Why don't people realize the obvious about supporting troops?

Question

As a Red Sox fan saying I support the Red Sox but do not want to fund Schilling's efforts is essentially what you guys are saying.

I support the Colts, but they should stop paying Manning.

I support the troops, but let's not fund them.

Why can't people see how stupid that is? It seems pretty blatant to me.

ski4ever,

The bill before Congress is to stop funding. Yes I support the troops but the Humvees should run out of gas and no more money for bullets.

Yes, I support the troops.:rolleyes:

So when they can't buy gas for the Humvees they magically come back?

So those that died their must have died in vain, huh?

Why do all you people assume if we cut off funding we pull the back? Those are two different things.

I'll make it easy. See the verbs? To fund does not equal to occupy. Don't believe me, go to Dictionary.com

gunplumber...,
Is cutting off funding for the firefighters in that chemical plant in the next county rational? (I know, let's not pay for oxygen bottles on their respirators!:))

Answer 1

Amen brother. They really think that they in some way are giving some level of support to the troops buy taking away their money to eat and stay warm. Lol, sounds like the support one gets from an x-wife!

Answer 2

supporting the troops and not agreeing with the war...

I think you are getting confused from my question. What I see day-in and day-out is people bashing our troops here in DC. I want the people who openly dismantle our troops to understand that those men and women who go overseas aren't the ones who make the decisions.

If you disagree with the war, then you have the right as an American to voice that opinion. Write letters to your congressman, go to protests... but do not badmouth the troops.

Voice your opinion about the action, not the individual.

Using your sports analogy... When the Red Sox traded Johnny Damon and you disagreed with their choice, did you start openly bashing the rest of the Red Sox players?

No, you didn't. It wasn't Curt Schillings idea to send Damon to the Yanks. It wasn't Manny Ramirez's idea to send Damon to the Yanks. It was the GM's decision.

So if you were to support your team, but not the team's decision, can you still support the players?

Answer 3

Those are pretty good analogies. I agree, you cant support the troops without supporting the Job they're doing. Their job in Iraq is to destroy insurgents most of who are from Syria or Iran.

These lemmings who profess to support the troops but not the war have been listening to those treasonous bastards in the new Congress too long. Don't they realize this is nothing more than political double talk to convince dumb @ss liberals that it's OK to oppose the war but still support the troops. This is utter nonsense dreamt up by Pelosi and Murtha, Syria's new allies !

Answer 4

If the funding stops, the only thing that will happen is our troops will be in more danger.
Does anyone really think that less or no funding will deter Bush from taking the path he is taking? Hes dead set on winning this war.
Support the troops, continue funding, do everything possible to keep them safe, and if you disagree with why we are there, vote for someone who wants them home in the next election.

Answer 5

Supporting troops does not mean funding the war effort. We can support the troops while they are safely at home training on our military bases and being prepared to defend us from actual threats.

Bush says Democrats are "more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than providing our troops what they need."

What the troops need is the opportunity to come back home and get on with their lives, instead of being constantly redeployed to a quagmire where there is no defined goal or exit strategy.

Answer 6

Isn't it a bit more like saying, I support my local fire fighters but I won't fund putting them in the middle of a chemical plant that's in the next county, engulfed in flames, and about to collapse?

You can support the troops themselves without supporting putting them where they don't belong. We don't belong in Iraq and haven't since we failed to properly settle things in 1991.
____________________________________

William, the point is they shouldn't be there at all and every method should be employed to withdraw them.

Answer 7

i suppose that if i was unhappy with some part of the red sox decision making process i could decide to stop going to games and paying for tickets and just watch on tv thereby keeping my money out of their pockets.

but unfortunately war is not a baseball game.

if the red sox win or lose all of their games this year it won't really matter all that much.

when soldiers get sent unnecessarily into war PEOPLE DIE.

keep the lame baseball metaphors and just know that the life and death of our soldiers is just a tad more important than a stupid baseball game.

by the way, i'm a sox fan too...

Answer 8

If you would have read the bill then you would already know that it says nothing about stopping the funding for the troops currently in Iraq. What the bill does say is that we are not going to provide additional funding to send more troops to Iraq. Think of it as a salary cap in reference to your lame analogy.

Answer 9

When you fund the troops, it means that they are still in harm's way.
They are still in enemy territory.

But not providing funding, they will be forced to come back, out of harm's way. They won't be killed by bomb blasts, which was what happened over the weekend. Six US soldiers were killed in roadside blasts south of Baghdad at the weekend.

We need to bring them home. Out of harm's way.
That is the true meaning of supporting the troops.

Your comparison to baseball teams is not appropriate.

Bush sent the troops to war without proper armor, advance weaponry and other equipments.
That is dangerous and reeks of stupidity and carelessness.

Bush also misled the public by opting to go to this war which has nothing to do with Sept 11th.
Osama bin Laden is not in Iraq.
The terrorists who flew the planes, the masterminds are not in Iraq or are Iraqis.
Instead, Bush took his eyes off the real culprits and instead focused on Saddam, a tyrant who hates terrorists. He shoots them on sight.
So going to war in Iraq is not a smart thing to do.
Bush placed the troops in harm's way.

That's why the congress wants to bring them home but Bush is going to veto that. He wants them there, still.
That's why funding has to be cut.

Answer 10

why can't you realize the obvious

example

Do you support America?

America has chosen to make abortion legal.

If you disagree with this policy------why pay taxes?
If you disagree with this policy, and if congress could cut off funding for abortions

would Congress then be accused of NOT SUPPORTING AMERICA---and you too---for sharing their belief?

If we cut off funding we are not lining them up in front of the enemy and saying FIRE

We are essentially getting them out of the line of fire, because as you well know, without funding, the troops will have to come home

And to ms independ------we already voted for someone ( A NEW CONGRESS) to get them out
BUSH JUST DOESN"T GET IT