How can libs claim to support the troops while not supporting the mission??

Question

If you don't support the mission then you don't support what the troops are doing. You can't support someone unless you support what they do. Liberals who are against Iraqi freedom also are against the troops. They are modern-day Hanoi Jane Fondas.

Answer 1

cause all the libs. are retarded....they are a bunch of fakes if you ask me....they need step up or step off......wouldn't surpise me if they didn't have a brain...ha ha...

Answer 2

Because a blithering boneheaded idiot sent them there. They are doing the job they signed up for, and doing it well. Bonehead has them in a place they just should not be. What part of that is so far over your head you cannot fathom it?

Chucklehead never did define the mission, never did have an exit plan, and never said what he was trying to accomplish.

And you are buying what that drooling moron and crew are selling.

Just because you are a brainwashed non-thinking, slogan uttering fool does not mean everybody else has to be.

What the heck is Iraqi freedom in your mind anyway? And how do you intend to get them there? Do you really think there is anything YOU can do at this point to make it happen? The army? The US?

Study the facts on the ground there, and explain exactly HOW you intend to change them, then come back with a reasonable question about it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, let me apologize for the name calling above. I am just getting tired of the whole argument, I didn't mean to take it out on you.

Here is the problem:

The military action in Iraq really was over when Bush stepped on that Aircraft carrier. Saddam's government had been defeated. From that point foward, Iraq was a political problem, not a militay one.

Now Bush had been warned at the time that he simply did not have enough troops to bring stablility to Iraq. His then current inner circle told him they had it all figured out, they were wrong. We made a number of very large political mistakes there, the dispanding of the regular Iraqi army was one of them, we should have kept them employed.

So after years of following bad advice, and a trouncing at the elections, Bush suddenly decides TA-DA! he needs more troops. No kidding. He needed them all along. He was not listening to his generals, he was not listening to his diplomats. That sudden vacuum you are hearing is Powell leaving because he is fed up with the whole thing.

So, at this point, yeah, you have Vietnam all over again. It didn't start that way, it wasn't a civil war. It is now. You cannot win those as an outside force, at least I have never seen it happen.

So Bush and company has come up with the final defence of a inept commander and chief: You can't support the troops unless you support me. NO. I support the troops. He obviously does not, looking at the eternally extended tours of combat alone.

Yes, dissention helps the enemy, but I don't see where it makes a difference with this one. The terrorists don't much seem to care either way. At least if they do, I can't see it.

What I said the first time I meant, I just could have worded it a lot better. It still comes down to: How do we fix the mess we made, and if it is impossible to do so, shouldn't we be leaving?

- Dio

Answer 3

How can pro war people say they support the troops when President Bush cut funding for veterans benefits and specifically for veterans hospitals. The injured hospitalized veterans now have to pay for their hospital meals. I am sorry, that is so sick. Just so his billionaire buddies can get a tax cut. I am glad you l ike the war so much. Go fight it. Iraq is calling. Don't let them down. Go ahead if you like it so much. Otherwise people might think you are some kind of chicken hawk like Cheney or Rumsfeld or any of the other guys that never served in the military but felt just fine starting this meatgrinder war for other peoples kids to get killed in. Please, join up. Now. No excuses. Do it. Hypocrite.

Answer 4

in a good number of of a similar techniques that those that do help the project. Sending needed own resources, writing letters to the troops, welcoming the troops residing house at airports in the course of the country, helping the households left in the back of, and helping households who've lost a father, a brother, a sister, a mom or a baby who volunteered to serve their u . s . a . and paid with their lives.

Answer 5

When "Tokyo Rose" was broadcasting to US troops in WWII, trying to demoralize our troops, the enemy studied what would demoralize the troops the most, and there were 3 themes:
1) the president is lying to you
2) you are fighting and dying for the big corporations
3) you are losing the war.
Do these themes sound familiar?
I don't think that most liberals hate the USA; quite the contrary. However, we need to think about who benefits from these arguments against the war? I'm sure that the people who originated this propaganda are not our friends, and we shouldn't accept their ideas uncritically.

Answer 6

It all goes back to how God can hate the sin but love the sinner, I am not in any way calling our soldiers sinners, I am a former Army wife. We can love our men in uniform even if we dont believe in the war. What, because we don't believe in this war that means we are unpatriotic and don't support our men and women in uniform? Thats ignorant. Even if we don't support the war that doesn't mean we dont love them. They are over there busting butt for our country, wether we like the war or not. We don't support the reason we are there, we were told weapons of mass destruction and attacked when they weren't even the ones who blew things up. Hello! talk about misrepresentation. It is our President that we don't support, not in any way our men (most of which are still boys by the way) Mr Bush blundered this one and now trillions of dollars and thousands of dead soldiers later we can't get out of it.

Answer 7

Who are you to decide what others mean? No, I don't support what the troops are doing. Many of them don't either. But they are doing their job and hoping we will care for their families if they are killed or offer all we can as rehabilitation if they are injured. As individuals we need to care for their wellbeing. I think bringing them home would be the utmost support we could provide. Iraqi Freedom never was true.

Answer 8

Because the mission is wrong--and that means the troops are in harm's way for no good reason.

Under these circumstances, the only real way to support the troops is to demand that the government stop endangering theri lives without good reason.

Even a neocon ought to be able to understand that.

Answer 9

You can definitely support the troops without supporting the mission. The mission is determined by the commander in chief, the troops do not decied the mission and their only function is to obey and serve.