"We support the troops but not the mission"

[Doniston]

This has got to be the dumbest thread I have ever looked through. The sheer hubris of the liberals here and their squirming as they try to defend their indefensible position is downright depressing.



To the liberals, let's go over these definitions one at a time, shall we.

1. For you to endure troops bravely or quietly is nothing special, so I'm assuming you're not referring to this. If you are, then I say big deal that you support the troops.

2. You don't promote the interests or causes of the troops, nor do you defend them as valid or right or assist them. What they're trying to do is win. That's their interest and cause, and you oppose them winning. I also don't see too many "No war for oil" hippies sending them care packages, so we're going to say you're not supporting them with this definition.

3. Well, you do pay the costs of the troops, but I say "So what?" You're required to by law to do that. It's called taxes.

4. I'm guessing you're not physically holding up or serving as a foundation for the troops, as they're not standing on you, so that's out.

5. You are most certainly not stopping troops from fainting, yielding, or losing courage. Troops don't faint, and what you advocate is both yielding and losing courage by leaving and surrendering.

6. Last, but not least, you don't want to keep the troops going. Most of you openly advocate them to not re-enlist, so this one's out.

What's happened hear is that when liberals were called on not supporting the troops, they changed the definition of 'support' to 'like, as a person.' You can like the troops all you want. You may think they're wonderful people, and that's good. However, unless you are actively attempting to ensure the success of their mission, you do not support the troops, so be honest about it.

It is you who simply don't understand. We know the troops are doing their duties (by and large) As they have been ordered to do. for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't really matter whether they are in favor of their duty or not. We are condemning the orders, not their actions. You don't seem to understsnd that.

[Gunny]

It is you who simply don't understand. We know the troops are doing their duties (by and large) As they have been ordered to do. for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't really matter whether they are in favor of their duty or not. We are condemning the orders, not their actions. You don't seem to understsnd that.

I'd say it's YOU who doesn't understand. Hobbit's post is perfectly and completely logical.

By condemning the mission, you condemn those who carry it out. Simple logic, and no amount of smoke and mirrors not rahul deflections, lies and or irrelevancies changes that simple fact one iota.

[Hobbit]

I'd say it's YOU who doesn't understand. Hobbit's post is perfectly and completely logical.

By condemning the mission, you condemn those who carry it out. Simple logic, and no amount of smoke and mirrors not rahul deflections, lies and or irrelevancies changes that simple fact one iota.

Not quite the point I was making, but Doniston is, once again, wrong. By the definitions of the English word, support, those who oppose the war do not support the troops. It's a simple logical impossibility.

Doniston, if I 'don't get it' and you do, in fact, support the troops, then tell me by which definition you support them and how what you do fits within that definition.

[Rahul]

Wrong. It's a fact he supported Hamas and Hezbollah, and even if he didn't openly support terrorists in his country he turned a blind eye to them.

You haven't substantiated those claims.

[OCA]

You haven't substantiated those claims.

Nor have you substantiated claims about oil or any of the other erroneous claims you've made. I HAVE however given factual links betwen Saddam and Al Qaeda at least.

I'm sure Gunny will bring his proof.

[Rahul]

I'm sure Gunny will bring his proof.

Where is it?

[OCA]

Where is it?

Ask Gunny........but more to the point that was a sweet skip of my asking for you to backup anything.

[Rahul]

Ask Gunny........but more to the point that was a sweet skip of my asking for you to backup anything.

I disagree. I haven't dodged anything, unlike Gunny.

[OCA]

I disagree. I haven't dodged anything, unlike Gunny.

Yes you have, where is proof of the oil grab and if oil was grabbed where is it?

Plus I gave several links to factual evidence of links between Saddam/Al Qaeda and Saddam/international terrorism, you conveniently ignored them.

[Rahul]

Yes you have, where is proof of the oil grab and if oil was grabbed where is it?

Have you not read the links that I provided showing the Iraqi oil laws overwhemingly favor the oil companies, and not the IRaqi public?

Plus I gave several links to factual evidence of links between Saddam/Al Qaeda and Saddam/international terrorism, you conveniently ignored them.

I don't believe your right wing links. Next time do as I do, and post something from a believable source for a change.

[Pale Rider]

I don't believe your right wing links. Next time do as I do, and post something from a believable source for a change.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - In other words... you're looney left garbage.

Give me a break.

[Rahul]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - In other words... you're looney left garbage.

Give me a break.

Insults do precious little to further the tone of discussion and are not tolerated.

[OCA]

Insults do precious little to further the tone of discussion and are not tolerated.

Who the fuck are you to say what is tolerated and what isn't?

[OCA]

Have you not read the links that I provided showing the Iraqi oil laws overwhemingly favor the oil companies, and not the IRaqi public?



I don't believe your right wing links. Next time do as I do, and post something from a believable source for a change.

Of course they favor the oil companies, they do the work, they reap the profits, thats how it should be.

So any link that doesn't jibe with your POV is a right wing link, eh Rajiv? Guess yesterday when I posted some facts from the NEW YORK TIMES on queers in fact being to blame for AIDS getting into the blood supply that I was just spouting right wing propoganda, eh Rajiv? Cause everyone knows the NEW YORK TIMES is nothing but a right wing rag

Your style of debate is bankrupt, hypocritical and disingenuous, in other words you can't debate.

[OCA]

Insults do precious little to further the tone of discussion and are not tolerated.

Neither does labeling of facts as right wing just because they don't jibe with your POV.