• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I DON'T SUPPORT our troops.

Mark said:
You guys make a good points...but all it really indicates to me is that the people want a democratic government, but they also don't want us there anymore.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that at all. However, I believe that their needs override their wants.
 
Orwell said:
A democratically elected government shouldn't have to need the support of foreign troops to survive. If the present government of Iraq has the support of the majority of the Iraqi people, it should be able to exist on its own. Saddam is gone, there was an election, now get out of there.
Click to expand...

What about Japan or South Korea?
 
Mark said:
Possibly...but who gets to decide? Us? Or their own government?
Click to expand...

Well, their govenment has already decided this. Do you really think Bush wants to stay there any longer than he has to?
 
bob_kark said:
Well, their govenment has already decided this. Do you really think Bush wants to stay there any longer than he has to?
Click to expand...

No...I just have no idea what he wants to accomplish or how long he thinks it will take. Does anyone?
 
Orwell said:
If the present government of Iraq has the support of the majority of the Iraqi people, it should be able to exist on its own. Saddam is gone, there was an election, now get out of there.
Click to expand...

That sounds as naive as it gets.

I predicted about 8 years we would have to be there. A minimum of 5, and maybe as much as 10. I still think so. I still think leaving any earlier would be irresponsible.
 
Orwell said:
A democratically elected government shouldn't have to need the support of foreign troops to survive. If the present government of Iraq has the support of the majority of the Iraqi people, it should be able to exist on its own. Saddam is gone, there was an election, now get out of there.
Click to expand...

In 1940, the BEF was sent to the democraticly elected government of France to "support" it so it could "survive." Ergo the British government was "occupying" France.

Surely France should have been able to "exist" on its own.

(Yes I know it didn't work out.)

Perhaps you need to re-formulate your position.
 
bob_kark said:
What about Japan or South Korea?
Click to expand...

Or all of the democratic governments-in-exile of western Europe during WWII when Anglo-American troops were necessary to free their countries from the Nazis, or the British government during WWII when the Americans sent troops and food to Britian, or all the governments of western Europe after the war, when American troops and, especially, nuclear missiles were needed to stop the USSR from overrunning them.

I guess those weren't really legitimate governments.
 
Last edited:
Luke T. said:
NO.

A person volunteers to engage in a war you oppose. Do you support him?
Click to expand...

Luke T. said:
Say a fella walked into an army recruiter's office six months ago and volunteered to go to Iraq. And he's there now.

Do you support him?
Click to expand...

Luke T. said:
Say a fella who's been in Iraq for the last two years just re-enlisted for another tour.

Do you support him?
Click to expand...

Yes. And I say that having been against the decision to go to war to begin with.

Being against the war doesn't mean I can't still respect a persons desire to serve his country and do something to make a positive difference.
 
Ed said:
Here are some objective areas where one might be said to "support" the troops:

-increased pay and benefits
-education programs
-health and hospitalization stuff after separation
-adequite supplies when deployed

I am in favor of all of these things.
Click to expand...

Amen!
 
Orwell said:
A democratically elected government shouldn't have to need the support of foreign troops to survive. If the present government of Iraq has the support of the majority of the Iraqi people, it should be able to exist on its own. Saddam is gone, there was an election, now get out of there.
Click to expand...

What is the basis for this assertion? What moral (or other) principles is it based upon?
 
Mycroft said:
Yes. And I say that having been against the decision to go to war to begin with.

Being against the war doesn't mean I can't still respect a persons desire to serve his country and do something to make a positive difference.
Click to expand...

I wish I remember which senator said this, but, as he voted against the Iraq war (I think), he also said (in effect): "but if we do go to war, I will vote for every penny needed for the army", explaining that being against the war from the start is one thing, and being against winning the war once it started is something else entirely.

Unfortunately much of the anti-war crowd doesn't seem to get this difference. It is one thing to be against the Iraq war. It's quite another to be for the defeat of the US troops.
 
Skeptic said:
I wish I remember which senator said this, but, as he voted against the Iraq war (I think), he also said (in effect): "but if we do go to war, I will vote for every penny needed for the army", explaining that being against the war from the start is one thing, and being against winning the war once it started is something else entirely.

Unfortunately much of the anti-war crowd doesn't seem to get this difference. It is one thing to be against the Iraq war. It's quite another to be for the defeat of the US troops.
Click to expand...


Exactly! We don't have a choice in being there anymore, let's play to win. We need to bring our boys home by accomplishing thier mission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom