"Supporting the troops": Does it mean supporting all that Bush wants to do, or bringing them home to safety?

Question

Since time immemorial, we humans have "supported" the people we care about by trying to make sure they are safe and comfortable and surrounded by people who love them.

That's why "supporting the troops" can never mean "supporting whatever Bush says", especially when he won't consult anyone else and is determined to keep up the pointless bloodbath that is Iraq.

Answer 1

An administration that does not do all that can be done to protect our troops when they are in harm's way, is not supporting the troops. Supporting the troops means equipping all of them with the best possible body armor and armored vehicles so that they can withstand IED's, mortars and smalls arms fire. It means increasing their pay so their families can afford essentials in this time of inflated gas and food prices.These are all things the Bush admin. has either not done, done poorly, or has refused to do.

Sending them into a war with no effective strategy is not supporting the troops. Making them stand in the middle of another country's civil war while not pursuing diplomatic, political and economic means to stop the conflict is not supporting the troops. Refusing to bring them back home when the war is un-winnable, is not supporting the troops.

The real puzzler is how the Republicans turned this issue on its head and blamed the Democrats!

Answer 2

By all means, support the troops and bring them home safely. "Supporting the troops" doesn't mean supporting the reckless, insane 'war' that George W. Bush has unconstitutionally and illegally initiated against another sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the United States.
"Supporting whatever Bush says" would be like supporting anything Hitler, Stalin, Rush Limbaugh, Idi Amin, Shawn Hannity or Attila the Hun might say. These are all corrupt, evil, hate-filled, arrogant losers who have come to power because of their insanity and outrageous lies, half-truths, distortions, hate, bigotry, bias, jealousies, insecurities, and inaccuracies. -RKO- 05/28/07

Answer 3

I think it's perfectly acceptable to say that we will do whatever it takes to bring to completion the job at hand.
Several years ago they were building a supercolider near Dallas. A few years into the project congress decided the cost was too much for the benefit and they filled it with concrete and walked away.
They brought the project to an acceptable completion point.
"Finishing the job" does not always mean completing the goals originally laid out. Sometimes you modify the plan to more realistic expectations and call it finished.
Sometimes finishing the job, though, is much, much more unpalatable.

Answer 4

It means supporting the mission that the troops have. You can't have it both ways. If you were to ask the soldiers themselves, they would tell a person like you all sorts of things that you could do to or with yourself, but you would need to get away from them physically for your own well-being. You didn't really ask a question, you made a statement and revealed the shallowness of your way of thinking.

Answer 5

No, it means supporting the troops in completing whatever mission they are given by whoever is their Commander-in-Chief, whether its Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Japan, or Germany.

Answer 6

To me, supporting the troops means remembering that the vast majority of them didn't enlist to fight in this war, they enlisted for educational and job opportunities. Most of them are National Guardsmen who signed up for one weekend a month and two weeks a year. Blaming them for going to Iraq or Afghanistan is a foolish thing to do - once they're in, if war is declared, they have no choice.

We can be against this war and still be for our troops. This war is, in my opinion, a quagmire unlike anything we've seen since Viet Nam. The primary difference is that this time, thank Goodness, we aren't treating our troops like something we scrape off the bottom of our shoe.

We need to bring them home, safe and sound, in body and in mind and spirit.

People can give me all the thumbs downs they want. One thing those men and women are fighting for is my right to hold this opinion.

Answer 7

Neither, It means supporting the mission those troops are dedicated to. They understand their mission, they are soldiers, not babies to be coddled. In fact many take offense by this molly coddling. So "supporting the troops" will always mean supporting their chosen field. When you create problems for the mission, you are creating problems for the troops.

Answer 8

Supporting Bush is not supporting your troops . Would you like trying to save someone who hates you and tries to kill you ? Not that all of Iraq is like that , but it seemms to me most of them don't even want the troops over there . I for one , don't go where I'm not wanted .

Answer 9

Neither. It means supporting what the troops are fighting for and knowing who the real enemy is.

Answer 10

"Support the Troops", is just Political saying that Bush and his buddies thrive on. What I find scary is the amount of nitwit's that haven't figured this out!
My Brother served in Vietnam, did I "support" the war-NO. Did I "support" my brother-YES.
My Nephew served in Iraq, did I "support" the war-NO. Did I "support" him-YES.
Moral of my story?
Wake up America, and pull your head out of your ***!
Who in this country doesn't know that if you are in our military at the time of war -YOU GO.
They don't "ask" you, you are sent. Why is it so difficult to understand you support every man and woman who MUST go to war, WITHOUT believing the grounds for sending our military to a foreign soil to fight with their lives?
Furthermore most of the "men" who sent our men and women to war only put their foot on Foreign Soil to take a "Vacation!"