1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Can you support out troops and still be against the war?

Discussion in 'Polls' started by Nammy, Feb 10, 2007.

?

Can you support out troops and still be against the war?

  1. Yes

    76 vote(s)
    73.1%
  2. No

    29 vote(s)
    27.9%
  1. r0beph

    r0beph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama
    The war in iraq is not the war on terror politicalgrrrl, well it wasn't, considering saddam had no patience for anything outside his regime going on in his country. We are in a supposed war on terror, yet, we created the terror in iraq...how is this logical? On the other hand while I despise everything going on in iraq, I'm pretty supportive of the going ons in afghanistan, we do need to be there, we went there to FIND Bin Laden, which was acceptable at the time. I'm still confused as to why the hell Iraq is associated in ANYONES mind with 9/11, the war on terror, or anything even slightly resembling that. Iraq was a completely different situation and had nothing to do with the war on terror. We shouldn't have gone into iraq...Plain and simple...Now we're there we need to do something, and what is going on right now, is not that something. It's a big mess, a debacle, a ****storm, and nothing is going as it should. It's becoming a moneypit, an oil pricing expounder, and a get rich scheme for amoral commercial entities. It's disgusting that Americans can support that.
     
  2. ArmChair General

    ArmChair General Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    www.spamwebsite.com
    I was against Hitler's wars, but I still supported the Nazi's.

    :rolleyes:
     
  3. ArmChair General

    ArmChair General Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    www.spamwebsite.com


    No, you ****ing retards.

    1. If I am against guns, I'll also be against those guns' bullets.
    2. If I were against Hitler, I would also be against his Nazis.
    3. And if I am against this WAR, I am not going "Support those who are fighting in it"!!! Goddamn! It's only people as ignorant and mis-educated as modern USA citizens, who would even think to, straight-faced, say something as ILLOGICAL as "If you don't support the war, at least support the troops"!


    :rolleyes:
     
  4. ArmChair General

    ArmChair General Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    www.spamwebsite.com
    Inclusion is an American Mandate.

    And no intolerance...will be tolerated.

    ALL HAIL THE GREAT (and spine-less) SATAN!

    The only thing that matters to these philistines is whether they're convincing in their continuous deception (most American's are ****ing pussies who stand for nothing; and hence, they stand, impeccably, for "the American way").
     
  5. ArmChair General

    ArmChair General Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    www.spamwebsite.com
    Obviously these soldiers' sacrifice doesn't amount to much, considering how hostile the climate of our culture is for anyone who argues against the current "givens"...
     
  6. ArmChair General

    ArmChair General Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    www.spamwebsite.com
    said like a typical, brainwashed, spineless American.
     
  7. r0beph

    r0beph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama
    I think you're wrong here. In fact, I know you're wrong. Guns and Bullets are integral, bulllets without guns, aren't very useful, nor are guns without bullets. As for hitler, there's a slight difference between being against someone who calls for mass torture and murder of unarmed civilians while all the time KNOWING DAMN WELL they're civilians, and then supporting those who are willing to carry out such a malicious act. The problem with this is that I don't support Hitler and at the same time I don't support the Nazis, but then that is expected because they both represent the exact same thing. Soldiers do not represent this war, they are in the war because they are soldiers, but would be soldiers, war or not.

    I don't support our actions in Iraq, I DO support our actions in Afghanistan, in fact I feel that we're doing TOO much in Iraq while we're laxing in Afghanistan.

    This all aside as stated before, a soldier is a soldier, war or not, I do support those soldiers here AND abroad.

    __________________
    [​IMG]
     
  8. ArmChair General

    ArmChair General Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    www.spamwebsite.com
    Actually, I'm correct.

    Wars without soldiers to fight them wouldn't be much use either....

    You don't know any better.

    All soldiers are ALL mindless pawns and it is ILLEGAL for them not to be.

    And we're not just talking jail-time, because if any of the mindless pawns steps out of line, it is punishable up to death, under several statutes of the UCMJ.

    EXAMPLE

    Unfortunately (I think), we almost never hear of such harsh punishments being enacted. Not only because the rare instances are suppressed... but, also, most military personnel are too cowardly to take any stand, and risk the punishment.


    Then you also support their actions, which include the wars they fight.
     
  9. vyo476

    vyo476 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I think we should all ask ourselves what this whole, "Do you support the troops?" thing really means.

    For me, the whole "Do you support the troops?" thing is purely psychological.

    When you sign up to be a soldier, you sign up to be a willing tool of the United States, for use especially in times of need. You forfeit your right to outwardly protest the actions of your superiors, except in times of absolute extremity, because to be able to do so would be counterproductive; that's what civilians are for anyway. You do not have a choice in where you are sent or who you are told to kill.

    When someone asks if you support the troops, they mean to ask if you're planning on spitting on them when they get back and calling them "baby-killers." Had this been a "justified" war, with the support of the public, they'd have come home to ticker-tape parades and the general trappings of complete heroism. As this is not a "justified" war in the eyes of the public, what they are doing over there has a stigma attached to it. For them, though, there must be no difference between these two types of war. War is war. It is what they do. It is no more pleasant to kill a random stranger when the public thinks he deserves it than when the public thinks he does not.

    When they return to America, many will no longer be soldiers, and all will be reintroduced to our society (which has different rules and customs from the life of the combat soldier). They will be returning to family and friends who have not had the same depth of experiences they have had. When they see a bumper sticker that says, "I support the troops!", to them it says, "We still love you. We know the government made you do something terrible. But we still love you."
     
  10. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,624
    Likes Received:
    153
    Like dogs who are trained to fight but really aren't responsible for their actions? I am sure that they appreciate your condescending love now as much as I appreciated it when I returned from viet nam.

    I signed up for what I did and went into it with my eyes open as do the vast majority of soldiers today. They signed up and went because they felt that it was the right thing to do, not because the government "made them do something terrible".

    The vast majority of soldiers who are in iraq and afghanistan today are there because they want to give the people there the chance to live a life of freedom rather than a life of opression under some dictator's thumb.
     
  11. Popeye

    Popeye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Washington state
    Who are you kidding? The vast majority in Vietnam were draftees. Poor and minority draftees at that.

    In Iraq and Afghanistan, you have a great many soldiers who were already members of the military when 9/11 broke. Since then they have been deployed, redeployed, and redeployed, and redeployed. No WMDs and no staying at home, I bet they're loving it.
     
  12. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,624
    Likes Received:
    153
    And once again, you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that most of what you believe is based on false information. Your world view is based on lies popeye. What does that say about you?

    The truth is that 1/3 of those who fought in Vietnam were drafted. The rest were volunteers.

    86% of those who died in Vietnam were white. 12.5% were black, a smaller number than their actual percentage of the population at the time. The balance were "other".

    76% of the those sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class backgrounds, not poor, and 75% had family incomes above the poverty level, 23% had fathers with professional, managerial, or technical occupations, 79% of the men who served in Vietnam had a high school education or better. A higher percentage than that of the general population at the time. Compare that to 63% of Korean vets who had completed high school upon separation from the service and an even lower number as you go back through WWII and WWI.

    Furthermore, if you came from a family that was more well to do than average, your chances of dying were elevated above those of the average draftee since they tended to be pilots or infantry officers.

    You just gobble up whatever people tell you if it fits your already skewed beliefs. It is clear that you rarely, if ever, actually research anything on your own, you just parrot whatever the leftist d'jour tells you to say.

    Go learn something popeye. Your neverending stream of uninformed, mistaken, and simply wrong BS has long since lost any "endearing" appeal that it might once have had.

    Since you aren't the sort who serves, you really aren't in a position to say what "they" think and feel are you?
     
  13. Popeye

    Popeye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Washington state
    That 76% were from lower income families tells you something right there. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and other current Republicans can tell you all about avoiding the draft through the National Guard or college deferments.

    You're right, draftees were a minority of the total US armed forces. In the Army, though, they accounted for almost 90% of the infantry riflemen. Can anyone say front lines? Thusly, draftees accounted for more than half of Army battlefield deaths. Sounds to me, as if draftees were used as nothing more than cannon fodder.



    Are you ready to apply the same logic to the current administration?
     
  14. Popeye

    Popeye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Washington state
    So, I guess you would say these Republicans are in no position to know what "they think and feel" either.

    Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
    Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
    Tom Delay: did not serve.
    Roy Blunt: did not serve.
    Bill Frist: did not serve.
    Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
    Rick Santorum: did not serve.
    Trent Lott: did not serve.
    John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
    Jeb Bush: did not serve.
    Karl Rove: did not serve.
    Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
    Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
    Vin Weber: did not serve.
    Richard Perle: did not serve.
    Douglas Feith: did not serve.
    Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
    Richard Shelby: did not serve.
    Jon! Kyl: did not serve.
    Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
    Christopher Cox: did not serve.
    Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
    George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he couldcampaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate..
    B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
    Phil Gramm: did not serve.
    Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
    John M. McHugh: did not serve.
    JC Watts: did not serve.
    Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem" although continued in NFL for 8 years as quarterback.
    Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
    Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
    George Pataki: did not serve.
    Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
    George Felix Allen- no mention of service in official bio
    Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army
     
  15. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,624
    Likes Received:
    153
    Lower middle class isn't poor popeye. You were wrong so just give it up. You bought the lie and repeat it just like so many others of your type do. It would only have taken you 10 seconds to learn the truth, but you were oh so much more comfortable with the lie.

     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice