I support the occupation of Iraq, but I dont support the troops ...

by James W. Henley

snip

Yes, occupying Iraq does require troops, but they are there for one reason and one reason only: to carry out the orders of the U.S. Defense Department. As far as their overall importance goes, they are no more worthy of our consideration than a box of nails. Ribbons and banners in ostensible "support" of the troops miss the whole point of the invasion, which is to gain a strategic hold over that volatile and lucrative geopolitical region.

snip

I support the occupation, and the occupation alone, because when we start to support the troops, we pave the way for irrelevant concerns about their families back at home. Before you know it, questions about who is and isn't going to be home in time for Christmas will be interfering with the crucial decision-making process of our commander-in-chief.


The Onion

http://www.theonion.com/opinion/index.php?%20issue=4108&o=2

psst ...parody

point: this is really how the Rethuglican's really honestly feel
about our troops,...just tools for Oil Proffit

agreement with the article.

That's the great thing about the Onion; they got rethugs down to a T.