How can you say you support the troops?

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: skyking
This "with us or against us" hot button issue one dimension mentality is utter crap, and not what any thinking person would bother arguing about. You can go out and find plenty of veterans who will praise or bash the current situation, and it is irrelavant. disagreeing with the policy is not the same as being unsupportive of the troops, get over it.

Bullsh**

I am a veteran so smoke it.

I respect you for your service, but that doesn't make your political opinion any more valid.

Edit: And I saw what you were apparently "bullsh**ing". I know several veterans and soldiers who dislike Bush and what he's doing. Or don't you realize that 4 to 1 support means there is one out there who DOESN'T support Bush?

That one is probably the cowardly bastard that joined because it was peacetime and he wanted money for college ;-)

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Tarpon6
It is politically correct to support the troops. The liberals just don't want to admit they don't support the troops. It is a cop out like many of their positions. It's like voting for the 87 billion before blah blah or telling Detroit you love your SUV, but the enviro's you don't own one, your family does, or it dempends on what "is" is. You can say anything, you can justify anything. I don't buy it.

I didn't like the thought of the Iraq war before it started or the way it was planned, but now that we are there I support the troops and what they are doing. I want them to win and bring democracy to Iraq. I root for them every day and literally feel a pain in my heart every time I hear a soldier is killed. I want them to kill every damn terrorist in Iraq. I support the USA and the troops in Iraq. At least some of liberals in here like "barney" have the balls to admit they don't support the troops (even though I think he's wrong).

Thank you so much for telling me how I think!

This is pretty revealing about the "morals" of some of the conservatives here. I hope you guys realize that the other side of the coin of "you should support the war if you support the troops" is "if you don't support the war, you shouldn't support the troops". Personally I think it's pretty amoral to place conditions like that on your support for people who's job it is to risk their lives to protect our country. Don't get me wrong, I still find it highly amusing to see the lack of "moral fiber" among some of the people constantly talking about it.

Honestly, I could care less if I can convince you guys that I really do support the troops and am not doing it out of political correctness. But the fact that you guys can't understand my views on this is pretty revealing.

 

[Alistar7]

"How can you say you support the troops?"


If you are American you support them, you pay taxes which supports them, no way around it really.....

 

[Tarpon6]

The troops by a large margin support the effort in Iraq. They have goals to accomplish and they want to get it done. They want to eliminate the terrorists and bring democracy to Iraq. So if you support the troops, who support the effort, then you are supporting their effort.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: KK
Liberals are just anti-republican. Wow, there's a obvious statement. If it had been Gore to commit our troops in the same fashion as Bush did, liberals would have been fine with it. Conservatives wouldn't put their party ahead of whats good for the country the way liberals have lately.

Damn, you republicans sure are mind readers. How much easier it must be to argue when you know exactly what your opponents are thinking. I just can't compete with this.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Tarpon6
The troops by a large margin support the effort in Iraq. They have goals to accomplish and they want to get it done. They want to eliminate the terrorists and bring democracy to Iraq. So if you support the troops, who support the effort, then you are supporting their effort.

Can't argue with rock-solid logic like that.

 

[Tarpon6]

Sorry it's so confusing to YOU. :roll:

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Tarpon6
The troops by a large margin support the effort in Iraq. They have goals to accomplish and they want to get it done. They want to eliminate the terrorists and bring democracy to Iraq. So if you support the troops, who support the effort, then you are supporting their effort.

Can't argue with rock-solid logic like that.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Tarpon6
The troops by a large margin support the effort in Iraq. They have goals to accomplish and they want to get it done. They want to eliminate the terrorists and bring democracy to Iraq. So if you support the troops, who support the effort, then you are supporting their effort.

I support their effort. I don't have a problem with them killing terrorists. I also don't believe that we should have invaded Iraq and that our occupation is making the World a Safer Place.

 

[conjur]

What's with the top-posting? Netiquette 101 for you, Mr.


BTW, it's not confusing at all. It's ridiculous.

Your argument amounts to something like:

All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

 

[jpeyton]

How can you say you support the troops?

I supported them in Afghanistan, but in Iraq I don't support them at all.

 

[Tarpon6]

Originally posted by: conjur
What's with the top-posting? Netiquette 101 for you, Mr.


BTW, it's not confusing at all. It's ridiculous.

Your argument amounts to something like:

All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

oops so sorry. No my logic isn't like that at all. How can you support someone, when you do not support what they believe and what they are doing? What is it that you are supporting?

 

[Tarpon6]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

How can you say you support the troops?

I supported them in Afghanistan, but in Iraq I don't support them at all.

At least you have the guts to come out and say it (even though I strongly disagree). Not like Conjur and his ilk.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Tarpon6

Originally posted by: conjur
What's with the top-posting? Netiquette 101 for you, Mr.


BTW, it's not confusing at all. It's ridiculous.

Your argument amounts to something like:

All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

oops so sorry. No my logic isn't like that at all. How can you support someone, when you do not support what they believe and what they are doing? What is it that you are supporting?

Much the same as Kerry's position. I know the war is unjust but Bush screwed the pooch and now the U.S. owns Iraq and must fix it. I support our troops to do their best to stabilize Iraq so they may come home ASAP. Trouble is, the politicians running the show keep fvcking our troops up the ass.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Tarpon6
The troops by a large margin support the effort in Iraq. They have goals to accomplish and they want to get it done. They want to eliminate the terrorists and bring democracy to Iraq. So if you support the troops, who support the effort, then you are supporting their effort.

I want the troops to come back safely and serve the country with honor. If that's not supporting the troops, what do you call it?

Look, the OP was about how liberals can support the troops not the war. I'm saying I, and I suspect many other liberals, can seperate supporting the troops from supporting the war. On the flip side, I think it's reprehensible that you guys only support our soldiers because you agree with the war. That's like the people who slap American flag stickers all over everything they own, but who would be bitching about how America was going down the tubes if Bush wasn't in charge. The phrase "sunshine patriot" comes to mind. I don't care if you understand it or not, I'm just telling you how I feel.

I love my country even if I disagree with the current administration, and I support the troops even if I don't agree with the war. If you can't understand this, I pity you.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Tarpon6

Originally posted by: jpeyton

How can you say you support the troops?

I supported them in Afghanistan, but in Iraq I don't support them at all.

At least you have the guts to come out and say it (even though I strongly disagree). Not like Conjur and his ilk.

Well what I get from Conjur and his "ilk" is that they support the troopsd but not the reason they are there. I don't believe that conjur or his"ilk" would want the troops to fail, get hurt or killed like you are implying.

 

[conjur]

I always wanted my own ilk.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: conjur
I always wanted my own ilk.

Heh.

I'm jealous. You get to be "conjur" in "conjur and his ilk", and I'm only one of the "ilk". Damn

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: conjur
I always wanted my own ilk.

Heh.

I'm jealous. You get to be "conjur" in "conjur and his ilk", and I'm only one of the "ilk". Damn

Damn straight, lowly ilk!


BTW, my shirts are at the cleaners. I fully expect my ilk to pick them up by 5.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: conjur
I always wanted my own ilk.

Heh.

I'm jealous. You get to be "conjur" in "conjur and his ilk", and I'm only one of the "ilk". Damn

Damn straight, lowly ilk!


BTW, my shirts are at the cleaners. I fully expect my ilk to pick them up by 5.

Are they ilk shirts?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: conjur
I always wanted my own ilk.

Heh.

I'm jealous. You get to be "conjur" in "conjur and his ilk", and I'm only one of the "ilk". Damn

Damn straight, lowly ilk!


BTW, my shirts are at the cleaners. I fully expect my ilk to pick them up by 5.

Are they ilk shirts?

I knew that was coming.

 

[Alistar7]

The war was just for the reason stated in my sig alone conjur. We have the right to protect ourselves, and taking out Saddam was the ONLY thing Bush has done that I agree with in any way. Other than that Bush is a myopic, moronic assclown who probably cant even color inside the lines yet. When I think of Bush hard at work in the white house I envision him drooling at his desk and playing with tonka trucks, waiting for his nanny to bring him some choo-choo wheels mac and cheese for lunch.....

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
The war was just for the reason stated in my sig alone conjur. We have the right to protect ourselves, and taking out Saddam was the ONLY thing Bush has done that I agree with in any way. Other than that Bush is a myopic, moronic assclown who probably cant even color inside the lines yet. When I think of Bush hard at work in the white house I envision him drooling at his desk and playing with tonka trucks, waiting for his nanny to bring him some choo-choo wheels mac and cheese for lunch.....

Nope, WRONG!

We've been down that road before. You are 100% WRONG.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Alistar7
The war was just for the reason stated in my sig alone conjur. We have the right to protect ourselves, and taking out Saddam was the ONLY thing Bush has done that I agree with in any way. Other than that Bush is a myopic, moronic assclown who probably cant even color inside the lines yet. When I think of Bush hard at work in the white house I envision him drooling at his desk and playing with tonka trucks, waiting for his nanny to bring him some choo-choo wheels mac and cheese for lunch.....

Nope, WRONG!

We've been down that road before. You are 100% WRONG.

Explain why I am wrong then, one more time, I seem to have missed it the first time. Oh, thats right, you have NEVER shown how that was wrong in the first place, heres your chance.

 

[Alistar7]

What should Bush have done when presented with that evidence by Putin? Why is that reason not just cause for taking Saddam out?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
What should Bush have done when presented with that evidence by Putin? Why is that reason not just cause for taking Saddam out?

Umm...remember this?

Originally posted by: conjur
Ok, one last pwnage of you, Alistar7 then it's off to the *plonk* file with you.


WMDs were the only justification given for an invasion. Powell said so as did Wolfowitz.


Powell's full testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 9/26/2002:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/gover...c-afternoon-092602.htm

SEN. PAUL SARBANES (D-MD): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MS. : (Aside.) Thank you, Senator (Rockefeller ?). (Laughter.)

Mr. Secretary, I'm looking at pages 2 and 3 of your statement. Is the United States prepared to go to war against Iraq if it engages in illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program that's been established by the U.N.?

SEC. POWELL: The principal concern that we have are weapons of mass destruction, and the principal focus of the U.N. resolutions are weapons of mass destructions (sic), and that's what the inspection regime was trying to uncover and destroy. At the same time, however, Iraq is in violation of many other provisions, and --

SEN. SARBANES: (Inaudible) -- I'm looking at -- I'm looking at your statement, and you say, "What Iraq must do to repair this breach."

SEC. POWELL: Right.

SEN. SARBANES: And I'm trying to section this out. You list five things. The first, of course, is the removal of all weapons of mass destruction, but I want to go to the others. Are we prepared to go to war --

SEN. BIDEN: (Aside.) We still have a vote at 3:45.

SEN. SARBANES: -- to make sure they comply with U.N. resolutions on illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program? You got it listed here.

SEC. POWELL: I got it listed as one of a number of issues that they are in material breach of. I don't think I linked going to war to any of them or any combination of them.

SEN. SARBANES: Well, you say "What they must do."

SEC. POWELL: Right.

SEN. SARBANES: So they must do that or otherwise, we're prepared to move against them?

SEC. POWELL: That's -- I don't think I said that, Senator.

SEN. SARBANES: Okay, but what about --

SEC. POWELL: I'm saying -- I'm identifying, if I may -- I'm identifying the specific U.N. resolutions that they're in violation of, and under U.N. resolutions, they are supposed to comply with those resolutions. They have the force of international law.

SEN. SARBANES: Well, you say, "If these demands on Iraq sound like regime change, then so be it." Will we go -- will we take military action or go to war in order to make them release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown? Would we do that?

SEC. POWELL: I think the operating clause in that that is of the greatest concern is the one having to do with weapons of mass destruction. It is unlikely that any of the others individually would lead to that kind of consequence.

SEN. SARBANES: So if you just -- I mean, if they did that, that would -- that's the one towards which war is directed.

SEC. POWELL: I think what we have to do -- no, I don't want to make that connection, Senator. I think what we have to do is look at their total response to these resolutions.

SEN. SARBANES: (Inaudible) --

SEC. POWELL: And the resolution of greatest concern, the issue of greatest concern are the weapons of mass destruction. Which is why in 1998, both the United States Congress and the previous administration made that the policy of the United States government.

SEN. SARBANES: Why are you listing all these things? If the mass -- if the weapons is the thing, shouldn't we -- do you want authority to use military force again Iraq from the Congress in order to make them comply with U.N. resolutions on illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program? Do you want that authority?

SEC. POWELL: The principal reason for the authority is for the president to do what he needs to do to focus on the principal offense that he has been presenting to the nation, and that is weapons of mass destruction. The rest of those elements --

SEN. SARBANES: Fine. All right. Now, I want to take you through the rest of them. Do you want authority to go to war in order to accomplish compliance with those resolutions --

SEC. POWELL: The president hasn't asked for any authority -- the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements.

Excerpts from the Press Gaggle by Ari Fleischer September 26, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/info...q/excerpts_sept26.html

QUESTION: Yes, let me come back to the al Qaeda connection. So, Condi is saying that these contacts go back more than a decade; that they are continual, they are ongoing; they're involved in Baghdad, they're involved in chemical and biological weapons training. But still no evidence of a connection between Iraq and 9/11?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.

WMDs only 'bureaucratic reason' for war: Wolfowitz
http://www.smh.com.au/articles.../29/1053801479971.html

The US decision to stress the threat posed by Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction above all others was taken for "bureaucratic" reasons to justify the war, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in remarks released today.

Wolfowitz, seen as one of the most hawkish figures in the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, said President Saddam Hussein's alleged cache of chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons was merely one of several reasons behind the decision to go to war.

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in Vanity Fair magazine's July issue.

However, just two months later, Wolfowitz was already singing a different tune (flip-flopping along with Bush)
Wolfowitz 'Not Concerned' About WMDs
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92566,00.html

Finding the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (search) that President Bush cited as his main justification for going to war is now a secondary issue, says Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz (search).

In an interview Monday night aboard an Air Force jet en route to Washington following a five-day tour of Iraq, Wolfowitz said the task of settling the weapons question is in the hands of U.S. intelligence agencies.

"I'm not concerned about weapons of mass destruction," Wolfowitz told a group of reporters traveling with him. "I'm concerned about getting Iraq on its feet. I didn't come (to Iraq) on a search for weapons of mass destruction."

He also asserted that Iraqis themselves have little concern about the weapons issue.

And here I let myself be drawn back in by Alistar's ignorance...<sigh>...I should have known better.