"Support the troops"

[Danzig]

altho i think the phrase 'support the troops' is a bunch of bs, and a part of commercialism (witness the endless parade of yello, camo ribbons, etc on peoples' cars--wouldn't it be nice if the proceeds went to those same troops-or better yet, the vets) i would have to think there must be more involved than just paying taxes.
but, hard to say. altho i guess it's better than the opposite that went on in vietnam, with returning soldiers and sailors having to deal with all kinds of insults, or worse.
perhaps you can also support the troops by voting for those who show their support, by funding worthwhile things such as care for vets, rather than more pork barrel bs.

[Nascar1966]

Being retired from the Navy 3 years ago, to all those that support the troops my thanks and keep up the support. Its a shame we have a moron in office that sends the troops to Iraq without a valid reason. There were no WMD's found yet and was that not the reason the troops were sent there in the 1st place? Could the real reason be all of the oil in that region? The moron that sent the troops there is from Texas and we know Texas is famous for oil.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Being retired from the Navy 3 years ago, to all those that support the troops my thanks and keep up the support. Its a shame we have a moron in office that sends the troops to Iraq without a valid reason. There were no WMD's found yet and was that not the reason the troops were sent there in the 1st place? Could the real reason be all of the oil in that region? The moron that sent the troops there is from Texas and we know Texas is famous for oil.

Same crew thinks it's a good idea to send $20 Billion in weapons to Saudi Arabia over the next 10 years. Israel is concerned, of course, so we're sending them $30 Billion.

I'm sure a fresh $50 Billion in weapons to the Middle East will help things plenty.

[Downthestretch55]

Odom...on "support the troops":
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index....groundid=00192

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by SilverRP

Friend of mine and myself had a discussion earlier about the war. "Support for the troops" slogan came up. I asked, what exactly does that mean? What do you need to do to become a supporter? Do you send money? Do you send food? Do you just need an "I support troops" bumper sticker? Do you need to show up at the airport when troops come home? Do you need to hang an American flag out in front of the house? Do you just need to shout USA USA USA as loud as possible? Exactly what qualifies you as a supporter? He never could answer me. So I'll ask the board.

for me it means - send care packages and donate money to charities that help the families of the fallen.

I think we are beyond the point of WHY we went over there

the enemy is there and that is where we are fighting them

ps... I think Bush is too liberal.

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

for me it means - send care packages and donate money to charities that help the families of the fallen.

I think we are beyond the point of WHY we went over there

the enemy is there and that is where we are fighting them

ps... I think Bush is too liberal.

Couldn't agree more.

[SilverRP]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

for me it means - send care packages and donate money to charities that help the families of the fallen.

I think we are beyond the point of WHY we went over there

the enemy is there and that is where we are fighting them

ps... I think Bush is too liberal.

Enemy?? Who is the enemy?? Serioulsy, we invaded a country and are now fighting insurgents, and to make it worse terrorists are now occupying the country. Weren't most of our "enemies" in SA and Afghanistan.?? This is quite a cluster we got on our hands now and it was not done by a liberal president. A liberal, progressive president would not have invaded a country with the mental capacity of a wild west, 1800's cowboy who wanted nothing but a war. Please, I'm a liberal who thinks totally opposite of this president who got us in this cluster ****.

This so called "liberal" president had the backing of almost every American right after 9/11. Myself included. We wanted to get those responsible and bring some kind of relief for those families and all Americans. What did he do with that backing? Invaded a country that was no threat to the US, while basically allowing OB to run free. And during this time play the American people with fear tactics which somehow has worked with some. WHAT A JOKE

[otisotisotis]

if i remember, the battle for afghanistan (don't hear much about it now) was to find these terrorists and bring them to justice.
the iraqi invasion was based on misleading info (poor colin powell) and has become the quagmire that was expected.
iraq is an underdeveloped country sitting on massive oil reserves and is also a very strategic place for permanent u.s. bases that the saudis really want no part of.
why? because those in the middle east already fear u.s. imperialistic motives, hence the attacks on u.s. soil.
big catch 22 if you ask me.
but the current administration would rather press the 'fear' issue onto the american public, of which we eat with both hands.
i have friends in the military that were happy to go to iraq (that's what they train for), but they have recently begun to question the alterior motives of their employers.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

ps... I think Bush is too liberal.

true...
Starting pre-emptive wars for the purpose of attempting to create middle eastern american style democricies is hardly a classic conservative type move without question. And he is certainly not even remotely close to a fiscal conservative either. He has many outrageoiusly liberal tenedencies in all the wrong categories.

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by SilverRP

Enemy?? Who is the enemy?? Serioulsy, we invaded a country and are now fighting insurgents, and to make it worse terrorists are now occupying the country. Weren't most of our "enemies" in SA and Afghanistan.?? This is quite a cluster we got on our hands now and it was not done by a liberal president. A liberal, progressive president would not have invaded a country with the mental capacity of a wild west, 1800's cowboy who wanted nothing but a war. Please, I'm a liberal who thinks totally opposite of this president who got us in this cluster ****.

This so called "liberal" president had the backing of almost every American right after 9/11. Myself included. We wanted to get those responsible and bring some kind of relief for those families and all Americans. What did he do with that backing? Invaded a country that was no threat to the US, while basically allowing OB to run free. And during this time play the American people with fear tactics which somehow has worked with some. WHAT A JOKE

The enemy is/are the guys that are shooting at us. They are not Iraqis trying to fight the infidels. They are Al Qaeda, fighters backed by Iran and probably the DNC. There has been plenty of Murtha, Reid, Durbin and other idiots that seem to enjoy spewing the Al Jazeera talking points.

I think there are parallels between Bush and x-42. Both have done everything they could to insure that the minority party became the party with the majority. Regardless what you consider a liberal, Bush should never be considered a conservative.

[Danzig]

i heard a disturbing story this morning, and went to washington post dot com to listen for myself....

clyburn, dem from south carolina, # 3 in the house, stated that a favorable report from petraus in september would be a 'problem for democrats'.

i wonder if that is his way of supporting the troops?


soooo.....success in iraq is bad for dems. wonderful. wouldn't success be good for all americans? aren't dems americans? don't they want us to succeed?
apparently not, as party is apparently above country, and an election win is more important than success in a war that was approved by our congress. not by the prez, altho dems in office at the time would like us to believe it was the case.

i am disgusted by his comments.

[Mortimer]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i heard a disturbing story this morning, and went to washington post dot com to listen for myself....

clyburn, dem from south carolina, # 3 in the house, stated that a favorable report from petraus in september would be a 'problem for democrats'.

i wonder if that is his way of supporting the troops?


soooo.....success in iraq is bad for dems. wonderful. wouldn't success be good for all americans? aren't dems americans? don't they want us to succeed?
apparently not, as party is apparently above country, and an election win is more important than success in a war that was approved by our congress. not by the prez, altho dems in office at the time would like us to believe it was the case.

i am disgusted by his comments.

Oh come on Dan...you should be disgusted with at least 90% of all of "public servents."

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i heard a disturbing story this morning, and went to washington post dot com to listen for myself....

clyburn, dem from south carolina, # 3 in the house, stated that a favorable report from petraus in september would be a 'problem for democrats'.

i wonder if that is his way of supporting the troops?


soooo.....success in iraq is bad for dems. wonderful. wouldn't success be good for all americans? aren't dems americans? don't they want us to succeed?
apparently not, as party is apparently above country, and an election win is more important than success in a war that was approved by our congress. not by the prez, altho dems in office at the time would like us to believe it was the case.

i am disgusted by his comments.

Was there any context to the quote?

I'd certainly say that good progress in Iraq is a problem for Democrats, as far as the election is concerned. However, it doesn't mean I want it to go to hell in a handbasket [any further, that is]. Did he say that he hopes the report is bad, so that Dems benefit from it, or was it just a matter of fact statement of the absolute truth that progress in Iraq hurts the Dems electorally?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Was there any context to the quote?

I'd certainly say that good progress in Iraq is a problem for Democrats, as far as the election is concerned. However, it doesn't mean I want it to go to hell in a handbasket [any further, that is]. Did he say that he hopes the report is bad, so that Dems benefit from it, or was it just a matter of fact statement of the absolute truth that progress in Iraq hurts the Dems electorally?

i think you should go to the post site, and listen to the video. i did when i got my home. there are two parts, and the quote is in the second part. telling you that in case you don't want to listen to the almost 8 minute long first half....
i just think there should be a larger picture, rather than just the election. isn't the more important question whether success would be good for america?

no doubt, good or bad, the dems will attempt (as will the republicans, and yes morty, most of them are not to my liking) to go with the wind--after all most of them voted to go to war, so they could always fall back on that!

[Mortimer]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think you should go to the post site, and listen to the video. i did when i got my home. there are two parts, and the quote is in the second part. telling you that in case you don't want to listen to the almost 8 minute long first half....
i just think there should be a larger picture, rather than just the election. isn't the more important question whether success would be good for america?

no doubt, good or bad, the dems will attempt (as will the republicans, and yes morty, most of them are not to my liking) to go with the wind--after all most of them voted to go to war, so they could always fall back on that!

I forgot how much I turned you on with my mere type.

Don't feel bad.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by mortyfeatherhands

I forgot how much I turned you on with my mere type.

Don't feel bad.

i don't!

ah well...back to early 1777...reading a GREAT book.

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Was there any context to the quote?

I'd certainly say that good progress in Iraq is a problem for Democrats, as far as the election is concerned. However, it doesn't mean I want it to go to hell in a handbasket [any further, that is]. Did he say that he hopes the report is bad, so that Dems benefit from it, or was it just a matter of fact statement of the absolute truth that progress in Iraq hurts the Dems electorally?

I think the context is that they can't be for the war against the war and for the war.

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i heard a disturbing story this morning, and went to washington post dot com to listen for myself....

clyburn, dem from south carolina, # 3 in the house, stated that a favorable report from petraus in september would be a 'problem for democrats'.

i wonder if that is his way of supporting the troops?


soooo.....success in iraq is bad for dems. wonderful. wouldn't success be good for all americans? aren't dems americans? don't they want us to succeed?
apparently not, as party is apparently above country, and an election win is more important than success in a war that was approved by our congress. not by the prez, altho dems in office at the time would like us to believe it was the case.

i am disgusted by his comments.

My favorite word to describe them used to be demChiComCrimocrat
dem Chinese Communist Communist Criminal rat
but I don't know how to make a word out of dem Terrorist Emboldening Treasonous dog.. Maybe I'll just call her Nancy

[Mortimer]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't!

ah well...back to early 1777...reading a GREAT book.

Oh.




I thought you were going to say it was a great year.

[Mortimer]

Dannie-poo sweety...what was the Civil War period like??