Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
Ustwo, I agree completely. I think the confusion that the Times author made was between not supporting the invasion and not supporting victory. Elphaba, when you say that you have never supported the Iraq war, I interpreted it to mean that you thought and still think it was a mistake for us to go there in the first place. Is this correct?
There are, of course, some people who "support our troops" but think we should immediately withdraw from Iraq. That position makes significantly less sense because it seems to me that supporting the troops includes supporting their mission. Even so, however, I think it is possible to argue that one can support the troops by hoping they leave the dangers of the battlefield behind.
Alternatively, if you hope that the Iraqi insurgents ("minutemen" in obese traitor-speak) defeat our soldiers, I don't see how you could possibly say you support the troops.
Thus, it seems that the vast majority of people who do not support the war could conceivably support our troops. It all depends on precisely what you mean when you claim not to support the war.
|
I would fall into the catagory who support our troops by bringing them home.
I was against going to Iraq in the first place,
But now we are there.
there is no use pretending we have no responsibilty to
the Iraqi peoples, and their neighbors.
Now, I
DO NOT want to see a "cut and run"
I would hope we have learned that lesson from Vietnam as well.
I do think we should start withdrawing one city at a time.
Keeping enough troops around in case the Iraqi's fail to keep control.
As the hand over progress's each city will become easier.
Start in the north, where it is the most stable.
by the time we are leaving the more dangerous southern areas
the locals will understand the drill.
__________________
All ideas in this communication are sole property of the voices in my head. (C) 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
"The Voices" (TM). All rights reserved.