(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and (2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.Note the obligatory tripe about supporting the troops. If this means moral support, why are the tools of an immoral war due that? And if it means material support, why would anything but the fare home be appropriate?
Note also the presumptuousness. Not only is Congress's continued support pledged, so is the American people's. Hey, I'm part of the American people. No asked me. I don't support them, unless support means bringing them home forthwith.
As I said in a previous post:
I’m sick of the expression “Support the troops.” Its only purpose is to shut up dissenters against George II’s illegal war. If someone believes the troops are carrying out an immoral purpose, why would he support them? Such a person would want the troops to stop what they are doing and leave the place where they are doing it. He'd hardly want to keep their morale high. If the pro-war crowd must demand illogic on the part of their opponents, something is wrong with their case. The debate should be over the purpose of the war. Leave the troops out of it.
2 comments:
I'm with you Sheldon. I don't support the troops.
Speaking strictly for myself, when I read that any number of U.S. troops died in a given day, I just nod and keep reading. Life's a bitch.
I'll speak unabashedly. I hope
harm DOES come to them- and their families. And when they return- Give them NOTHING- not even a piece of rotted cardboard to keep their rearends warm. We can't keep spending money on used meat when it can go to so many other worthwhile purposes- like CEO compensation.
Post a Comment