Not supporting the war BUT supporting our troops

[manu1959]

Everytime I see pictures of anti-war protestors, I see those who support the war holding signs that say, "Support Our Troops."

Can someone please explain to me why people assume that just because
someone does not support the war that it means that person also does not
support the troops? I just don't get it.

I do not support this war. I do, however, fully support our
troops. Don't anybody tell me otherwise, as I work for an agency that
assists veterans, so my daily job is indicative of my unwavering support
for our troops (which job I have been in for almost 10 years). I agonize over the constant deaths of our troops and the constant maiming of our troops. I would like them to come home soon so that more of them aren't getting killed and maimed.

Everytime I see anti-war protestors, they are begging to bring our soldiers back. Why isn't that indicative of caring about our troops?

protesting the war is different than simply not supporting the war.....war protesters give hope to the opposistion

north vietnam's most powerful weapon was the US media and the war protesters

i fear that one day the terrorists of the world will kill the US media and the war protesters that have fought along side them as the terrorists simply want the west and all it stands for eliminated.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Anyone passing out the tinfoil hats?

Here ya go, Gunny. One for our wacky new member, little sis and dad.

 

[manu1959]

Here ya go, Gunny. One for our wacky new member, little sis and dad.

someone should wire them together and plug them in

 

[Hagbard Celine]

What's up with the guys in the tin foil hats? Are those conservatives protecting themselves from the "vast liberal media conspiracy"?

Where are you getting this "Illegal"? Is it suddenly Illegal for the US to go to war? Was World War II illegal? Was Korea illegal?

It's illegal to invade a sovereign country for no reason other than preemption man. Invading a country on the basis of preemption, especially when there is no solid intellegence to prove a threat, is like punching somebody because they MIGHT look at you the wrong way. Saddam didn't attack Pearl Harbor or threaten to spread Communism to South Korea. The containment strategy was going fine until we swooped in and destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure causing a vacuum of lawlessness for terrorists and insurgents to breed in like a giant festering petri dish.

 

[kurtsprincess]

The points are gone. You can't "have them back." If you go to the top lefthand corner of the screen you will see user CP. It will show you who gave you points, and who taketh them away.

You get points for an outstanding post. You lose points for being a dolt. Simple as that.

Touche'. :clap1:

 

[insein]

What's up with the guys in the tin foil hats? Are those conservatives protecting themselves from the "vast liberal media conspiracy"?



It's illegal to invade a sovereign country for no reason other than preemption man. Invading a country on the basis of preemption, especially when there is no solid intellegence to prove a threat, is like punching somebody because they MIGHT look at you the wrong way. Saddam didn't attack Pearl Harbor or threaten to spread Communism to South Korea. The containment strategy was going fine until we swooped in and destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure causing a vacuum of lawlessness for terrorists and insurgents to breed in like a giant festering petri dish.

Yes the containment strategy was working great. It was working so great that Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorists before we ever returned there.

Terror Camps Supported by Baghdad and Tehran before the invasion by the US.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html

Numerous Al Queda-Iraq connections
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Debka, a reputable Info site that specializes in Middle Eastern News, Announced that prior to the invasion, Iraq had been shipping WMD's to syria
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=482

Summit Held in IRaq for top AL Queda member for possible 9/11 planning. Even if it wasnt for 9/11 planning, what is a top Al queda member doing in Iraq if Saddam is "contained" as you put it? Guess he just wanted to have him over for a beer.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133

Now i know your not accustomed to "evidence" to support YOUR claims, but i suggest you read these links and try to evaluate your opinion.

 

[theim]

What's up with the guys in the tin foil hats? Are those conservatives protecting themselves from the "vast liberal media conspiracy"?



It's illegal to invade a sovereign country for no reason other than preemption man. Invading a country on the basis of preemption, especially when there is no solid intellegence to prove a threat, is like punching somebody because they MIGHT look at you the wrong way. Saddam didn't attack Pearl Harbor or threaten to spread Communism to South Korea. The containment strategy was going fine until we swooped in and destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure causing a vacuum of lawlessness for terrorists and insurgents to breed in like a giant festering petri dish.

Lemme tell you something, "man". Who cares if its illegal by International Law (I'm assuming, you never did answer my question after all). If our safety is at stake, anything is legal. What the hell are those blue-helmetted UN pussies gonna do? Remember that.

Again, your value of stability over human rights is dead-on leftist.

 

[no1tovote4]

I was telling him that I accorded no probative value to his calling me stupid. That's it. Stop trying to read into my posts.

I wasn't "reading into" your posts, but I was reading your posts. That post was clear, "You are conservative, your opinion has not probative value to me."

The fact that words and actions have meaning seems to be unclear to you. That you, in anger, stated a truth of your thought processes is clear.

Oh and by the way, stop attempting to give me orders and simply answer it more clearly. Your statement didn't say, "I don't care if you call me stupid." It said, "I don't believe anything that conservatives say so your opinion in this matter is not worth spit." Either you don't believe anything that conservatives say, or you do (probably occassionally much as I feel about Liberals) and you said something in anger that you don't believe. Which is it?

 

[ProudDem]

I wasn't "reading into" your posts, but I was reading your posts. That post was clear, "You are conservative, your opinion has not probative value to me."

The fact that words and actions have meaning seems to be unclear to you. That you, in anger, stated a truth of your thought processes is clear.

Oh and by the way, stop attempting to give me orders and simply answer it more clearly. Your statement didn't say, "I don't care if you call me stupid." It said, "I don't believe anything that conservatives say so your opinion in this matter is not worth spit." Either you don't believe anything that conservatives say, or you do (probably occassionally much as I feel about Liberals) and you said something in anger that you don't believe. Which is it?

Please provide me with the post to which you are referring. I don't remember saying that because I don't think that way. My 3 siblings are conservatives, and I listen to what they have to say, and I agree with them at times.

What's up with being so hostile? This is just a message board, and I am a stranger to you.

Ah, vote, I found the post: If I cared about the person making the statement, I might see a problem. But both of you are conservatives, who like to twist my words around, and so I accord your assessment NO probative value whatsoever.

Okay, I can see why you drew the conclusion you did. I was addressing the twisting of my words--that is what I don't give any probative value to because the conclusion he had drawn based upon what I said was incorrect (since that's not what I said).

Does that sentence even make sense?

 

[no1tovote4]

You have a few screws loose, let me tighten them.
I agree 100% with your first statement.

:tng: Your second statement makes it abundantly clear that you are EXACTLY what you hate.
I am better than that(SORRY!), troops who are trying to protect our nation will NEVER be immoral, only the people who send them in.

This is disingenuous at the face value of it. It disregards the ability of the people in the armed forces to maintain a set of morals beyond, "Follow Orders!" In the past the I was following orders excuse has not excused actions considered illegal. If the war is illegal moral indicators would require that they not follow their orders or they can be prosecuted for their immoral action. To disregard these people as humans and say, "They are only following orders!" is simply an attempt to dodge the reality of their humanity and disregard the fact that they have their own moral judgement. This dehumanizes those in the armed forces and assumes an automation that is not there in reality.

Either you think the war and therefore the actions of those that support it immoral or you do not. Excusing them by denying their basic humanity is not support, it is disregard.

 

[Shattered]

PD - You *really* gotta start checking posts.. No1 didn't say you were being stupid. *I* did. That's twice in 24 hours you've accused someone of saying something they didn't.. Wake up. Have some coffee. :cof:

 

[no1tovote4]

Are the kids done playing?!?!? the adults need to talk!

So you are saying you want to take your ball and bat and go home now?

 

[ProudDem]

PD - You *really* gotta start checking posts.. No1 didn't say you were being stupid. *I* did. That's twice in 24 hours you've accused someone of saying something they didn't.. Wake up. Have some coffee. :cof:

Will you bring it to me with cream and sugar?

 

[Shattered]

Will you bring it to me with cream and sugar?

No, but I'm sure you can blame Bush for unnecessary cruelty by way of Conservatism.

 

[no1tovote4]

Please provide me with the post to which you are referring. I don't remember saying that because I don't think that way. My 3 siblings are conservatives, and I listen to what they have to say, and I agree with them at times.

What's up with being so hostile? This is just a message board, and I am a stranger to you.

First of all, I am not hostile, explain in which way I am "hostile" when simply explaining that semantics are important when all you use to communicate are words, like on a message board.

It is this line that I am speaking about:

"But both of you are conservatives, who like to twist my words around, and so I accord your assessment NO probative value whatsoever."

The meaning of the line is clear, "You are conservatives, you enjoy twisting my words, I therefore believe that anything you say is not worth a thing."

That you made it toward two people doesn't change the actual semantics of the sentence. In that sentence you state that nothing conservatives say has value to you. Is it what you meant to state or were you saying something in anger that you would like to elaborate on? Just saying I was mad at those two doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.

 

[ProudDem]

No, but I'm sure you can blame Bush for unnecessary cruelty by way of Conservatism.

It's probably better that you not bring me coffee--you may put some poison in it.

I'm kidding. I do blame Bush for a lot of things, such as the red wine stain on my carpet. Is that wrong?

 

[no1tovote4]

It's probably better that you not bring me coffee--you may put some poison in it.

I'm kidding. I do blame Bush for a lot of things, such as the red wine stain on my carpet. Is that wrong?

Contact the Enquirer, they could use the wine stain as more evidence of Bush's new habit of drinking.

 

[ProudDem]

First of all, I am not hostile, explain in which way I am "hostile" when simply explaining that semantics are important when all you use to communicate are words, like on a message board.

It is this line that I am speaking about:

"But both of you are conservatives, who like to twist my words around, and so I accord your assessment NO probative value whatsoever."

The meaning of the line is clear, "You are conservatives, you enjoy twisting my words, I therefore believe that anything you say is not worth a thing."

That you made it toward two people doesn't change the actual semantics of the sentence. In that sentence you state that nothing conservatives say has value to you. Is it what you meant to state or were you saying something in anger that you would like to elaborate on? Just saying I was mad at those two doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.

I posted this above (I found the post and then added it to my answer to you above):

Ah, vote, I found the post: If I cared about the person making the statement, I might see a problem. But both of you are conservatives, who like to twist my words around, and so I accord your assessment NO probative value whatsoever.

Okay, I can see why you drew the conclusion you did. I was addressing the twisting of my words--that is what I don't give any probative value to because the conclusion he had drawn based upon what I said was incorrect (since that's not what I said).

Does that sentence even make sense?

 

[Shattered]

It's probably better that you not bring me coffee--you may put some poison in it.

I'm kidding. I do blame Bush for a lot of things, such as the red wine stain on my carpet. Is that wrong?

Depends... Are you a total drain on society? If so, yeah, I might poison you... Do you take full responsibility for your own lot in life, rather than blaming others? Then you can probably live.. Your choice.

 

[no1tovote4]

Okay, I can see why you drew the conclusion you did. I was addressing the twisting of my words--that is what I don't give any probative value to because the conclusion he had drawn based upon what I said was incorrect (since that's not what I said).

Does that sentence even make sense?

Got it. So you meant to say, "Since you two have twisted my words and disregarded my original meaning I do not value your opinion on my intelligence."

The part about them being Conservatives has no real value to the sentence, if a Liberal had twisted your words would it make their opinion full of probative value? That you found it important to state that part of the reason you found their opinion valueless was the fact that they were Conservatives spoke volumes to me.