not serve.
Karl Rove: did not serve.
Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
Vin Weber: did not serve.
Richard Perle: did not serve.
Douglas Feith: did not serve.
Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
Richard Shelby: did not serve.
Jon! Kyl: did not serve.
Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
Christopher Cox: did not serve.
Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he couldcampaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate..
B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
Phil Gramm: did not serve.
Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
John M. McHugh: did not serve.
JC Watts: did not serve.
Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem" although continued in NFL for 8 years as quarterback.
Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
George Pataki: did not serve.
Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
George Felix Allen- no mention of service in official bio
Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army

 

[palerider]

That 76% were from lower income families tells you something right there. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and other current Republicans can tell you all about avoiding the draft through the National Guard or college deferments.

Lower middle class isn't poor popeye. You were wrong so just give it up. You bought the lie and repeat it just like so many others of your type do. It would only have taken you 10 seconds to learn the truth, but you were oh so much more comfortable with the lie.

So if you aren't the type of person who volunteers to serve, you might get stuck with the crappiest job. What is your point?

I don't know. Are they sitting back in their arm chairs on the thanksgiving holiday complaining, spreading a lie about GI's, painting them as poor unfortunates who simply had no choice but to go into the military? I condemn anyone who is doing such a thing. Of course, those who are doing such a thing are going to be dems or rinos aren't they?

By the way, today's military is 100% volunteer and the best educated military we have ever had regardless of how stupid people like you think that they must be to actually want to defend their country.