you a chickenhawk if you won't personally fight the war in Iraq? Is this just a weak strategy to stifle our support of the greatest, most patriotic troops on the planet?
2007-11-02 06:59:54 · 11 answers · asked by Yahoo Answer Angel 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I see two questions wartz..hows the vision, reading, and comprehension going for ya?
2007-11-02 07:55:45 · update #1
They say they support the troops...but they call me a war-monger for supporting the MISSION the troops are carrying out, which is necessary to say that you do in fact support the troops.
You cannot support the troops if you do not support the mission they are sacraficing and risking their lives for. Sorry, just a fact.
Honestly
How can liberals claim to support the troops when they write up bills that cut their funding?
How can liberals claim to support the troops when they accuse them of rape and murder?
How can liberals claim to support the troops when they don't believe in the mission they're on?
How can liberals claim to support the troops when they insist on retreat from Iraq because our troops aren't doing a good enough job of winning the war?
How can liberals claim to support the troops when they insist that the war can't be won and that victory is impossible?
Funny that if you support our troops, support our president, and support our mission in Iraq that liberals insist that you enlist and go fight on the front lines. But if you b*tch and complain about the US mission in Iraq, then you don't have to do a damn thing.
2007-11-02 07:05:50 · answer #1 · answered by flaming_liberal415 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Uh, no one is anti-national security; some of us are intelligent about what would make us more secure, and what has made us less secure. Other people are morons (like those in charge, for instance).
Supporting the president who's harmed us more than any other president ever is not being patriotic. Being patriotic is loving one's country, not applauding those who are destroying it.
I have neither called anyone else, nor myself been called a chickenhwwk. Those who use the phrase are pointing out how easy it is to applaud other people's deaths, from a comfy, place away from the fighting.
Supporting those responsible for the deaths, maimings, slashed pay and benefits, and extended tours of our troops is NOT supporting those troops.
2007-11-02 15:42:05 · answer #2 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, Dubya deters me from supporting our President by stooping to the lowest possible denominator when he addresses the people. Seriously, I can't sit through one his speeches. It's hard to support a smart, educated guy who intentionally tries to come off as a bumpkin ever time he speaks in public - when he's supposed to be the Leader of the Free World.
But, yes, the 'chickenhawk' gambit is weak. Not everyone is suitable for military service, in fact, most people in our aging society are not. That's one reason we fight such expensive wars - we can't waste our soldier's lives, because we just don't have that many potential soldiers, so we buy them the highest-tech equipment we can dream up.
2007-11-02 14:11:39 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Picking a fight with every country on the planet doesn't make you pro-national security. It makes you a buffoon. Hiring people who couldn't even get a GED to work security at airports doesn't make you pro-national security, it makes you incompetent. Mass retribution against civilians in Iraq doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a war criminal.
I am a liberal. I am pro-security and pro-America. That's why I am also for impeaching George W Bush and sending him to the Hague to be tried as a war criminal. That's why I'm against torture. That's why I think the war in Iraq will prove to be one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes this country ever made.
2007-11-02 14:09:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, "anti-national security lefties" don't deter me from anything.
And being a true patriot means to understand the Constitution and abide by it. Something our government (left, right, middle, dem & republicans) quit doing decades ago.
If you think that throwing our constitutional rights in the trash is making us safer, than you deserve what happens to this country.
There will always be crazy people in this world, and you cannot regulate and write laws to stop them. Waste of effort, waste of time.
Those that trade freedom, for security, deserve neither.
2007-11-02 14:22:12 · answer #5 · answered by Gem 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Frankly, seeing how this Iraqi war is slowly spreading across the region (it is getting to the point where relations with the Turks are getting tense.) and causing trouble with those we intended not to be confronting in the first place, I think we should handle it in another matter, just not militarily.
2007-11-02 14:58:59 · answer #6 · answered by PeguinBackPacker 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you mean the troops that killed Pat Tillman, or are you refering to the ones that manned Abu Graub prison.
2007-11-02 14:21:17 · answer #7 · answered by nathan f 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There is, of course, no such thing as an "anti-national security lefty" so your entire post is moot.
2007-11-02 14:08:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
OMG! I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU FAKE CONSERVATIVES HAVEN'T AWOKEN TO THE FACT THAT BUSH IS A BOUGHT OFF PUPPET FOR THE GLOBALIST AGENDA.
DO YOU REALLY THINK THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CLINTON WITH NAFTA, WACO AND BUSH WITH CAFTA, NAU, IRAQ WAR?
JUST WHEN, TELL ME WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO WAKE UP AND REALIZE THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE FASCIST CRIMINALS BUSHES/CLINTONS AND THE LIKE AT THE POWER LEVEL,
YOU ARE BEING DUPED AND LIED TO .
YOU ARE LOSING YOUR COUNTRY, PLEASE, PLEASE WAKE UP!
2007-11-02 14:05:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Dubya is not the country (a "bad" centrist).
2007-11-02 14:02:39 · answer #10 · answered by Mysterio 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋