John Stryker asks the question:

Okay, I have an honest question for those that claim they don't support the war, but they support the troops. Now I've been trying to wrap my mind around this apparent contradiction, but all attempts have proven unsuccessful.

I'm not asking this out of malice or as some sort of "gotcha!" trick. I'm honestly interested in how you reconcile the two. When you say you don't support the war, but you support the troops, what is it about the troops that you're supporting?

And to the other side: How exactly can someone be "pro-war"? Why the hell would someone want to be pro-war? I can understand someone being pro-Victory once it starts. That makes sense.

I support the war and the troops because, well, I was one. I know that when the president says it's time, it's time. I support the idea that we are toppling a regime that wants desperately to harm us. Some people are pro-war, they are generally people that have not served. I can't fathom the thought of being for killing anyone, although at times it may be justified. Just as pro-choice advocates support the right of a woman to end the life of a developing human being. I don't think they are pro-the-act-of-abortion.