« Fasten Your Seatbelt Please | Main | Query Letters »

March 01, 2005

How Can You Support The Troops But Not The War?

Recently the subject of supporting our troops has been comming to a head.
For conservatives our support is obvious and automatic, but for liberals it`s not quite so easy.

Sure they say they support the troops but true support comes from an individuals actions, not just their words.
So how does one justify saying "I support the troops" while at the same time tearing off yellow magnetic ribbons or joining a "No Blood For Oil" protest?

I think the cold hard reality is that they have to say they support the troops. It`s not a matter of moral principals, compassion, patriotism or any such silly notion. No, it boils down to the bottom line.

This decade isn`t the same as the 60s. In the 60s companies had money to burn and could afford to throw money at a frivolous cause in order to get a tax break whether they agreed with the cause or not.
Many radical 60s political orginizations were financed by these companies. Companies who gambled that the immediate benifits would outweigh any possible future consequences.

Well in this day and age, the 21st century, those kind of deep pocket, Daddy Warbucks companies are extinct and the liberals of the moonbat variety found that out shortly after the invasion of Iraq.

Due to increased competition and some de regulation todays companies have a slimmer profit margin and as a result they are more discerning about who gets donations.
A companies first priority is always the bottom line. They`re in buisness to make money.
In the 60s they could afford to support a questionable cause and absorb a loss, with the hope of recouping it in the future.

Today they can`t. Profit margins are too slim and budgets are too tight to take a gamble on anything other than a sure thing.
Ask some of the companies and industries in Phrance how well they have been doing since they decided to alienate us.

So before the invasion, the liberals were all eager to get some financial backing from their old reliable financial supporters, they assumed that it would be an eternal source of free money and never entertained the notion that they would suddenly be cut off.

Imagine their suprise when they realized that captains of industry were in fact, realists.
Imagine the betrayal they must have felt when it was made clear to them that a company survives by making money and it could easily fail by backing an un popular cause such as theirs.

Imagine their shock when they were taught that un popular = unprofitable in the shark infested competitive world of buisness and that companies can no longer afford to absorb such losses as they did in the 60s.

Just for laughs, imagine also that some companies even approved of the war on terror.

With all that taken into consideration the liberals had to come up with something that wouldn`t offend too many people, yet would still allow them to beg for money, albeit on a much smaller scale.

What they came up with was "We Support The Troops But Not The War".

Well, FYI you can`t have one without the other. I don`t care how you try to justify a statement like that with chop logic psycho-babble it is still meaningless.

Liberals DO NOT support the troops. It`s impossible to support something while at the same time trying to undermine it.
They say they support the troops out of financial necessity and for no other reason.

The liberals and their financial supporters learned a hard lesson from the 60s. The lesson wasn`t immediatley obvious and it didn`t rush upon them all at one.

It took years to nurture and grow while at the same time it was slowly and almost imperceptibly becomming a part of the American psyche.
The lesson was Shame, Guilt and Outrage.

It took years to learn that lesson because it took years to learn the truth about those who orginized and supported the Vietnam War protesters.
It took years to search and compare news reports, government reports, academic reports and political rhetoric, to sort the wheat from the chaffe and arrive at a kernel of truth.

When it was discovered, for instance, that some protester orginizations at that time were actually communist fronts designed to undermine American society there was denial from the orginizations (of course) but outrage from most conservatives.
As more and more of the truth began to become apparent over time, some of those very same protesters who were open minded enough to look at the facts, became ashamed of what they did, they became ashamed of being so naive, and then they became outraged also, and as a result, came over to the right side.

During this slow lesson learning experience America underwent a decided shift to the right and has remained there since Reagan.

The liberals learned that things are not as they were. In their happy state of self centered exploration reality passed them by, and when they attempted to "Take Back The Streets" once again they found very few supporters.
They had to adapt.
"We support the troops but not the war" became their slogan.
Unfortunately for them, they never learned to grasp the concept of free thinkers.

That the average American was well educated and well informed was incomprehensible to them, and they learned that propaganda doesn`t work on a well informed society.

They became complacent from their glory days of the 60s and as a result, fell asleep at the wheel while American society passed them by.
When they finally woke up they simply assumed that nothing had changed.

"Americans are gullible. A few slogans, a few loud protests, get the media on our side and we should have them eating out of our hands again."

Well it didn`t happen. If you wonder why, it`s simple.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Americans don`t like to be made fools of.

This is just my personal opinion based on nothing more than observation of events, but I honestly believe that I`m 100% on taget here.

To prove my point, the next time a liberal tells you they support the troops but not the war, ask them for examples.
I`m almost positive that their replies will have to do with protesting the war in one form or another which, in effect, doesn`t answer the question since it`s not supporting the troops in any way shape or form.

I got a little carried away on this post. It was supposed to be a short lead in paragraph and then some copy and pasting with a couple of links thrown in and then a special treat at the end, but I get passionate about my convictions sometimes and this went a little long.

Since I didn`t get around to that yet, you, the readers, will just have to sit on the edge of you seat in anticipation until tomorrow.

- Joatmoaf -

March 1, 2005 at 05:40 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How Can You Support The Troops But Not The War?:

» Weekly Round-Up from Schadenfreude
1. Hey, it's Billy Jack! No, wait, it's Dr (?) Ward Churchill. And he pays Dennis a visit. 2. Joatmoaf asks the question everyone in uniform has been dying to. We are patiently waiting for an answer from the Left.... [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 4, 2005 12:53:57 PM

» Weekly Round-Up from Schadenfreude
1. Hey, it's Billy Jack! No, wait, it's Dr (?) Ward Churchill. And he pays Dennis a visit. 2. Joatmoaf asks the question everyone in uniform has been dying to. We are patiently waiting for an answer from the Left.... [Read More]

Tracked on Dec 27, 2005 12:15:02 PM


God bless our troops.

Posted by: Dex at Mar 2, 2005 9:46:17 AM

Amen Brother Dex!!!

Posted by: Joatmoaf at Mar 2, 2005 5:30:41 PM

Michael Medved and David Horowitz are two good examples of former radicals who realized just what you're talking about.

Posted by: chris naron at Mar 3, 2005 1:06:44 AM

Yes, thanks Chris that`s two very good examples.

Posted by: Joatmoaf at Mar 3, 2005 11:59:22 AM


I'm gonna link this later today. Thanks for another excellent post.

Posted by: Dan at Mar 4, 2005 7:35:48 AM

It is time to pay the price for binary statements, homes.

I support every troop where it counts - in their right to live honorably. Unlike the thugs in DC who have sent the troops to places where their lives are in mortal danger, I would like to see them brought back to America, where they can enjoy their lives, the love of their families and their children.

Unlike this casual chap, those selfish and powerful individuals have cooked up a war on false pretenses, sold it to the masses and have devised all sorts of ways to put the troops in situations where horrible things happen.

Not just are troops stuck over there, we've been generating legions of enemies by providing them training at our expense in blood and treasure.

The finger of blame points straight to DC, not to the liberals.

Posted by: Collin Baber at Mar 4, 2005 9:45:38 PM

The enemies have been there from the beginning Colin, don`t kid yourself.
You know it all do you?
Why don`t you and your enlightened liberal bretheren educate us.
Why don`t you educate the troops. Apparently you seem to think that our men and women in uniform must be nothing more than a bunch of illiterate boobs who were so naive as to be amBushed into joining.
Explian to us your secret information on how the war was cooked up.
Tell us why your reasoning is so much wiser than the majority of Americans, and then, just for laughs, tell us why we should care.

Don`t come here with accusations only.
If you have a counter point to make then be prepared to back it up with proof.

Where`s your proof Collin?

This post was about the exact same kind of hypocritical BS you just used in you comment Collin.
Understand something Collin old chap, I would like them to come home also, but a job worth doing is worth doing right.
Until the job is finished. I`d rather they stayed.

Posted by: Joatmoaf at Mar 5, 2005 6:45:19 AM

Collin, you also just proved my point.
Give me an EXAMPLE of your support, besides partisan rhetoric.

Posted by: Joatmoaf at Mar 5, 2005 9:27:46 AM

Hi Joatmoaf,

I'm happy you wrote back and asked for clarification. We all can be misled, especially during armed conflict when the national government is promoting violence as a form of problem resolution.

The deception comes from a very successful domestic psyop campaign that sold us a conflict under false pretenses. Through a combination of fear, false linkages and outright lies, our government has deceived us into a near fascistic support of armed hostility. Opposition to the use of force is branded as not befitting their militant style of patriotism.

An example would be the 45 minute claim for WMD. Another would be that secular Hussein would hand over WMD to islamists dedicated to his downfall.

I like Scheuer, who knows islamists all too well. We are like a godsend to the Bin Laden groupies by establishing a dynamic terrorist training camp right in the heart of the Mideast. After destroying a self-funding secular regime, we created a fully U.S.-taxpayer-funded, real-life military leadership school where the Zarqawis and islamist wannabes of the world can come in free-of-charge and bloodily fight their way to graduation. Man, we are training them way over there so that they can fight us later here!

That is why I would like to shut down the expensive training camp, allow those troops stuck in Iraq to come back and live their lives happily in America.

If we're going to get out of there, why not get going now?

Posted by: Collin Baber at Mar 6, 2005 5:15:48 AM


While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I think yours is sadly misguided.

You say, "For conservatives our support is obvious and automatic, but for liberals it`s not quite so easy."

What is that crap? Since when does conservative=patriot and liberal=anti-american? Anyone who starts with a statement like that loses complete credibility in my book. You have fallen victim to all the rhetoric spit out by those idiots on TV. I happen to be a registered republican, but I am so fed up of BOTH sides becoming so marginalized. These days, if you are a republican, you must be a right-wing-gun-toting-Christian-war-mongering-wacko, and if you are a democrat, you must be a liberal-anti-american-tree-hugging-vegetarian-communist. In the words of the great John Stewart, "You are hurting America."

Why is a guy who carries a sign that says, "Bring our troops home" all day long and then goes home to send care packages to those very troops so hard to fathom? Aren't both actions for the benefit of the troops?

Forget how you feel about this war for a second. Say that one day we do have an irresponsible president that sends us to war for the wrong reasons. I've been a Marine for over 10 years now. I would still go without question and fight, regardless of my personal feelings. However, I would hope and pray that there are smart enough people back home to make sure that if America is sending its best to die for a cause, it is a worthwhile one.

The guys over there now are fighting for their buddies next to them and they do their jobs like the professionals they are. They are not waking up every morning excited about "the cause". Seeing the fruits of their work are a motivating factor, but it is not why they clean their rifles 3 times a day. I believe you were in the Navy, so you should certainly understand this.

My wife and the 99% of my family (including a retired Army Vietnam Vet) were opposed to us going into Iraq. 99% of them voted for Kerry this past election too. Most of them go out of their way to support our troops over there, and they are certainly extremely proud to have me in the Marine Corps. I find no contradictions there.

That's another thing: it takes a lot more than putting a stupid sticker on your car to support our troops (that's a tirade for another time though). So when you talk about conservative's support being automatic, that is a load of BS. Just as you also wrote, action is far more powerful than words.

Posted by: HJ at Mar 6, 2005 9:09:51 AM


Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Wrong War, Wrong Time.
Bush Lied, People Died.

It seems you`ve touched base on all anti-war talking points and yet sise stepped my original question.
This post wasn`t about the validity or morality of the war as you would know if you had read it without any preconcieved notions or an unbiased attitude.
It`s about THOSE LIBERALS who continually chant 'We Support The Troops But Not The War'

So my question to them, and you is HOW?

How do you support them?
Give me legitimate examples, an anti- war protest is not an acceptable example.

What have you done for them LATELY? What?

This site is chock full of FACTS on the war on terror and if you want a rebuttal I suggest you start checking the archives.
THIS post ask the question; How can you support the troops but not the war?

Anti-War Protests?
Call the troops ignorant pawns?
Call them war mongers?
Implying that our troops are too stupid to understand international politics and their repercussions?

Some support, and it`s about the most elitist, arrogant and pompous attitude I`ve seen in a while.
Why not just be honest?
You don`t like Bush, Duh. We already knew that.
Keep in mind that Bush based most of his intel on Al Quiada AND Saddams WMD of information from Klintons administration.
Also keep in mind (although I`m sure you knew it but chose to "forget") that many in the Clinton administration suggested that we do EXACTLY as Bush did.
So answer the question,and save your rhetoric for someone gullible enough to swallow it.O.K?

Posted by: Joatmoaf at Mar 6, 2005 12:45:55 PM

First HJ, I have never equated 'Liberals' with Democrats.
Although some democrats are liberal, most liberals aren`t democrats. That`s not to say I have never used the two in the same context because if it applies to the topic then it applies.

"For conservatives our support is obvious and automatic, but for liberals it`s not quite so easy."

I meant exactly what I said and I laied out my reasoning for saying it.

If you are "a guy" carrying a "bring our troops home" sign all day, then sending CARE packages at night, then you answered my question and I have no beef with you, but you would also be a tiny minority of THOSE LIBERALS to whom this post was addressed.

I`ve said before that if someone has legitimate reasons being against the war, then I can respect that.

HOWEVER, THIS post is specifically aimed at those who use The War on Terror as the platform for their hatred of Bush. They use the same "psyops" mentioned but they have a nedia advantage.
A lie is a lie no matter how well it`s wrapped.

I also happen to know a few of our fighting men and women and the MAJORITY are for a definitave victory over terror.
They want to go over there and kick Al Quiadas ass. Period.
I`ve also heard of some of the military types you mention and even met one.
They`re plastered all over the network news and the one I met had personel reasons for being against the war, i.e., he joined for the education benifits, not to actually have to fight.
I`m not claiming they`re all like him (detractors) but many are, and they are usually the ones joining the liberal "cause", so what are we supposed to think?

The left uses the worst examples that we on the right could think of, for their "cause" and we`re supposed to be sympathetic to something or someone so self-centered?
I think not.
Your example of protesting, then sending CARE pakages is an example of how you can support the troops but not the war and is commendable, but unfortunately, you are a minority.

Politics and psycology go hand in hand and the only way to make the proper decision in politics is to get the facts.
Over the years I have taken "facts" from the left and "facts" from the right and compared them against each other.
While both parties are going to try to skew the facts to their prospective agendas I`ve found the the "right facts" are almost always more indicative of the truth than the "left facts".

I`m a conservative, NOT a republican, NOT Libertarian, NOT independant, I`m a conservative.
After I`ve fact checked EVERYONE it turns out that the republican party fall closer to my ideals than any other so I vote republican.

Posted by: Joatmoaf at Mar 6, 2005 1:37:44 PM

Dear Joatmoaf,

Thanks for clarifying.

A way to support the troops is by not sending them into harms way under false pretenses.

Another way is to vote and act in ways to reduce their risk bearing if they are sent anywhere at all.

Another way is to acknowledge their needs and recognize where their needs and the wants of those writing their combat orders differ.

I would be honest with them, just as I am with you. Honest as in no stop-loss, no abuse of trust and no "bring 'em on".

It is not my objective to convince you at all. That decision is yours. Only you can convince you.

Posted by: Collin Baber at Mar 6, 2005 6:33:27 PM

Collin, we could dance around all day as you ignore the question while spouting political rhetoric.
I`m not taking the bait.
We all know how people from your political arena feel about the war and I personally don`t care.

Answer the question please and save the rhetoric if you can.

Posted by: Joatmoaf at Mar 6, 2005 9:09:40 PM

Perhaps I don't understand the question.

Is it being said that it is simply impossible to de-link support for the soldiers ordered into combat from support of the war itself?

Posted by: Collin Baber at Mar 6, 2005 11:17:24 PM

You didn`t give any examples other than political reasons.
Perhaps you should re-read the post, then if you are legitimatly against the war fine, but give me some examples, sans politics, of how you support the troops.

Your last post came across as if you EMPATHISED with them.
Empathy and sympathy, while they can be considered concern, are not really support.

Something tangible Collin, like HJs example.

Posted by: Joatmoaf at Mar 6, 2005 11:45:10 PM

Perhaps it is time to explain the non-political origin of the firm linkage posited: support of the war = support of the troops.

Quite frankly, the logic escapes me.
Clausewitz: "War is the continuation of policy (politics) by other means."

Posted by: Collin Baber at Mar 7, 2005 2:46:19 AM

You purposely intend to make this difficult in order to drag it through political mud, don`t 'cha?

Ok how about this. I understand and support the idea that the US Government needs to aquire money to operate.
I don`t like paying taxes out of my hard earned money because many government programs I disagree with, but I pay my taxes.
Is that a clear enough, non political example?

Posted by: Joatmoaf at Mar 7, 2005 6:24:49 AM

Good example. Your debate skills are excellent and I respect that.

I was hoping for a simple y is a function of x positive correlation between the variables. Basically, a way to understand how the two statements are so tightly coupled to increase in semantic value at the same time. I still see something that looks like apple equals orange.

Posted by: Collin Baber at Mar 7, 2005 6:58:04 AM

Hmmm. I just re- read it again and I thought it made pretty good sense.
Maybe you read something into it that isn`t there.
I do concede that my reference to "liberals" seems to imply ALL liberals, but that wasn`t my intent.
You see, I can only type about 20 words a minute at best, and while I may be able to think much, much faster, I still can type that fast.
I know exactly what I want to put up there but many things get lost in translation so I try to hit at all the pertainent points without being concerned by the "details" unless they are required to make the point.
This particular post wasn`t based on any news stories, any current controversies or even and "fact checking" mission.
It is just an observation I have made of certain KINDS of liberals.
I guess I should have specified that at the beginning, but as I said, I knew exactly what it was supposed to mean and sometimes implications get taken for granted.
Maybe the helps clarify it a little.

Posted by: Joatmoaf at Mar 7, 2005 7:05:18 PM

QUOTE>>""If you are "a guy" carrying a "bring our troops home" sign all day, then sending CARE packages at night, then you answered my question and I have no beef with you, but you would also be a tiny minority of THOSE LIBERALS to whom this post was addressed.""14 years.

QUOTE>>""For conservatives our support is obvious and automatic, but for liberals it`s not quite so easy.""<

You have GOT to be kidding me....

I've run into plenty of Pro-War hawks since I've come back from OEF who talk the talk but do not walk the walk.

They want to go to war with Iran, North Korea, cripes... you name a non-english speaking, non-western country and they want to bomb it.

But when I press them, they are fully against their children or members of their family serving in the military.

WTF, over?

Afghanistan was the right thing to do.

Invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do at the time. We opened up another front which took us away from the task at hand - finding and destroying Al Q and OBL.

We could have sat Saddam out and pressed him with air power and even armed the dang Kurds to press him further if need be.

GWB's intel has been flawed... not so much from the sources but from the way they wanted to see it.

Klinton with a "K"?? Come on. I didn't like the guy as President but that doesnt really make you seem very mature and it doesnt really support your arguement now does it?

Is it possible to support the troops but not support the war?

Sure it is.

Hell, I AM one the troops, I'm still serving (even reenlisted and am seeking a commission) and I think the way the Administration entered then handled the Iraq war was a terribly stupid mistake.

(interesting name by the way)

I have an infantry background, sniper school and other assorted miltary BS.

I'm very much a HAWK and very pro-military.

But I'm not a dumba$$ like many in the administration (Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc) as I recognize that there are firm limits to what military power can do and what kind of change it can effect.

I like to consider myself a RATIONAL HAWK and not a RABID HAWK like Cheney and such ilk.

Just because I serve does not mean I am required to buy into the party line.

This is America.

I refuse to drink the koolaid.

Hit me via email - it forwards to my .mil address.

Or find me over at http://www.trackpads.com as I post there sometimes.


Posted by: DakotaAviator at Mar 31, 2005 5:55:28 AM

Wow, your blog is silly. Politically I am somewhere between moderate and liberal; I live by Christian ideals; and I do not support the war in Iraq. And yet somehow I am able to feel sincere compassion and gratitude for the soldiers who offer the ultimate sacrifice to defend our magnificent country. I know dozen of others who feel exactly the same. In fact, I can't think of anyone, on the conserative or liberal side of the spectrum, who doesn't appreciate our troops.

We need folks who push for common goals, who make it a priority to do good, who stop talking and act. Forget about these naysayers who tell us how wrong we are. What happened to the moderates?

Posted by: Anomaly Parker at Apr 22, 2005 10:55:55 PM

I can't think of anyone, on the conserative or liberal side of the spectrum, who doesn't appreciate our troops. - Anomaly Parker

Consider yourself fortunate then. A former contributor to this blog (a wife of a marine) attracted the ire of a liberal troll who essential made comments to the effect "You think you know more than "the experts" because you hump a baby-killer." The troll didn't appreciate the service of our soldiers, she pitied them as morons, unable to see thru the trickery used to deceive them into service.

And then there's always "Screw-em" Kos.

Posted by: Masked Menace© at Apr 25, 2005 1:43:28 PM

I don't know if I had come across this entry before... I regret not having posted a comment here, regarding this issue, before now.

In August 2003, I did a guest blog entry at 'Deux Ego,' which addresses this particular issue, from a conservative and pro-military perspective:

Unconditional Support
Many of those who opposed this war support our brave warriors


Posted by: Aakash at Apr 29, 2005 2:29:47 AM

I support the troops.
I support the war.

I accept that someone can support the troops but not the war, but that's generally not the way it goes. Because it's no longer cool to spit on our veterans returning from war you find people who falsely claim to support the troops.

Universities ban ROTC programs. Protesters are right now staging coffins outside a military hospital. Does that support the troops? Do you really need me to repeat what prominent Democrats and liberals are actually saying? Support the troops? Anyone can find ample examples of Democrats not even supporting their country, and I'm not talking about a small fringe but some very prominent Democrats who have responsible party positions.

Many mainstream liberals hate America. They loudly challenge anyone who questions their patriotism, while demonstrating no noticible traits that could be described as patriotic. They want the US to lose the war in Iraq and are gleeful with every morsel of bad news.

I could lay out some quotes and arguments from Democrats and from Islamic terrorists and you might find it hard distinguish between them!

For those who do legitmately support the troops but don't understand why we are at war, I return your love of the brave men and women who are fighting to secure our freedom. But try to be a little less cynical about the motives of our leaders, and get some of your news outside the mainstream media.

Steve O

Posted by: Steve Obeda at Aug 31, 2005 5:06:12 PM