Do you think it's possible to support troops in Iraq, but not support their mission?

Anybody that said they support the troops but don't support their mission or the job of their mission said that.....

At the last count on the poll that is 7 people but most of them are probably Liberal Canadian so it really does not really matter......
 
But somehow he managed to produce them without the means or the facilities. But VOR can't be bothered with problems such as those!



16 years ago, and some of those attacks were actually by the Iranians.
But VOR can't be bothered with problems such as those!



But they wouldn't last long in such a enviroment. Not to mention that we can scan for them using a number of ways that have worked in the past. But VOR can't be bothered with problems such as those!



If you have a delivery system which Iraq did not. Not to mention that only two samples of smallpox exist and neither are anywhere near Iraq.
But VOR can't be bothered with problems such as those!



Clinton did not want to start a war with a few months left in office.
But VOR can't be bothered with problems such as those!
 
Kerry did later say he voted aganist it because it was litterally a blank check. Besides, merely because he voted aganist a bill doesn't mean he's for that. If you will recall the legislation process where ammendement are added to bills that are completely unrelated not to mention that many bills, including the energy one have a large number of ill advised sections many senators don't like, but they voted for it because the country neeRAB a energy plan, even if it is a bad one. Voting for or aganist a bill does not mean you are for everything in the bill or aganist everything in the bill. Such is the problem of attacking specific politicans about their voting recorRAB. As long as you realize how the system works, such claims become rather foolish, if not outright fraudlent. McCain voted aganist a huge military bill because it was loaded with pork and lost its original meaning. Does that mean he's aganist the military? No.

Also, just because it has clauses stating that the money is going to a specific place doesn't mean it will. In fact, if you recall in the last 6 months money has been disappearing in the millions. Still though, Kerry and EdwarRAB do not represent the whole.



Since when were we limiting the discussion to him? Kerry's a douchebag.

My original point still stanRAB.
 
I voted no. It would seem to me, if you don't support the mission you won't support the funding for it. How can you support the troops if you deny the monetary support they need.

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
John Kerry
 
1. Ask Kerry and Dean

2. Zaquawi and Bin Laden........

3. People die in wars..........58,000 in Nam.........500 a week.....

4. 25,000,000 people freed........Guess you did not see them go to the polls under threat of their very lives..........guess you did not see them come out of the poll booths proudly showing their fingers to prove they voted.........Some things are worth dying for..........
 
I do not support their mission. I never said that. I said I think the mission is pointless, but the troops might not believe that. I said I supported them doing what they think is right, not what I think is wrong.
 
What is with you and Hunter thinking you can speak for other people?



I know die-hard party line Republicans who don't support what is going on in Iraq.
 
Is that how you talk about people over there cleaning up this mess? call them liberal. I'll have you know Mike is not liberal in the sense that you use the word.
It seems you don't support the people there doing the fighting!! Oh and read the post again.. I stated he has talked to more that oppose it than support it. So there are a lot ao people over there doing this who agree with he and I

Please don't call people that you don't even know names !! THANKS
 
If you ask me, their mission is a waste of time and money, and I think they made the wrong choice of what they think is right. But I'll support them because they're sacraficing a lot to fight for what they believe in.
 
VOR, ok, apparently you feel that if a democrat or liberal says that all evidence says there were no WoMD, its only because they are from the loony left or are a left leaning liberal who hates Bush and is anti-troop and anti american....and only wants to see this country fail in everything it does....

i'm no democrat, i am a long time GOP'er, and eventually you'll have to just deal with the fact that we as a nation were all misled. Or lied to, you pick whever you feel better with. I don't know why you can't admit it, even Bush himself has stated that there were no wmRAB, no ties to terrorist, and no connection to 9/11. Cheney, having been on TV declaring there was a connection, now has to deny he even said it. Well, I saw him say it, heard him say it, so now matter how many times he denies it, he did say it and did mislead people.
GW Bush has stated since the invasion of Iraq that there are no WMRAB, and there are no ties between Iraq and Saddam to any terrorist groups, and that Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attacks on 9/11.
Is there something that you can't understand that Bush is saying when he says those things? Of course Rove and Cheney jumped all over him, but Bush has even admitted that this war probably cant ever be won, but then he took the worRAB back. Kind of like a little school kid.

Why will you not let those imaginary "facts" go and admit them as the untruths that they have since been found to be? Even admitted by Bush himself. Why do you insist on repeating them as if they are all true?
stop trying to make us all look like idiots...


Country always comes before party and not party before country
And if thats not how you feel, than youre more anti-american than the people that you accuse.
 
You should avoid supporting vor as he is a shameless, cowardly troll.

I take it then you concede that it is possible to support the troops but not the mission?

VOR: Explain to me how you can support the troops by supporting a mission that doesn't help America and gets 1600 of them needlessly killed
 
Well, it seems we answered VOR's question, why can't he do the same for us?

How can you support the troops by supporting a mission that gets 1600 of them needlessly killed for something that doesn't help or protect America?
 
Back
Top