Do you think it's possible to support troops in Iraq, but not support their mission?

[That New Guy]

Is it possible to support the troops by putting them in unncessary danger, and in the process getting 1600 of them killed for a mission that doesn't help America?

seems that if you supported the mission from the start, you were clearly aganist the troops.

[Summer Rain]

It's so nice that you attempted to remember where I live. They always say it's the though that counts. It's Oakland. There is a difference.

[badsoccerman]

Wait! Do you know how big France is? They could have a vial of smallpox buried anywhere there!!!! Let's nuke France!

My metal detector beeped in VOR's back yard. It could be a Doomsday Device!

[rockgurl]

I have two frienRAB serving there now. I just talked to Mike in Iraq two days ago and his feelings haven't changed since the conversation we had befor he left... WE BOTH DON'T SUPORT the war!! He tells me it seems he meets more people there that agree with us than not. So for a reality check there are soldiers there who don't support the war.

Let me also say that we both agree that we can't just up and walk away from this mess Bush created, We both hope the mission is completed asap.

[Tsunadezama]

I support our troops and their mission. We should confront evil where we find it. Sadaam was truly evil. May God protect and bless our troops.

[MrGizmo757]

John Kerry and John EdwarRAB to name two.

There was a lot of money going to the troops as well as the mission. Thank you for aknowledging that I provided the evidence. Point is, John Kerry voted not to give that money. Even though he said he supported the troops.

[hit me with a crowbar]

Oh and how did Bush lie...........All the Liberals said Saddam had WOMD too, including John Kerry and Howard Dean?

[nowork4 cappy]

Question. Are you not a liberal?

[OwlTotem]

The government itself did an investigation and concluded that there were no weapons of mass destruction. That investigation cited faulty intelligence. If you follow the trail of intelligence writing, you would uncover Cheney camped out at the Pentagon and twisting arms until they had the reports needed to invade. "The Lies of George W. Bush" by David Corn is a well researched book and documents what happened. Try this link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846
Republicans and come up with all sorts of other reasons now to justify the invasion, but these were not on the table for discussion before the invasion. As the recent leaked memo before the Blair election stated, there were only three justifications to invade under International Law. Everyone knew that two out of the three were impossible, and WMD was the only opportunity.

We invaded Iraq for the same reason that our government kisses the butt of Saudi Arabia: O-I-L.

In short, this is the Bush blood for oil program. If you think my support of saving lives in Iraq is a lie because I don't support the mission, that's a 360 degree Republican spin that bites itself in the butt. Why would I want people to get maimed and killed in Iraq? We need to honor our troops with a non Vietnam type situation that they can win.

Our best way to resolve the current conflict is to form a Sunnis Muslim country. Negotiate a truce with the Sunni insurgents. That would be a major concession to quell their insurgency. It would move them out of the 3 provinces that are compromised by violence. It would allow troops to focus on the non Iraqi terrorists and Al Qaeda. It would also give us a front line for conventional warfare against the Sunnis Muslims if their terrorism continues.

[Mr Mangoes]

CCR1994: Whoa there, now you're just being reasonable.