Like a democrat to explain something to me?

Question

How in the world can your party claim to support the troops when you do nothing but tie there hands, hold funding hostage & then release it with stimulations, & worse of all call what they are doing & dieing for a lost cause? I'm mostly interesting in trying to hearing the explaination about supporting them while basicly calling them & the reason they & their comrades die worthless & for a lost cause & how that doesn't affect morale more then the frustrations of war? Which in effect could help lead to even more deaths simply because of your parties stipulations for the funding, & lowering morale to a point where they start to believe it & relax their guard to much thus getting themselves or someone else killed. Who's playing politics with other peoples & worst of all American soldiers lives? You can't support someone when you tell them what they are doing is wrong, incorrect, or a lost cause. You can't support them when you tuck tail & run. Fair weather fans & all for political gains.

Answer 1

They Are Liberals.
Since liberalism is a mental disease, no other reason is required to justify the pursuit of insane actions.

Answer 2

I don't see how you can say the Democrats have tied the military's hands. It's the Republican administration that has done that with their "limited" war. If the military had it's way, they would just turn a troublesome town into a smoking hole in the ground and walk off into the sunset.

The American people have no problem getting behind and supporting a real war when it is needed. But our people being shot at while they have to think about "rules of engagement" is not a war. It's just target practice for the enemy.

Answer 3

I am neither REP or DEM!!!
Tell me ? Does "support for our troops" mean sending them into a war that is unnecessary? How about Making them do back to back tours? or Maybe what the President and the Gov. has done is put our troops out on a limb.......for what?
Saddam? C'mon, There are many worse dictators to take out!
Why not Reestablish Afghanistan or try to stop the bloodshed in Africa?
How many of your family members has this war taken? How many Friends lost? Oh Yeah, You BushBots don't send your children off to war! You send the poor!
My brother was killed in Iraq ! For what? For our freedom? For Iraqi freedom?
If you really support the troops ...you would want them home with their families!

Answer 4

First and foremost, you need to do some research in a wider variety of media outlets so that you can hear more than one opinion, analyze them and make up your own mind. Don't let others do your thinking and then parrot what you heard.

If I learned anything from living in Beirut, it's that predicting the outcome of sectarian divisions in the Middle East is a fool's game. The shifting alliances, the internal pressures, the regional influences, make it next to impossible to say whether or not the removal of American forces would further destabilize Iraq.

It's also grimly amusing that we're expected to believe the prognostications of the very people who told us we'd be greeted as liberators.

For every foreign policy expert who says that Iraq will be worse off without U.S. troops, there's another who will tell you the exact opposite is true. In the absence of any sound predictive capabilities, the endgame should be based on the opening: i.e. the sooner you end something that started out wrong and has had terrible consequences, the better.
For those who counter with the Pottery Barn rule (we broke it we should fix it), the question is: What's the statute of limitations on that rule? What if we can't fix what's broken in Iraq? Is there a point at which we acknowledge we can't fix it and stop trying? Is our attempt to 'fix' Iraq breaking it even further? Also, are there other things we've broken that we're obliged to fix before we try to fix Iraq? Is there a reason our limited resources should go to fixing Iraq and not saving poor, sick, and hungry children in America?

Any talk of withdrawal, redeployment or a change in course is characterized as "cutting and running." This word-play is so disingenuous that it hardly merits a rebuttal, but the best response to the notion that a war hero like John Kerry or John Murtha wants to "cut and run" is Murtha's response to Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

A phased withdrawal is just that, a phased withdrawal. And a timetable is just that, a timetable. Using politically-charged buzzwords won't change the fact that the present course of action is untenable. It is the height of folly to continue on a tragic and deadly path just to save face. And enough has been done by this administration to "embolden the enemy" that leaving Iraq will have little effect in that regard.

For those who think continuing with the current policy in Iraq is a mark of courage and changing direction the mark of cowardice, they should bear in mind that courage tempered by wisdom is noble, courage in defiance of wisdom is foolhardy.

Answer 5

Let's be fair and balanced here friend: How can Republicans claim they are supporting the troops when they send troops in to fight a war that has been proven to be based on false intelligence, and in fact manipulated intelligence? How can you send them without body armor and armor for their vehicles? How can you send them in with no realistic plan for success? How can you break the rules of military deployment by not allowing soldiers to leave the military after their service time is completed? How can you abuse the National Guard by continually send them under trained to a foreign conflict? How can you have a war lasting longer than our involvement in World War II without a Declaration of War from Congress?
How can you say you support the troops but cut funding for Veterans Hospitals at a time when over twenty thousand wounded soldiers need these hospitals? How can you say you support the troops when the medical facilities are understaffed and unsanitary in facilities for returning troops? How can you say you support the troops but cut veterans' benefits? How can you say you support the troops when you leave them in the middle of a multifaceted civil war to be shot at by all the various sides by the people they are supposed to be saving? How can you say you support the troops when every independent (not a democrat or republican) military expert on the planet sees no way to "win" this war without a total commitment of the American military (meaning a large scale draft and millions of troops there) ?

How dare you spout prefab Rovian chants and expect to be taken seriously? Do the research, the answers are there, and I do not mean listen to the democrats. They are to blame as well for not exercising their Constitutional duties to check and balance unconstitutional and in many cases illegal actions taken by the Bush administration. It is time for you to think for yourself.

In defense of the people who want to bring the troops home, and rebuild America's faltering defenses, I would say that preserving the life of each American soldier is a far nobler act than watching them be killed or crippled so that a select few can repeal many millions of dollars of profit. Do the research, the real independent research. I would rather die a patriot who thinks for myself than a lemming repeating the practiced rants of people who stomp on the Constitution and
break the spirit of those who actually live and believe what America is supposed to stand for.

Answer 6

the Bush team are the biggest war profiteers ever,, why do you think they want our troops to stay in Iraq,, Bush has lost his own cause,, the invasion of Iraq has failed,, the occupation of US forces in Iraq has led to a civil war there,,, Americans do not support a never ending war,,,,,
NFL Star Pat Tillman was shot by his own US troops opening fire on him in Afghanistan,, because he opposed the invasion of Iraq,,, cut and run,, is what Reagan did in 1983,,, Republicans are scared that they will once again be called cowards,, which is true for some,,,
the war funding is not the problem,, the president has lost the war,, ,,,,, Bush is a failure,,, he has failed his party,, his country,, his family,, and his God,, he will suffer,, the country will suffer,,, his family,, and the GOP,,,,,, who has Bush's back now,, Barney,, Laura,,, the right wing will desert him,, the born-again Christians will desert him,, when they realize how to keep the church plates full of cash,,, while acknowledging their righteous president has been listening to the wrong voices,,, you shared his success,, now share the blame,,, the Republicans own this war,,, they own George W. Bush and this failed government,,,, get use to it,,,

Answer 7

uh... don't know if you've noticed...

but there aren't really any reasons we're over there... so... why be over there?

if the soldiers are over here... they don't die...

why is Bush pushing a war, that not only he doesn't know why he's fighting, but doesn't have a clue how to win... while soldiers die the whole time? is that being "pro-military?"... to just push this war for his pride?

I guess you buy his "reasons" for war though... that really have no factual basis though... look into it... I have and I can't find a decent one?

ever know a bad liar... ask them about something 5 times, 5 different stories about whatever you ask them about... sound familiar? like the multiple and constantly changing "reasons" we're at war?

Answer 8

because the democrats never supported the war in the first place, so i dont understand why they should say now that the US went to war "we support it now". it would be very dumb. however democrates have to support the soldiers that are in irak because some of them are either friends or family members. the democrasts are just doing what they think is right and what they believe in, all they want is peace, and the soldiers to come home safely

Answer 9

The most cowardly ploy used by the right wing and Republicans is to try to quash debate by refusing to engage on the issue and simply calling all that disagree unpatriotic or not supporting the troops.....It is the ultimate in intellectual cowardice......

Shameful....

And the irony is....people enlist in the military to fight to protect FREEDOM.....and that is the freedom to agree with, or disagree with, the government and its policies........

So....we are absolutely supporting them in that we are doing exactly what they fight to protect.......and we are supporting them because we want to make good on the promise that we make to people brave enough to join the military.....that we will ONLY risk their lives when it is absolutely necessary.....

Answer 10

I will explain it, they want to manage the war while letting the
President get blamed for the pitfalls. Its like the question,
Are you still beating your wife ? They are Cowards, they
chose to cut and run, and then they can claim the people
want them to vote that way.Sorry but the Majority of Americans are not Cowards,

Answer 11

Republican here. But according to pelosi, they can do it because there is a new posse or new p.ussy or was it a new patsy or putsy in town? I don't know what she said and I sure as heck don't believe in this Congress' bully tactics.
She had the nerve to call Bush the bully. HA.
Stay strong, Mr. President.