Do you think the people who accuse dems of being anti-troops are actually concerned about human life at all?

Question

I just get so tired of having my opinions negated by neocons that make all these bizarre accusations.

1st - I wish that we had been successful in the capture of Osama Bin Laden - we were not.

2nd - I do not believe that there were wmd's in Iraq.

3rd - I was a peace-loving person before 9/11 and I want to stay that way.

How does that translate into "wanting the American Troops to lose"?

Which terrorist groups have we definitely stopped? How many more are there?

What does "progress" mean?
Are we close to ending "terrorism" yet?

Is "Support Our Troops" a vague expression of sanctimony with no real meaning?

How does one suggest that I support our troops any more than hoping to see them again?

Answer 1

I will admit that the generalization of dems as all being anti-troops is wrong. But for lack of a better description the people that can be the most derogatory are dems/liberals, so it is that title that is used. "Support Our Troops" has meaning.. and to military families it means more then we could ever begin to say. All I would ask from anyone is to be thankful for their freedom, and to understand my husband and his comrades do not chose to fight in this war, they are not responsible for this war, and the can not speak against their commander in chief while enlisted. The just want to defend their country, love their families, and live freely. All the other questions feel free to ask the government, because I'm not going to pretend to know everything. There has been lies, there has been manipulation... but it was not my husband's or any of his comrades doing.

I wish all Americans and truly good people peace, safety, and happiness. God Bless, and Semper Fi.

Answer 2

They are the same cheer leaders who helped us get us into this Iraq mess and their only hope for a miracle success is keeping our troops in Iraq and continuing to ask the Troops to do a job that can not be done with the forces we have on the ground, and ironically should not be done.
Bush and his New Conservatives are fighting now for their own survival. They have been totally wrong headed, heartless, careless and extremely obnoxious.
They hope by prolonging the lost war so that someone else, like a new Democratic President, will be the fall guy for their war and there lack of realistic goals, and strategy. They stacked the deck so they alone could control the military and civilian hirelings because that thought they were the smartest, toughest and meanest bunch around.
They were wrong on all counts!
The Bush Administration and the New Conservatives made the same mistakes America made in 1965 thinking that the Vietnamese were no match for America's military and righteousness, but history says otherwise, and history carries the big stick!
Keep up the good fight liberals, these guys are dead on their feet!

Answer 3

The Democrats don't want to protect American soldiers. Soldiers are getting murdered when they come back to the States. Soldiers die from drunk drivers, training and a host of other causes. Even in Iraq, a third of the soldiers died from accidents and not combat or bombs.

What they want is a redeployment in Afganistan, the former Yugoslavia, Sudan and possibly Somalia.

The U.S. has yet to win in Korea and the former Yugoslavia so lengthy deployment is nothing new to the U.S. The U.S. soldiers may never come home (except through transfers, death and retirement) from those conflicts.

In Afganistan the Taliban boosted a 10,000 man army at the end of last year. This year they are boosting an army of 4,000 men. Something happened to 6,000 of their men.

Also other nations have rampted up their anti terrorist campaigns. Pakistan is killing their beloved Taliban, Saudia Arabia is killing their terrorists and Etheopia ran some terrorists out of Somalia. Even Mexico is getting into the act in going after hostile drug lords which have their own RPGs and grenades.

It's really the start of a larger campaign that's probably going to take decades.

There are flag words in every military campaign. Freedom is probably the most over used and underdefined one of those words. "Support our troops" is now a choice phrase with no defined meaning.

Wanting the troops to loose is basically to prevent the soldiers from not achieving their objectives and causing the enemy to be more bold. Things like pulling our troops out of Somalia, Beruit and even Iran (after the failed hostage rescue) has greatly weakened the U.S. on the political front. All the enemy needs to do is kill 100-2,000 U.S. troops to win the war/cause the U.S. to pull out. Any nation can now beat the U.S. because the Democrats will quickly fold after one car bomb (Beruit) or downed helicopter (Somalia and the case with Iran two helicopters). The only things that have kept the U.S. in Iraq and Afganistan was the Republican party.

Answer 4

The military blew their chance to catch bin Laden. There were no WMDs in Iraq. The President has overblown threat after threat. These are all facts.

We've actually increased the amount of terrorists by our Iraq mistake, but they're now at war with each other and we're in the middle of it (which is why an immediate pullout, which only Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul has called for, is the right decision). We can't end terrorism because terrorism is a tactic. Progress really never means anything no matter which party is using it or what purpose it is used for. I think that it would be supporting the troops to bring them home.

We could probably make better use out of our military on the Mexican Border. President Bush doesn't support the Border Patrol or the Minutemen who have volunteered to help the Border Patrol. There are 2 border patrol agents rotting in jail because of a member of a Drug Cartel who got the Mexican government to demand that this administration jail them. We've got drug cartels and militant gangs coming across the borders. If we used our troops to win the Border War, we'd cut the flow of drugs into our country by leaps and bounds. We only catch 1 out of 4 illegal immigrants. We should catch everybody who enters America illegally and keep them from crossing our border. I'd support an significant increase in the quota, but we need to end the war and stop illegal immigrants from coming to America looking for handouts.

I think its absurd to say that people are anti-troops for opposing the NeoCon War for National Greatness. Other than the Revolutionary War and maybe World War II, all of America's wars were unjustified and we should never have fought them.

Answer 5

Isn't it strange as well... of all the "big brothers" up there who are pro-war, only ONE of them has a child or sibling in the battlefield or front lines. The rest keep their own children FARRRR away from the danger, the killings and the potential mental stress that accompanies every war.

So I guess the policy here is... if its other people's Husbands, Wives and Loved ones it ok to send them out ...

Answer 6

Look up the percentage of troops that sign up fora second third and fourth tour... Then figure out where to put your support..

Then while you're at it.. Look up the percentage of troops that want to be in Iraq...


Oh yeah and while you're at it notice that there was more of an increase in people signing up for the military than there is a decrease.

Answer 7

These are all very good questions. You have a good point. Don't you think these troops want to come home to their families? I'm sure there might be a few troops that don't have any family and that's too bad. But why are all these Republicans and Bush supporters so gun ho to keep our troops in harms way? Do they enjoy seeing them killed and maimed?

I mean come on...we all know the war in Iraq is an illegal war for empire and oil. Maybe Bush is hiring these people to defend him on Yahoo Answers.

Answer 8

The US people have a big problem to understand the armed forces institution. when the US people is against the war the used to blame the army and their troop, the attack them and yell them things like baby killers. But we should remember that army is under the control of a political power, the don have will, the military institutions just are the hand and arm that made the will and policy of the goverment in this case the president of the US. If you want to blame anyone ans attack anyone, it should be the political will that send the army not to the soldier. the soldier is just and instrument of the president, all the responsability is of the president.

Answer 9

Supporting the troops and wanting the fall of Bush are not corrrelated at all. I support the troops but I believe that Bush needs to go asap.
Ending terrorism is like treating cancer. You don't give an aspirine against the headache but you look for the cause. The terrorists are a symptom of a region badly organized, based on kingdoms created in an arbitrary way by the Brits and the French. No one wants them but we support them because they sell their oil to us.
Instead of risking more troops there, help the local populations get rid of the monarchs and start true democracies. It will take a while, but at the end, we won't have to worry about terrorists or mullahs.

Answer 10

OSama Bin encumbered hated united statesa. once he stumbled on out we were providing Iraq with guns and armament contained in the 80s. He became pissed that lets do this kind of issue. in reality he became meant to be receiving hands from the U. S. governement.