LeftWing, you sound petulant and childish.  You'd be doing yourself a favor if you had an adult perform a review before each post.

As for the postulations ("to assume the truth or reality of with no proof, especially as the basis of an argument") you used to create this thread, I challenge you to provide examples for each of your statements.  

It's unlikely that you'll be able to do that because you've disingenuously forced disparate concepts together into simplistic, overbroad generalizations.  For example, "if you oppose the Iraq War then you hate the military"  ignores the rest of what goes into that particular equation.  First, "hate" is your interpretation.  "Support" is the operative word that is typically used.  Second, the left cannot claim to support the troops when their constant attempts to impede the completion of the military's task puts them in higher danger and has gotten more killed and wounded that otherwise would have been the case. 

And your lame "is the same as" examples are sophistic non-sequiturs that cannot be intelligently defended.

Logic?  Not from you, LeftWing.

Meanwhile the children are crossing the bridge

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

I was not in favor of deposing Saddam in the first instance, not because I suspected te evidence against him, which to my mind was and still is sufficient casus belli, but because I felt the undertaking would take too long, enabling the traitors in the MSM to wage a successful propaganda war against the resolve of America in this war AND, more importantly, would provide the wedge necessary to place the despicable Democrat tyrants back in control of the government where they would:  neither adequately address the issue of this war and implement a vast array of ruinous laws.

Because the objective could not be achieved within the short attention span of the American people, it should not be attempted.

A better move would have been to eliminate the Ayatollahs and their atomic bomb factory and simply allow whatever sort of government might arise there in its wake to occur.

Well wait a minute NL207, the Islamofascists must have done something to us to make us invade and occupy their land before Osama declared his Fatwah in 98.

Isn't that the truth? Why stop with the idea that we did something to them ? If we did something to them, the logic of the premise dictates we must discover what they did to us before that, to get to the root cause of why we did something to them that caused a retaliation on 911.

 I guess the brilliant WhichWacko and Ron Paul never discovered that idea in all their deep thinking on the matter.

 ( of course their answer is the USA is evil and does whatever the heck evil it wants and that has blowback consequences )

 My answer then is the Oslamofascists are evil and do whatever the heck they want to. Osama got booted out of Saudi Arabia, then out of the Sudan.... a man without a country who wants to rule Saudi Arabia by taking over their government in a bloody overthrow is who the libs and dems and ron paul the fool says we have to listen to.

 Frankly they're insane, and so dumbed down they're a joke.

 Osama gets a pass because he wants to overthrow the evil monarchy of the Saudi Regime, but if we went to overthrow the evil monarchy of the Saudi Regime, the same jerk offs would have a fit claiming we have no such right, but instead now claim we support and prop them and should not.

 I guess the conclusion to be drawn is never throw the liberals out of the USA, or they would feel every right to overthrow it and take it over by bloody coup, and would be unimpeachable no matter how many civilians they murdered in the attempt.

 I mean that's why the dems and libs hate right wing militias, right ? LOL

Now they side with one, a very overly zealous right wing militia - Osama, aligned against the USA, just like domestic militias they constantly denounce.

 I think the dems are a very bad joke. Of course they think so as well, because their best arguments for their side are smart aleck very bad jokes.

How does advocating surrender support the troops?

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

There was a thread on here, not too long ago, which asked the question whether it was possible to support the troops, and not their mission. There was really one answer, that was unable to be disputed. The thread is located here. The answer that is impossible to be argued against, is here. I will post for you the entirety of the answer now, although I know you will try and fight a losing argument against it...

Blonde,

I apologize for taking so long to respond, but to answer with trite platitudes or political party talking points would dishonor both the question you ask, and the men on behalf of whom you ask it. There is no simple answer, there is no single answer; it’s all intertwined in the choice of the words, the feeling behind the words, and the perceptions of those who utter them. Your question can be resolved into two distinct parts, and although you tie them together, they will be answered separately.

Consider the question, “does someone who actively criticizes and/or openly attacks the war on terror support the troops?” It stands alone, and does not require the second portion of your original thesis in order to be answerable. The answer is a resounding “NO!” Either condition states that the person voicing the opinion believes either there is no war on terror, or that the war on terror is wrong. If there is no war on terror, then the military is simply engaged in murder; if the war on terror is wrong, then the military is simply engaged in murder. Regardless of how the remarks are spun, that is the bottom line.

Recall the final days of the Vietnam War, if you will, and remember the universities, the media, and the “anything to be re-elected” politicians saying this exact thing, in these exact words! In a sense, those old protesters were far more honest, than today’s breed. They were wrong, horribly, criminally wrong, but they were at least honest about their feelings. Today we have the same groups, using the same dupes, to accomplish the same end. They have modified their words, because there is a certain amount of outcry against the blatant squeal of “the military is engaged in murder!” Now they hide their deceit in the claims of free speech, criticism of an unjust war, and attacks on those we elected, but oh, how we support the troops.

Frankly, they’re traitors, regardless of how they are excused, regardless of what they did in their past lives, regardless of the number of medals they received for combat, or the number of days they spent in prisoner of war camps. While the latter categories certainly have won the right to speak their minds, the manner in which they do so determines what they are today. Benedict Arnold was an American General…he was also an American traitor. John Kerry may not have been a general, but by his actions, he is no less a traitor than Arnold. The difference is that Arnold was dealt with as a traitor, Kerry et al have not been. The media and university structures have seen to that.

The cry, “return the troops as soon as humanely possible,” also stands alone. It’s a phrase thrown together with the initial drivel of criticism or attack as a way to defuse and hide the meaning behind the previous statement, “the military are murderers.” Oh they learned, did the masters of deceit, the sly purveyors of sound bites and “I know better than you” wisdom. They learned well there were now those who would counter their lies, and half-truths, though they also knew the basic person was too dull to seek and find the truth. The education system had done a wonderful job of dummying the masses down so they were incapable of even looking for, let alone finding, the truths behind the lies.

But for those who could or would search for the truth, and might, just might be able to open someone else’s eyes, they hide their deceits behind the hypocritical concern that “I want them home as soon as humanely possible.” After all, who can argue such a statement. Educators and school board members use the exact same ploy to justify anything they want. “It’s for the children!” Both are meaningless statements designed to elicit irrational emotional support for an otherwise untenable argument.

No Blonde, it is not possible to support the troops, yet criticize, or attack the war on terror. To answer the question in terms of the title of this thread, yes, supporting the troops means not criticizing the war on terror. The time for discussion and finding other plans was before hostilities began. Once started, the only thing coming out of the politician’s mouths and votes should be approval to do what ever is necessary to win, as quickly as possible. As far as the media goes, they have no constitutional claim to judge the war or the efforts to wage it. The duty of the press is to report, in as neutral terms as possible, events. Anything else belongs on the editorial page.

Someone said, in another thread, that there are no winners in a war. He was wrong. There is always a winner and a loser, and once started, there is no sense in being on the losing side.

V/R
Clyde

"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC

__________________________________________________________
If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.