November 11 is called Veterans Day, or remembrance Day. After WW1, "The war to end all wars" it was called Armistice Day, but the name seemed inadequate when WW2 arrived. As though at the same time the armistice was forgotten, so were the men who lost their Lives in WW1. We remember Veterans who have sacrificed their lives in an attempt to stop wars that were started by leaders that worked far from the Front line.
I remembered something about the WW1 ANZAC campaign that is relative with all of the politically correct posing regarding Christmas these days.
The Australian and New Zealand Troops were fighting the Turks at Gallipoli, in trenches mud, miserable weather, and stretched supply lines...

November 11 is called Veterans Day, or remembrance Day. After WW1, "The war to end all wars" it was called Armistice Day, but the name seemed inadequate when WW2 arrived. As though at the same time the armistice was forgotten, so were the men who lost their Lives in WW1. We remember Veterans who have sacrificed their lives in an attempt to stop wars that were started by leaders that worked far from the Front line.
I remembered something about the WW1 ANZAC campaign that is relative with all of the politically correct posing regarding Christmas these days.
The Australian and New Zealand Troops were fighting the Turks at Gallipoli, in trenches mud, miserable weather, and stretched supply lines.
When Christmas dawned a Truce was called, and the two opposing sides exchanged gifts. The battle resumed next day. The veterans are always fighting someone else's war, and they are getting younger and younger. The biggest complaint being, not any order that was given at the front, while many were contentious, but the way it seems today that they are forgotten before they come home.

Yes, you certainly can support the troops, without supporting the policy, or the war they are sent to fight. If you really look at the site you have linked there, as I have been familiar with for a rather long time now, you will see that these veterans still support their brothers/sisters in arms who are still fighting the war, who have served in other wars, what they oppose are the policies and the reasons given for being there, "hate the game, not the player". Here is a good example from an interview with John Soltz, a veteran, as well as a very strong voice in opposing the war: Jon Soltz of anti-war group VoteVets.org and Move America Forward chair Melanie Morgan appeared on PBS’s “Newsho...

Yes, you certainly can support the troops, without supporting the policy, or the war they are sent to fight. If you really look at the site you have linked there, as I have been familiar with for a rather long time now, you will see that these veterans still support their brothers/sisters in arms who are still fighting the war, who have served in other wars, what they oppose are the policies and the reasons given for being there, "hate the game, not the player". Here is a good example from an interview with John Soltz, a veteran, as well as a very strong voice in opposing the war: Jon Soltz of anti-war group VoteVets.org and Move America Forward chair Melanie Morgan appeared on PBS’s “Newshour” with guest host Judy Woodruff to talk about the war in Iraq. Soltz proclaimed “I am the troops” after Morgan said that VoteVets is invested in defeat and what they’re doing is “shameful” and “disrespectful” to our troops. Another example is Ron Paul, the only presidential candidate who has opposed the war from the start, and a strict constitutionalist, himself a veteran, has stated, I don't know of anyone who doesn't support the troops, but the best way to show support is to bring them home.

Like these past statements, I guess these guys were against our troops, not the "coach"(who at the time was Bill Clinton),if what you are saying is true: Rep. Dick Armey, GOP majority "The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons." GOP Sen. Dan Coats: Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack [on bin Lade...

Like these past statements, I guess these guys were against our troops, not the "coach"(who at the time was Bill Clinton),if what you are saying is true: Rep. Dick Armey, GOP majority "The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons." GOP Sen. Dan Coats: Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack [on bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action." Sen. Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee: "The foregoing, the premise of the recent film 'Wag the Dog,' might once have seemed farfetched, Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton has ordered U.S. Marines and air crews to commence several days of ground and air exercises in, yes, Albania as a warning of possible NATO intervention in next-door Kosovo ...
"Not too many years ago, it would not have entered the mind of even the worst of cynics to speculate whether any American president, whatever his political difficulties, would even consider sending U.S. military personnel into harm's way to serve his own, personal needs. But in an era when pundits openly weigh the question of whether President Clinton will (or should) tell the truth under oath not because he has a simple obligation to do so but because of the possible impact on his political 'viability' -- is it self-evident that military decisions are not affected by similar considerations? Under the circumstances, it is fair to ask to what extent the Clinton Administration has forfeited the benefit of the doubt as to the motives behind its actions." Wait, there's more!

Sen. Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee: "The foregoing, the premise of the recent film 'Wag the Dog,' might once have seemed farfetched. Yet it can hardly escape comment that on the very day, August 17, that President Bill Clinton is scheduled to testify before a federal grand jury to explain his possibly criminal behavior, Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton has ordered U.S. Marines and air crews to commence several days of ground and air exercises in, yes, Albania as a warning of possible NATO intervention in next-door Kosovo ...

"Not too many years ago, it would not have entered the mind of even the worst of cynics to speculate whether any American president, whatever h...

Sen. Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee: "The foregoing, the premise of the recent film 'Wag the Dog,' might once have seemed farfetched. Yet it can hardly escape comment that on the very day, August 17, that President Bill Clinton is scheduled to testify before a federal grand jury to explain his possibly criminal behavior, Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton has ordered U.S. Marines and air crews to commence several days of ground and air exercises in, yes, Albania as a warning of possible NATO intervention in next-door Kosovo ...

"Not too many years ago, it would not have entered the mind of even the worst of cynics to speculate whether any American president, whatever his political difficulties, would even consider sending U.S. military personnel into harm's way to serve his own, personal needs. But in an era when pundits openly weigh the question of whether President Clinton will (or should) tell the truth under oath not because he has a simple obligation to do so but because of the possible impact on his political 'viability' -- is it self-evident that military decisions are not affected by similar considerations? Under the circumstances, it is fair to ask to what extent the Clinton Administration has forfeited the benefit of the doubt as to the motives behind its actions."

GOP activist Paul Weyrich: "Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote 'is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress.'" Wall Street Journal editorial: "It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment." Sen. Trent Lott, GOP majority leader: "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."Rep. Gerald Solomon: "'Never ...

GOP activist Paul Weyrich: "Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote 'is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress.'" Wall Street Journal editorial: "It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment." Sen. Trent Lott, GOP majority leader: "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."Rep. Gerald Solomon: "'Never underestimate a desperate president,' said a furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). 'What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?'" Rep. Tillie Folwer: "'It [the bombing of Iraq] is certainly rather suspicious timing,' said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). 'I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office.'" And more...

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: "First, it [intervention in Kosovo] is a 'wag the dog' public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the 'life is truer than fiction' movie 'Wag the Dog.' The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to 'move on' from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command." Jim Hoagland, Was...

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: "First, it [intervention in Kosovo] is a 'wag the dog' public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the 'life is truer than fiction' movie 'Wag the Dog.' The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to 'move on' from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command." Jim Hoagland, Washington Post: "President Clinton has indelibly associated a justified military response ... with his own wrongdoing ... Clinton has now injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice versa."
Wall Street Journal editorial: "Perceptions that the American president is less interested in the global consequences than in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power [are] a further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached."