There is great irony in how you GROSSLY MISINTERPRET simple English, and then you have the gall to make the following your signature:
"Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.
John Adams"

Do you even understand what "sophistry" is?
"Sophistry" is when people pretend that if we condemn the mission, we are attacking our troops.
"Sophistry" is when people pretend that questioning the validity of the mission is hurting our troops.
"Sophistry" is when somebody says that you have to convict a person of an ACTUAL CRIME, and you lie and pretend that they are saying that it's okay to commit the crime of seducing children on the internet.

Accesses a little boy? You can a) install a filter to intercept and redirect communications to and from his house, and you would find out who the person is in the first place via the NAMBLA website forums or something, by implanting a mole. You could also b) have parents watch their kids online in the first place, and limit the sites/chat rooms they are allowed to go onto. Children that are properly supervised online don't just randomly get kidnapped and molested. It's (understandable) ignorance on the child's part, and, and irresponsibility on the parents' part that these kids are being plucked over the internet. Other than that, there is no fool-proof method to track a sex offender before they've committed the first offense. Most sexual assaults are by people the victim knows, anyway.

Sophistry is when you say you support the troops but do not support their job. You can't do both. That is a lie.

I would rather put the bastards out of business. As far as I am concerned, when they make the decision to purposely try to rape young boys, they have crossed the line. They are criminals and I don't need to wait until they ruin a kids life before I take action. I would have no problem shooting one of the bastards right between the eyes. They are scum.

It is b.s. to claim that you can't.

Suppose you support a secretary in your office.
Suppose the secretary's boss makes him get coffee every morning before work at the local Starbucks.

A person CAN support the secretary, but think it's wrong of the boss to make the secretary get that coffee for him before work.

There is a difference inbetween our "troops", who are men and women, and the MISSION of our troops, which is set by our governmental leaders.

I suspect you are the ONLY ONE HERE who is ranting on this ridiculous diatribe that you have to support the troop's mission in order to support the troops.

MEMO to all. Anybody besides alias who thinks you can't support the troops while opposing their mission? Speak up. Make your opinion known.

Hey Alias, why don't you give me the names of the members who have contacted underage boys?

not me!

I'm forgetful because I don't remember the thread, nor do I remember if it was Jaxian or Tabris, nonetheless one them provided a good logistical argument to support that.

The fact of the matter is every American supports the troops and all of our servicemen and women. We always support the troops, no matter where they go or who sends them. They are our protection. Americans' love for their soldiers is automatic, almost unquestionable.


So when somebody actually calls this support into question, people don't know what to do because such a thing has never been called into question before. People feel awkward because they don't support the war, but they feel emphatic support for the troops. They don't realize that this call to "support the troops" is an attack on something we do without knowing it. People on the other side are justified because they have a valid point when they ask how someone can "support the troops but not the mission they have to accomplish." It is because this silly call for "supporting the troops" is really a way to make people feel bad and confused, and ultimately a strategy for more support behind the war itself and forget about the decisions that put the troops there in the first place.

I don't think I've ever seen anybody (for this war) not support the troops.
Oppose the mission? Yes.
Oppose the troops? No.


I think it's also an attempt to recreate the issues with Vietnam where our troops came home with no support, and plenty of opposition. People calling them baby-killers and similar crap.
America has learned its lesson from its past.
But some conservatives insist on trying to conjure up old ghosts in an attempt to use meaningless phrases to imply support isn't present when it actually is.

To this point, I still haven't seen anybody state (beyond alias) that they believe that opposing the mission and supporting the troops are always diametric opposites...

I don't care if I am the only one. I don't give in to peer pressure as you so obviously do. I'd rather be one hand clapping than be with 100 morons complaining.