u235

If there is any victory to be had in this unpopular war, it's allocated to the marketing strategist that equated money to support. Time and again the line has been used that to shut of or even limit funding for the war is to be unsupportive of the "men and women who are laying their lives on the line in a foreign land."

Ok, it's time to call bullshit on that.

Why is money support? How does funding a "war" ensure that those men and women don't give their lives and their health unnecessarily? The fact is - it doesn't. Just as the military was sending soldiers out without body armor (which costs money), just as the new Stryker APC doesn't protect against roadside bombs (Strykers cost money), in reality money is not the answer.

If you're still having a hard time grasping why giving the current administration unlimited access to funds is NOT the same as protecting our service men and women, consider this: When a heroin addict needs a fix, are you supporting them by giving them money? Or are you better supporting them by helping them get over their addiction?

This war has been an addiction, for the little man at the top who likes to play soldiers with real lives. Giving him the freedom to feed his addiction is not supporting our troops. Honestly supporting them means protecting them, only committing them when really necessary, and giving them hope by telling them when they can come home for good.

A soldier is really being supported when he gets to return to his or her family in one piece. And statistically, the sooner that happens, the better.