English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

on supporting the troops?

bring them home

or

support them in battle and stay the course

and why do you think that?

2007-10-01 07:55:06 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

i hope u all see a pattern

2007-10-01 08:31:13 · update #1

17 answers

Support them in battle and stay the course, although in war the course does require change sometimes.

Why? Because I've heard first hand that we aren't getting the full story and good progress is happening...maybe not fast, but good.
I'd rather see our military come home with heads held high knowing they were allowed to finish what they were sent to do, instead of tails between their legs because they weren't allowed to finish...yet again.

And this is not a light issue with me. I'd love to have my son not worry about going back to Iraq. He wants to finish his job.

2007-10-01 08:01:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

As a combat veteran,I can still only answer for myself.I believe that the troops in harms way,want to stay until the job is done.They know first hand what is happening in the combat theater and also know that if a stabilizing force does not succeed,it will only be a matter of time until the regional conflict escalates into a conflict that will destabilize world interests in that region.
There is no such thing as "stay the course".A war is a fluid event and requires constant change in tactics and ultimate goals.The notion that;if we achieve goal "A" then "this" will happen and if we achieve goal "B" then "that" will happen is a childish thought.
At the outset,the goal of regional stability was established by the President and the Congress.This goal is achievable.
When the pundits force congress and the President to put forth a "timetable" and then publish the plan for a phased withdrawal,they only give vital information to the enemy.
Example:
If civilian deaths due to IED attacks decline 50%,then we will remove 25% of our combat forces.
IF I were an enemy of the US,I would decrease attacks until the forces were removed and then begin a new offensive against a weaker enemy.This is BASIC combat strategy and sadly is not understood by the members of congress who for whatever reason are hurting the war fighting ability of our armed forces.

2007-10-01 16:31:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I believe that you really can support the troops by wanting them to come home. I don't agree with it, since I feel the soldiers should win and our nation should win, but if there are people who genuinely feel for our guys over there and disagree with the war and want them home safe, then I can respect their opinion and agree that they do support our troops.

On the flip side, many people who say, "I can support the troops and not support the war," in many cases really don't care about our soldiers' welfare, it's just a blanket statement. So I'd have to see that you really mean it if I'm going to agree that you or any person really cares for the lives of our boys overseas. I've known too many people that have said that, and then turned right around and picked on the nearest person in uniform to try and make them feel bad.

The reality is, I think most people who don't support the war, don't support it because they're sympathetic to all the terrorists we're killing. They have it in their minds that we are killing innocent Iraqis, all the while never realizing, we're not at war with Iraqis. It's not an "insurgency". At present, there has been an invasion into Iraq from nations beyond its borders that don't want a free democracy next door to their brutal theocracies and dictatorships. To allow it would mean that their own people will crave a democracy of their own, and so they kill their OWN people, and THEY are killing Iraqis. Trying to scare them, and all the world.

2007-10-02 08:05:14 · answer #3 · answered by Russell 2 · 0 1

I have answered variations of this question, and there is no right answer. If you would have left the question as "Support the troops or not", then the answer would be simple. But since you put in "stay the course" then the answers you will get will sound hypocritical or two way.
I support the troops regardless. I do not support staying the course. It is the troops doing their job, regardless of how screwed up American Politics and policies are. Not the troops fault.
As far as staying the course. We did a good thing in ridding Iraq of Hussein. We did what we set out to do. Now we are involved in a terrorist backed civil war that is a no win situation for us. We need to get out and do more to protect our own shores using the CIA, FBI, NSA, INTERPOL, and whatever other means we have, and use our troops here at home to secure our borders. The Border Patrol does not have the assets nor man power to do the job right.
BUT BY ALL MEANS SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!!

2007-10-01 15:05:48 · answer #4 · answered by RUESTER 5 · 1 3

If I say "I support my home football team, but I don't think they should show up for any games this year" how does this follow any logic?

We must support them in battle and stay the course because they are doing a good job in an incredibly difficult war. Unfortunately, these things can't be subjected to timelines and ultimatums. War is difficult and establishing democracy cannot be accomplished by a certain date.

2007-10-01 15:02:42 · answer #5 · answered by KRR 4 · 6 1

Bring them home or support them in battle and stay the course either way I will still support the troops, but I would rather bring them home just because I feel for the families who have already lost a loved one :(

2007-10-01 15:00:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

Opinions are neither right nor wrong so I'm not quite certain how to respond. If you want to know whether or not I, personally, support the troops, yes I do.

2007-10-01 15:26:14 · answer #7 · answered by Amy 1 · 3 0

Support them in battle now. Why it's too late to get out now. It will one start a massive civil war in Iraq and two a regional war will start with Iran firing the first shot. Meaning we would have to go back into a larger more deadly war that we could most likely lose and open Pandora's box with China. Nobody See's this because there to focused on there donuts.

2007-10-01 15:29:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

If the battle had been righteous, I would support them being there. I have no problems with the troops, who are only doing what they are told and paid to do. I do have problems with a leadership who so blatantly lied about the reason for going (Osama Bin Laden was never there); I didn't object to Afghanistan. But Bush lied, he has spent money this country neither has nor can afford, and you men and women continue to die so that his and Cheny's buddies can continue to get rich on the blood of our soldiers. It's time to come home.

2007-10-01 15:34:21 · answer #9 · answered by HipHopGrandma 7 · 0 3

First of all, how can you get an opinion question right or wrong?

I believe that the Global War on Terrorism has been destracted by the war in Iraq. Afghanistan should be our main focus, as well as, Africa and Central America.

We should pull out of Iraq and let the Iraqi's fight it out among themselves and then team up with the winners. it's that easy. "We are fighting them there so we do not have to fight them here," is B.S.! Terrorists are not limited by boarders and fighting in Iraq will NOT protect America from more terrorist attacks. All that it does is exhaust out military. And on the outside chance that insurgents take control of Iraq--we just bomb them back to the stone ages and never set foot there again.

2007-10-01 15:02:40 · answer #10 · answered by nsrnugn 2 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers