Navy Pride said:
That is impossible........You can't support the troops and not support the mission they are trying to accomplish.......You can make yourself feel good and say it but its not true.......You hate the CIC, you want him to fail in everything he does therefore you want the troops to fail.
You keep insisting that I am what I am not. I shall ask you sir to please desist in putting words in my mouth. I should try to have a real discussion with you but I think it would be like chipping away at a piece of granite with a tac hammer and a toothpick.
For the record and the benefit of the other forum members who aren't blinded by the conservative dogma of hate.
I do not support our president. I think he cheated during the election, I think he has allowed war crimes to happen, I think that the war in Iraq is for oil and for Haliburton to profit.
I do support our troops.... they have a job to do. A job that they signed up for and gave up the right to question. They are human beings who are putting their life on the line no matter how dubious the rational.
They went in there because President Bush said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. And that those weapons could reach the U.S. in 7 minutes. The administration also said that they knew where they were.
So far our troops have not found ANY functioning inter-continental weapons of mass destruction. And after Bush said "whoops?!" the focus fell on how bad of a tyrant Saddam Hussein was which I believe. Now the U.S. is practicing torture in secret prisons.... Our leadership has become the tyrant!
And the support of the men and women of our proud military does not deserve to be used as a weapon against those who do not support this new tyrant. Blind faith in bad leadership is NOT patriotism.
Navy Pride said:
I didliked Clinton but I supported him as the CIC in Bosnia becasue I supported the troops......
Bosnia was easy to support. And Clinton was a great president, though I thought that he waited too long to commit troops. However, the Republican controlled congress of the time wouldn't support him in that commitment at the start so it wasn't entirely his fault. Bush on the other hand cherry picked and manipulated intellegence on Iraq, and sent our troops on a blind mission. Now we have a war on 2 fronts with NO plan of how to win. In WWII there were decisive moves, risky as they were, and they worked! In Iraq and Afghanastan our troops are just there getting picked off. There mission now is to remain in occupation to prevent a civil war from breaking out with the winners being worse than Saddam or the Taliban.
That said maybe I do support the troops AND the mission that has been assumed from the resulting falsehoods of the original. The fact remains though they are there because of lies and there is no indicator that the social and political climate of either occupied country will change soon enough to the contrary. Meaning our troops are there indefinitely, should we support that?