It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do so many think supporting the war is supporting our troops?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 05:27 AM
link   
I hardly understand this idea, that supporting a war means that your supporting the soldiers who are fighting in it, their there, they have little choice once their there but to fight but the majority want to be home.

Why can't you support the military personnel there by NOT supporting the war? Why can't one support the military personnel there by calling for an immediate withdrawal?

And for those of you who still support this war and this current administration how can you say you support the troops when this administration sent them to war without even adequate armor? Do you think that if the current administrations, kids had been sent to Iraq, they would have went without proper armor? Not that I think that will ever happen.



www.democracynow.org.../09/27/146243
SGT. MARSHALL THOMPSON: Most soldiers want to withdraw. That is proven. There was a Zogby poll. 72% of recently turned Iraqi vets want to be out of Iraq by 2006.

AMY GOODMAN: 2006?

SGT. MARSHALL THOMPSON: By 2006. That means this year. And my experience backs that up absolutely. There is a lot of pressure for soldiers not to speak out. There’s fear of court-martials. There’s fear of their commanders getting mad at them. There's a lot of reasons why soldiers don't speak out. But nobody should be fooled. Soldiers know what's going on over there, and they are not happy about it.




posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   
I agree,

I support the troops ( whom arent committing murder and rape )
I do not support the decision to send them there.

I love America, and on the most part its citizens and way of life.
I hate the administration and there priorities.

I support saving the enviroment, and sacrificing corporate profit to downgrade the level we are affecting it.
I do not support the peopl that refuse to see the affects we are having.

Why oh why am I stereo typed, simply because I do not follow the top levels line?



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
It seems to me that in order to support the troops, you have to oppose costly and unnecessary wars.

That seems logical.

Supporting the troops means bringing them back to their families alive, and reserving them for use in a truly necessary conflict. If we're invaded, or attacked by a foreign military, it would be nice to have a force not worn down by years playing referee for foreign religious fanatics.

How many of our troops are overseas as of this writing, in Germany, Japan, Korea, the Middle East, South America, etc.? Seems to me that a defensive army is the way to go, and it's a lot easier to defend yourself if your forces are stationed in the territory that needs defending.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Wishful thinking WyrdeOne, but good, none the less.

Having the Armed Forces back home would mean no reason for them to be so huge. If they weren't so huge, there wouldn't be as much cash to splash. If there wasn't that much cash to splash, the "military-industrial" guys wouldn't have they're new Yachts..

See where I am going?...................

It's a racket.

Maintain a huge military, using public funds which are taken from a public that has no choice in wether they should either pay it or what it get's spent on.

Then use that money to buy new toys.

Invade a country here and there just to boost the need for new toys every now and then, in case the public should question what $300+ billion/year of their money is being spent on..

The US could survive with a military much smaller than what it has now. A couple of hundred thousand troops, cut the Navy down by half, reduce the airforce.

(EDIT: Just to put this into perspective, the USMC is almost as large as the ENTIRE British Army)

You could still have all the latest toys, there just is no need to have so many of them...

It could save you hundreds of billions which you could either spend on a Health service, education, R&D into a new coloured banana or just plain old tax cuts, up to you.



[edit on 8/10/06 by stumason]

[edit on 8/10/06 by stumason]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
people simply don't think the rhetoric through.

After all who started the whole idea that if you oppose the war you don't support our troops and/or that to support the troops you must defacto support the war? The Republicans responsible for (and support) this war to begin with thats who. Its all part of their you are either with us or against us rhetoric and that if you disagree with them you somehow hate America. All patently false lies foisted upon us by Karl Rove and his ilk and then true to the big lie repeated often and loud enough that people simply accept the truth of it.

Another lie is that the military fares better under the Republicans...it is true up to a point...military contractors fare better under Republicans...

...Veterans though fare better under the Democrats!



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
It's like supporting Actors, but not supporting Hollywood.
It's like supporting workers, and raising taxes on their employers....

I could go on and on but it is NFL Sunday!

How can you support our troops when you are undermining their mission?

It used to be called Aid and comfort to the enemy, and it used to be grounds for treason!



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Don't be a fool all your life.

Questioning the War is no where near "aiding the enemy" or treason. You can "support the troops" by calling for what they and a large majority of the population want, ie, an end to this BS War for Profit.

Tell me, what exactly has been achieved since 2001? Apart from a strengthened enemy? More terrorist attacks, a severe loss of international good will towards the USA, mistrust, loss of rights...need I go on.

The only single positive is that Saddam is removed from power, but you lied about the reasons for that war in the first place and continue to lie about the situation. Iraq in 2006 is now worse off than in 2002.

Your playing right into their hands by invading the ME, bullying Muslim nations and blindly supporting Israel. And in amongst all this international dung is the troops, who have no choice where they go and must follow their masters orders no matter how illogical..

Is that supporting them?

I think not.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
RRconservative
How can you call yourself a conservative?

IMO, A traitor is a person who supports a particular regime or agenda to the detriment of their nation and her people.




posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
I support the troops, and always have. I have good reason to. As for the War, well, i have had my doubts since my son was sent there. I am against it, but my support for the soldiers will remain strong.

I have mentioned this before on here, and received some U2U's from certain members that were not nice because i have a son serving.

Anyone, and i mean anyone who has anything to say bad against the troops that are serving, has never been there, nor has any idea what it is like to deal with the aftermath and nightmares these soldiers go through when they finish their tour.

The War is wrong. Period. The troops aren't though. Back these lads and lasses to the hilt. One day you might be thankful they are there, so don't knock them. Knock the powers that be, after all you put them into office. Think about it..................



[edit on 8-10-2006 by Bikereddie]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
IMO, A traitor is a person who supports a particular regime or agenda to the detriment of their nation and her people.




That's not just your opinion, that's basically the definition.

There is a fine line between supporting our troops and denouncing the war; talking about one will almost always bring the other into the mix, and the negative press will usually overwhelm the topic.

Soldiers are tools, not in a negative way. We go to war for the better of our country. If you have a decent intellect, you can spot the difference between soldiers and the politicians that sends them to war.

goose, this is a good thread. I can attest to the attitude in Iraq, but this attitude is mostly noticable when comparing NCOs to officers. I've got a pretty good first-hand example:

Company commander (captain): we're going to sweep these three blocks. Intel says the area is pretty clear, but watch for hadji in this area here.

NCO (1st Sgt): Let's get Cheney another cadillac.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
OK. On a more positive note, who does support this War, and who supports the troops that are out there now?

I support the troops. Not the War. Does that make me equal in supporting both?


Lets see the who has something to say regarding this........................



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Bikereddie-

I spend 26 months in Iraq. I support the troops and not the war. Probably 99% of the troops in Iraq support each other, but not the war.

I know the difference between the two, and I'm glad some others can appreciate it.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
I spend 26 months in Iraq.

As I served in the 1st Gulf War.
Accordingly, does that make what you or I are saying anymore relevant or substantial? Hardly.





I support the troops and not the war.

I support the troops and the job they have to do, which is to fight the war on terrorism, as it was to take out Saddam and rid him of control in Iraq. Hence, I supported the war and still do.




Probably 99% of the troops in Iraq support each other, but not the war.

Excuse me?
Do us all a favor and do not talk in absolutes and assumptions.
The last polling done within the ranks of the military (ie: all branches), the men and women in uniform supported the purpose and war by over 65%. Ironic that you claim 99% are against, huh?




I know the difference between the two, and I'm glad some others can appreciate it.
Let me get this straight: you peeps support the troops but do not support what they have to do, aka, fight the war?
Remember this? "We Support Our Troops, When They Shoot Their Officers."
That slogan was carried at a 2003 anti-war rally by those who claimed to support the troops but not the war. I am quite sure that it still holds relevance today. Support, indeed...




WrydeOne


Supporting the troops means bringing them back to their families alive, and reserving them for use in a truly necessary conflict.

Really?
How redundant.
When was the last time you meet soldiers at the airport(s) to applaud or welcome their arrival back home?
When was the last time you paid a visit to Walter Reed Hosptial or any other VA hosptial and thanked those wounded soldiers?
When was the last time you prayed with them or for them?
When was the last time you donated phone cards to be sent to the troops so that they could call their families?
When was the last time that you thanked a service man or woman for their service?

You show your "support" by doing what, exactly? Denouncing the war and their efforts? Right....

[edit on 8-10-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

The last polling done within the ranks of the military (ie: all branches), the men and women in uniform supported the purpose and war by over 65%. Ironic that you claim 99% are against, huh?


Fair enough, if he cant quote , why should you be able to.
Show me this poll where 65% said they support the job they are doing in Iraq.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Really?
How redundant.
When was the last time you meet soldiers at the airport(s) to applaud their arrival back home?


Why should anyone applaud those who blindly follow a lost cause.


When was the last time you paid a visit to Walter Reed Hosptial or any other VA hosptial and thanked those wounded soldiers?


Lol. You mean the same way the same administration that sent these people asked some of them to pay for body armor damaged incurred during an attack?


When was the last time you donated phone cards to be sent to the troops so that they could call their families?


I thought this military was the most advanced fighting force in the world and fully supported by the US govt. You'd think they'd at least supply these poor guys with phone cards. Maybe they just don't want them speaking out.


When was the last time that you thanked a service man or woman for their service?


why the hell should I. No one thanks me for doing my job just like no one thanks the average cop/fireman/doctor for doing their job too. Please your points are horribly misleading and self indulgent. I think another LOA should be your next priority and spare us the woe is me crap about the poor troops.

brill


[edit on 8-10-2006 by brill]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Fair enough, if he cant quote , why should you be able to.
Show me this poll where 65% said they support the job they are doing in Iraq.

Since you are apparently "supporting" your anti-war comrade-in-arms, who btw, stipulated 99% were AGAINST the war, how is it that you require a citation/source from ME but not him?

Here's a thought:
When he or you post up a link to the 99% against, I will post up mine for the 65% for...


[edit on 8-10-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
As I served in the 1st Gulf War.
Accordingly, does that make what you or I are saying anymore relevant or substantial? Hardly.


Relevant in this case, yep.



I support the troops and the job they have to do, which is to fight the war on terrorism, as it was to take out Saddam and rid him of control in Iraq. Hence, I supported the war and still do.


The first gulf war is not this war. As is obvious, Saddam was the crazy glue holding that place together. Iraq had no WMD, was not part of the destroy-America campaign, and had no ties to al-Quada. If you think a war on terrorism can be won, you're living in a dream world which will only end when you're considered the terrorist.

As to why I support them and denounce the war..I guess it's all a matter of perspective.




Do us all a favor and do not talk in absolutes and assumptions.
The last polling done within the ranks of the military (ie: all branches), the men and women in uniform supported the purpose and war by over 65%. Ironic that you claim 99% are against, huh?


I am curious, how many of those polled were in Iraq or Afghanistan, how many had ever been to either, or if they were even combat arms for that matter. I would wager not many.

Regardless, I was speaking assumptively. So I'll give you that.



Let me get this straught, you peeps support the troops but do not support what they have to do: aka, fight the war?
Remember this: "We Support Our Troops, When They Shoot Their Officers"
That slogan was carried at a 2005 anti-war rally by those who claimed to support the troops but not the war. Support, indeed...


I DO NOT in any way, shape, or form support going AWOL, fragging commanders, or murdering anyone in the battlefield or administration or anywhere, and I hate that you lump me in with those assholes. If you've ever fully read anything dealing with the military that I've posted in, you'd know that this is as far from my position as you can get.

Do us all a favor and don't post assumptively, YES?

I denounce this war that's killed so many Americans, that was based on intelligence that was known to be weak at best, that was being planned before there was even a reason for it, that is still going even though it's known as fact there was no reason for it, that the administration STILL CANNOT ADMIT was a mistake and expects us all to just forget, that is becoming unwinnable because the administration is still trying to fight a "nice" war, that began with a rejection of proper military outfitting and instead relied on Rumsfeld's best guess, I could go on.

I respect you for having served, but this doesn't make your rhetoric any less WRONG, and your logic, especially lumping me in with the traitorous assholes who act happy at the thought of killing officers, is infuriating. I posted that earlier example because officers are just more political, whereas most of my NCOs aren't afraid to call a spade a spade. It was true, but was also for the sake of levity.

I suggest you think about the post, the poster, and your response before snapping off something that sounds witty, since a given topic is more sensitive for some than another topic might be.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by brill
Why should anyone applaud those who blindly follow a lost cause.

Yes, of course, I forgot that you, brill, think all (an absolute) are brainless robots and automations, hence your abstract counter, huh?






Lol. You mean the same way the same administration that sent these people asked some of them to pay for body armor damaged incurred during an attack?

*shakes head*
You have no clue.





I thought this military was the most advanced fighting force in the world and fully supported by the US govt. You'd think they'd at least supply these poor guys with phone cards. Maybe they just don't want them speaking out.

Another absolute assumption/assertion.
Clueless x 2.





why the hell should I. No one thanks me for doing my job just like no one thanks the average cop/fireman/doctor for doing their job too.

Assumption /assertion x 2.
Beyond clueless.




Please your points are horribly misleading and self indulgent. I think another LOA should be your next priority and spare us the woe is me crap about the poor troops.

I find your rebuttal commentary to be likewise.
How about you follow the same advice you gave me, you think?!



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Fair enough, if he cant quote , why should you be able to.
Show me this poll where 65% said they support the job they are doing in Iraq.

Since you are apparently "supporting" your anti-war comrade-in-arms, who btw, stipulated 99% were AGAINST the war, how is it that you require a citation/source from ME but not him?

Here's a thought:
When he or you post up a link to the 99% against, I will post up mine for the 65% for...


[edit on 8-10-2006 by Seekerof]


Ill assume your talking BS then.
I find it hard to believe 65 out of 100 troops on the ground still support the war that they are in.
When its so obvious that its going to sh1t.
Im sure they support each other, and that they are patriotic.. but for them to believe they are there for the right reasons and are needed there to complete there goal of keeping the US Safe? I find is a load of cr@p.

But thanks for playing seeker, again your posts speak lengths.


[edit on 8-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof


brill
Lol. You mean the same way the same administration that sent these people asked some of them to pay for body armor damaged incurred during an attack?

*shakes head*
You have no clue.


check this out smart guy

www.abovetopsecret.com...

now who's the clueless wonder


I'm disappointed in you Seekerof. You had to resort to one liners and you only user the word "assertion" twice. Normally it rolls of your tongue like the rest of your spewed rhetoric.

brill



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join