Posted on 06/01/2006 8:45:43 AM PDT by screw boll
We support the troops, but we oppose the mission.
We support the troops, but we say they work, bleed, and die for nothing (or for Big-Oil).
We support the troops, but we oppose their Commander in Chief, Defense Secretary, and Generals.
We support the troops, but Iraq is Bushs Vietnam, a war where we also supported the troops (with eggs and stones ).
We support the troops, but they terrorize women and children in the dark of the night.
We support the troops, but their actions are comparable to the Soviet gulags and of some mad regime.
We support the troops, but we only rally around a mother who attacks the troops and the mission (Mother Syndy).
We support the troops, but an anti-war based, misquoting-troops filled, film producer gets a prominent seat at out convention.
We support the troops, but we jump to judgment when a prison scandal is on the horizon.
We support the troops, but we accept a false Newsweek story (Koran flushing ).
We support the troops, but we do not wait for a military trial to determine the facts surrounding the killings of 24 innocent Iraqis.
We support the troops, but we smear all of them for the actions of merely a dozen people (in the prison scandal).
We support the troops, but only if they accuse their fellow solders in committing atrocities in Vietnam, or Cambodia (04).
We support the troops, but we voted for a loathing the military person who ran for president against a war hero, (92).
We support the troops, but we count their death toll as an investment or commodity.
We support the troops, but we usually set negative-filled anniversaries for dates such as three years since the war, or three years since mission accomplished.
Troops to these supporters: We thank you for your support, but
no thanks.
OK, I get ya. People like that I don't have problems with.
Consider yourself lucky that you haven't encountered the rabid defeatists yet.
"Consider yourself lucky that you haven't encountered the rabid defeatists yet."
No doubt. Living in suburbs of Atlanta allows me to keep distance from those.
I don't think so. Think back again to Clinton's messes. I don't recall hearing Bob Dole declaring Kosovo "Bill Clinton's Vietnam," Newt accusing Clinton of cooking up a war for political gain, or Frist equating the troops with "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot and others." The people on the right were against the mission before troops were put in harm's way. Once they were there, they put all their support behind them and Clinton as CIC. Same thing would happen if Gore or Kerry were President right now.
And no one on the right would show up at protests with signs and t-shirts with reprehensible slogans on them equating the POTUS with Hitler, "I support the troops when they shoot their officers," etc. The right wouldn't actively be working for America's defeat if they disagreed with the mission. They may make some tastless jokes about "Monica bombs" (even though it was true) but they wouldn't be working for our country's defeat.
I believe this is a different situation, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens if a democrat pres gets elected.
Unless you are working for free, it sounds to me like they are supporting you. You are the one that said you don't support the war effort.
As in most jobs, it works both ways, I provide a service the govt needs, and they pay me. I could probably make much more in the private sector, but I chose this path.
As for supporting the troops, I do that daily. I still don't know what this heavy lifting you mention is, please explain.
You may be surprised, but there are an awful lot of people in this country that back the troops 150%, and still do not support the mission, even active duty personnel. As I asked earlier, outside of outright protesting aginst the war, how does anyone's individual feelings about this war, actually undermine anything? Please explain this also.
Fine, yes....and of course we're going in circles, that's what most of this forum stuff is about. One either agrees with everybody, or we go around in circles.
But you still haven't explained what the heavy lifting is, or how what I say or think, undermines anything.
And some people have great discernment when it comes to assessing the behavior of others, and others do not have such discernment.
What is wrong with being politically motivated? How could anyone even be in politics, without political motivation? For that matter, I can't see anything wrong with having the ability to change one's mind...it seems a lot better than going through life with blinders or tunnel vision. I figure God gave us our brains to use, not just to pick some ideology and stay with it, no matter what, that's why we are so adaptable.
If you actually have to ask that question, any answer I give you would be WAY over your head.
Have a nice day.
You could at least try, I'm sure there is someone here that would understand your answer....unless you actually do not know what is wrong with being politically motivated.
Thanks Takoma. I remember those guys. Barf!
Do you have a link to that claim? How many active duty troops have told you they do not support the mission? I spend a great deal of time with the troops. Just last night a group of seriously injured troops said they would all go back to Iraq right now if they could. They all say you do not support them if you do not support their mission.
Of course I don't have a link, it is information that I have gathered from talking to active duty personnel, retired personnel, govt employees, and other people.
Not everything is on the internet.
Apparently, we have talked to different people.
Apparently, we have talked to different people.
Clearly!
Why the bold for govt emp?
Precisely.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.