2007-01-27 10:47:03 · 14 answers · asked by furrryyy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
That kind of stands to reason doesn't it? I mean how can you send someone to fight for your freedom and not fund them for the equipment they will need? If you have an answer to that please forward it to the Democrat leadership in Washington D.C..
2007-01-27 10:53:40 · answer #1 · answered by taxidriver 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't quite understand. Soldiers are supposed to support the citizenry, not the other way around.
The US Constitution specifically forbids 'standing armies' on purpose. The military as a career, the concept of needing somewhere to crack peoples' heads open in order to provide a lifestyle and source of income for a segment of the population is sick, in my most humble opinion.
"As standing armies in time of peace arc dangerous to liberty, and have often been the means of overturning the best constitutions of government, no standing army, or troops of any description whatsoever, shall be raised or kept up by the legislature, except so many as shall be necessary for guards to the arsenals of the United States, or for garrisons to such posts on the frontiers, as it shall be deemed absolutely necessary to hold, to secure the inhabitants, and facilitate the trade with the Indians: unless when the United States are threatened with an attack or invasion from some foreign power, in which case the legislature shall be authorised to raise an army to be prepared to repel the attack; provided that no troops whatsoever shall be raised in time of peace, without the assent of two thirds of the members, composing both houses of the legislature. A clause similar to this would afford sufficient latitude to the legislature to raise troops in all cases that were really necessary, and at the same time competent security against the establishment of that dangerous engine of despotism, a standing army. "
2007-01-27 10:55:33 · answer #2 · answered by nora22000 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do. Because it is just non-sense to say I support the troops but I want to see them defeated and driven out of Iraq in discrace. Because it serves the purpose of embarassing my political opponents here in the U.S.
Because, some, maybe not all, opposition to the war is based on trying to undermine the president. It is ridiculous that political groups in the U.S. have invested themselves in the defeat of our troops in the field, for the purpose of political gain. My only conclusion is that these people don't see the 9/11 attacks as a wake up call. We are at war, we don't have the choice to fight or not fight. The choice is to fight and win or lose and die.
2007-01-27 10:57:21 · answer #3 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess I would say that that is incorrect. I fully support the troops in all of the areas where they are in harms way. I will continue to support them till the day that they all return home. It's just that I do not support the mission that they are on. Give them everything they need while they are there so that they can come back home safe, send them care packages, support their families here in the US and keep the pressure on our congress to give them everything they need and not abandon them like in Vietnam. I am afraid from the case of characters in today's Peace March that we are heading down that slope just like we did in Vietnam. Jane Fonda! Give me a break.
2007-01-27 10:54:58 · answer #4 · answered by 91106 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can disagree with the reasons for the war and still support the war effort (i.e., plenty of supplies and resources for the soldiers that are over there.)
2007-01-27 10:55:09 · answer #5 · answered by Devil Dog '73 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have never supported this "War" (Never declared by The U.S. Congress which is their sole responsibility) and (breach of international treaties and Illegal detention of the elected president of a sovereign foreign nation and the invasion of the same.). I have three grandsons in Iraq right now, one in Afghanistan and I had two sons serving, before my grandsons, one in the US Navy and one in the US Army. Both my brother (US Air Force)and myself (US Navy)served in Korea and Viet Nam. I in Korea for 22 months 1949 to 1952 and my brother from 1953 until 1975. Supporting our troops has nothing to do with this war started by lies and innuendo and I believe our troops know that. Yet they bravely fight for the honor of our country and not for the disgraceful man who is responsible for putting them there.
2007-01-27 11:14:30 · answer #6 · answered by useswriter 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not me.. I support the soldiers..not all of them agree with the war, but even if they do, I still cherish their lives.
2007-01-27 10:51:49 · answer #7 · answered by merlin_steele 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thaught it was wrong to invade Iraq before we did it, and I still do, even though my daughter is currentlly serving her third tour there.
Besides serving in Vietnam my self, I also have a grandson serving in Korea.
That is how you support the troops without supporting a war.
2007-01-27 11:19:14 · answer #8 · answered by tom l 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Thats not fair because you can't support something you don't believe in. As long as you don't treat them badly like Viet Nam Vets I believe secretly the spouse would agree with you if they get their loved ones back safe. You don't want to see the needless loss of life on either side. The politicians are sitting back in comfort in front of the fire with their families in comfort.
2007-01-27 10:56:16 · answer #9 · answered by robert m 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree, it is so insulting, can you imagine somebody saying I support Yale, and then saying I wouldn't send my kid there.
It is more "feel good" liberal speak to indoctrinate more mindless followers.
So sayeth the Impaler!
2007-01-27 10:59:37 · answer #10 · answered by impalersca 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋