You're frigging clueless.
We aren't criticizing the troops BECAUSE they follow their lawful orders.
We understand that they have to follow orders.

But at the same time, we QUESTION the orders and the intelligence behind them.
It SUPPORTS the troops to ensure that we aren't asking them to put themselves in harm's way when they shouldn't be.

People who DON'T support the troops DON'T question actions that place them in danger.

But the fact that they are fighting the war means you must support the war. They have a job to do. If they want to come home without a tag on their toe, they need to do it well, as in win.

You can not support the administration behind the war, which I completely agree with, but you can't support the people fighting a war without at least somewhat supporting the war itself. Sure, you may think the war is stupid, but if you're supporting the troops you're supporting the effort they are making.

The democrats are acting like they really care about the troops more than Republicans by wanting them out ASAP. Lately they just seem to take a position opposite of whatever the Republicans want in order to turn everything into an issue. They're too reactionary.

This war is just. Terrorists attacked us and we are killing terrorists. Pedal that twisted crap somewhere else. Of course they're in danger. When soldiers go to war, they are in danger. Duh. Doesn't matter who the president is.

Who do you think attacked us?

Samson and King David?

Are you saying that since the people wh odid attack us were not Iraqi nationals, we should not be there? Terrorists are terrorists, regardless of nationality.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200908,00.html

What are you talking about? I was pretty sure you were saying that it is impossible to support the troops but not support what the troops are doing. I said it is because they have orders...meaning they DO NOT choose what they do, they must follow orders. If they do not choose what they do, and what they are asked to do is controversial, then it is possible to support them but not what they do. If anything, this shows I have a keen understanding of what orders are, directly contrary to what you said, because it shows I understand there are other people, higher-ups, who are making the decisions on what the troops do. Therefore it is very possible for me to support the troops but not necessarily the mission they are on.

You still, in essence are supporting the mission because what the troops are doing is trying to accomplish the mission. The troops allow themselves to be ordered what to do by joining in the first place. By supporting the troops, you are supporting what they are doing, which is fighting an insurgency in Iraq. Supporting the troops means you obviously want htem to succeed, and the mission is what they are trying to succeed.

I think that the idea with the Democrats' wishes is that Bush and his war time policies are obviously failing, and because all we're getting is more and more of the same thing and not change in policy, they want out. Its the idea of all or nothing. I agree that we should get the job done, but that's the thing: we're not getting it done. Bush and Rumsfeld believe we're doing such a good job that they'll continue their strategies which are obviously failing. In war you have to adapt and change; whether you like it or not. Its just a simple fact that we're headed to more disaster and more instability be it we "stay the coarse". And Bush and Cheney are trying to play politics and withdraw some troops here and there as if it would be a compromise to the calls for withdraws. However, that's just completely counterproductive to the whole issue. What we need is MORE troops. And its the Democrats idea that either put in adequate amounts of troops or pull out all together. Staying the current coarse and/or reducing numbers of troops is possibly the worst thing you could do.

I agree that pulling out right now would be disasterous; but it would be much better than the outcome if we just continue the same policies in which we're doing. Going into Iraq was completely foreign to a war on terror; but now that we have gone in, we have made it a hotbed for terrorism. Even the Department of Defense admits that because of the Iraq war, terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda have more members than ever before, are more expansive, and are more angered than ever before. In fact, Iraq shouldn't even be like this in the first place. We werent doomed from the start believe it or not. In fact, many Iraqis supported us going in. But as soon as the careless mistakes started happening, the Iraqis were agered and the Iraqi resistence to the occupation just keeps growing. And now as you can see, poll after poll shows us that the vast majority of the Iraqi populace wants a US pull-out.

So I agree that supporting their mission in a sense is a way of supporting the troops. But supporting how the war is being handled is in now way supporting this mission. Because of our careless leadership, we have gotten into the biggest mess since Vietnam. Its either all or nothing. Change policies and put more in, or pull out together.

Kat, it may be the biggest mess since Vietnam, but it's nowhere near the level that Vietnam was at the same point in time. Injuries may be higher (I don't have exact statistics), but field medicine is also better so many of those people who would have died are instead surviving, albeit as a paraplegic. Also, we are making progress. Iraq's Cabinet is complete. Their government is functioning. All you're hearing about is the disastrous bombings and IEDs riddling the place. You need to look at some of the conservative news sources as well to see the highlights. Yes, there's a conservative bias that says "Look! Iraq is peachy!!1", but even seeing through that bias, there is progress being made. Iran already called the US a Paper Tiger.

At this point, there's too much at stake to just leave. Now that we're in there, we NEED to finish the job to prevent us looking like hollow, arrogant assholes that have no bite. Iran already has an inflated ego with the concessions we made. We don't need to hand them more hot air, plus I think China is more of a threat down the road as well, with the Taiwan tensions. NK knows we'd glass the place if he launched a nuke, and the thing with China is we're such close economic partners war would make no sense. But I digress.

Succeeding in Iraq would mean a shitload of positive reputation points in the world-arena. I'd rather see "Those arrogant fat Americans actually pulled it off" than "Those arrogant fat Americans are a bunch of pussies who just wreck countries and leave them in shambles"

Would you be satisfied leaving Iraq to a bunch of extremist goons? I sure as hell wouldn't.