2007-07-01 09:51:20 · 10 answers · asked by Lane 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
And is there a difference between supporting a family member or loved in the service opposed to supporting the troops as a whole?
2007-07-01 09:52:31 · update #1
A difference between political support and emotional support?
2007-07-01 09:52:57 · update #2
Absolutely.
Contrary to what conservatives and Republicans tell you, supporting the troops does not mean you support any brain-dead policy deserting frat-boy presidents and their 5 draft-deferment vice presidents think up.
Supporting the troops does not mean waving the flag and rah-rah-ing while soldiers are short on body armor and are sent to vermin infested hospital wards.
Supporting the troops does not mean saying I support President Bush while the soldiers are overtaxed with extended deployment after extended deployment.
Supporting the troops does not mean singing "God Bless America" while soldiers are forced to extend their enlistments due to stop-loss actions.
Supporting the troops means taking an active part in politics and ensuring that men's and women's lives aren't thrown away because some douchebags like Bush & Cheney wanted to boost his popularity for the 2004 election by starting an unnecessary war.
2007-07-01 15:41:59 · answer #1 · answered by damnyankeega 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely.
The military are suppose to be able to change tactics.
Because civilians make the mission for our military, we can change the mission, or even the goal.
To let people die for almost 5 years for nothing is not supporting the troops.
To cut the VA Hospitals by $100 Billion (who are currently treating 105,000 Iraqi Vets) while you are giving tax cuts to the rich is not supporting the troops.
To let them be used as target practice for 4 years is not supporting the troops.
Sending them into combat without the proper training, equipment (which they still don't have) and numbers is not supporting the troops!
Making the best hospital in the world a laughing stock, thanks to outsourcing, is not supporting the troops!
They are where they never should have been, that is not supporting the troops.
Supporting the troops is never putting them in harms way unless absolutely necessary! And Iraq was not necessary!
Lets be honest, America HAS NEVER supported the troops!
2007-07-01 17:05:10 · answer #2 · answered by cantcu 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Of course. Supporting our military in the assignments they have been given is vital. That includes our express appreciation for their sacrifice, as well as putting our money where our mouth is and providing adequate tools, training, leadership, relief, care for the injured, and care for the survivors of the killed.
That said, calls to end this war (or any other) is not a disservice to the troops. Ending wars is what humane people do when it is possible to do so.
Despite the outcome, and some sideshow reasons for going into Iraq, our prime purpose was noble - to rid the world of a dangerous dictator and free the people he oppressed. Noble intentions, however, do not absolve of us the responsibility to fix what we helped to break. Leaving Iraq now is likely a mistake, but leave we will. Sooner or later.
2007-07-01 17:54:13 · answer #3 · answered by jehen 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes, troops don't all sign up for the war. there are many troops who dislike the current war. Pat Tillman, being the most famous, stated that he agreed with fighting in Afghanistan but not Iraq. (other soldiers have stated their dislike by going AWOL, which is a bit extreme)
most troops sign up to protect and serve our nation, if they are given a mission that isn't about protecting us, doing the right thing, or goes against people's rights in general they don't agree with it and us civilians don't either
most jobs carry with it some tasks or the possibility of having to do undesirable things- but those tasks aren't what the job is all about. the military does many things, its only natural for people to disagree with some of the tasks they carry out. (and natural for them not to like everything they are told to do as well)
2007-07-01 17:18:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I support the right of people around the world not get shot by soldiers.
I hold in contempt anyone who thinks that people ought to be denied this right, or that this right might be denied is an inalienable fact. How about coming to believe that killing people in the name of peace is a false premise, hm?
2007-07-01 17:01:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
you should support the "job they signed up to do:"... they signed up to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Just because that is NOT the job that Bush has assigned them, that is not their fault.
2007-07-01 17:04:15 · answer #6 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I support what the troops do and the man that sent them to do it. One of the reasons we are not going threw what England is going threw is that they the evil doers know there will be a price to pay if they want to play.
2007-07-01 16:56:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Yes, they didn't sign up for any particular war, they signed up to be sent where the government wants them to be sent. Today they fight for a mistake, tomorrow they may be fighting for our freedom.
2007-07-01 16:58:02 · answer #8 · answered by PD 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely. Did they sign up for this aberration of ethics and the college of fools perpetrating it's contents?
2007-07-01 16:56:23 · answer #9 · answered by Don W 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
no, that's a lie that liberals tell themselves to hide their hate for the military so they don't appear "mean spirited"
2007-07-01 17:14:58 · answer #10 · answered by andy c 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋