• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Support our troops?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
ah...touché 🙂

But you seem to think the gov't doesn't do enough--gov't action being a reaction to popular opinion. What's keeping you from putting in a little extra to help out the soldiers who you care about?
Click to expand...

I have found that many in the armed forces appreciate it when someone helps their family while they are away, particularly those called up who would otherwise be earning a larger wage. Bills still have to be paid, things at the house need attention. Most everyone knows someone in this situation.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Unfortunitly "support our troops" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. To some, it is a phrase meant to ward off criticism of the war and nothing more.
Click to expand...
Yep. And they wield this phrase in such a way as to imply that everyone who is for a quick resolution to the conflict and the safe return of our troops is somehow against supporting our troops. I had to ask one brainwashed fellow who couldn't seem to understand the words coming out of his own mouth, "So you want them to stay there victory-less and in harm's way forever?"

I support our troops wholeheartedly. Especially their quick victory and rapid return home. My best wishes to your brother. God Bless.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Unfortunitly "support our troops" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. To some, it is a phrase meant to ward off criticism of the war and nothing more.
Click to expand...
Yep. And they wield this phrase in such a way as to imply that everyone who is for a quick resolution to the conflict and the safe return of our troops is somehow against supporting our troops. I had to ask one brainwashed fellow who couldn't seem to understand the words coming out of his own mouth, "So you want them to stay there victory-less and in harm's way forever?"

I support our troops wholeheartedly. Especially their quick victory and rapid return home. My best wishes to your brother. God Bless.
Click to expand...
Here's the problem - you are guilty of the *exact* same thing. You're implying that 'they' don't support a quick resolution and the safe return of our troops. You're saying pretty much the exact same thing that you're accusing 'them' of.

No one wants our troops to die. No one wants them away a second longer than they need to be. All this bickering is ridiculous, and indicative of the blatant partisanship that we have become accustomed to, despite the fact that this is one issue no one here will disagree on.
 
gwb did get us into a sticky situation ,he couldnt have looked at history and seen others past problems there and realize that they really dont care what we think or beleive they just want to be left alone to live life and have babies like us. where do we as a nation get off insisting that the rest of the world be "free" did we ever ask these people do you want this no you will be free you will like it or we will bomb you.
mmm mmm mmm
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Here's the problem - you are guilty of the *exact* same thing. You're implying that 'they' don't support a quick resolution and the safe return of our troops. You're saying pretty much the exact same thing that you're accusing 'them' of.

No one wants our troops to die. No one wants them away a second longer than they need to be. All this bickering is ridiculous, and indicative of the blatant partisanship that we have become accustomed to, despite the fact that this is one issue no one here will disagree on.
Click to expand...
Nope. I was against this worthless waste of a war in the first place and didn't want them to be in harm's way to begin with. 'They' wanted the troops to go there. As to send troops to war with the expectation that none would die or be harmed is downright ridiculous, it can be easily logically concluded that 'they' did want some to die. Make sense?

Our Army and troops should be reserved for defending our nation, not for the President's personal imperialistic goals abroad.

 
Ok...well the point I was trying to get across is that there are those who turn on and off how much they care about troop welfare based on how well it supports their political agenda.

Fahrenheit 911's portrayal of US soldiers is a decent example. In earlier scenes, US soldiers were painted as bloodthirsty, ignorant, etc. ("burn mother******, burn")--someone not worth caring about. Later, when he needed an emotional scene, the soldier who got killed was painted as an innocent pawn w/dreams and a future--someone worth caring about.
 
best wishes and luck to your brother.

since the inception of any military force in ANY part of the world troops have always been short on supplies of some kind. Unfortuantely if it has not changed in the last few thousand years it most likely never will....does not matter who is in power.
 
quote
The reason there is such violent opposition to fur rather than leather is because it is much easier to accost rich old women rather than biker gangs.
i like that
 
slipOnflange:

The DOD will be holding bake sales throughout America at polling places on November 2. Please buy one of Aunt May's banana cream pies so your brother can have bullets and a toothbrush.

Thank you for supporting our troops.

-Robert
 
I'd be willing that Cheney and Halliburton are wanting for nothing. The war is supplying them handsomly!

Karma baby, Karma....
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Unfortunitly "support our troops" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. To some, it is a phrase meant to ward off criticism of the war and nothing more.
Click to expand...
Yep. And they wield this phrase in such a way as to imply that everyone who is for a quick resolution to the conflict and the safe return of our troops is somehow against supporting our troops. I had to ask one brainwashed fellow who couldn't seem to understand the words coming out of his own mouth, "So you want them to stay there victory-less and in harm's way forever?"

I support our troops wholeheartedly. Especially their quick victory and rapid return home. My best wishes to your brother. God Bless.
Click to expand...
Here's the problem - you are guilty of the *exact* same thing. You're implying that 'they' don't support a quick resolution and the safe return of our troops. You're saying pretty much the exact same thing that you're accusing 'them' of.

No one wants our troops to die. No one wants them away a second longer than they need to be. All this bickering is ridiculous, and indicative of the blatant partisanship that we have become accustomed to, despite the fact that this is one issue no one here will disagree on.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. You and the Repugs don't want to pay for our troops to be safe. No taxes, no body armor. Capiche?
 
Wow...since it's a partisan thing...Are "repugs" more or less willing to pay for troops to be safe than democrats?

BTW, capisce? from the Italian for "Do you (formal) understand?"
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Here's the problem - you are guilty of the *exact* same thing. You're implying that 'they' don't support a quick resolution and the safe return of our troops. You're saying pretty much the exact same thing that you're accusing 'them' of.

No one wants our troops to die. No one wants them away a second longer than they need to be. All this bickering is ridiculous, and indicative of the blatant partisanship that we have become accustomed to, despite the fact that this is one issue no one here will disagree on.
Click to expand...
Nope. I was against this worthless waste of a war in the first place and didn't want them to be in harm's way to begin with. 'They' wanted the troops to go there. As to send troops to war with the expectation that none would die or be harmed is downright ridiculous, it can be easily logically concluded that 'they' did want some to die. Make sense?

Our Army and troops should be reserved for defending our nation, not for the President's personal imperialistic goals abroad.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, this isn't what you said in your previous post. You argued that you were for bringing them home ASAP, saying nothing about the pre-war situation. You just strawman'd yourself.

Yes, I'm sure people that supported the war WANT people to die. If you believe that even on a cursory level, you are an asshat.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
You're missing the point. You and the Repugs don't want to pay for our troops to be safe. No taxes, no body armor. Capiche?
Click to expand...
Your argument is so broken that I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just give you what you came for in hopes that you'll go away. :cookie:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top