MasterPo Posted September 29, 2008 #26 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Arg. There is a difference between not wanting anything to happen to the troops, supporting them, making sure they have what they need, and then supporting what they are doing. Without the stuff, the support, they would be in greater danger. Understand? You Republicans are not that intellectually inferior. You know what he means. You're just spouting off a typical talking point. So if I know someone who is an alcoholic, while I don't support the drinking and urge them to stop it's OK to support the person's choice to continue drinking and it's OK to give them a bottle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishAidan07 Posted September 29, 2008 #27 Share Posted September 29, 2008 (edited) So if I know someone who is an alcoholic, while I don't support the drinking and urge them to stop it's OK to support the person's choice to continue drinking and it's OK to give them a bottle? No, because by giving them the bottle you are complicit in any health issues that may ensue. This is apples & oranges. If they choose not to support the troops, fund them, then the troops would be in greater danger. Now, of course you Republicans like to claim that Obama voted against funding the troops. But so did McCain. Why? because they disagreed with the time line that was included in these funding bills. So, if you are going to bash the Democrats for not funding the troops, then start bashing the Republicans. They did the same thing. Edited September 29, 2008 by IrishLexie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterPo Posted September 29, 2008 #28 Share Posted September 29, 2008 If they choose not to support the troops, fund them, then the troops would be in greater danger. If the end result is the same - the troops get funded and the war continues - then your reasoning for voting YES is irrelevant. The end result is the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishAidan07 Posted September 29, 2008 #29 Share Posted September 29, 2008 (edited) If the end result is the same - the troops get funded and the war continues - then your reasoning for voting YES is irrelevant. The end result is the same. It may be irrelevant but you can't claim that Democrats don't support the troops simply because they don't support the war. They are divided. You are trying to make them out to be the same, but it just isn't so. Edited September 29, 2008 by IrishLexie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted September 29, 2008 #30 Share Posted September 29, 2008 (edited) It may be irrelevant but you can't claim that Democrats don't support the troops simply because they don't support the war. They are divided. You are trying to make them out to be the same, but it just isn't so. They only say they support the troops out of political pressure. But as you can see they just can't get themselves to do so fully, so to support the troops they want bigger pay for them and benefits. That really will be big a difference in the battlefield. And some troops ends up supporting them instead, for more entitlements. Same old vote recruiting tool. Edited September 29, 2008 by AROCES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishAidan07 Posted September 29, 2008 #31 Share Posted September 29, 2008 False logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted September 29, 2008 #32 Share Posted September 29, 2008 If the end result is the same - the troops get funded and the war continues - then your reasoning for voting YES is irrelevant. The end result is the same. The end result is not the same, unless you consider that voters can't determine the difference in principles of the two attitudes. Supporting troops to ensure their safety while declaring yourself in opposition to the task the troops have been assigned carries humanitarian principles while supporting the troops for the purpose of achieving the task assigned to them is a militaristic principle. The result is not just constrained to the 'mission' but broadens out into the support for the mission by those who are funding it - the US taxpayers (your old friend, perception, rears it's head again) and thence to those who are promoting it. Erode that taxpayer/voter support and the result changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted September 30, 2008 #33 Share Posted September 30, 2008 For a very long time Obama (and Hilary at the time) had said he would start troop withdrawls pronto and we would be gone ASAP. But now he's singing a different tune knowing full well you can't just pull out. But that isn't getting a lot of play in the media. Where do you get this stuff? Obamas position has not changed. He has consistently wanted to immediately pull one or two brigades out a month as conditions permit. He has NEVER wanted to pull 150,000 troops out "immediately" - mostly because it's not physically possible. Your wingnut commentators need better facts. You can read all this on Obamas website. Saying your smears above over and over do not make them true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now