"Support the troops" rallies are what really?

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: raildogg
i guess supporting the troops is simply too much for you, huh? well its no surprise, many radical leftists hate this country, hate who they are, hate anything right or moral and they hate the military with a passion. many of them are on the side of terrorists. not saying you are, but many radical leftists who are whacked out are.

supporting troops is not the same as supporting the GOP. think for a second. many soldiers come from families which vote Democratic.

i think we need to have anti-war protests as well in order to balance things out but to say that support the troops rallies are really "I love war", "Kill more people" or even "Support Bush" rallies is just being partisan flamethrower.

but you should know a thing or two about that

I agree with the general idea that trying to read peoples' motives for doing things isn't a very reliable idea, and you might have more of a point if you didn't start with that old gem about how if you don't support Bush, you don't support the troops, and you probably side with the terrorists. I know those weren't your exact words, but they seemed implied to me. That is the same sort of crap, and it doesn't belong in reasonable discussion any more than assuming anyone who "supports the troops" is a Bush/war supporter. Hell, if anyone should know that, it's liberals. We've spent a lot of effort trying to convince the more extreme righties that it is possible to support the troops without supporting Bush, we should be willing to accept this from others too. Maybe supporting Bush is what the rally really is about, but I'm not willing to make that assumption, political assumptions (whatever the slant) really aren't very accurate.

 

[Rainsford]

By the way, if you want a great counter-example for the more common conservative stereotype, I have one. Last summer I worked with these two guys who both served in the armed forces, both drove pretty good sized pickup trucks, and both of whom had "Support the Troops" and American flag stickers on their cars. I stupidly assumed they were both Bush/War/Republican fans. They weren't, neither of them liked Bush, neither of them thought the war was being handled well, and both of them ended up voting for Kerry in November.

Is the stereotype sometimes true? Maybe, but often it's not, and I was kind of an idiot for assuming something about these guys based off of some dumb stereotype. Just an observation.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are the anti-war crowd being honest?

How many of them would be supporting the war if Clinton were president instead of Bush?

Clinton would never have done such a stupid, stupid thing. Please. Don't insult him like that.
:evil:

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are the anti-war crowd being honest?

How many of them would be supporting the war if Clinton were president instead of Bush?

You ask one half of the great circle jerk question. You left out the second half. Are the "pro-war" crowds being honest too. I honestly believe that over half of the protesters (both sides) are just supporting or bashing Bush and couldn't care less about the actual war. Sure, when you ask them, they'll tell you how passionate they are about the lives lost/saved. When it comes down to it... Pro/Anti Bush.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are the anti-war crowd being honest?

How many of them would be supporting the war if Clinton were president instead of Bush?

I would still be opposed to both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Looking back, I was completely opposed to all of Clinton's military actions that put American troops on the ground in hostile countries. Firing a few cruise missles at Iraq was bad enough, but landing troops in Rwanda to be slaughtered was a very bad idea.

I only support defensive wars. We haven't had anything that comes close in 60 years....

Contradiction... You are only against the Iraq war. We went to Afghanistan to take out the group that had proven responsibility for 9/11. Finished or not, that is why we were/are there.

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: Todd33
WTF does Clinton have to do with anything, especially this thread? Is Clinton the fall back if people have nothing to say?

If all else fails, bring up Clinton. Remember: Blowjobs = evil , Death and Destruction = Holy. Infact, the fundies should replace Thou shalt not kill, with Thou shalt not suck .

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are the anti-war crowd being honest?

How many of them would be supporting the war if Clinton were president instead of Bush?

LMAO. If Clinton were president, he would be held to the same standards of stupidity and war mongering for starting a war based on lies, fact.

But Clinton would never have turned a blind eye to bad and down right, faked intel like Bush did.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Text

You were saying?

And Clinton started a war and commited thousands of our troops for which 2000 US troops died in the process? You were saying? Nice try and comparing like you usually do, and as usual you failed.

He would have if he wasn't being impeached.

Did Clinton make up these lies about WMDs?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zendari
He would have if he wasn't being impeached.

The ignorance in that sentence is utterly amazing.

Did Clinton make up these lies about WMDs?

Nope. This admin. and its PNAC fvcks did it all on their own.

 

[CKent]

"Support the troops" rallies are what really?

Post-highschool pep rallies.

 

[Gaard]

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: AlricTheMad
Good question.
I imagine most of them would be protesting regardless.
I also imagine there would be fewer protesters if WMDs had been found or it appeared there was more progress in Iraq. (Yeah I know not easy, lots of work etc etc)

Probably a good chance that there'd be less anti-war sentiment if WMDs had been found.

I still sit back and look in hindsight at Shinseki's recommendation and go, "Ya know, if only they'd done that, Iraq might have been the most perfect scenario after all."

Imagine the "political capital" the GOP would have if they'd done that?

Well considering the Dub's track record in Business and Politics prior to him becoming POTUS we should have expected him to fsck it up. Unfortunately I didn't and I mistakenly initially supported his "Crock in Iraq" That makes me as much at fault as his Apologists. All I can say is that I am sorry, I should have known better. I guess I got caught up in the fear and patriotism the flourished immediately after 9/11 and like most I wasn't thinking clearly.

I think you and I were had by the token selection of Powell as the sense of credibility.

Well to be honest with you I couldn't imagine the Dub and his administration being so inept. Thinking about it maybe they weren't as inept as their apologist try to make them out to be, maybe they were very calculating and played the American Public (including me) for saps.

Maybe?? They as much as told us they had WMD's and knew where they were. There is no "maybe" about it IMO.