Consider this: Morale is the number 1 fuel for soldiers on the battlefield: the will to fight. It's their drive. Their MOTIVE. Number 2 is nutrition. You can fight malnourished if you have the morale and drive to do it. Emotions such as love and hate and patriotism are also fuels, but these essentially power the number 1 fuel: morale. So: who here supports the troops? Do you hate them for fighting this "lie" of a war? Do you just want them home because you care "so much" about them and think that their cause is in vain? Or, do you support them because they valiantly serve their country? If you answered and/or voted YES, MAYBE, SORT OF, or KIND OF to one or both of the first two questions, then you are a hypocrite and do not honestly support our troops. Here's the logic: You may come across, by wanting our troops home so badly because the war is stupid, you may come across to people as "loving" and "heartfelt" but really, you are killing our soldiers. Maybe not directly, but look at the larger picture. The general attitude of Americans and Britons, etc, about this war against terrorism affects our soldiers overseas. They see, hear, and read about our lack of faith in this war and wonder things like, "Why am I fighting here then?" "What purpose will this do for me or my country?" How do I know this? I've interviewed several veterans and soldiers still serving in Iraq. It kills their morale. You take away their ambition. And you give it to the enemy. If I was over there and had to see death and carnage every day or week, I would hate to see my country overseas enjoying their tea and crumpets while I put my life on the line to defend their freedom to say stupid stuff like that. Now ponder that. You can disagree with the war if you want. But you MUST support it to support and honestly, truly support and love our troops. Don't put a mask up as a coward would for people to read... it'll only destroy our country...
I think you need more choices in your poll. I love my country and consider myself patriotic. I have a high respect for people in the military, even my niece is marrying a captain in the army in july(next month) and we love him too. But I am just unclear on what the cause is at this point...Gtech posted an article the other day about how are troops had saved some captives being tortured by al-qaeda and that made me feel really good. I will always be proud of our troops because they would be my family, friends and neighbors. But I think Bush could be better at communicating to the American people why we are there and what is going on. I worry about our soldiers...
Chilum that is the most biased poll on earth. How about this choice. I dont support that lie of a war because i have the intelligence to see when the elite are using our soldiers and making a mokery of their lives. Please insert that one or are u afraid that many people will select it? I dare you to put it there but i know u wontttttttttttt
Rebecca, this war was faought over a lie, pure and simple. bush cant tell everyone why our soldiers are there because there will be a public uproar. I have proven time and time again why saddam and osama werent in league together . Will bush show this proof also ? No wayyyyyyyyy. He said even if there werent wmd's or osama in league with saddam it was still right to go in there because saddam was a tyrant that killed his own country men. If this is true then why didnt we invade syria when hafez assad literall bulldozed a whole town. With the people still in the town!!!!!!!!!! If more people in our great country educated themselves as to teh real reasons why we are at war there wouldnt be any pro war people among the masses. Our troops are human beings and they deserve better. How mmany troops are gonna come back from this bs war with lost limbs or arms? and for what reason? OIL and power for the eliteeeeeeee?????????? I protest because i love my troops. this isnt a noble war to save the world from hitler. This is a war for oil and power. plain and simpleeeeeeee
The irony is that they are people that are murdering others and it's accepted as civilized behavior. Why?
The US army is short of men, so they accept skinnheads and gangbangers. The same people killing someone on a gettho in America becomes an US marine in iraq, Most US troops are okay I guess.
Which lie are you referring to, again? How many times I've corrected your assertion. Apparently if you disagree with something, it's acceptable to perpetuate a lie about it. Right ping? I thought you were a better man than that.
That's alright - I agree with you a lot, actually. I think Bush could be more open with the public and should have more announcements, etc. That's the one single thing that I wish he would do better at. But, this issue seems a bit unconnected with the one at hand. Correction: It's the most HONEST poll on earth! You would just never admit that. With my ability to write with intelligence (in comparison to YOURS), I shall answer your statement: I won't put it in there because it's a void poll answer anyway. Go tell any veteran that the war they served in did nothing but mock their lives. See what they think of that. You obviously have every means to explain your conspiracy theories so perfectly and concretely as to WHY we "faought" this war over a lie. See, you keep missing the point. They don't HAVE to be directly "in league" together for them to be enemies... or threats. Did you ever get an education? (ooo... speaking of which...) ...there would be a lot less people like you. And that would be pretty much militaristic suicide. Great strategy. Kill all our troops. Just surrender to the enemy. I see what you're sayin. If you say so, that's what they'll believe. You can't go bashing their war efforts and expect them to come home alive or die proudly! No you don't. You hate them. And you're contributing to the mass that is draining their morale. You will, of course, deny this, but I wouldn't EXPECT you to admit it. I just figured I'd point it out. Do you have a stuttering problem? Where is it accepted as civil behavior?
In my mind, it has a lot to do with it. Because your main premise is that we need to support the cause, our country and our troops. Yet if you ask the average American what is our cause or mission in Iraq, most people are not really sure. I think that is why there is not much unity on this subject.
So in your world, people who bring soldiers home where nobody shoots at them and there is no roadside bombs are killing them while people who keep them there where they can be killed in any minute, are saving them. Why don't you save yourself and go to Iraq because you can be killed by staying in U.S.? Or are you only interested in "saving" others by keeping them in Iraq while you sit at home and face the "danger"?
i do! imagine what kind of job to risk your life for your country who doesnt even care for you and who gives minimum wage! modern hero!
Ok time to dig into my old posts. I guess u guys wanna be put to shame again. You know how much i hate doing this but to defend the tropps over a lie, heckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk yaaaaaa anytimeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
gtech and gang, see if u stop mentioning it isnt a lie, then i will stop posting the truth. In your cases silence is the best policy ti keep promoting your views on this lie of a war on this message board. Here is the post, thank you, god bless you and god bless the truthhhhhhhhhhhhhhh May 2nd 2007, 1:30 am pingpong123 Spirit Walker Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,040 Evidence of no ties between saddam and osama -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry Gtech but the evidence that al-Zarqawi having a connection with saddam is flimsy at best and most of that evidence came from iraqi defectors. al-Zarqawi Operated in northern iraq(an area outside of saddams jurisdiction) Of course abc news wont report this but i had to debunk this bologni once and for all. Thursday, September 18, 2003 Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found President says Saddam had ties to al-Qaida, but apparently not to attacks By SCOTT SHEPARD COX NEWS SERVICE WASHINGTON -- President Bush, having repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said yesterday there is no evidence that the deposed Iraqi leader had a hand in those attacks, in contrast to the belief of most Americans. The president's comments came in response to a reporter's question about Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press" program that Iraq was the "geographic base" of the terrorists behind the attacks on New York and Washington. Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11. "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida. "And al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties." Most of the administration's public assertions have focused on the man Bush mentioned, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a senior Osama bin Laden associate whom officials have accused of trying to train terrorists in the use of poison for possible attacks in Europe, running a terrorist haven in northern Iraq -- an area outside Saddam's control -- and organizing an attack that killed an American aid executive in Jordan last year. Security analysts, however, say al-Zarqawi made his way to Iraq, where his leg was amputated. . Unconfirmed reports claim he then visited northern Iraq, where a militant Islamic group affiliated with al-Qaida is encamped not far from the border with Iran. The group, however, far from being an ally of Saddam, sought to replace his secular government with an Islamic regime. A senior intelligence official, who asked not to be identified, said the information linking the group, Ansar al Islam, to Saddam comes "almost exclusively from defectors produced by the Iraqi opposition. They are not uniformly credible." Bush's statement was the latest in a series by administration officials this week that appeared to distance the White House from the widely held public perception that Saddam was a key figure in the attacks. Publicly, at least, Bush has not explicitly blamed the attacks on Saddam. In speech after speech, however, the president has strongly linked Saddam and al-Qaida, the terrorist organization of bin Laden, the renegade Saudi whose followers hijacked jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania. In his May 1 declaration of military victory in Iraq from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, Bush said, "We have removed an ally of al-Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding." He also said, "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror." Two months earlier, in a speech aimed at mustering public support for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Bush said, "The attacks of September 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction." Critics have said the steady drumbeat of that message has tied Saddam to the attacks in the mind of the public. A recent poll by The Washington Post found that nearly seven Americans out of 10 believe Saddam played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, a notion the administration has done little to tamp down. But retired NATO commander Wesley Clark, in a little noticed appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press" on June 15, charged that "a concerted effort ... to pin 9/11" on Saddam began in the fall of 2001, and "it came from people around the White House." Clark, who declared his campaign for president yesterday, did not identify anyone by name. It was just weeks after the terrorist attacks that the first link between Saddam and al-Qaida was alleged by the administration. It came from Cheney, who said it had been "pretty well confirmed" that Mohamed Atta, the man held responsible for masterminding the Sept. 11 hijackings, had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in April 2000, an allegation congressional investigators later dismissed. Sunday, Cheney began the group of Bush administration officials denying any ties between Saddam and Sept. 11. He said "we don't know" whether Saddam was connected to the attacks, but admitted, "It's not surprising that people make that connection." The vice president also said: "If we are successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good, representative government in Iraq that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." White House National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, in an interview aired late Tuesday on ABC's "Nightline," said one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged." But she insisted, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11." Her remarks echoed those of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a briefing for reporters at the Pentagon earlier Tuesday. Asked if Saddam was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, Rumsfeld replied, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that." White House spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated to reporters yesterday that the administration never directly linked Saddam to the Sept. 11 strikes. "If you're talking specifically about the September 11th attacks, we never made that claim," McClellan said. "We do know that there is a long history of Saddam Hussein and his regime and ties to terrorism, including al-Qaida." __________________ "The really valuable thing in the pageant of human life seems to me not the State but the creative, sentient individual, the personality; it alone creates the noble and the sublime, while the herd as such remains dull in thought and dull in feeling." And yet there is no eveidence at all as the cia later proved. everytime someone challenges my assertion that this war is based on a lie i will post this , again and again and again. I OWE THIS TO OUR TROOPS AND THE CIVILIAN IRAQI PEOPLE WHO ARE DEAD AND THEIR DESTROYED COUNTRY!!!!! case closeddddddddddddddd
NO. People who TALK about wanting our soldiers home and don't actually do that for whatever reason (especially if they have the power to do so) are the ones hurting our effort and morale. Stop trying to twist what I've said. Oh, right, just like you did earlier in this thread? Hey! Where's your rebuttal, eh? Wow, you completel "owned" me How old are you? Defectors are always some of the best sources of information. It's *anything* but flimsy. Maybe not directly related to 9/11, but does that make him innocent? Oh! And here you post that and admit that Saddam had ties to AlQaeda but not to attacks... whereas earlier you were just saying that Saddam had NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda. Make up your mind please, you ignorant liberal. Did you even read the article? How stupid can you get? Come back when you are not retarded, please. Your mind, the nutcase, you mean? Yes, your mind has been closed for as long as I've debated against you... I've lost all hope of even squishing the slightest bit of light into your ignorant, closed mind...
What is a hero to you? Someone who expresses a mind of violence in a fearless manner? In the end no family or individual gains anything , only loss of lives and destruction is achieved. One hero is another side's terrorist : Think deeper and you'll realize that. Maybe we should change the way we view hero's.
Chulium and as usual your ignorance is unreal. "We do know that there is a long history of Saddam Hussein and his regime and ties to terrorism, including al-Qaida." Where is it einstein? Show this evidence to us. We all know he cant and you know he cant. i say that apples and oranges are the same but i know i would appear to be a total idiot if i cant prove it. As i said again where is your evidence and where is this gentlemans evidence. Defectors being having good evidence? Who the heck made that statement up????????? you? Give me evidence instead of blanket statements. You tried dissecting that article as hard as you could to find even a microscopic speck of a statement that u agreed with and this is the best you can do. Do me a favor next time. Try defending the truth, you will get more than one line statements to back your beliefs up this way, but then again it might actually cause u to wake up for your intellectual slumber long enough to take off your rose colored glasses lol. Im disappointed, i disagree with gtech on this but at least he could give me a way better more mature rebuttal thgen this. I think i will restrict my questions to him from now loooooooooooooooool
lol, thinking the troops shouldn't have be sent to iraq where they could be killed or maimed equals hating them so essentially if you think troops should be home with their families means you hate them
What a lame, loaded poll. I guess my answer is that the way you made your poll reflects the type of blindness and mob mentality that gave politicians the green light to get into this "war". "Either you're for it or you're unpatriotic"