[stuartcr]

Why can't you support the troops by saying what a good job they are doing obeying their orders...yet not agree with the orders?

Criticising the mission, has nothing to do with the troops, they did not create the mission.

[Dove34wolfe]

The mission of the war is very important. If you don't support the mission, then you ultimately find yourself devaluing the troops sacrifice. You are saying to those that gave their lives that they threw them away instead of recognizing that they gave their live in the fight for freedom and safety in both our country and in the countries they are fighting in.

How can you support the troops when you are saying that they threw their lives away for no reason, for big oil, for Bush's personal war or any other unprincipled reason? By not supporting the mission you insult the troops by scoffing at the very principles they died for.

[papertyger]

Criticising the mission, has nothing to do with the troops, they did not create the mission.

Yes it does. It is well understood that troops are not exempted by claiming "I was following orders." If they perform the mission, they are responsible for performing the mission.

There is no middle ground to hide on.

Giving assent to this kind of duplicity is "passive" treason, because you know what the active promoters are trying to achieve.

[MEGoody]

Criticising the mission

The thing is, most of the ones who are 'criticising the mission' now were all for it before. They have 'switched positions' for political expediency, not because of their principles.

[paul51]

You can't have it both ways no matter how hard you try to rationalize it. It's tantamount to saying 'we support the troops even though we choose to undermine them and offer encouragement to those that would kill them'. It doesn't stack up and it's the chicken s*** way out.