“If they’re going to support us, support us all the way.”

So with the Rockets example, you would root for them to win even though you don't want them to win?

 

Except it's not that you don't want them to win. You want them to not be playing at all. Your options are:

1. Win
2. Lose
3. Not be there

In the Yao example, you'd prefer #3. But if that's not an option, you still prefer #1 to #2. Same thing here.

 

u851662, welcome home and thanks for your service to our country. And thanks for your refreshing insight.

Please post more often.

 

Easy. I support the troops wholeheartedly and without reservation, but do not support the person who gave the order to invade. Therefore, I support the troops without question, but do not support the people who are in charge.

Does that clear it up?

 

That makes much more sense to me than saying you support the troops but not the mission. I have a feeling this is what most people mean when they express this sentiment. It's just that not supporting those in charge doesn't mean you don't support the mission.

 

By this logic, any support of a team means that you must support the methods of the coach, without fail or exception. In other words, if I am a true Rockets fan I must cheer even if JVG decides the best path to victory is shooting the ball at the opponents' basket. I disagree. In such a case, I would support the Rockets by calling for the firing of the coach who is doing them damage and/or an immediate end to his ****ed up strategy.

 

I call for an immediate end to this moronic analogy. Are we seriously going to compare the War in Iraq to winning an NBA championship? Besides, winning a championship is a clear goal while the Iraq war keeps changing along with the seasons. "It's about WMDS, I mean terrorism, I mean spreading democracy etc." How can you support a mission when the mission keeps changing? I can understand the frustration of those soldiers in the video, they don't want to be told that their sacrifice and their friends ultimate sacrifces were for nothing. But is it the fault of the American people for now realizing the war was unnecessary or was it the people in charge who sent them there for who knows what actual reason?

 

It's the fault of the administration for sending them under false pretenses and it's the fault of the Congress and the American people for not scrutinizing and debating that decision in the first place.

 

Congratulations on making it home safe and sound and thank you for your service. Interesting information and good first hand perspective to bring to us keyboard warriors here who are debating on second hand. Personally I would like to visit Iraq but I'll admit I'm enough of a coward to not want to go to Iraq at the moment. I got nervous riding along Sri Lanka roads dodging cows I'm not sure I could handle looking out for IED's.

 

A lot of good responses to this already but putting in my own two Rupees.

The key to me is the understanding that our military is under civillian control and ultimately decisions made regarding deployment are made by civillians. I can support the troops by wanting them to stay alive, uninjured have adequate training and equipment but still not support the mission since that decision wasn't made by them. I can argue that my support of the troops is opposition to the mission since I feel the best way for them to remain alive and uninjured is for them not to be sent on that mission.

 

Soldiers obey the chain of command. They don't listen to protesters.

Bush doesn't either.

 

so majority of the country are now war protesters and they don't deserve to be listened to even though they are right?

 

Only if Bush Decides they are protesters.

 

I support the troops coming home to protect our country......which is what they are supposed to do.

DD

 

Bush continues to show his support:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4531811.html

There's more at the link - he's nailing pensions to.

This man is despicable. He is an utter disgrace.

 

Republican senators once again refuse to support the troops all the way.

-------------------

Three GOP Senators Oppose Army Chief Nominee

Three Republican senators – all strong supporters of President Bush – rebuked him Tuesday with opposition to his pick for Army chief of staff.

Conservative Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and John Ensign of Nevada voted with Sen. John McCain of Arizona in the Senate Armed Services Committee to oppose sending the nomination of Gen. George Casey to the Senate floor for a confirmation vote.

McCain has long been a sharp critic of Casey, who recently commanded coalition forces in Iraq.

"I find it hard to reconcile General Casey's continued assertion that the previous strategy was working in contradiction to the view of most any observer," the senator said after his committee "no" vote.

The opposition, however, from Chambliss and Ensign, who had been staunch supporters of the Bush military policy, was unexpected.

Chambliss spokeswoman, Lindsay Mabry, said politics played no role in the senator’s opposition – that his decision was all about Casey's performance as the top commander in Iraq during a period of increasing violence, sectarian conflict and skyrocketing casualties.

The senator "could not support the nomination because under General Casey's leadership the situation in Iraq has not been going well and, therefore, he should not be given the top job in the Army," Mabry said. "General Casey was not forthcoming with requests for more troops to confront the growing insurgency in Iraq."

Ensign’s spokesman, Tory Mazzola, said the senator was not impressed with Casey during private meetings, but would not elaborate.

The committee sent the Casey nomination to the floor on a 14-3 vote, and his confirmation seemed assured by the full Senate.

Casey is popular among his Army peers and has garnered wide acclaim within the Pentagon for his efforts in Iraq. Until last fall’s election when Republicans lost control of Congress to the Democrats, his strategy of minimizing U.S. troop presence in Iraq while concentrating military efforts on training the Iraqi army to take control of security was the hallmark of the administration's strategy.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2655.html

 

Sorry basso, the argument falls dead on yet another military account.

I wonder if basso has a clue how democracy works.

 

Good post, but I think "neener neener neener" would have been more appropriate.

 

In all honesty there probably wasn't that big of a difference between what I did and neener neener neener.

I guess its just the way I respond to being told by the likes of basso that I don't support the troops, and that I am really on the side of terrorists. Perhaps I should be above it.

 

What ever happened to the tread originator in here???? Some might mighty good knowledge and ***ahem*** FACTS, and one great story being kicked around in here.