Liberals say you can not support a war unless you fight in it. Is this true?

Answer 1

No.

That's actually one of the Weak Sisters' weaker "arguments". It's childish in formulation and characterizes the shallowness of their reasoning.

Of course, when Little Billy Clinton was sending our military out around the world they were stone silent.

It's just a typical far left-wing wack-job one-liner - ignore it or it may infect YOU and then where will you be?!? ;-)

Answer 2

I don't know that I've heard a liberal say that but it wouldn't suprise me. I think you can support a war and not have fought in it. In WWII many Americans supported the war by building stuff here that was sent over to help our troops. The same with today. Many people here in the states do things here that help the soldiers who are fighting in the war.

Answer 3

It usually helps to know of what you speak. A lot of cons that I've talked to are all about the war, but when asked if they've ever served then they hem and haw and almost always say no. I've asked those that are very rabid about it if they've ever been to the middle east and again they say no. I've been studying the area since 96 and know the history and I can understand their gripes. High unemployment and illiteracy, repressive regimes, our failed foreign policy, all have contributed to our problems in the area. It's more complex than the Administration would have you believe. I just returned from the Gulf and saw first hand how our foreign policy isn't winning friends and influencing enemies.

We needed to finish what we started in Afghanistan, then invade Iraq. What we have now are countries that see us as weak and indecisive. That we don't have the staying power to finish what we started. The Taliban now effectively control 1/3 of Afghanistan. We've effectively put a government sympathetic to Tehran in power in Iraq, which was something the Administration didn't want to do. We've failed on just about every goal we've set. And no one wants to see that.

Answer 4

Of course not! Not everyone is capable of fighting in a war. They are just grasping at straws in order to support their own agenda, as usual.
Maybe we should switch it around. Maybe we should say you cannot support eating meat unless you are willing to slaughter the animals yourself. Does that make sense? Gimme a break.

Answer 5

Liberals say you don't have to support a war to support the troops.

Answer 6

Is what true?

Do liberals say it? They imply it, if not right out say it.

Must you fight in it if you support it? No. Thru taxes, I support several children that I was not involved in bringing into this world. This is a liberal's idea of parenthood.

Answer 7

This concept that the war in Iraq has no relationship to the war on terrorism is flawed. I believe it is related. There sure are a lot of suicide bombers there for something that supposedly doesn't have anything to do with terrorism. We were attacked by terrorists on our home soil in the US. To me, that automatically makes us all a part of this war.

Answer 8

Typical Liberal thinking !
Under their thinking we'd be spending 80 year old patriots to war.
The only war they are willing to fight is the war between taxpayers and non-taxpayers and guess who's side they're on .

Answer 9

If you 'support' the war, yes get your pussy *** over than and fight. The only excuse that is valid is if you are too old (over 42) or disdabled, or oop's I forgot, you are gay (I guess this last one eliminates 90% of Republicans)

Answer 10

I said it once.. Only to make the point of how stupid cons sound when they say you can't support the war without supporting the pres.. Both points are retarded, of course it's not true..