2007-04-07 17:54:52 · 29 answers · asked by I'll Take That One! 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Why not, Peach? Seperating troops from the mission seems reasonable to me. Especially the troops who aren't really into the mission. In a way, the kind of support they are looking for is pressure to have the mission aborted.
2007-04-07 17:59:52 · update #1
Both expressions are phrases and commands, shrink. The way they are worded is in the second person, with the "you" omitted. Kind of like when I say "Shut the door." It is a command.
2007-04-07 18:01:32 · update #2
I feel for our troops as much as anyone, especially those who signed up thinking they were going to be fighting terrorists in Afghanistan, only to be sent to Iraq.
I understand that they are out there doing everything that they can to get the job done. I would probably disagree with a majority of soldiers on what job needs to be done, but that doesn't make me lose any respect for them, and I would hope that they wouldn't lose any respect for me, after all that's what respectful disagreement is all about.
I get tired of people insinuating that any dissent from the Bush administration is an offense to the troops. It's a cheap shot at the opposition, a step away from the actions taken in earlier wars that made free speech criminal.
If disagreeing with the course of actions in Iraq is giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy, then well over half the country is guilty of treason, and I'd like to see them try and lock us all up.
2007-04-07 18:21:34 · update #3
And just for the record, it isn't an implied command, it's direct.
The Imperative Mood
The imperative mood is also common and is used to give orders or to make requests. The imperative is identical in form to the second person indicative.
The highlighted verbs in the following sentences are all in the imperative mood:
Pick up those boxes.
Fetch.
Close the window.
Support our troops
2007-04-07 18:30:56 · update #4
Not at all...I think it means that regardless of how you feel about the war, please support the people who are fighting in it.
2007-04-07 17:57:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anne 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No. There is a distinct difference between supporting the troops and supporting the war.
I support the troops. I know some of the guys & gals over there in uniform and pray for them daily....I proudly support them by writing, sending care packages & prayers.
I do not support the War. We are wrong and have been for a long time. We need to quit being the world's police force and learn to keep our butts at home and take care of our own...like the people still suffering from Katrina in many of the Gulf States. They need the man power, supplies and assistance of our military. Why we are spread out around the world fighting other peoples' fights is beyond me. If we ever learned to stay out of things and let the UN do what it was designed to do maybe the world wouldn't hate us so much. Ya know, we really shouldn't brag about ourselves so much....we have an awful lot of things we should be ashamed of and need to take care of before we start or continue critizing others.
2007-04-08 01:04:08 · answer #2 · answered by Barbiq 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Not even a teeny tiny bit. No matter what your opinion of the war Men and Women are serving the country, and as much as some people here don't like it that means every citizen, in an effort to defend the nation. That's the bottom line, don't care about the tin-foil-hat crowd, don't care about the politics. These people do a difficult job and deserve our support. It is a strange dichotomy but a fairly accurate one of our culture. Do what's in your heart and speak your peace just don't forget those who defend us.
2007-04-08 01:10:07 · answer #3 · answered by Sure you are.... 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No the United states needs to support the men and women in the armed forces that are fighting for them. That does not mean in a war but in a natural disater or something like that. The city I am from you would get pretty much killed for even bringing that up because we have lost soooo many and not just by the war but by other disaters in the united states so you should always support the troups because you would never go and do what they are doing now.
2007-04-08 01:00:26 · answer #4 · answered by dinojr_2005 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's definitely a manipulation.
When someone says they do not support the Iraqi War, they immediately turn it around on you and state that you "don't support the troops". So this creates a fallacy in philosophy called the straw man fallacy. It is distorting the actual disagreement and attacking that distortion. If you watch closely there are arguments like that all day long.
You should go to wikipedia and read all the logical fallacy descriptions. It definitely would help you be clearer in your discussions.
2007-04-08 01:01:26 · answer #5 · answered by nothingconstant 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I don't think so. I think the phrase "Support Our Troops" is a request, for civilians to not pull a "Vietnam" and take our frustrations on war out on the soldiers, and also a reminder to not take for granted all of the freedoms we have.
2007-04-08 01:58:42 · answer #6 · answered by fartmongers 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If this is THE slogan why did Appropriations cut a request from the troops for updated body armor against the IED's from $4 bil to $2 bil. You'd think out of the $96 mil budget, they would allow for the protection of our troops. Yeah, support the WAR is right.
2007-04-08 01:01:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
no. not the original impetus. viet nam taught americans a lot. it was a long time happening. one of the worst travesties of viet nam was america turning against the troops as if it was our fault that america was in the war. indeed a large number of those men went involuntarily, subject to federal prison for refusing to go. this was a terrible thing. i know, i lived it. 58, 209 died in combat, or as a result of injuries sustained in combat. four times that many vietnam veterans have since taken their own lives, some of those as a direct result of the rejection we faced on coming home.
2007-04-08 01:11:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
In 1999,when the Republican controlled Congress voted to cut off funds for military operations in the Balkans,one rationale they used was "we support the troops,not the mission".
Seems they've conveniently lost that conviction.
2007-04-08 01:08:44 · answer #9 · answered by Zapatta McFrench 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yeah. Or, you could say that it's a clever way to equate not supporting the war with not supporting the troops, even though those are two separate things. By confusing and equating the two, political operatives have created a very neat little way to hamstring their opposition. As slimy and dishonest as they are, you got to admit they are deviously clever.
2007-04-08 00:59:09 · answer #10 · answered by Underground Man 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Supporting our troops does not mean supporting this illegal war. What is means is getting as many of them home, as quickly and as safely as possible, and providing them with the care they need when they get home! *sm*
2007-04-08 03:40:55 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋