Support the troop = Support Bush ????

[shapeshifter]

I agree with David Icke on this.

What would you think if you interviewed a German in Nazi Germany, and they said, "Wull, I don't support Hitler, but I'm 100% behind the TROOPS."

People always condemn them for letting it go that far, like, even though you didn't personally torture, starve, enslave and kill any Jews...you watched and allowed it to go on, so you're also terrible.


And I've heard people say that they can't believe all the Germans went along with the atrocities before WW2, but that's what Americans are doing now.
Many of them think our gov't. is committing atrocities right now, but they allow it.

Saying "I was just following orders." isn't considered to be a sufficient excuse for Nazi war criminals and it isn't sufficient for present day Americans either.

So, I don't think you can actually say you're against the war but for the troops, because the troops ARE the war. The gov't. said to invade Iraq for no good reason and the soldiers are the ones who complied.

Being patriotic and loving America does not mean that you should mindlessly obey every American administration, at all.
There was a time when, in America, if you helped a Black person escape from a White person that was raping and torturing him/her...it was a crime.
Thank God some people disobeyed the U.S. government.

the death camps were run by Nazi soldiers not german soldiers. there is a big difference. German soldiers were in the war, but the nazi's were a republic within a republic

 

[Hotwire]

So you're saying if a democrat started the war, then we wouldn't have had any trouble in Iraq. Everyone would have been happy, no deaths no PTSD, nothin'.

The point isn't that a republican started the war, it's that the war was started under false pretense. Bush and his team sold the American people on Saddam having weapons of mass destruction, and was about to point them at us. He also used our outrage over 9/11 to fuel this fire. Then once we were at war with Iraq, a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, and found no weapons, he changed his reasons for being there. He has now created an unwinable mess and dares to call any who feel that he's wrong, unpatriotic. And FDR didn't start WWII, he simply allowed Pearl Harbor to happen so that the American people would support him getting involved.

 

[shapeshifter]

You two can argue this left and right, up and down and it will solve nothing. You cannot change the system, you cannot change each other. This system is all about control, and keeping us apart is one of the best methods.

 

[PLAS]

The point isn't that a republican started the war, it's that the war was started under false pretense. Bush and his team sold the American people on Saddam having weapons of mass destruction, and was about to point them at us. He also used our outrage over 9/11 to fuel this fire. Then once we were at war with Iraq, a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, and found no weapons, he changed his reasons for being there. He has now created an unwinable mess and dares to call any who feel that he's wrong, unpatriotic. And FDR didn't start WWII, he simply allowed Pearl Harbor to happen so that the American people would support him getting involved.

one of history's traits it's the tendency it has to repeat itself

 

[Addendum]

So you're saying if a democrat started the war, then we wouldn't have had any trouble in Iraq. Everyone would have been happy, no deaths no PTSD, nothin'.

Someone actually asked on Yahoo Answers why so many people were dying in this "republican" war, like democratic wars have this amazing shield of protection around the troops. More than 300,000 american troops died in WWII and it was started by a democrat (FDR)

I'm saying that a civilian speaking out against the war, or a politician speaking out against the war doesn't affect troop morale, despite some conservative pundits who think so. The soldiers are too busy trying to stay alive to pay attention to that stuff that doesn't affect them.

Besides, what's going to hurt the morale of a soldier? A democratic candidate speaking out against the war, wanting that soldier to come home? Or, getting a letter from his fiancee and with that letter is the engagement ring he bought for her before leaving for Iraq? Or better yet, getting a letter from the wife which says that she is leaving you?

If you think that the above means that if a president from the democratic party started the war in Iraq that there would be no trouble, is nothing but ****ty reading comprehension skills from you.

 

[souloffire]

And FDR didn't start WWII, he simply allowed Pearl Harbor to happen so that the American people would support him getting involved.

Would you care to back that up?

 

[Hotwire]

Would you care to back that up?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
This conspiracy theory was brought to my attention by my high school civics teacher.

 

[souloffire]

http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/2003/09/22/mpMichaelMeachersCrackpotConspiracyTheories.html

 

[SuperMonkey]

FDR didn't start WWII.

If you're using that logic, then Bush didn't start the war on terror.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Someone actually asked on Yahoo Answers why so many people were dying in this "republican" war, like democratic wars have this amazing shield of protection around the troops. More than 300,000 american troops died in WWII and it was started by a democrat (FDR)

Lmao. Hitler started WW2, and I thought that was common knowledge. Besides, war was inevitable for America when it came for WW2, FDR's only choice was when we would get pulled into it. Bush never had to go to war in the first place, but chose to.

If you're using that logic, then Bush didn't start the war on terror.

Uh.. no. It's apples and oranges. Hitler was a direct threat to America and to Europe. Saddam, while believed to be dangerous at the time, was never a threat to us. Also, this pre-emptive crap set a horrible precedent. It basically makes it so that if a country even so much as suspects that another country might have intentions of attacking them, then it's a proper justification for going to war with said country. WW2 was NOTHING like that idiocy. We were directly attacked by the Japanese. On 9/11, we were directly attacked by Osama bin Laden, then we spent a little while looking for him and changed our focus to Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

The point isn't that a republican started the war, it's that the war was started under false pretense. Bush and his team sold the American people on Saddam having weapons of mass destruction, and was about to point them at us. He also used our outrage over 9/11 to fuel this fire. Then once we were at war with Iraq, a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, and found no weapons, he changed his reasons for being there. He has now created an unwinable mess and dares to call any who feel that he's wrong, unpatriotic.

I blame Republicans,because even after all this..they still stand by Bush.Even when the "war" is lost,and it's a matter of time before the people elect a President who will end the conflict and bring them home.

My friend's husband just returned from Iraq about 2 weeks ago. He's messed up in the head and it's sad to see how it's affecting my friend and their children.

Blame Bush,for forcing him to go there.Or the lies he said to convince him to go there.

 

[EdRyder]

Lmao. Hitler started WW2, and I thought that was common knowledge. Besides, war was inevitable for America when it came for WW2, FDR's only choice was when we would get pulled into it. Bush never had to go to war in the first place, but chose to.Uh.. no. It's apples and oranges. Hitler was a direct threat to America and to Europe. Saddam, while believed to be dangerous at the time, was never a threat to us. Also, this pre-emptive crap set a horrible precedent. It basically makes it so that if a country even so much as suspects that another country might have intentions of attacking them, then it's a proper justification for going to war with said country. WW2 was NOTHING like that idiocy. We were directly attacked by the Japanese. On 9/11, we were directly attacked by Osama bin Laden, then we spent a little while looking for him and changed our focus to Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Actually Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931-That was the start of WW2

 

[SuperMonkey]

Lmao. Hitler started WW2, and I thought that was common knowledge. Besides, war was inevitable for America when it came for WW2, FDR's only choice was when we would get pulled into it. Bush never had to go to war in the first place, but chose to.Uh.. no. It's apples and oranges. Hitler was a direct threat to America and to Europe. Saddam, while believed to be dangerous at the time, was never a threat to us. Also, this pre-emptive crap set a horrible precedent. It basically makes it so that if a country even so much as suspects that another country might have intentions of attacking them, then it's a proper justification for going to war with said country. WW2 was NOTHING like that idiocy. We were directly attacked by the Japanese. On 9/11, we were directly attacked by Osama bin Laden, then we spent a little while looking for him and changed our focus to Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Please note that I said "War on Terror" not "Iraq War"

 

[SuperMonkey]

Actually Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931-That was the start of WW2

Most historians agree on '39, as the start of WWII because that's when all hell broke loose in Europe and the axis started getting their act together.