I hate ____ not ____ or I support the ____ not the ____.

Post Reply New Topic

Does anyone see this as a credible excuse?

I don't understand the people who say "I support the troops but not the War." But without the troops there'd be no war. It seems like a spin to me.

You can support the troops, but not the war, as they are given orders. They have no say in the matter.

Yes, i know, but if you support the troops you are de-facto supporting the war.

Your argument seems a little flawed. I can oppose the war itself, but that doesn't mean I don't want the troops to be safe. If they're going to be over there, I want them to have proper supplies and body armor.

I oppose the war BECUASE I support the troops. We shouldn't be sending them in to fight in unnecessary wars. They are being forced to fight not for the interests of the American people but for the interests of Big Oil and Neoconservative ideologues.

It is reasonably credible. The argument is that the interests of the troops and the continuation of the war are different aims and even perhaps opposing aims as Odin has expressed.

Troops are necessary for war, not sufficient.

Without the troops there'd be no war is true. Without the war there'd be no troops is false.

The two things are not in any sense identical, and to suggest that not supporting the war is the same as not supporting the troops is just silly.

I have trouble separating the blame for what is being done from who is actually doing it. The troops are an all volunteer force. They can and should be held responsible for what they are doing. If they didnt want to be there doing excactly what they are doing then they wouldnt be there doing it.

The Exception:

With the outsourcing of good American jobs and the importation of foreign nationals to undercut American wages, it is becoming more and more difficult for Americans to find decent paying American jobs, or at least ones that will sustain a family. My guess is that a high number of the people in our Armed Forces are there due to a lack of occupational choices. I understand that the military does not pay very well, but it is still one of the last American jobs to provide decent benefits. I believe an American who kills Iraqis is justified as long as their motivation is the feeding of their family, not the feeding of George Bush's imperial war machine.

i support various humans who happen to be troops who are good people who have too much faith in their government but i despise the war in iraq and its consequences for us, the taxpayers, in the longterm not to mention the death and turmoil that it's causing over there.


supporting troops does not mean you support the war. it means you think that they should be treated with respect if they deserve it and despite being forced into a despicable war, we will stand by them. unlike the vietnam generation did.

You guys are either all wrong or there is a severe misunderstanding. Ha.

Here is the thing: If the President for some reason decided to send troops to any area and kill people who went against his will, how can you say "I support our troops but I am against the policy." I wouldn't support the troops because that would mean I'm defending their campaign. I won't support their actions. I definitely won't support the man who waged the war. Why be complacent to the troops? If it is something that you in all your heard/mind are against, why be behind the people who are in the front?

I meant to add also, that the best way to "support" the troops would be to elect congressmen who would immediately stop supporting the war. Instead of just saying "Send them more tanks, more ammo, more protection."

Maybe you're not right ALL THE TIME.

I think that the issue that is popping up is the usage of "support the troops" you think "support the troops" means "support the troops in their current endeavor", your opposition thinks "support the troops" means "seek the best interest of the troops in general". It is a misunderstanding as neither side is necessarily wrong. The reason to be complacent to the troops is because the troops are typically not seen as independent actors but rather dependent, they are seen not as supporting X ungood act, but rather fighting for Y good cause which forces them by folly or malice to commit X ungood act. We support the troops because we believe in Y good cause(national defense), but still believe that X is an ungood act. The entire debate is really just over the meanings of terms and how we conceptualize certain things.

Because troops are issued orders and face severe penalties if they go against those orders. And military training leaves soldiers with very little tendency to question orders, even bad ones. Even if our troops are fighting a war I disagree with, I don't wish to see them be injured and die; they are my countrymen, and more important, they are fellow human beings.

Yeah, people tried that in 2006. Big surprise, Democrats didn't fulfill their campaign promises.

The job of a soldier is to do what they are told, within reason. Whether or not you support the war, the vast, vast majority of them are doing their jobs the best they can, in a very difficult situation. If you question what they are doing you must question the generals and the civilian leaders. Yes, the troops are in the front line and in the front line they don't have much room for contemplation, they must follow their orders. If they were going around murdering civilians for no reason I would be against them, but right now they are fighting insurgents and terrorists who were allowed to exist because of incredible stragetic errors commited by the Bush administration and their allies and even some generals. So, yes I support the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'm against the war because of the way it was run and is being run.