[Eala]

[clamper1797]

Can you support the troops and oppose the war ???

Sure you can ... depending on who's troops you're supporting ...

[Eala]

Thanks for posting this!

[Egregious Philbin]

Can You Back the Troops and Oppose War?

Yes! I can and I do.

[mr.pink]

Can You Back the Troops and Oppose War?

Yes.

[zeaal]

NO.

If you support the Troops, you support their mission!

[ClearCase_guy]

I think a good question is: "The War has begun. Which side do you want to win?"

If you support the troops, you want the US to win.
If you want the Iraqis to win, you must be hoping for a lot of American troops to be killed.

"Who do you want to win?"

[southernnorthcarolina]

My letter to the editor, published in the Charlotte Observer on March 20:

Get ready for it, folks. As soon as the missiles are launched, protesters (celebrity and otherwise) will elbow their way to the nearest microphone and proclaim their allegiance to "the brave men and women serving in our armed forces," while continuing to decry their mission.

This is, of course, bogus. It's impossible to be for the warriors and against the war. Most of these protesters (and let's call them what they are: not antiwar but anti-American or anti-Bush) will be hoping the war goes badly, even to the point of an outright defeat. Such an unlikely turn of events, of course, would result in cataclysmic casualties among the troops they so piously support. But for most protesters, better a war gone bad than a success for George W. Bush.

The protesters have chosen their side. Don't let them share in the victory to come. Never forget what they were saying before the war began. If they try to climb onto the bandwagon, kick them off.

"southernnorthcarolina"

Weddington, NC

[finnman69]

Can you support firemen but oppose them putting our fires?

Can you support policemen but oppose them catching criminals?

Can you support doctors but oppose them curing diseases?

Can you suport teachers but oppose them teaching students?


Supporting the troops and opposing the war is a very weak copout lie.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

This thread has become an exercise in disingenuous and fake sincerity from our "friends" of the paleocon left.

[stuartcr]

No problem. As an example...in this conflict, the everyday life of an enlisted sailor at war, is not very different from that of an enlisted sailor at peace, they just work harder, but the job is the same. It is very easy to oppose the war, and still do your job.

[Dan from Michigan]

You can only support the troops while opposing the war by shutting the hell up out in public. Call the congresscritters and protest that way, but by parading the Bush is a Nazi horsecrap and stuff, they aren't supporting the troops, but are hurting the mission, which means a longer war and more casualties.

These left wing democrats and greens that go out there and protest do not support the troops.

[SanFranRepublican]

SF bay area cannot be taken seriously....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/882490/posts

[discostu]

The problem with the question is that "oppose war" is a very generic statement that can be used to mean very different things.

In our hearts I think we all oppose war, we hope that war will become a thing of the past and never be fought again, but we understand that this isn't a perfect world and war will eventually happen again. With that definition it's very easy to support troops but oppose war, really they go hand in hand, part of opposition to war as a general concept is not wanting to kill troops.

Now as for opposing a specific war, again it's a simple progression. If you don't think troops should be dieing for this particular cause, because you think it is a cause that is unworthy of human blood, so again it is quite easy to oppose war and support the troops. And all those who doubt it should remember that John Wayne didn't think we should be in Viet Nam, actually campaigned against LBJ because of it, but turned around and made The Green Berets because he supported our troops.

Then there's the leftists, they oppose war because they think the military is evil. It is impossible for them to support our troops at any level, because they are against the very concept of troops. If they were to support our troops they would have no foundationto build their opposition to war on.

So I guess the answer to the question is: it all depends on why you oppose war and which wars you oppose.

[ZULU]

No

[this_ol_patriot]

A liberal friend of mine said it pretty good.

"I was against this war because...(here he gives his reasons)...but we are at war now so lets kick some Iraqi ass."

[Balto_Boy]

Can You Back the Troops and Oppose War?

Yes. If you consider a war unjust, then you would be right in not wanting your troops sent into harms way to fight that war. Demanding they be brought home is consistant with this.

One thing that is overlooked is that when all is said and done, one side is going to find itself on the wrong side of history. Even though there is much disagreement on the issue, we can at least respect those we disagree with for taking that risk. For this reason and many others, I hope some form of civility can be maintained in this debate.

[Deb]

The protesters/Democrats don't support the troops, they're just being careful not to make the same mistake they made during the Cold War and Vietnam when the anti-war movement guaranteed Republican presidents till the Arkansas Goober showed up. And as everyone knows, Clinton only won because Perot convinced enough conservative male voters that he was a super-patriot.

This "we support the troops" lie needs to be exposed.

[Tall_Texan]

There *is* a proper way to support the troops and yet oppose the war, and I did this in Kosovo. For the time leading up to our military involvement, I wrote letters and spoke openly how I opposed our intervention. It was Europe's problem - let Europe deal with it. There was nothing for the U.S. to gain and plenty for the U.S. to lose (principally, our soldiers and our weapons).

Once Clinton announced that he was going to participate, I shut up and let the war run its course. I didn't think of marching in the streets, staging "die ins", going around with a bullhorn or standing outside the capitol holding a sign. These would have been ineffectual and an affront to our military, just as the anti-war protestors now are.

Deep down, they must realize that their antics don't change anything. Their only purpose is to reduce the morale of our troops and give comfort to the enemy. The military has a job to do and orders to carry out. They don't get to choose which missions to carry and which to sit out. They go and do what they are told.

I think people have the right to voice their concerns about going to war and even stage demonstrations to make that point. But once the firing starts, a loyal American will not take any action that is contradictory to supporting our troops in battle. To me, that's where the line is drawn.

[xhrist]

IMO it is intellectually dishonest to support the troops but not their mission.
Also, for someone to say they support our troops, does this not also mean they support the leader of said troops, the President ?
I wonder how many people protesting and holding such signs can say they also support W?