As a vet, I find such vies condescending and hypocritical.
2007-03-25 14:52:41 · 14 answers · asked by dizattolah 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
hell no. why would anyone think that its reasonable to say "i support what your doing but your reason for dying isnt respected by me" those people who say that should go to hell because those guys are fighting, and dying, for freedom, even if its the freedom of another country
2007-03-25 14:58:54 · answer #1 · answered by anthony p 2 · 4⤊ 6⤋
I am in full support of the military and it concerns me deeply that so many are dying. I do not, however, support the Iraq War. There is a great difference between supporting the innocent human beings who are potentially giving their lives up for such a cause, such as the fathers and mothers of many small children, and supporting the government who decided to go to war with reasons proved to be based on lies, hypocrisy, and, above all, oil. I have nothing but sympathy and support for those who have loved ones in the military, and those who have lost a loved one. But I cannot support a government's mission that puts such innocent people in such needless danger.
2007-03-25 15:06:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I understand where you are coming from. But yes, one can support the troops but disagree with the appropriateness of the mission. As for me, I consider the mission to be essential, unless we want the bad guys to take over all or part of Iraq and use it for bases to wage further attacks on the US. It is not realistic to suppose that such attacks would be confined to use of conventional weapons.
2007-03-25 15:31:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
People have all kinds of different reasons for joining the military. I respect each member of our military, and I respect their reasons for joining. I would never, ever presume to criticize someone for joining the military.
Regrettable as it is, we do need a military. I'm grateful that there are people who are willing to serve in case of a true crisis that requires military action.
That said, I don't think that the Iraq situation required our military intervention. I think we should have left Iraq alone. Saddam was evil, yes, but it was up to the Iraqi people to do something about him, if they wanted to.
I believe that the 9/11 situation would have been better solved by using our intelligence and spy services. You don't use a sledgehammer on a job that needs tweezers.
So, I absolutely support our troops and wish them nothing but the best (not to be injured, not to be killed, to come home soon, get the best of medical care and the GI Bill so they can get an education.) I do NOT support the fact that they are presently in Iraq.
2007-03-25 15:04:59 · answer #4 · answered by catrionn 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it is. Whether is an all-volunteer military or one made up mostly of conscripts, the service members are still our fellow citizens, our relatives and friends. We support them unconditionally but they are not the ones who determine the mission.
The politicians in Washington determine the mission and when they make a mistake, we as citizens must act in a democratic and legal manner to help them to correct it.
Keeping our men and women in uniform on a wrong mission that hurts our country is not an act of support but one of high treason.
2007-03-25 15:09:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it is reasonable to say that I support the troops but not the mission.
I am an Army vet of Desert Shield/Storm. Someone who has been in the military know that when they are given orders, they carry them out -- no questions asked.
I am against the political reasons for this war. Bush wanted it so bad he lied and deceived the people to get it.
But I do support our troops. They have volunteered to bravely serve our country. I support them 100% and pray for their safe return.
As a vet, I do understand that they are only there because they are following their orders. Since you are a vet as well (???), I would imagine you would understand that as well.
2007-03-25 15:08:45 · answer #6 · answered by frenchy62 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I am not in the military, but I think it's reasonable to say this. Especially since Bush and Rumsfeld tied the troops' hands in this war, it seems reasonable to me. And let me say, I did support our going into Iraq in the first place. Now, however, I do support the troops but find their mission to be mired down in military blunders. I think I see your point though, but nevertheless I stand by my opinion with all due respect to you.
2007-03-25 15:04:17 · answer #7 · answered by Jacques 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I leave for my 3rd deployment next week and I very much support the war. To say you support one but not the other is insulting to the troops. The reality is you either support your country or you don't. Remember Hillary voted for the war not based on what Bush said, but seeing the same information that he had.
2007-03-25 15:55:20 · answer #8 · answered by sgtsidewinder 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It is absolutely reasonable to support the troops and not support the mission. The troops are just doing their job. They had no say in the mission. I do not support spineless and cowardly men like Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeldt and Wolfowitz who never saw real combat but have no qualms about sending others to die. The first amendment allows me the right to express my opinion. Bush did not send the troops to fight for my freedom because I was already free.
2007-03-25 15:02:54 · answer #9 · answered by The Oracle 1 · 7⤊ 4⤋
You cant do that. That is support one and not the other. If you don't support the mission you should add your voice to those that want the troops back.
Like me.
2007-03-25 14:57:55 · answer #10 · answered by K. Marx iii 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I don't support either--seeing just how poorly our military has conducted itself: By killing civilians and humiliating prisoners, and on and, on and on...
Don't get me wrong: I used to hold the armed forces in high-esteem. I just don't see myself doing that now.
2007-03-25 17:07:53 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋