Isn't that like saying, "I'm a Patriots fan, but, I am against them winning any game" Is it just me or does this just not make sense. By definition you must be against both their winning AND them.
2007-05-02 05:03:43 · 50 answers · asked by stepped on the Third Rail 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You are correct Bush is...You can support the Lions, and not agree with the ownership, BUT, you are still FOR them winning. And their mission is what the Commander in Chief decides (thanks to that pesky document called the Constitution). So AGAIN...How can you support the troops without supporting thier mission???
2007-05-02 05:11:17 · update #1
Remind me of Rosie saying they are dumb and just take orders, followed by then saying she's a big supporter....
Funniest think if Rickki Lake (I know right, who?) misspoke while calling them dumb...
Hey shortbus, is Diane Feinstein a bush person? Murtha? You mentioned war profiteering so I was just wondering.
2007-05-02 05:12:14 · answer #1 · answered by Tired o 3 · 6⤊ 8⤋
Well lets see, because they are under an inept command
Bush's mistakes in Iraq:
Iraq had a standing army when we invaded, and dissolved it and sent them home WITH their guns instead of just replacing the senior leadership
We assumed they would greet us as liberators and just surrender and everyone would be happy. Yes, some did, but unfortunately there was a large number that did not.
We did not have enough troops to begin with. We could not protect the infrastructure necessary to maintain stability after the invasion, looting and vandalism ensued.
We had troops guarding prisons who were not trained to do so, and the CIA giving orders to them. Abu Ghraib, a PR disaster.
We did not adequately plan for the insurgency, and troops lacked armored vehicles needed for urban patrols.
We did not adequately guard the borders allowing terrorists and weapons to flow in.
We focused to much on a central government instead of using provincial governments as well.
the "Axis of Evil" Rhetoric. You surround Iran militarily and expect them not to interfere.
"Iraq can sustain its own reconstruction on oil revenues." enough said there.
Should I keep going? The Commander in Chief is a poor commander, that is why you can be pro troops but against the war.
2007-05-02 06:58:26 · answer #2 · answered by brewers07 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The fault in your scenario is that there is no danger for the Patriots. Of course if you're a fan you want the Patriots to win. However, it doesn't mean you have to support every move that management makes. What if management were to tell the Patriots to fly to their games in a rinky-dink airplane that could fall and crash killing them all? I can still be a Patriot fan, I can still want them to win, and I can be against the Patriots going on the airplane, right?
Therefore - I support the troops, I would love for terrorism to go away, but I do not support the method we are using to try'n get rid of terrorism. what do you think?
2007-05-02 08:45:06 · answer #3 · answered by conventional 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
"Habeas corpus isn't a complex criminal time period. that is the freedom from being thrown in detention center illegally, without help and no convey about sight. No president might want to ever receive the capacity to call someone an enemy, wave his hand, and lock them away indefinitely. The Founders made the president subject to the guideline of regulation. They rejected dungeons and chosen due procedure. all of us comprehend the version between fairness and persecution. If we do not act as we communicate to fix the defense force Commissions Act and fix our constitutional rights, common protections like habeas corpus might want to be lost always, and our us of a might want to develop into unrecognizable." i don't think the finished court will uphold this. i'm appalled on the ease with which human beings are keen to provide up their rights - exceptionally our Congressmen! EDIT: that is on the way - examine your human being resources!
2016-12-05 05:41:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
what is the real reason behind the war in iraq?? if it was because of humanitarian or chemical warfare then why arent we fighting a war in africa ? The real reason is oil was and is and has been reason all along.. And the reason we are in this situation is our own fault.. when they set prices we pay.. so they keep raising prices. When we have a national emergency do they try to help by lowering prices of oil? no they go up.. You wanna win the war quit buying fuel from the people we are fighting.. our boys are risking their lives so corporate business can sell cigarettes to an enemy so he can better calm his nerves as hes taking pop shots at an american. Wouldnt take long for them to loose enough money and have enough nicotine fits to hand over whomever orwhatever we wanted. Why does every patent for alternative fuels either get bought by an oil company or get red taped to death? Hey im an american, but you think the first line of the preamble mentions god by accident? hell no they knew what was up. we can debate about who is the ruler or big chief amongst countries but by taking the lord from our schools and gov't is starting to piss ^him off and you see how he reacts by the rising number of crimes in our gov't and schools.I aint heard about a gunman at our naval academy or us air force orany of the other colleges. why that? oh yes i can speak english, but my keyboards keys keep sticking and im too broke to get new one.
2007-05-05 15:42:51 · answer #5 · answered by Abraham Teddy Kennedy 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you can support the troops not the war they are fighting. That doesn't mean that you are against giving them the funding that they need to get the job done.
Like you said, you can the Patriots, but not the guy who owns them. In each case there are methods you can take to try and change the leadership or the president. You may not be successful, but you can still try.
2007-05-02 05:19:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
It’s not a difficult concept to understand. The troops are being used as police for a foreign government and people who are unwilling to police themselves.
The troops are being misused and they should be taken out of that untenable situation.
There are many militarily trained Iraqis, so military training is not the issue. The political solution is not coming together in Iraq and never will if the government knows that it can depend on American troops as referees, security guards, police officers and, unfortunately, targets for disaffected groups and foreign jihadists.
The goal of victory is allegedly a stable Iraq. A stable Iraq cannot be achieved by military force. As soon as the US troops depart, the country will again descend into chaos unless the political will to stabilize is quickly developed.
Setting deadlines for US troop withdrawals transmits the US determination to leave the situation to the Iraqis and forces the Iraqi government to get its act together and take charge of the situation, making whatever internal compromises they need to make in order to achieve a unified and stable Iraq.
2007-05-02 05:25:11 · answer #7 · answered by tribeca_belle 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
This is only a difficulty for those who can't make simple distinctions. Pro-troops vs. being for the war means that you're against the mission, but you don't blame the troops who are just following orders, which they are. It's obviously being said in realtion to the way people treated soliders during the Vietnam War. People attacked the soliders who never made the policy decisions about that conflict.
War is not a football game. And nobody is against anyone winning as you wrote. It's a matter of recognizing that the whole thing has been completely botched and lost already. There is no way to "win" this, because Bush is too stupid and stubborn to do anything necessary to turn things around.
2007-05-02 05:08:43 · answer #8 · answered by Underground Man 6 · 9⤊ 5⤋
well, in essence you can.... but, it's not logical, nor is it the way to win. do people think that we would have won WWII if people were against the war? no we wouldn't have. our troops believe in what they are doing. i have cousins, friends, uncles, teachers... all have served time over there. several have had 2 tours. 3 of them have been injured from this conflict. and not one person that i've talked to that's been over there, believes that this war is a crock. they all believe it was justified. they all have vision and realize that yeah, it sucks to have their buddies killed and be away from their families.... but, what they are doing is probably the most noble thing i could imagine. giving people basic human rights. giving hope to people that never had any. giving an area torn apart by violence for soooo many years, a glimpse of what freedom is. they are planting a seed that will grow and grow until every nation in that area will see more and more people with that taste in their mouth that most people here in the states take for granted.... it's called personal freedoms. freedom of religion. freedom of speech. a democratically elected government. govts in Iran and Syria among others, will have to answer to the will of the people or be overthrown. they will do the work for us. democratic idealogy will spread like wildfire once the Iraqi govt is capable of being on it's own. people will see that it can work. the only idiots that won't like the idea of all that would be these religious fanatic wackos that recruit terrorists. they want the power. it has nothing to do with the west being "evil". democracy = the end of radicalism in any form. don't you people want others to have what you have?? you cannot expect to destroy a country's entire infrastructure and install a new govt that is unlike anything they could imagine... and do it in 5 years. you cannot do it! it's impossible! especially with a deplorable enemy like radical islam trying to undue everything we are trying to do. we stayed in germany and japan for decades because of this same situation. we learned our lesson after WWI. we all should remember what happened... that's right, Nazi's came to power. and if we leave before the job is COMPLETELY finished... you'll see a similiar situation. and like i said before.. these radicals are just as bad or worse than Nazis ever were. cause their battle cry is religious. not just hate.
2007-05-02 05:28:49 · answer #9 · answered by jasonsluck13 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Well, actually from what I understand, liberals hate football :-\
Ha ha, that aside. They only come off that way because they disagree with the coach, going with your analogy. It goes back to Somalia, from most of the accounts I've heard, most of our guys were kind of mad that they didn't get to finish their job. If I understand that right, there is a lot of support there, bringing them home before they finish their job and leaving behind fallen comrades, huh? You are right, just because you hate the coach, you aren't going to hope the team loses. What kind of message is it to our troops when you have people like Reid saying "we've won the debate about losing the war"? There is your "Pro-troops."
Oh and Bolt1, thanks very much for your service.
2007-05-02 05:30:42 · answer #10 · answered by m 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It does not matter if you are a democrat, republican or anything in between...as long as you are an American you should support our troops. Our troops need to be well-trained, well-equipped, and well-compensated because they are the backbone of our nation. They keep the safety of our nation and provide "support" to other nations who can't do it alone.
Our troops are not world cops. Like I said, they protect our soil and our embassies and they support other nations who can not support themselves. However, supporting other nations does not mean fighting their fight and staying where we are not wanted.
Why do we keep our troops in a situation where there is a cival war and they are anti-american? It has been a very deadly situation to be in. We are not fighting terrorism, we are not protecting us or the world from WMD's....we are in the middle of a long standing civil war that can only be solved by the leaders of that country.
Our troops need to come home to safety. They need to regroup, retrain, and be prepared to fight terrorism, to support nations who want our support, protect our borders, fight wars when it truly is the only option.
2007-05-02 05:20:15 · answer #11 · answered by RW 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋