I love them all and want them all home right now. The work in Iraq will never be finished. If we stay, the dying continues; if we leave, the dying continues. The only question is, do we want Americans included in the slaughter, or safely away from it.
Cons can't really rebut this point effectively. They just start strainging and spitting like petulent children.
2007-05-28 03:18:26 · 12 answers · asked by A Wand'ring Minstrel I 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They cannot understand that not agreeing with Bush and the war in Iraq does not mean you do not support the troops.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
2007-05-28 03:23:25 · answer #1 · answered by SlickWillie 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
properly actually, this is not a count of what we prefer. i'm particular optimal human beings opt for the yankee and British forces to come again back decrease back domicile even however the nice and comfortable button is is that Bush went into Iraq to 'unfastened the Iraqis' or so he says and so now that he's 'freed' them from Saddam, somebody's have been given to stay on the back of to guard the Iraqis from the combating that is going on there. think of of ways it might desire to look for Bush if he created this mess then purely left with out cleansing it up. He has no selection yet to stay in Iraq till the activity is finished.
2016-10-08 23:57:49 · answer #2 · answered by henshaw 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush and his ilk ARE petulant children, so I suppose we shouldn't expect them to behave like anything else.
It just doesn't sound good to ask citizens to "support the war", so they're imploring people to "support the troops", even when there is NO indication that ANYone is not doing so. Ever noticed those signs people have in their yards depicting the words "I support the troops and my country"? What they're actually saying is "I support an illegal, unjustified, out-of-control war". They're obviously too embarrassed to say so, which leads me to wonder why they support it at all, other than the fact that they're die-hard neocons.
So you wanting the troops safely home is commendable. I do too; in addition, I wish for the safety of the Iraqi people as well.
2007-05-28 03:27:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If we bring home our volunteer army, then Iran walks right into Iraq and then controls the Middle East. This would give Al Qaieda that much more freedom to attack us. Plus ayone who looks at Sadam's violent record of abuse has to agree that he should not have been allowed to coninue with his atrocities. Now we have to make sure that the country is stabilized. It would be irresponsible and cowardly for us to leave now. And the U.S. is neither.
2007-05-28 04:08:02 · answer #4 · answered by Kacey 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think "supporting the troops" is to support their personal goals. I have had the chance to talk to Soldiers and Marines and they generally think the fight is worth fighting. Calling for them to be "brought home" sounds to many of them like saying that they failed in their mission. If you don't believe me, just check their reaction to Harry Reid suggesting that they had already lost the war. The Soldiers condemned him for it.
Now it's time for you to back up your point about "cons" because you need to show how my argument wasn't a rational and logical rebuttal of your conclusion. Go ahead and use the additional comments feature on your question to defend yourself. A non-response will mean that your argument has caved.
2007-05-28 03:29:19 · answer #5 · answered by Dan 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think that you understand that the Soldiers and Marines in Iraq are doing their jobs. This is what they signed up for. They are earning a living for their families and protecting the interests of all U.S. citizens. They don't want to give up the fight against Radical Islam and Muslim Extremist.
2007-05-28 03:49:16 · answer #6 · answered by Mother 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is no problem at all.
The problem is that there are so many cons that don't follow through with their lust for oil by sending in their grown family members to fight for what they truly belive in, so they will make any excuse they can think of, and when that doesn't work any more they use "name-calling" as a major tactic.
.
.
2007-05-28 03:35:04 · answer #7 · answered by Brotherhood 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Neo-Cons are using the phrase "support the troops" to mean support the war...you are fine
2007-05-28 03:25:05 · answer #8 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Demand that of your own Congress who supports this war. You elected them for that purpose, did you not? What happened?
2007-05-28 03:25:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
That isn't a problem. I feel the same way. The problem is fascist people who just want to kill people with cultures different than their own. If others truly supported the troops, they would want to bring them home, too!
2007-05-28 03:24:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋