Support the Troops by Ending the War

No what gives the first sign that a mission is useless or needless, is when the American public doesn't have to make any sacrifice. Life goes on as normal here, because no matter how many die in Iraq, most of us don't have any life changes from it. No one in Iraq attacked us, no one in Iraq took something from us and wouldn't give it back, so for most of us its just the same old thing day to day.

Ron Paul being labeled a liberal is really the laugh of the day!!!:laugh:

 

"Liberal" is not really a word that has meaning anymore, it is more of an invective that is applied by new "conservatives" towards anyone who disagrees with them. It's often, a direct result of overdosing on talk-radio propagandists who effectively convince their audience that today's liberals with "R"s by their names, are conservative. Relative to this topic, they have been programmed to believe that only liberals can be opposed to the war. Thus, the only thing they can do is accuse true conservatives, who oppose the war as being liberal, and in the process making themselves the actual liberals. :thumbs:

 

Read more carefully. I did not label Paul a liberal and was careful not to do so. Yet I expected someone to fall all over themselves trying to make a case that I did.:wavey:

 

Maybe my experience in fighting a war that was unpopular at home might shed some light.

I was in Viet Nam in 70-73. I was at a firebase when Fonda sat in the AA gun emplacement and cheered when a US Pilot went down.

Theoretically, I know it's possible to not support the war but support the soldiers, but to the grunt in the field, they were one and the same. When war protestors marched we heard about it from Radio Hanoi.

I don't doubt the patriotism of poeple who say we ought to get out at all. I know some of them love this country. But for me and those I served with in Vietnam, opposition to the war then was interpreted as hatred of those fighting it.

Coming home, I discovered that they really did hate those who fought when I was spit at and called baby killer.

I'm not a great fan of how this war is being prosecuted. But I will support both the soldiers and the cause because I do not want what was done to me and hundreds of thousands of other combat vets done to them. When the 4 guys from our church who are serving in Iraq come home, I want to be able to look them in the eyes without wondering if expression of opposition to the war made them feel like I felt.

 

But have the vets coming back from Iraq been spit on and called babykillers? I haven't read reports of it. Just because you think its a needless war, and you protest it, doesn't mean you spit on soldiers when they return. It is quite possible to support the troops without supporting the war. Its even possible to have family members in service and to go to peace marches.

 

Amen brother!

That's about how I felt about it back then when I was there and how I feel about now for those that are, once again, doing their duty while having the anti-war crowd proclaim the cause isn't right.

 

Since 1950

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bryant
Maybe my experience in fighting a war that was unpopular at home might shed some light.

I was in Viet Nam in 70-73. I was at a firebase when Fonda sat in the AA gun emplacement and cheered when a US Pilot went down.

Theoretically, I know it's possible to not support the war but support the soldiers, but to the grunt in the field, they were one and the same. When war protestors marched we heard about it from Radio Hanoi.

I don't doubt the patriotism of poeple who say we ought to get out at all. I know some of them love this country. But for me and those I served with in Vietnam, opposition to the war then was interpreted as hatred of those fighting it.

Coming home, I discovered that they really did hate those who fought when I was spit at and called baby killer.

I'm not a great fan of how this war is being prosecuted. But I will support both the soldiers and the cause because I do not want what was done to me and hundreds of thousands of other combat vets done to them. When the 4 guys from our church who are serving in Iraq come home, I want to be able to look them in the eyes without wondering if expression of opposition to the war made them feel like I felt.

You can certainly tell the difference in the definitions of "support" between those that faught in a war that was being undermined by liberals at home and those that didn't.

 

War

I have read what everybody has to say and whether this war is right or not. Or if we should stay out of their business, there is going to be war until the end of time. I dont think those wars will necissarily have justification but it's something the Bible says will be happening up until the end of time. God has a master plan and this is just part of that plan. God also instructs us to back up the people that He has put in government positions.:godisgood:

 

So if the liberal Democrat Congress passes a law that all churches have to recognize and perform gay marriages in their sanctuary or lose their tax-free status, we should just support these people he's put in government positions?????

 

Yes, and then we should rejoicefully turn in our tax-exempt status.

 

It's hilariously wrong to even say Paul is "like liberals."

 

We should respect them unless they force us to do ungodly acts, which are things that are against the Bible. There was lots of war in the Bible, I dont recall God ever saying to not ever have war. As far as gay marriages that would be against God's teaching, so that would be wrong.

 

And just how does the President qualify as part of Congress?

 

World War 2 was a war of survival for the United States. We did not get into that war based on deceit and lies. Besides that, those leading WW2 knew what they were doing. A terrible comparison.

 

The President is not part of Congress.

President Roosevelt asked Congress for a resolution authorizing war on Germany and received it in 1941.

President Bush asked Congress for a resolution authorizing war on Iraq and received it in 2002.

 

Like it or not, Congress, both houses, granted the authority to the President to use the military against Iraq in the law entitled the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq" which passed in 2002.

That was a declaration of war.

I know a lot of people are wishing they could take that back now, and some are even saying "we didn't vote to use military force in this law", yet they did just that and they are as fully culpable in the engagement of this war as the President is.

When Congress votes to allow the military to bomb the heck out some country, that sounds quite a bit like you're making war with that country.

Maybe I'm just not as smart as Congress to figure out which type of bombs being dropped on my head would constitute an act of war against me.:tonofbricks: