Is it possible to support one without the other?

[rich_t]

I know that we have all heard comments from folks that say they support the troops just not the war.

Is it possible to support the troops yet condemn their mission?

We have an all volunteer military service in this country.  Can one honestly claim to support the service member while decrying the mission that they volunteered to go on?

I am curious as to what others here think.

[docstew]

As an active duty member, I would have to say you can't separate the two.  It's like saying you support the players on "your" football team, and like the fact that they win all the time, but hate the fact that they actually play the game instead of just practicing all the time.

[rich_t]

As an active duty member, I would have to say you can't separate the two.  It's like saying you support the players on "your" football team, and like the fact that they win all the time, but hate the fact that they actually play the game instead of just practicing all the time.

That is my view also.  I know that when I was in the 1st Gulf War, my folks would write to me and tell me about such people.

I always thought they could go straight to hell as far as I was concerned.

My son who is currently serving in Iraq, feels the same way.

How can you claim to support the troops yet denigrate the job that they willingly signed up to do?

Sure there are some troops that signed up for the benefits and didn't actually have any intention of going into harms way.  But I'm willing to bet that 98%+ troops support and believe in the mission, and resent those that condemn their mission.

To paraphrase a comment from my son,

You can't claim to support me while decrying that which I volunteered to do.  I am here on purpose, and I don't need that "type" of false support.

[docstew]

Sure there are some troops that signed up for the benefits and didn't actually have any intention of going into harms way.  But I'm willing to bet that 98%+ troops support and believe in the mission, and resent those that condemn their mission.

anyone who's in now is either on board with the mission or a fool.  The GWOT has been going on nearly eight years, the longest enlistment/reenlistment contract is 6.  They would be out by now if they didn't believe in it.

[JohnnyReb]

I have always supported "The Troops" and every war they've been in.......but with the DUmmies in control now, I can see us in a war I wouldn't, couldn't support. But "The Troops" should have no fever, I'd still support them 100%.

Now, having said that, for me to believe that a DUmmie would say that (or has said that) and mean it as much as I do is impossible.

[thundley4]

I have always supported "The Troops" and every war they've been in.......but with the DUmmies in control now, I can see us in a war I wouldn't, couldn't support. But "The Troops" should have no fever, I'd still support them 100%.

Now, having said that, for me to believe that a DUmmie would say that (or has said that) and mean it as much as I do is impossible.

I can also see me not supporting the mission or war but still supporting the troops.  I think there is a very good chance of 0Bama placing more troops in an ill-advised  mission under the auspices of the UN.

[Atomic Lib Smasher]

I have always supported "The Troops" and every war they've been in.......but with the DUmmies in control now, I can see us in a war I wouldn't, couldn't support. But "The Troops" should have no fever, I'd still support them 100%.

Now, having said that, for me to believe that a DUmmie would say that (or has said that) and mean it as much as I do is impossible.

But whatever mission our troops are on, you'd want them to be victorious, right?

[JohnnyReb]

But whatever mission our troops are on, you'd want them to be victorious, right?

OH HELL YEAH! But under the DUmmies control, I see less likelihood of them being allowed to "go for the win".