Perhaps, in essence, but are you going to tell me then that I support the decision of their deployment? As I sit here and ask myself that question, my answer is that I do not support that decision. I think I have just stumbled on to something here. If it is logistically impossible to "support the troops, but not the war", then I have only one question. Why have we not asked ourselves what "supporting the troops" is? I am guilty of this myself, but nonetheless, what do people mean by "supporting the troops"? I think what they mean is supporting the war thus the cry from war-supporters to "support the troops" is an attempt to solicit support for the war by appealling to the sympathetic feelings that people feel for the common soldier. Maybe I'm wrong, but what you have said is very logical. I think it comes down to whether you support the war or not. I still don't think this resolves everything. Maybe I just feel sympathy for the soldiers because they are there for reasosn I personally do not agree with, yet I feel bad because they are human and American, and are in incredible danger. I don't want them to die.

You are lying to yourself. You are trying to have your cake and eat it to. When you support someone, you support what they do. Our soldiers are all volunteers. Everyone made the choice to join. I support every one and by supporting every one of them I support their job.

I think we agree, then. No I wouldn't go so far as to say you support the initial decision. I don't, myself. But now that we are there, I want the best damn job done possible. The more effectively they accomplish the mission, the sooner we will be out of there, and with less casualties. I'm not happy they're there in the first place, and I think Bush for the most part is an idiot, but since we're there, I want to win.

The "support the troops" mantra is an emotional appeal, and it works well for many. So eh. I think most people just say it to seem patriotic, which I hate more than anything. Yay I'm so American! I have a yellow ribbon to support the troops! That sorta shit just annoys me. It's like the people who snap their clamshell phones shut widely, then look around so everyone notices how cool they shut their phones.

I feel some sympathy for the troops, but not much only because many of them want to be there (as much as one could want to be in a desert, obviously). I think of it like any other job...you don't really want to be there, but at the same time you do in a way. Most of the ones who really didn't want to be there have since gotten discharged. I do feel sympathy for the probably couple hundred max of people who signed up maybe....8 or 9 years ago or something, and now are stuck in Iraq on their 4th deployment and just want to get home and for wahtever reason are unable to discharge.

But if they really didn't want to be there, they have the choice to go AWOL, and I applaud the fact that they're still willing to tough it out and do what needs to be done. It takes a lot in my opinion to stay together out there, especially if you're one of the people who got screwed.

Soldiers don't want your sympathy, believe me on that one. They want you to believe in them and support them while they do the job they chose to join to do. I have had more than one tell me it makes them fell like throwing up when they hear someone say "I support the troops, but I don't support the war". Ask one for yourself.

I am saying a hell of alot more than that!

http://www.nolajbs.net/forum/index.php?topic=5428.0

I'm sure they don't want my sympathy. The sympathy I was talking about is only there because I do not agree with the decision that sent them there in the first place. These people are trained to kill, anyway, and the fact of the matter is they are trained to kill so they will be good soldiers. That means they want to kill people. Full Metal Jacket and Jarhead come to mind. It's not like I don't agree with this, it is just when presented with an opportunity to kill, especially one where bullets are flying back at them, you tend to think about the kill and "getting one" and not about politics. We, on the other hand, only think about the politics. I agree, for whatever reason you opposed the initial decision to invade Iraq, the fact of the matter is that it isn't going to change, we have American brothers and sisters dying, and we are best suited to finish it correctly if we are all united behind it. I don't know if it is possible because people are very upset about the initial decision. It seems for a lot of people that it would be just as against their principles to forget about the initial decision for the time being. I don't agree with them, but there are certainly many out there.

SHOW ME the terrorism that Saddam has committed in the last ten years.

You keep trying to mix al Qaeda and Saddam together, and pretend it's the same issue.
It's not.


They are "in danger" because the president PLACED THEM in danger.

Well, considering we did find a few hundred Chemical weapons the other day (see, WMD), and we determined Saddam had contact with al-Qaeda, I think we can assume they are quite related, at least marginally.

Edit: Here is the link for the Sarin used in an attack, and mustard gas discovered. Yes, it's Fox, but few others pay attention to anything that happens there that isn't negative,and news organizations don't outright lie about shit that happens.

So let's just ignore it because people regularly just make up news. Be skeptical if you want, but don't just automatically discount it. So many proven lies? On Iraq? We found WMD there. SWIFT? There's no Congressional approval needed for that. 9/11? Yeah, 100s of government employees all worked together secretly to pull off a covert missile strike. Tell me exactly what the administration "lied" about outright. The NSA thing is still on-going, but I'm confident that not telling != lying.