Fredo,
Explain why you believe there can't be a difference.

I support both, unwillingly, through the taxes I am forced to pay. I support neither through action or in my heart.

I don't support the "war" for simple reasons that frankly, at this point, need not even be discussed. It is obvious to any thinking person with a conscience why this "war" is so wrong on so many levels.

I don't support the troops because they do not support me. They took an oath, an oath made to me and every other American. It states in part: "..do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.." Instead of defending the Constitution against its' domestic enemies, they take orders from them. Allegiance to the Constitution is what is required of them; not allegiance to GWB, the Office of President, the Army, a commanding officer, fellow soldiers, Iraqi "freedom", the mission, American "interest"(corporations), or anything else. Their orders must be directly sanctioned by the Constitution.

Soldiers shoulder a great responsibility when they decide to enlist. I hold them to the responsibilities they have freely accepted. This "war" has yet to meet the strict guidelines for war necessitated by the Constitution. While it has been going on the Constitution has been by violated through legislation, signing statements, and Presidential orders. Meanwhile, not a peep from enlisted men about these gross violations.

SO -how can you "support the troops" if you constantly and loudly are tearing apart the mission and goals they beleive in???

YEAH!

By Not Confusing the "Mission and Goals believed in" by an administration with that of the people charged to carry them out!

Duh!

But hey, this is from the same cult that equates Patriotism of Country with Obedience to a Man!

Are you really supporting someone when your words indicate you are at the polar opposite of what they believe in.

How should an anti-war person be interpreted, i mean what exactly are they supporting? (the Soldier's well-being I suppose?)

on the average, MOST soldiers want to be in Iraq killing terrorists. Do you think they feel supported by anti war protestors?

what is the nature of the support that an anti war person feels they are providing?

I really really am curious, I want to hear the philosophy behind this from a person who is completely against what most soldiers are very much for.

Fredo,
I don't know that "most soldiers" are very much for the war in Iraq. What I have heard from the few I've spoken with, is that they want to be there to support their brothers, and they do think there is "some" progress in rebuilding Iraq...as a result of the damage we initially inflicted. They also believe these people will keep killing each other no matter what.
I support the troops and not the mission because they have no choice but to execute the mission so arguing that is a non starter.
But, the mission is more than flawed as there is no possible military solution to Iraq, much less victory. It's all political. If you remove the mindless "let's kill em all", you realize there is no longer anything that our military can accomplish there, except to delay what seems to be the inevitable...a civil war.

EP
OK my link to the Military Times, i just realized, is a bit dated, but most soldiers believe they should be in Iraq killing terrorists, that is supported by polling data. I could go find a million links... anyhow, I do not discount your friends' opinions - but that is hardly a good sample.

please tell me the nature of your support. you do not support their mission.. so what is it you support, specifically .

R8RH8R,
Well said sir, well said.

Fredo C

"OK my link to the Military Times, i just realized, is a bit dated, but most soldiers believe they should be in Iraq killing terrorists, that is supported by polling data. I could go find a million links..."

Then do it--LINK???

R8RH8R,
Well said sir, well said.

Posted by Salaryman


I read the rambling nonsensical idiocy posted by this douch R8.... and so I am not surprised by the cock suckfest going on here with him and salary.

from the article --

Is a person really able to "support the troops" if the person is vehemently opposed to the war itself?

Yes. I've been supporting the troops from day one. I support the war in Afghanistan and oppose the war in Iraq. Military troops are trained to follow orders. They don't get to pick and choose which wars they'll fight.

Just for the sake of argument Freddie, did you support the mission in Bosnia?

I read the rambling nonsensical idiocy posted by this douch R8...[sic]

...and I can't dispute the validity of any of it! Therefore I will summon my homoerotic fantasies of a male orgies and project them onto him. That should do the trick, hopefully, because I don't really have an argument.

-Freko C

It's like saying I think you should divorce your wife and put your kids up for adoption but don't get me wrong I support your family.

"please tell me the nature of your support. you do not support their mission.. so what is it you support, specifically ."

I support them getting everything they need to accomplish whatever goals their command has set forth. Armor, supplies, showers that don't electrocute them, that sort of thing. I support all of them getting home in one piece, though that's obviously not possible. I support a reasonable troop rotation defined by their military superiors, not civilians who aren't there and, in many cases, have never worn anything besides a boy scout uniform.
I don't support the idea of sending these kids to force democracy in countries where there wasn't any to begin with, where the citizens seem more comfortable with a theocracy and where they seem more than happy to blow themselves up, as long as they take as many others as possible.

It's like saying I think you should divorce your wife and put your kids up for adoption but don't get me wrong I support your family.
Posted by shirtsbyeric at 2008-05-07 12:27 PM

YEAH!

Or better, saying you "Support the Troops" but at the same encouraging the Disrespect of the Hundreds of Thousands of "troops" who gave their Life for Your Freedom to Vote in a Free and Fair Election.

"Is a person really able to "support the troops" if the person is vehemently opposed to the war itself?"

When the war in question is illegal, misguided, and wrong for America, the answer is....of course.

This one is easy. You can support the Soldiers and at the very same time not support the policy in which they are forced to carry out. It's not the soldiers that You are against by not supporting the war. It is Dubya who You are against. If the soldiers had a say in where they are sent then You would have a point. But because they don't then it's easy.

Larry Mohr

Here another way of saying it is. How can You say You supported the troops when You truly believe that they were being wasted for naught?? How can one say they speak out against injustice when they are either silent or supportive of that injustice while it is occuring??

Larry Mohr

I just heard on the radio that a prisoner that was released from gitmo has commited a suicide boming in Iraq.

Fredo,
Explain why you believe there can't be a difference.

Posted by evilpolock

Because in right wing world you are either right or wrong. It is either black or white. You either support the troops which means supporting every military action that the white house chooses to send them on or else you are a terrorist sympathizer.


Just for the sake of argument Freddie, did you support the mission in Bosnia?

Posted by Salaryman


Funny how that question goes unanswered. Must be because it was ordered by the evil murdering rapist president.

"I support them getting everything they need to accomplish whatever goals their command has set forth. Armor, supplies, showers that don't electrocute them, that sort of thing. I support all of them getting home in one piece, though that's obviously not possible. I support a reasonable troop rotation defined by their military superiors, not civilians who aren't there and, in many cases, have never worn anything besides a boy scout uniform.
"

--Posted by EVILPOLOCK "

So...in general, you support the war?

Hating this war has been easy for me. Supporting the troops there has been easy for me.

People that can't see how effortless this is are telling on themselves. The rest of us can't help it if you lack useful cognitive-affective skills.

Some of you are like the entity referred to as Johnson. Mention "tactics" and the only thing he can come up with is carpet-bombing residential neighborhoods. He can't conceive how you could win the war in Iraq otherwise.

Y'all need to consider it is quite possible there are some things you just don't get. I hope that scares you as much as it has scared me.

Spider,
No, I don't support the war but we are there. The catch 22 is that without the necessary supplies and without taking the welfare of the troops into account, which of course keeps them able to fight, more of them will die unnecessarily.

"I support them getting everything they need to accomplish whatever goals their command has set forth. Armor, supplies, showers that don't electrocute them, that sort of thing. I support all of them getting home in one piece, though that's obviously not possible. I support a reasonable troop rotation defined by their military superiors, not civilians who aren't there and, in many cases, have never worn anything besides a boy scout uniform.
"

--Posted by EVILPOLOCK "

So...in general, you support the war?

Posted by SpiderWolve


Actually EP, I disagree with Spider on that comment, and your answer actually makes some sense to me. I thank you for that answer. BTW you are not the evil Polock. That would be my wife.

Hmm...I'm not trying to start an arguement or anything here, but:

"I support them getting everything they need to accomplish whatever goals their command has set forth."

That's a general statement, saying you support the war they are fighting. Thats how I came around to that comment.

..and we're very greatful for this, trust me!

" Armor, supplies, showers that don't electrocute them, that sort of thing."

:)

Fredo C

"OK my link to the Military Times, i just realized, is a bit dated, but most soldiers believe they should be in Iraq killing terrorists, that is supported by polling data. I could go find a million links..."

Then do it--LINK???

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-05-07 11:45 AM


Still waiting on that--LINK???

;-)

I'd say at least 3/4 of the Nam vets I've known or talked to believed the Nam war was screwed up, even when they were in Nam. None of them would let you even imply they didn't support their fellow soldiers.

Spider.....

wishing them not to be killed probably does not equate to supporting the war.
And you know, come to think of it, while very noble, wishing them not to be killed is not really supporting the troops themselves, either.

an example is: i hate the guy who owns the house adjacent to the back of my property. I have stopped him from every stupid illegal construction project he has ever tried to do without a zoning approval and permit. I have cut down his dying trees that dangerously hang over the yard where my kids play. I have gone behind his garage with a shotgun because he doesn't care that rabid raccoons are breeding there. I do not support my neighbor. I also do not want him to be killed. I hope that he comes home safe every night to his wife. That is a basic human emotion. I do not want the posters on the DR to be killed*, but I do not support most of them.



* disclaimer- Dethspud is not neccesasrily included in the group "posters on the DR" as mentioned here

Half a century ago I covered U.S. bases in Germany for the Army, Navy and Air Force Times.

Even then I rabidly opposed wars. Ffter Korea and before Vietnam, we weren't actively annihilating anyone, but rattling sabers to beat the band. Daddy Ike was on a golf course near the White House; all was well with the world.

My bleeding lib heart ached for the poor slobs dragged into uniform. It still does. Even without a draft, it's their only means to three squares and a cot. I support them by working to get them home. I do NOT support Bush's war. herm

Lemme be clear(er)...as a vet and a Christian, I wish and pray for the safety of all soldiers anywhere in harms way. You can do with that remark what you wish.
I completely disagree with the excuses for and the continuance of this war in Iraq. Afghanistan is a separate issue, in my mind.
How do I support them outside of my prayers and thoughts? I volunteer at the VA hospital.
But I don't have one of those silly ass magnets on the back of my car.

When the war in question is illegal, misguided, and wrong for America, the answer is....of course.

Posted by LetUsPrey


Letmepee(in my pants),

Link to your claim you tool.

Wewewewewewewe and blahblahblahblah are not valid points.

rwd

it is impossible to support the troops and not support the war.

Impossible. Anyone that thinks its possible, simply does not look at what the definition of "support" is.

Here is from dictionary.com

a. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign.
b. To argue in favor of; advocate
hese verbs mean to give aid or encouragement to a person or cause

So what stupid democrats do, is they just make up their own definition, and ignore what the word support really means.

When you say you "support" that means YOU SUPPORT THE CAUSE.

Look it up you stupid fuckhead liberals.

www.dictionary.com

you don't support the troops. Do not say you support. Just fucking tell it like it is.

You "want" the troops to come home. Thats not support, thats suppress.

If you do not support the war effort, then your doing the opposite of supporting the troops.

why do I have to spell out the most common sense, defined factual principles that cannot be disputed?

Democrats dictionary version of support: "go against the cause of the person"

Fucking idiot tools. Go back to school and learn something.

Kuma

you lose all credibility when you start throwing out opinions like "the iraq's don;t want us there" etc etc etc.

You do not support the troops, stop lying to yourself.

Again, dictionary.com

Support means you support the "cause" of the person your supporting.

And you clearly do not. So my advice to you is stop trying to hide lies, go back to your tag line of:

"more US soldiers in iraq die, so we can have more political points to get the white house and congress in 08"

Why fuck around? Thats what democrats want.

kuma

WOW Someone must have taken the short bus to school. Many folks on the Right declared that You can support the troops and not support the President. Funny how times change and they want to renig upon what they espoused previously. Funny dat Be.

Larry Mohr

I can't believe anyone pays any attention to kuma, the little bear must be japanese.

The biggest WOB on this blog since nicEviLle.

Oh and I would declare for the Record that if one does NOT support the War they can not wish for a positive outcome. I believe to wish for a Positive outcome then they have moved from nonsupport to one of support. Give an example. Tom Mix tells You that He is going to rob a bank tomorrow and You tell Him You better not or that You don't support Him doing so yet state "Oh and I hope You walk out of there rich" Seems to Me You are supporting it by Your wishing Tom Mix makes out with big bucks. Know what I am saying??

Larry Mohr

Makes sense to me Larry.

You can't say you support the troops, but turn around and say you don't support what the troops are doing. Its a hypocritical statement in itself. Like trying to ride the fence when the top of the fence is a greased pole.

You most certainly can declare You support the troops and at the very same time declare You don't support the reason they are being sent into Harms way and here's how. Since the troops do not get a say in where they are sent nor why they are being sent there they are not responsible for that decision. It's in this case Dubya is the one who sent them there and if His Policy is Illegal Immoral and Unjust You are duty bound NOT to support it. If You do not You are morally and ethicaly treasonable to America.

Larry Mohr

On s
On supporting our troops
To the Democratic leadership in Congress:
Consider the following statements from your Republican colleagues.
"You can support the troops but not the president" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"[The] President ... is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." -Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy." -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." -Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W. Bush
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." -Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years" -Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" -Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." -Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem." -Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)
"Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly." -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

You can't say you support the troops, but turn around and say you don't support what the troops are doing. Its a hypocritical statement in itself. Like trying to ride the fence when the top of the fence is a greased pole.

What total bull shit.

So you are in complete total agreement with what the company you work for does and never ever begrudge any policies they impliment?

Workers across the country don't agree with what direction their company moves but they continue to perform their work and support the company.

Get a life in reality, stop living in some political rightie dream land of total righteousness. It is unbecoming.

What total bull shit.

So you are in complete total agreement with what the company you work for does and never ever begrudge any policies they impliment?

Workers across the country don't agree with what direction their company moves but they continue to perform their work and support the company.

Get a life in reality, stop living in some political rightie dream land of total righteousness. It is unbecoming.

Posted by moneywar
---

I have a life, perfectly grounded in reality thank you; my life revolves around helping ensure you can continue to freely call "bullshit" on what other people state, whether your right, wrong, or just being an ass notwithstanding.

I never said I was in total agreement, nor have I ever thought I was living a political "rightie" dream of total righteousness. Now, putting words in my mouth..or on my fingers..is unbecoming.

Larry,
Thats more or less what I was agreeing on..I think; you can say you support the troops, and their fight while disagreeing with the policies that are being inacted that move them to said fight.

I notice spidey didn't address the issue I pointed out, apparently he is smart enough to figure out that his argument was stupid.

"So you are in complete total agreement with what the company you work for does and never ever begrudge any policies they impliment? Workers across the country don't agree with what direction their company moves but they continue to perform their work and support the company." - MONEY

You've used that analogy in the past. While it does have some merit, keep in mind if you're that dissenting employee you don't actively work to subvert the firm's morale and company procedures... doing so would likely get you fired. Wouldn't it?

I'll use an analogy I've used in the past. Football team... offense in the huddle... each receiver telling the QB to throw him the ball... runners calling for the ball... dissention behind the scenes.

Ultimately, the QB makes the call. Even if some of the players disagree with that play call, when they break the huddle they present a united front vs the opponent. Unless they're a selfish egotist who wants to force a trade or something similar.

The time for debate occured. There is still the "right" to dissent regarding strategy, but at what cost to company/team/troop morale and effectiveness?

In this age of instant communication how do we think our enemy views our internal dissent and less than 100% focus on victory... and how do our troops view that dissent? Does it provide them encouragement?

Oohrah,

You are almost there, it is the fan in the stand. They continue going to the game and support the players all the while hating the front office and the owner for changing the teams dynamics. They support the players but not the decision maker.

Thanks for the contribution though, it was fun. Now that is how it really works in life and in patriotism.

And so it goes.

MONEY-
I hear you on the 'fans' analogy, yet I still don't reach the same conclusion as you do.

The fans (even if they hate ownership or certain players) still actively root for their team to win - to be successful on that drive... to win that game. They support the team's goals while maybe disagreeing with certain team components.

I see the USA as a team comprised of many parts. The troops, our government & policy makers, our citizens, the media. We each have a role to play - just like in team sports - which contributes to overall team cohesiveness and effectiveness.

When all present a united front vs the opponent I've got to think morale and effectiveness are heightened. When one component of that team decides it doesn't like the direction and actively works to spread dissent/doubt I question that component's desire for victory.

Now you could argue that US war dissenters are much like the turmoil in the huddle or maybe the dissenting fan in the stands. Do you think the opponent who hears that dissent is encouraged?

We've all been in stadiums where the home team has been boo'd... or the road team has the loudest cheering section. Players will say it doesn't bother them (you can judge whether they're truthful or not), but the visiting players derive encouragement. Maybe only incremental... and doesn't affect the game's outcome... but it can be a factor.

When it comes to football, both teams are trying to win and when the clock runs out the game is over. In war there is no clock - so whether to fight or quit is not based on a predetermined time frame - unless the USA unilaterally invokes one.

Trouble with the football anayolgy is if You do not believe Your team should be fighting the opposing team do You say NOTHING while Your team is being slaughtered?? Or do You stand up and declare this game is wrong and should not be played. If one does not speak out against a fight that He/She believes is wrong while it's being played. He/She is a moral coward and obviously does NOT support the troops because they sat back and allowed them to be killed. When Your leaders are the enemy against what this Country stands upon don't You have a moral duty to speak out then and there?? If one keeps silent while the atrocity is being perpetrated and only speak out after it's done and over with aren't You just a God Damned Yellow bellied pussy?? Can it not be said that if You cared about the troops so much You would NOT stay silent when duty called.

Larry Mohr

LAR-
If you want your team to win its game I don't think you keep it up during the game. If you thought they shouldn't have put that game on the schedule the time for debate was prior to game day. Same with the football huddle analogy. Internal debate is good. But at some juncture a decision has to be made and it requires 100% focus to reach its optimal effectiveness. Not to say it can't be done with slackers (we've all worked with those) but those dissenters who actively continue to speak out against the project tend to work themselves out of a job - insubordination, poor atitude. I've had to let people go and that's part of the equation.

Now that the game is on, how can one's blatant actions & words to hinder his team's effectiveness/morale be interpreted as anything other than to be non-support by the teams on the field?

Now you could argue that US war dissenters are much like the turmoil in the huddle or maybe the dissenting fan in the stands. Do you think the opponent who hears that dissent is encouraged?

This is where you are confused, what the enemy thinks or hears doesn't matter one iota and the fact you are worrying more about that than what your nations people think says loads about your priorities.

It is painfully obvious You do not believe in what this Country was founded upon. You liken dissenters to slackers and that is so much BULLSHIT. If You believe the fight is Morally Ethically and Legally wrong then You must speak out Before DURING and after the War. If You don't say anything while it is occuring then You are not being true to what this Country stands for. In fact I would say the dissenter that actively speaks out against a War while it is being perpetrated loves their Country more than the one who sits silent while it happens when they believed it to be wrong. Dissenters are NOT slackers They are what this Country most desperately needs while a National Crisis is happening.

Larry Mohr

LAR-
I didn't equate dissenters with slackers. I used the slacker terminology to show a degree of dissent. There's a difference between a slacker at work... a dolt who goes through the motions. It's an entirely different work situation when a person goes beyond simply being a slacker to one who actively argues his dissention to any/all who'll hear it... and doesn't cease the complaining.

That dissenter becomes actively engaged in subverting the morale and quite possibly the effectiveness of the rest of his team...

To MONEY's point, if you've ever seen an opponent's players getting into it with each other... or have seen players openly bitching with the coach... or have seen the body language of lack of will on the part of the opponent - it most certainly gives you encouragement. If nothing else, it tells you to forge onward. And, in war without a clock, one's will to fight is critical.

This was brought out on that Hiroshima photo thread regarding Japan's will to fight to the death.

Once again another rightie demonstrates his hatred of America.

America was established to remove the power of war making from the armed forces. (in fact they didnt even want a standing army, but I wont bother educating you on the history of the american armed and now empirical forces).

they wanted that power SOLELY to stand with the people's representatives. NOT with the executive branch which by definition is the head of the armed forces.

Therefore the justness of a war is irregardless of the soldiers interests, except in as much as the soldiers are citizens.


It is a key condition of the american democratic experiment that starting wars is kept out of the hands of the generals. For the reason perfectly demonstrated by Iraq. An executive power run amok, starting a war of agression. The army has no capability of being objective in this situation. Or are we expect a group based on discipline, force and power could willingly admit that there is something they cannot achieve.

To say that the soldiers should be dictating foreign policy to america demonstrates a complete ignorance of what america is.

If you want your team to win its game I don't think you keep it up during the game. If you thought they shouldn't have put that game on the schedule the time for debate was prior to game day. Same with the football huddle analogy. Internal debate is good. But at some juncture a decision has to be made and it requires 100% focus to reach its optimal effectiveness.



the football analogy rings false

a better analogy is a bus(h) driving off a cliff,

do you cheer the bus(h) on or do you point out that driving towards the cliff was and is a bad idea and we need to change course?

America IS dissent.
America was founded upon the very ideal of dissent.
Without dissent We would NOT be America.

Larry Mohr

This was brought out on that Hiroshima photo thread regarding Japan's will to fight to the death.

No, the Japanese will to fight to the death is because that is the patriotism and way of the people and how they were raised.

Spend some time there and you would know what I mean, even ask the missionaries they will tell you the same thing.

If our government deploys bad policies it is up to the people to correct it, it is as simple as that and trying to use what terrorist/enemies think is plain ignorant at best and quite frankly have missed the whole purpose of why the troops are fighting.

Push back from the people should not be denounced, it should be heard. The people are the representatives customers.

Thanks for playing. LAR/MON None will change the other's view but I enjoy the dialogue. Have a good day.

"It is impossible to support the troops and not support the war...."


Why? Because you are able to string these words into a sentence and then repeat them endlessly?

You suffer, at the very least, from a profound dearth of imagination. I can't see any use in blaming others for your limitations.

But, I suppose if you have certain sorts of limitations, that's what you're left with.

TH -- I like your bus analogy. When I was getting ready to retire from the military in 2003, I used the analogy of doing a partner jump strapped to a wacky partner who controlled the parachute, only to find out that he had no parachute once you left the platform of the plane. We generally accepted the Bush Cheney leadership on the run-up to Iraq, but some of us said the idea was fatally flawed, and that intelligent dissent was being squashed in the rush to invade. Yet despite these warnings, a lot of senior officers flocked like lemmings to the no-dissent, no-doubts quadrant and enabled the wacky partners int eh Executive Branch to jump off the platform with the rest of the country strapped onboard.

TH -- I like your bus analogy. When I was getting ready to retire from the military in 2003, I used the analogy of doing a partner jump strapped to a wacky partner who controlled the parachute, only to find out that he had no parachute once you left the platform of the plane. We generally accepted the Bush Cheney leadership on the run-up to Iraq, but some of us said the idea was fatally flawed, and that intelligent dissent was being squashed in the rush to invade. Yet despite these warnings, a lot of senior officers flocked like lemmings to the no-dissent, no-doubts quadrant and enabled the wacky NEOCONs in the Executive Branch to jump off the platform with the rest of the country strapped aboard.

Most Dems support the troops but not the war.

Which makes a refreshing change from the GOPhers who support the war but not the troops.

Be Well.

Sorry but you can not support the troops and not the war if you think this is an illegal war as most Dems do.

Yes you are sorry TIMbcile.

your viewpoint is a fading tragedy in the rear view of American politics

Sorry but you can not support the troops and not the war if you think this is an illegal war as most Dems do.

~Timbuckfifty

Actually just cos YOU can't chew gum and walk at the same time doesn't mean other folk are incapable of doing two things at once.

In this case not supporting this war IS supporting the troops.

Supporting increases in VA spending that lead to better medical care and long term treatment of both physical and mental injuries as well as supporting better pay and saner tours of duty and not allowing the long term usage of National Guardmen as international warriors are all good ways to support the troops.

All ways that the BushCo bitches have countered.

The new GI Bill of Rights mentioned on another thread is another example.

Spud'll reppeat.

R-tards support the war and not the troops.

Dems support the troops and not the war.

The two top recipients of campaign funds from the troops in this campaign have gone to Ron Paul the anti Iraq war candidate on the right and Barrack Obama the real anti Iraq war candidate on the left.

That's who the troops support, Timster.

Them's the facts, you brain addled maroon.

Deal with it.

GObama '08 or you won't be supporting the troops!

Be Well.

Righties can try to use the idea that you can't support the troops yet be against the war but it is just a political tactic, nothing more, certainly not based on anything in the Constitution, in fact just the opposite is true.
I will still oppose the war and still support the troops whether the hypocritical right who wanted tax cuts for themselves while others went to war like it or not.

DANNI,
What is your own definition of 'supporting the troops?'

"SO -how can you "support the troops" if you constantly and loudly are tearing apart the mission and goals they beleive in???"

Stupid question.

I've sent care packages to the troops in the field.

And mine is literally one of millions of possible answers.

Hate to sound like a dogmatic rightie, one of those guys who signs posts with military style handles. You can N O T - repeat NOT! - support the troops without working your butt off to get 'em home NOW. Cheerleading for Bush only exacerbates their peril. herm