"I am behind the troops, but.." = "I am not racist, but..."

[Boris Godunov]

Clearly, anybody who supports George Bush is a traitor who hates America and wants to see the blood of our troops spread over the desert.

Gee, this is kinda fun. Now I see with the right-wingers do it.

[Nubclear]

Republicans are of the most evil that have EVER walked the Earth

Ned? Are you listening?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Clearly, anybody who supports George Bush is a traitor who hates America and wants to see the blood of our troops spread over the desert.

Gee, this is kinda fun. Now I see with the right-wingers do it.

NOW WE'RE TALKIN'!!! Beating the neo-cons at thier own populist game.

Impeach Bush!!!

[st_swithin]

Ned's in Flanders.

Saddam Hussein == The Italian Job == The Brazilian Job + Mickey Mouse

[Dinner]

Hmmm, A Brazilian job... Is that kind of like a blow job?

[Ned]

Well, BG and other anti-American types, I remember what "supporting the troops" meant in Korean and Vietnam where politics intruded too much into the conduct of the war. The half war that resulted in both cases only lead to tens of thousands of GIs KIA.

IMHO, we should never commit troops to combat with a clear vision of victory. We should do everything in our power to win in the shortest possilble time and with the fewest casualties on both sides.

"Supporting the troops" has become a euphenism for politicizing the war effort for the pupose of hamstringing it, changing its goals, or defeating it altogether. Regardless, all this does is encourage the enemy to not surrender or negotiate peace thinking that all they have to do is wait out it out until the anti-war types get enough votes. This ends up killing our troops - in the tens of thousands in Vietnam and Korea.

[Paul Hanson]

Remember that people - pacificism kills.

[Boris Godunov]

Well, Ned and other pro-death-to-soldiers types, you still seem to be forgetting that our side = fewer soldier deaths.

You see, you got what you wanted, which was the war. Now we've seen hundreds of American G.I.s killed. Had we gotten our way, no war, those G.I.s would still be alive, not to mention the thousands upon thousands of Iraqis who died in the war or as a consequence.

I'm sure you'll whitewash your complicity in the murder of our soldiers by proclaiming them heroes, but that won't fill and empty chair at Thanksgiving, make up for one less stocking on the mantle at Christmas, nor comfort a little child whose father isn't going to come home ever again. Your way killed her father. My way would have kept him alive.

How you sleep at night with the blood of our soldiers on your conscience, I'll never know.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
How you sleep at night with the blood of our soldiers on your conscience, I'll never know.

They have bloodied themselves in a blood that shall stain their souls for all eternity.

[mrmitchell]

Ned, admit it, you're beat

[Ned]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Ned, admit it, you're beat

Never!

[Elok]

To be honest, I'm still not sure how exactly Saddam would have been able to hurt us if we let him be. Yeah, so he was researching weapons of mass destruction. So what? He didn't have missiles with the kind of range needed to hit the American continent, did he? Without a reliable means of deploying it, there wasn't much he could do to hurt us with it. Maybe if he mailed it like the unabomber did, and hoped to god that everybody would be stupid enough to let it through customs...I'm not jumping on the Bush-is-a-slave-to-corporate-America bandwagon, but if he hadn't started the war there probably wouldn't be any loss of life on our side at all. He may have some reason, but if the war saved American lives I don't see how.

[Ned]

WWII was a success in large measure because we did not have anti-war types "supporting our troops." When a country is fully behind the war effort, it is more easily winnable, minimizing casualties, etc. Trying to defeat a war effort while the war is on is not "supporting our troops."

[Ned]

Originally posted by Elok
To be honest, I'm still not sure how exactly Saddam would have been able to hurt us if we let him be. Yeah, so he was researching weapons of mass destruction. So what? He didn't have missiles with the kind of range needed to hit the American continent, did he? Without a reliable means of deploying it, there wasn't much he could do to hurt us with it. Maybe if he mailed it like the unabomber did, and hoped to god that everybody would be stupid enough to let it through customs...I'm not jumping on the Bush-is-a-slave-to-corporate-America bandwagon, but if he hadn't started the war there probably wouldn't be any loss of life on our side at all. He may have some reason, but if the war saved American lives I don't see how.

I think Saddam was a long term threat to the region and thus to the US. Regardless, we needed an exits strategy (we were daily flying combat missions over Iraq) because it became abundantly clear that Saddam would never abide UN mandates.

[mrmitchell]

There's a better argument against that, Ned, and I'm sure Boris will come up with it.

However, parallels between WWII and Iraq are irrelevant--firstly, WWII was defensive.

Also, you're wrong. It's very possible to hope the troops at least come back home safely and still be against the war. Tell me how it isn't.