Why do some liberals say this?

Because they don't really support our troops. They support the terrorists that want to KILL our troops.

There are liberals who really do support our troops, but the ones that say those things most certainly do not.

That's coming from one of those troops. I'm a soldier.

Poor moral, fear and stress are more dangerous than bulletts in combat. Thanks Libs!!

First of all "IRAQ" did not do 9-11 and had no WMD. Want to see a dangerous leader? Look to North Korea or Iran. ( USA won't go there because they have a real military ) The so called war in Iraq is based on lies and the troops are dying for a lost cause. If Iraq is so important to you then go and join the military.

Avoiding Iraq because it is a death trap brought about by stupid policies and tactics says nothing about the troops. It's an indictment of everyone but the troops.

It is not inconsistent at all to say you support the troops, but hope they can come back in one piece to their families. Also, that no more should be put in harm's way unless we are sure it will help those that are already there.

If we can prove that sending more will help keep all of them more safe, I say go for it. Unfortunately, Bush and his administration have lost all credibility on this. So, their re-assurance means nothing. They cannot be trusted.

If an independent intelligence assessment showed that sending more troops would help stabilize, stem violence, I say it's a great idea.

Thing is -- it could just as easily go the other way. Provide more targets and stimulate more violence. That's a possibility which must be considered as well.

Because of the bungling history of Bush and Co, the burden of proof is on Bush.

Supporting the troops starts with giving them proper equipment and personnel to do the job. On that count, the worst supporter of the troops is our Commander-in-Chief.

(1) They don't know anything about the military. (2) They don't care to know anything about the military. (3) Because the military MAKES people up hold their responsibilities. (3a) And in the eyes of a liberal, the phrase "being held accountable" is a 4-letter word and buddy, on that issue, they ARE ready to fight! Liberals are ONLY concerned with their so-called "rights" but have no concerns what so ever about up holding responsibilities. That's why they have no concerns about joining the military. They just use the issue about dieding in combat as their excuse to justify not joining. That's why they hate the military. When was the last time you heard a liberal carrying on about their responsibilities vs. their rights?... Not in this life time!

I support our troops and at the same time, don't want to see them killed. Is supporting our troops limited to those who are okay with them being killed over an unjust war? You can support troops and not support a war, just as those fighting can go to war and yet not believe in it.

Please bear in mind that my family has been directly affected by this war in the death of my cousin's husband. If someone could explain to me how we are better off now that he's dead, I would love to hear it.

Many Americans live in a protected world that allows a lot of naivete. They don't mind the sanitized version of crusades like WW II as shown on the History Channel, but are opposed to any real war and do not in their hearts think war is necessary. Many who are socially liberal also have a very conservative view of foreign policy. These people are not tolerant of casualties, and will naturally oppose these things. Americans also are really poor at math, especially statistics, and think that the chances of being killed are much greater than they actually are (you'll notice this in our politics at home, as well). And finally most of America do not see, or at least disbelieve, that morale and politics have a direct effect on operations, because that is still astoundingly not part of the curriculum in school. One would think that the schools would teach that this kind of opposition to the war is what killed untold numbers in southeast Asia, but it seems what we have in society is a Gene McCarthy version of Vietnam.

Because they hate the military and want to scare people. Most likely they belong to parents of hippies and burnouts who just have no clue. I have been here for 8 months and have met soldiers who have been here for 3 years plus. Compared to Vietnam and World War 2 when we were losing hundreds a troops a day, this is a cake walk.

We shouldn't send any more troops, I agree with that. But its in poor taste to say, "you're just going to die." Although your chances of dying certainly go up when you're in a war zone, its far from a foregone conclusion.

A better reason to tell them not to join is because they can't trust our government. We should only put people in harms way when it is in our national interest and necessary. Pointing this out is the ESSENCE of supporting the troops!

. . .

For those of you keeping score:

History of:

Conservatives:

against women's voting rights

against homosexual rights

against significant scientific progress because of vague religious morals

pro-slavery

Liberals:

anti-slavery

pro-womens rights

against discrimination

pro-science

pro-rational thought

Which side are you on?

If I stop you from joining the Army and getting killed in Iraq, then I've just saved your life. I call that "support", don't you? Or maybe you think if I do nothing and say nothing and you join the Army and go to Iraq and die, then maybe THAT's being supportive? Is THAT how you see it? Live, and I'm against you; die and I'm supporting you? Maybe that's how George W Bush can sleep at night.

I think its all about not wanting more people to die after 4 years of Bush and Rumsfeld messing up things over there.

You don't think it supports the troops to try to save their lives? If you are so strong for the war, why don't you enlist?