2007-01-23 16:17:43 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Maybe because they themselves think so little of the individual soldier that they are willing to make them cannon-fodder just to support our access to oil?
2007-01-23 16:29:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because it is a slightly hypocritical stance. It's a clear fact that soldiers are the only people, other than the politicians involved, who have the ability to end a war, by refusing to fight it. Supporting the troops usually means refraining from pointing out that what they're doing is wrong. I don't think it's ultimately justifiable to disagree with the war but feel that soldiers are somehow exempt from that criticism. So the far right may have a point. For once. Accidentally.
2007-01-24 00:43:12 · answer #2 · answered by Foot Foot 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
America's political system is strange. The far right infers Fascism that doesn't mean they have to support or not support a war so I don't see the logic to the question.
But lets say it does make sense this is America so anything is possible.
Because they are people with strong opinions. Your liberal view of things whilst morally correct etc is pointless. Of course you hope the soldiers don't get hurt who wants that? The point they are concerned with is that your against the war and I assume you are suggesting they aren't.
Decisive action not explanations of what happening is what is needed.
2007-01-24 01:25:22 · answer #3 · answered by Bohdisatva 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
wouldn't supporting the troops be supporting their efforts... If it were the troops efforts to come home and not have to go anywhere further in the war... Then you are supporting their cause, but the troops think that they need to stay in Iraq to get the job that they are trying to accomplish.... Accomplished..
over... And well over 60% of the troops want to be in Iraq to win in their cause. You're not supporting the troops when you're supporting the pull of the troops who think they are doing a good job... You're just feasting unto them foul words.
2007-01-24 00:25:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
isent this whole thing about the earth having a false higherarchy.
the earthly power system that is based on who has the most economic power and military power and who aligns with who.
the good and peacfull people of the earth want a truer higherarchy
which would put the good and truest people at the top of the power system. they would not be their because they were rich or even clever. but because they were true. If one nation adopted this method now, a dozen outher nations would look upon it as being soft and want to conquer it. So one is left with an aggresive earthly power wether one wants it or not.
this means that the good and true have to go to war as well to defend themselves against the aggressor. Difference being that
the aggressor is unjustified in his attack but the counter attack of those who realy wish to live in peace is justified defence. the trick is, not to be unjustified. but to go into battle from a justified position like in the second w.w. the true higherarchy of goodness and peicefull folk that run the country has to be in every country, at this time that seems inpossable. So wars are here for till the second coming, and we have to fight wether we want to or not.
2007-01-24 01:06:12 · answer #5 · answered by trucker 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because even moderate republicans, as I am, know bullcrap when I hear it. The troops don't want to hear you opinion about the war - they want and need your full support, not only for them but for their cause.
Otherwise, it's a hollow gesture on your part and means nothing.
2007-01-24 00:48:12 · answer #6 · answered by wise_ole_sage 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they're really rather dim and think any criticism of the Army's deployment is a criticism of the Army itself. They don't get the Army does what it is ordered to by politicians...
2007-01-24 19:06:07 · answer #7 · answered by Huh? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe wars are due to the failures of politicians who do not have to fight them. Every politician believes declaring war increases their standing, place in history and their legacy (See A B Liar).
Soldiers cannot not fight they would be accused of cowardice etc: and imprisoned.
BUT think of the effect seeing your best mate killed by 'Terrorists'. You'd want to retaliate.
And so we go round in circles.
RoyS
2007-01-24 02:56:35 · answer #8 · answered by Roy S 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i don't get it either, but i agree with you. I support the troops because i recognize that their effort is tremendous, and they sacrifice a lot to attempt to help. they cant be judged for things that they potentiall have no decision in making.
2007-01-24 00:57:46 · answer #9 · answered by cutegirl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did you just catch on to that? That has been happening since war began.
2007-01-24 00:46:55 · answer #10 · answered by George B 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋