personally, im against the war but i totally support the troops!
i just think that they shouldnt have been sent there in the first place. that doesnt mean that im going to be like " ahh i hate you! die! die die!!!"
i think they are brave and sure im proud of them and such.
i just think they shouldnt have been sent there.!
their IS a difference
2007-05-20 09:23:37 · 15 answers · asked by <3pirate 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
what the h e ll are you talking about patrick M?
2007-05-20 09:31:18 · update #1
redneck, i donate stuff that gets send to iraq. do you want me to write them a 20 page letter that thanks them for their assistance? im sure they dont have time for that.
and i just cant see how you dont see the difference between what im saying!!! i dont want our troops to die! infact, i probably want more for them then people who DO support the war. and thats because, i want them to come home and stop wasting their time and life.! they are all young and need to live life to the fullest and not be out their dodging bullets and suicide bombers and such.!
how can you not see the difference!
2007-05-20 09:48:00 · update #2
The problem is that the Bush backers are convinced that anybody who doesn't support the war is unpatriotic and doesn't support the troops due to the fact that they are part of the U.S. military. It's all a bunch of lies and proganda spit out by the Republicans to make the Democrats look bad in an attempt to ruin the Democratic Party's attempt at taking the presidency in next year's presidential election.
2007-05-20 10:07:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Intellectually there is certainly a difference. How you feel about the troops is very different than how you feel about a war.
There is a problem, though, when the people that you support are in a war that you don't support. The problem is that at that time, by opposing the war in a public way, provides strength and improves the morale of the enemy. During the Civil War, the Copperheads were in exactly the same position. They loved the troops and thought the best thing was to bring them home. As a result, the Confederacy thought that they should fight on through 1864, causing hundreds of thousands of additional casualties. Yet, intellectually the Copperheads supported every single one of those dead boys. They were still dead.
We can see the same effect (although thankfully in a much smaller way) in this war. Every statement that "the war is lost" or "we can't win this war" or "let's support the troops by bringing them home" gives the enemy the heart to attack once more, to risk their lives and homes once more and maybe to kill one of our boys.
During the Second World War very few people were happy that we were in the war (it had been going on for more than two years, or longer if you include the Italian and Japanese aggressions before we could even enter) but once we were in we were in as an entire country
Disunity in the face of an enemy is the best way to continue a fight. Oh, and by the way, remember that, to the enemy it is just as useful to kill an American civilian as it is to kill an American soldier. Just because we bring the troops home doesn't mean that we will be safe. Thinking that they will stop attacking just because we leave Iraq is just not thinking.
2007-05-20 16:36:46 · answer #2 · answered by Matt W 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You don't understand why all of that was said. I think everyone now supports the troops that are fighting for us in Iraq, Afganistan, whereever they are now and whether or not they support the war. But when Vietnam happened, it was not a popular war and there are great similarities between the two-like a war we cannot win, where we are not wanted, where it's hard to tell your friend from your enemy and on and on. One big difference is that the troops were not supported then. Those that fought were not popular, received no homecoming or support from anyone including the government. Back during Vietnam if you said you supported the troops everyone tried to say you supported the war. People refused to differentiate between the two. It was a horrible time to be a vet. To go through all of that and come home to nothing. . .Check out the old Rambo movies and how he was treated as a vet. It's a movie but the basis of it is true. No one cared about the vets and noone cared whether they came home or not. The assholes he was referring to are President Bush and his band of renowns that keep us fighting a war we will probably never win-much like Vietnam. Vietnam was a crock. You are aware that a war is good for our economy and that was the gist of Vietnam. So many died for nothing and got no thanks for it. The guys you are talking about are veterans that fought for our country-probably before you were born. They deserve our respect as much as the soldiers of today. Maybe more because they didn't get theirs back then. I assure you that they meant no harm and no disrespect to our soldiers fighting today. They have been there and done that and understand what it takes to do what our soldiers are doing today.
2016-04-01 11:58:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is quite true that a lot of people believe that if you don't support the war, than that means you don't support the troops. That is what we are being told by Faux News. This is because Bush (whom does not support the troops (please see him cutting vet benefits and vetoing bills that would fund the troops) supports the war. Thus if you don't support the war you don't support the President or the troops. That is the rationlaztion behind the idea that those that do not support the war does not support the troops.
However, to quote Tom DeLay. You can support the troops without having to support the President.
2007-05-20 09:49:59 · answer #4 · answered by White Star 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I agree with you. I a magainst the war, but I totally support the troops. I think it is 2 different things also.
2007-05-20 09:46:01 · answer #5 · answered by prettynpink 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
no you can be against the war and support the troops, however the open protests and the bull by Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, and most of the Democratic candidates sends a message to the enemy that if they continue that the US will leave, This hurts the troops and their mission. That is the difference.
2007-05-20 09:33:04 · answer #6 · answered by 007 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because Bush lied. Because when someone says the truth,
like the war was a mistake, they can't debate it with common sense. So they say we hate the troops, and hope we shut up and go watch American idol.
2007-05-20 09:50:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think that now that Saddam is gone its time to get down to business over there and finally know when the war is going to end. I know we have a mission, but it seems that all we are doing is acting as there police force, which is what I think is bad. I do support our troops don't get me wrong.
2007-05-20 09:28:56 · answer #8 · answered by rosslambert 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because the cons are desperate for some sort decent legacy for Bush. If they can tie support for the troops to Bush they can in essence defend their domestic social agenda. It's kinda like throwing good money after bad.... they know they messed up but they're so far in they have no choice but to support Bushie or admitt they phucked up!
2007-05-20 09:35:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Should people who support the troops be writing to Congress right now and demanding that ALL our fighting men & women be paid enough so that they don't need food stamps to help support their families?
2007-05-20 09:28:06 · answer #10 · answered by ? ? ? ? 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋