How come wnating to bring them home alive and before christmas, is considered not supporting the troops?

You are supporting the troops if you want to bring them home. That decision would save lives. Any other plan is more of the same hopeless failed policy that is based on lies.

Extending tours isn't the patriotic thing. It's the necessary thing. As for the debate, I've personally had a bellyful of the crowd that has adopted the mantra of "they were sent to war on a lie". If you read Public Law #107-243 (the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq), there are several reasons listed there to justify that action. Precious little mention of the WMD issue. Those reasons mirrored the ones contained in the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law #105-338) enacted in October of 1998.

I'm also fed up with those who level personal attacks on the President, calling him stupid and worse. I witnessed the same thing during the Johnson administration and it's my belief that the same sort of ugly elitism has reared its head again. 1. Both came from Texas. 2. Both talk "funny". 3. Both must be dumb.

As for the loss of troops, I can't recall anyone being saddened by the loss of 9,555 troops between 1980 and 1984. And no one was shooting at us then. I also can't recall seeing anyone step up to a member of the Armed Forces in uniform on September 10, 2001 to thank him for his service to the nation. Many of the same members of the cognescenti who wave the flag and cry for support of the troops wouldn't have given any of them the time of day before the attack on America.

The men and women in uniform will comport themselves with pride and professionalism. They will accomplish the mission which the nation's leaders have given them. But, if they ever wind up as some political football, as they did some thirty-plus years ago, I will stand with them as they exact a price from the nation which abandoned them.

what's the definition of victory in this actual conflict? that's no longer a clever-*** question... that's actually my difficulty with this conflict. we are no longer battling an army or a rustic. Are we waiting for the Iraqi government to behave like a actual and self sustaining government? which could take years and coul proceed into failure. Are we in basic terms waiting for the protection forces to "get up"? Why havn't we resolved this one piece in 5 years? it is an prolonged time to coach infantrymen... an prolonged time. If it replaced into achieveable then we'd have finished it already. i'm no longer asserting we could constantly pull out this night... yet we could examine this realistically. and that i havn't even pronounced the re-deployments or the cost of an occupation... as quickly as returned, we could be useful.

It is very simple. Wanting to bring the troops home is supporting them. Going out, screaming publicly your hatred of the war is not. Why, you ask? Because, all your yelling and whining won't bring them home. You don't have the power to do that. Only the President can decide where troops are deployed, not you. Congress can't move the Army, they can raise it and fund it, but they can't move it one d*** inch. They won't defund the war, because if Bush doesn't bring the troops home, they can't stop him, and they will just be hurting the kids who are fighting. Bush won't bring them home, he thinks that they should be there.

You asked why wanting to bring them home is not supporting them. Here is your answer. When you and your little hippie buddies get on talking about how you hate the war, and the troops need to come home, the insurgents see that, and they gain moral strength and courage from your defeatism. In order to inflame you more, they attack US soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines often, because they know that as the body count rises, you will become more shrill and obnoxious, and they see that as a win.

So, when you PUBLICLY state that you oppose the war, the terrorists/insurgents feel more like they are winning, and they attack our men harder. YOU are indirectly helping to kill troops. Hope you are happy about that.

The problem is, the troops (and I am one) don't want to end the war without a win, because they know that they will be back there before their enlistment is up. Someone is going to blow up another embassy, someone will fly another plane into one of our cities, someone will bomb another ship, it won't end unless we end it for them. Do we want to be in Iraq? Hell no, I would much rather fight terrorism on the French Riviera or in the Bahamas, preferably armed with a daquari. Do we like the extended deployments? Again, no, but we know that the longer we stay there, the longer we get to stay home. And ultimately, no one wants die, but we'd rather die for a win (and we can win this war) than for a politically expedient pullout.

wanting us home alive is a great thing but if they tried to pull us out before Christmas we would lose more troops than we have so far trust me I've been over there we are doing great things for them. It's considered not supporting the troops becaus emost of our troops are proud to be over there doing their jobs and on top of that the New General has said that we can make it a winnable war.

There is very little intelligent debate because too many people have dug their heels in, closed their minds, and are mindlessly chanting the refrain for their position -- on both sides.

Realistically, most estimates I have seen (unofficial) indicate that an orderly withdrawal would take between 6~12 months.

The problem is, the Pentagon (per Bush's orders) refuses to even discuss plans for withdrawal, so even if the decision were made to withdraw them, it would take months before it could even be started.

Why not now ? Why not next week ? Why wait until Christmas ? Because , my friend , it ain't over yet ! No amount of loss of life is good. Winning ind stabilizing Iraq is too important not to do. The debate is that people like you want to say sorry too many dead, we can't win, it's over and were going home. What about the next time , and there will be a next time, how would you fight that war ? We need to stay and finish the job and finish the rest of the war on the Nazi Islamic radicals that want to kill all who do not believe the way they do. That is the debate !

Because the mission cannot be accomplished by Christmas! You cannot support the troops and not support what they are doing. Its like telling a builder that he is doing a great job, but you dont want him to finish the structure. Thats not supporting someone. You are being dishonest with yourself if you can actually convince youself that they are two seperate things. You either believe in our troops and what they are doing or you dont. None of this halfway garbage. Its kind of like being pregnant, either you are or you aren't. There is no middle ground. Tell a soldier that you support him but not what he is doing and he will call you a liar to your face. You want to honor our troops, give them everything they need to finish their mission as quickly and safely as possible. Regardless of why we went in, we are there and those peoples safety is our responsibility. We cannot abandon them to chaos, anarchy and death. Another thing, we havent lost that many troops there compared to previous conflicts. And no I am not being calous or uncaring of their sacrifice, my brother Randy was killed in Afganistan on july 9, it is a simple fact of numbers. freedom is never free, some are called to pay the ultimate price, but it is worth it.

here is a sobering statistic:

There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of over 3,000 deaths. That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period.

That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.

Extending tours of duty is NOT supporting the troops. It's supporting the war. And those are two increasingly different goals.