Can you support the troops wh/o supporting the war + Bush?

[Tmy]

I would say yes. I mean, who's against the troops? Nobody. I think the question is just a pro -war tactic to shut up the dissenters.


Does this analogy work: I'm a Yankee Fan*, but I do not like the teams owner George Stienbrener. I hate his hiring and firing polices, I hate how he runs the team, I hate how he raise ticket prices, and I dont agree with who he hired as managers. I dont like him. I boo when his face comes uo on the Jumbotron. I call sports radio shows and complain about him. Yet I still cheer for the Yankees and I'm a big fan of their players.

Is this similar to an anti-Bush pro troops argument.... I mean baseball isn't war but you get my drift.


(*I'm really not a Yankee fan. I cant stand them.......GO REDSOX!)

[shanek]

I support the troops 100%, but I can never support Bush. I will never support someone who has suspended haveas corpus and allowed American citizens to be held without charging them with a crime or allowing them to have the benefit of legal counsel, who has acted to make it easier to search our homes and records without a warrant and without even telling us after the fact, who has authorized the eavesdropping of lawyer-client communications, and the other gross injustices this enemy of freedom has inflicted on the American public.

I support the troops coming home immediately.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tmy
I would say yes. I mean, who's against the troops? Nobody. I think the question is just a pro -war tactic to shut up the dissenters.


Does this analogy work: I'm a Yankee Fan*, but I do not like the teams owner George Stienbrener. I hate his hiring and firing polices, I hate how he runs the team, I hate how he raise ticket prices, and I dont agree with who he hired as managers. I dont like him. I boo when his face comes uo on the Jumbotron. I call sports radio shows and complain about him. Yet I still cheer for the Yankees and I'm a big fan of their players.

Is this similar to an anti-Bush pro troops argument.... I mean baseball isn't war but you get my drift.


(*I'm really not a Yankee fan. I cant stand them.......GO REDSOX!)

Here is how the radical left suppots the troops:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/Homepage/ShootOfficers3.gif

It's intellectual barbarism. Neolithic even.

JK

[subgenius]

He probably means Neanderthal.
Neolithic was the cultural period characterized by the development of agriculture and polished stone implements.
P.S. The banner is repulsive.

[Tmy]

Big deal. You find one sign and thats supposed to represent everyone on the aniti-war side?

Well Ive haerd pro-war people say "kill the sandniggers" , so every for the war is really a racist who wants genocide in the mideast.

[Peach Jr.]

Yes.

I support the troops 100%. I want them to come home immediately and have this idocy come to an end now .

And I say this as a member (through marriage) of a military family. In fact, we've not heard from one active member (82nd Airborne) for a while now - he may be there now...

(edit) BTW, Tmy, I do like your analogy:)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tmy
Big deal. You find one sign and thats supposed to represent everyone on the aniti-war side?

Well Ive haerd pro-war people say "kill the sandniggers" , so every for the war is really a racist who wants genocide in the mideast.
Tsk, tsk, you're resorting to logic and reason, when we know that's much harder than conclusions and stereotyping.

[Andalyn]

The answer lies in what do the troops consider as legitimate support?

I'm reasonably certain you would find that the majority of troops do not consider the protestors to be "supporting" the troops, no matter how often they claim it.

Again, if the troops (who are the ones who count here) do not see the protests to be support, then how is it so?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Andalyn
The answer lies in what do the troops consider as legitimate support?

I'm reasonably certain you would find that the majority of troops do not consider the protestors to be "supporting" the troops, no matter how often they claim it.

Again, if the troops (who are the ones who count here) do not see the protests to be support, then how is it so?

Not sure it logically follows that you can't support someone (in many ways, including emotionally) even though the one they're supporting doesn't perceive it as such.

I haven't checked yet, but I would not be the least surprised to find somebody on ANSWER's web site, or one of their "coalition" member web site's, who glorifies the soldier who shot up and killed his fellow soldiers in the 101st.

There are always a small but very vocifierous group who hate our troops.

You can find their web sites easily. Just go to the internationalanswer.org web site and follow the links. It takes very little effort. I linked some of them in another topic last week when this subject came up elsewhere.

The longer the war goes on, the more troop-hating diatribes you will be able to find.

Ah. A link right on the front page of ANSWER's web site brings you this gem. (http://www.internationalanswer.org/news/update/032103shockrev.html)

Borrowing a page from the nightmare of the Vietnam War when a U.S. commander explained that U.S. soldiers were burning a peasant village in order to save it from communism, the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal have decided to burn Baghdad to save it from the current Iraqi Government. The world is in a state of Shock and Revulsion as the murderous Bush Administration follows through on its promise to "Shock and Awe" the Iraqi people by dropping thousands of bombs and missiles on their capital, a city that is home to 4.5 million human beings.

This horrific unprovoked attack on a dense urban area must be understood as one of the extreme terrorist acts of modern times. Cruise missiles launched from submarines and air craft hundreds of miles away and 3,000 lb. bombs dropped from 30,000 ft. up are the latest example of the Bush administration's criminal resort to limitless violence and terrorism in order to achieve its objectives of conquest and occupation. The hypocrisy of the war against Iraq is extreme: the most powerful military in the world waging first strike war with the most advanced weapons against an impoverished country on the pretext that it someday may possess such weapons.


I'll see if I can find something glorifying the killer of the 101st troops.

[LTC8K6]

Not sure it logically follows that you can't support someone (in many ways, including emotionally) even though the one they're supporting doesn't perceive it as such.

We are supporting the Iraqi people, they just don't perceive it as such. Yet.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by LTC8K6


We are supporting the Iraqi people, they just don't perceive it as such. Yet.
There you have it, thanks.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by LukeT
Ah. A link right on the front page of ANSWER's web site brings you this gem. (http://www.internationalanswer.org/news/update/032103shockrev.html)




I'll see if I can find something glorifying the killer of the 101st troops.
Why?

Okay. See if you can follow along with me here.

At the top of the anti-war protest movement pyramid is the Workers World Party. If you don't have any idea of what this marxist organization is about, please look into them.

They have several front organizations, one of which is International A.N.S.W.E.R. Another is the Intenational Action Center, with former Attorney General Ramsey Clark as their figurehead.

You can verify all of this yourself, and I highly recommend you do.

IAC has just created SNAFU, which stands for Support Network For the Armed Forces. Okay, so they can't make the acronym work for starters. The web site is all snafu'd, too. But we'll get to that.

On SNAFU's web site are several PDF files which are the purest of propaganda one could ask for. Since they are PDF, I can't cut and past excerpts. One of the articles is linked with this prologue:


To All Military Personnel
Addressed to enlisted personnel, this flyer outlines some of the reasons why war with Iraq is unjustifiable and immoral. It calls upon military personnel to ask the tough questions about the reasons behind this war and encourages them to resist and to contact SNAFU for counsel and more information.

"Encourages them to resist.." I am going to link the article. Hang on.

But first I want to know if this is sedition or treason or what. I'm not a lawyer, but this sure looks like it to me.

Anyway, read the flyer
here. (http://www.join-snafu.org/PDFs/Personnel.pdf)

Originally posted by subgenius

Why?

Because Tmy asked at the top of this topic "who's against the troops?"

I'm showing ya.

[subgenius]

Your premise is wrong: at the top of the anti-war movement is the bottom (lots of ordinary people).
P.S. I am not one of them.

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by subgenius


Not sure it logically follows that you can't support someone (in many ways, including emotionally) even though the one they're supporting doesn't perceive it as such.

Mainly talking about certain actions of people, such as in protest.

I'm sure that many people are anti-war and "emotionally" support the troops ie; wish them well. However, when they take certain actions (protest) can they actually claim support for the troops?

I think that a lot of the "I'm against this war (quickly followed by) but I support the troops" is indicitive of the sensitivity some people have over the way veterans were treated in the Vietnam War era.

The troops also remember the treatment they received during the Vietnam War.

I think that troops will generally consider real support to be "support for the mission", Especially considering the rampant emotions one will have while people are attempting to kill you, and in turn killing others.

Originally posted by subgenius
Your premise is wrong: at the top of the anti-war movement is the bottom (lots of ordinary people).
P.S. I am not one of them.

I would venture to say that the majority of the ordinary people have no idea what the true nature of this movement is about. They are being used in the very way these organizations are accusing our government of using people.

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by LukeT


I would venture to say that the majority of the ordinary people have no idea what the true nature of this movement is about. They are being used in the very way these organizations are accusing our government of using people.

I would venture to say you are probably right.

What did Stalin call them??? ;)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by LukeT


I would venture to say that the majority of the ordinary people have no idea what the true nature of this movement is about. They are being used in the very way these organizations are accusing our government of using people.

I think the majority of the ordinary people _are_ the movement, and know darn well what it is about.

It is the fringe groups that have jumped onto the movement of the war protestors, not the other way around.

OTOH, your intent on trying to lump all the anti-war people with the US hating commie groups is noted.

They are getting close. (http://www.altpr.org/web_feature_hesske.html)

But with the U.S. now the moral arbiter for the world and a global policeman for capitalistic law and order, even an all-volunteer force will begin to feel the profound strain of such an undertaking, mostly because the American class distinction between the ruler/planner (the corporate elite) and the ruled/worker (lower to middle class) remains intact from the time of Vietnam. If Iraq turns out to be a war that the U.S. can't win quickly or simply walk away from, then combat refusals, equipment sabotage and fraggings would become anything but abnormalities. I offer this speculation with no sense of anticipatory glee, but there it is.

Originally posted by Andalyn


I would venture to say you are probably right.

What did Stalin call them??? ;)

"Useful idiots?"

Originally posted by pgwenthold


I think the majority of the ordinary people _are_ the movement, and know darn well what it is about.

It is the fringe groups that have jumped onto the movement of the war protestors, not the other way around.

OTOH, your intent on trying to lump all the anti-war people with the US hating commie groups is noted.

Exactly where did I try to lump all the anti-war people with the US hating commie groups?

edited to add: Christ, I have said several times, and just now, that most of the ordinary people have no idea what is really behind the movement.

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


I think the majority of the ordinary people _are_ the movement, and know darn well what it is about.

It is the fringe groups that have jumped onto the movement of the war protestors, not the other way around.

OTOH, your intent on trying to lump all the anti-war people with the US hating commie groups is noted.

I'm thinking that Luke has shown quite well, in several threads that the "fringe groups" are the major organizers and money providers for the protest movement.

I don't know, if this is true - how you can claim that they just "jumped onto the movement".

If true, I'm not sure how much of a "movement" there would be without them.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by LukeT


Because Tmy asked at the top of this topic "who's against the troops?"


No he didn't.

Originally posted by subgenius

No he didn't.

Originally posted by Tmy
I would say yes. I mean, who's against the troops? Nobody. I think the question is just a pro -war tactic to shut up the dissenters.


:confused:

I am showing, and have shown, and will continue to show, that there are most certainly people who are against the war and against the troops. And this is not some kind of tactic of mine to shut up the dissenters. This is my way of showing the anti-war people that they need to look within their own ranks as well as the opposition's. They are surely being manipulated by people who have ulterior motives that have nothing to do with this war.
People guilty of the very tactics of which they accuse our government.

Turnaround is fair play. And I'm smacking the ANSWER's and the IAC's and the Korea Truth Commissions with it because they deserve it.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by LukeT


Exactly where did I try to lump all the anti-war people with the US hating commie groups?

edited to add: Christ, I have said several times, and just now, that most of the ordinary people have no idea what is really behind the movement.

You lump them in when they are the only ones you refer to when talking about the anti-war movement. And when you say the fringe groups are the one's "really behind" the movement.
And when you call intelligent people "useful idiots." You are making no distinctions, and therefore are lumping everyone together.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by LukeT


I would venture to say that the majority of the ordinary people have no idea what the true nature of this movement is about. They are being used in the very way these organizations are accusing our government of using people. My very conservative father is against this war.

Does it automatically make him a supporter of the commies and a useful idiot, or are there positions that allow him to think two thoughts at the same time?

If there are such possible positions, how do you see the difference between those holding them and the useful idiots who don't know what they are doing?

:confused:

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Andalyn


Mainly talking about certain actions of people, such as in protest.

I'm sure that many people are anti-war and "emotionally" support the troops ie; wish them well. However, when they take certain actions (protest) can they actually claim support for the troops?

I think that a lot of the "I'm against this war (quickly followed by) but I support the troops" is indicitive of the sensitivity some people have over the way veterans were treated in the Vietnam War era.

The troops also remember the treatment they received during the Vietnam War.

I think that troops will generally consider real support to be "support for the mission", Especially considering the rampant emotions one will have while people are attempting to kill you, and in turn killing others.
Don't agree that exercising freedom of speech precludes support.
Lack of "support for the mission" does not preclude support for the troops.
Ultimately the arguments mean if you don't "support the mission" you don't support the troops and you are unpatriotic. That can't be right.
P.S. I "support the mission" and the troops, and the first amendment. It can happen. One can respect the other side's views, and one doesn't have to demonize them.

[Dymanic]

It is amazing how a thing like this has so much power to polarize us as a people.

Each side seems to be presenting the viewpoint that the issues are simple, and that anyone who is "not part of the solution is part of the problem".

I don't see this situation as being all that simple (maybe I'm just too simple to grasp it).

I have seen groups of pro-war (or whatever you want to call it) protesters who reminded me of nothing so much as a bunch of enthusiastic football fans. I have seen anti-war protesters who look like they'd probably show up for just about kind of protest as long as it's against what they percieve as the 'establishment'.

Maybe I'm telling myself that these folks don't really understand the issues, that they are just out to have a little fun, because I'm just jealous that they seem to find the issues so easy to understand. I find myself still struggling to wade through the history of the region we are involved in, and to read between the lines of the media-tweaked versions of the stories they have been spoon-fed by the administration.

Our soldiers display the ultimate form of honor in their willingness to lay their lives on the line for what is right, and I am deeply grateful to be the recipient of that. But their willingness, in and of itself, does not make the cause right. Because of their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice, those who determine how 'right' the cause is (and that's all of us) have a great responsibility to be thorough. It is because we so value the lives of men and women so honorable that we must be so thorough; that we must continually question whether we are doing the right thing.

In short, I don't see the pro-war protesters as having any more claim to being 'for the troops' than those who oppose the war.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by LukeT





:confused:

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the thread topic, which I feel is a more interesting and relevent issue.

Originally posted by subgenius

You lump them in when they are the only ones you refer to when talking about the anti-war movement. And when you say the fringe groups are the one's "really behind" the movement.
And when you call intelligent people "useful idiots." You are making no distinctions, and therefore are lumping everyone together.

Don't blame me. It was Stalin who called them "useful idiots."

I will ask you guys the same thing we asked Girl6. Would you attend a rally for a cause you supported if it was sponsored by the KKK? Or the Nazis?

The peace protests are sponsored by the Workers World Party. By attending their protests, people are giving them validity, free PR, a platform, and an excellent recruiting opportunity. So, yeah, "useful idiots."

The peace movement was hijacked before it even got off the ground, and the people against this war allowed it to happen, and are allowing themselves to be used by this disgusting organization.

You guys would have no problem if I said the pro-war rallies were being sponsored by the KKK and I was denouncing them. And I would be, if they were, but they aren't.

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by subgenius

Don't agree that exercising freedom of speech precludes support.
Lack of "support for the mission" does not preclude support for the troops.
Ultimately the arguments mean if you don't "support the mission" you don't support the troops and you are unpatriotic. That can't be right.
P.S. I "support the mission" and the troops, and the first amendment. It can happen. One can respect the other side's views, and one doesn't have to demonize them.

I never mentioned free speech or patriotism.

It's a matter of perception on the part of those (the troops) who matter on this topic.

Now, if you wish to claim that their perception does not matter, then I guess I would consider that non-support.

Again, I mainly speak of the actions of people. I do not speak of the private thoughts of those who are against the war, but wish good things for the troops. I have already indicated that I felt that was indeed possible.

Public dissent, while protected and everyone's right - is not support for the troops no matter how many times it is claimed for a variety of reasons.

One reason is the perception of the troops.

Now, is there a valid argument that the perception of the troops does not matter?

[Bjorn]

Would you attend a rally for a cause you supported if it was sponsored by the KKK? Or the Nazis? No, maybe I wouldn't 'attend a rally'.

But could I still support the case? Yes.

Wasn't the topic here if one could be for the troops but still against the war? :confused: Is it now changing to 'are you stupid if you attend a rally'?

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by Dymanic


In short, I don't see the pro-war protesters as having any more claim to being 'for the troops' than those who oppose the war.

I'm being a bit pedantic, but there is no such thing as a "pro-war protestor" at this current time in the US. Perhaps "pro-war demonstrator"?

Again, to me it all about the perception of the troops. If they feel that those who protest in the street are not supporting them, then they are not. It's that simple.

How do you guys think the average, patriotic, troop-supporing anti-war protestor would react to discovering the people sponsoring the protest he/she is attending hate our troops, and hate America?

Well, they do. What does that tell you about the average anti-war protestor's critical thinking skills?

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
Since they are PDF, I can't cut and past excerpts.

Yes, you can. Look at the top of your Acrobat Reader and you'll see a tool that looks like a capital "T" with a box next to it in dotted lines. This is the text selection tool. Click it and you'll be able to select and copy all the text you want. This won't work with all PDF files, but it will work with the one you linked to.

[Supercharts]

In terms of the original topic - No.

Originally posted by shanek


Yes, you can. Look at the top of your Acrobat Reader and you'll see a tool that looks like a capital "T" with a box next to it in dotted lines. This is the text selection tool. Click it and you'll be able to select and copy all the text you want. This won't work with all PDF files, but it will work with the one you linked to.

Thanks, shane. I learn something new every day on here. Usually computer related. :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
I will ask you guys the same thing we asked Girl6. Would you attend a rally for a cause you supported if it was sponsored by the KKK? Or the Nazis?

The KKK are for gun rights and the right to display the Confederate flag. As much as I hate them, I am still in favor of gun rights and the right to display the Confederate flag. Your assertion is nothing more than a kind of reverse argument from authority: That just because some bad people are in favor of a cause, that we shouldn't be.

Just in case you guys think the sponsors of these protests are being clever or sneaky or hiding who they are, here is an example of one of the signs they hand out for protestors to hold:

http://www.phillyskyline.com/peacemarch/peace_008_socialist_cityhall.jpg

And more:

http://www.eastwest.nu/protest1026/Images/22.jpg

Still more, recognize this guy?:

http://lmno4p.org/images/articles/protest_turkey.jpg

And more:

http://www.drfeingold.com/ryanspics/sign2.jpg

Originally posted by shanek


The KKK are for gun rights and the right to display the Confederate flag. As much as I hate them, I am still in favor of gun rights and the right to display the Confederate flag. Your assertion is nothing more than a kind of reverse argument from authority: That just because some bad people are in favor of a cause, that we shouldn't be.

I'm sure the Klan is all for breast feeding, too. That doesn't mean I would attend one of their rallies in favor of breast feeding and give them validity because I am also in favor of breast feeding.

shanek, I'm not saying people should be in favor of the war because the marxists are against it. I guess you haven't understood what I've been saying for weeks now.

I have no problem with someone being against the war. I can respect that. I do have a problem with the horse some of these misguided people have hitched their wagon to.

[LTC8K6]

Subgenius:
Not sure it logically follows that you can't support someone (in many ways, including emotionally) even though the one they're supporting doesn't perceive it as such.

Me:
We are supporting the Iraqi people, they just don't perceive it as such. Yet.

Subgenius:
There you have it, thanks.

**********

Subgenius, my comment was really just a crack at yours.
You reminded me of a parent or a doctor saying "It's for your own good". :)

Having served in the ROK, I can say that when large groups of citizens protest against your presence, it can be difficult to keep your morale up. I did begin to wonder what the fark I was doing there. I knew that they did not wish that I personally would go away, but that did not lessen the dampening of my spirits at seeing these protests.

Fortunately, the older folks seemed glad we were there, and were usually glad to see us, as were most of the people, and that always renewed my faith in the mission.

Cheap stuff was good for morale too! :D

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Subgenius:
Not sure it logically follows that you can't support someone (in many ways, including emotionally) even though the one they're supporting doesn't perceive it as such.

Me:
We are supporting the Iraqi people, they just don't perceive it as such. Yet.

Subgenius:
There you have it, thanks.

**********

Subgenius, my comment was really just a crack at yours.
You reminded me of a parent or a doctor saying "It's for your own good". :)

Having served in the ROK, I can say that when large groups of citizens protest against your presence, it can be difficult to keep your morale up. I did begin to wonder what the fark I was doing there. I knew that they did not wish that I personally would go away, but that did not lessen the dampening of my spirits at seeing these protests.

Fortunately, the older folks seemed glad we were there, and were usually glad to see us, as were most of the people, and that always renewed my faith in the mission.

Cheap stuff was good for morale too! :D

Thanks for your insight and your service.

[gnome]

Dynamic, you said it all.

I add my answer of "Yes" to Tmy's question. I think that the treatment of returning Vietnam veterans in particular was shameful. I was not alive during that era, but even though my sympathies were with those that opposed the war, I like to think that I would have treated the actual soldiers better.

Even though I oppose the war politically, by "I support the troops" I mean that I hope they win quickly and can return home to their families. I also hope that by serving honorably they can make a bad situation better. I also hope that my concerns are wrong, and that this action does bring true freedom to the Iraqi people, now that we're actually there trying.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Having served in the ROK, I can say that when large groups of citizens protest against your presence, it can be difficult to keep your morale up. I did begin to wonder what the fark I was doing there. I knew that they did not wish that I personally would go away, but that did not lessen the dampening of my spirits at seeing these protests.


I think there is a big difference between wanting you to get out of a place and wanting you to come home.

I want the troops to come home safely, and as soon as possible.

That is far different from indigineous folk protesting their presence and telling them that there presence is not wanted. I am telling the troops that their presence is wanted...at home.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by gnome
Even though I oppose the war politically, by "I support the troops" I mean that I hope they win quickly and can return home to their families. I also hope that by serving honorably they can make a bad situation better. I also hope that my concerns are wrong, and that this action does bring true freedom to the Iraqi people, now that we're actually there trying.

here here

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by subgenius

You lump them in when they are the only ones you refer to when talking about the anti-war movement. And when you say the fringe groups are the one's "really behind" the movement.
And when you call intelligent people "useful idiots." You are making no distinctions, and therefore are lumping everyone together.

Ok SG,

If the "people" are the movement,.... lets see a large anti-war protest without the participation or organization of International ANSWER. Is it possible? I think not. The World Worker's Party plays the tune....the useful idiots dance along.

-zilla

Those signs I showed as examples were not just in one place. They are showing up at protests everywhere. What does that tell you?

[subgenius]

How ya ever gonna know one way or the other?
Why do peaceful protests bother you?
Why do commies bother you? Are they a threat?
Is communism making a come back?
You can check the FBI site to see if they are even mentioned as anything to be concerned about.
Once again you are lumping everyone at every protest as an idiot and dancing to someone elses tune.
I'll leave it at that and rest safely tonight knowing that you are out there keeping the commies away from my door. I appreciate it.

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by LukeT
Those signs I showed as examples were not just in one place. They are showing up at protests everywhere. What does that tell you?

It tells me that the people holding the signs:

#1 - either support the aims and goals of these groups or...

#2 - are actually useful idiots.

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by subgenius
How ya ever gonna know one way or the other?
Why do peaceful protests bother you?
Why do commies bother you? Are they a threat?
Is communism making a come back?
You can check the FBI site to see if they are even mentioned as anything to be concerned about.
Once again you are lumping everyone at every protest as an idiot and dancing to someone elses tune.
I'll leave it at that and rest safely tonight knowing that you are out their keeping the commies away from my door. I appreciate it.

I'd still like an answer to question I posed about the perceptions of the troops. Do they matter?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by LukeT
Those signs I showed as examples were not just in one place. They are showing up at protests everywhere. What does that tell you?
Tells me that we see and hear what we expect to see and hear (Thoreau). Tells me there's some sign makers out there. Tells me that there were a lot of people out there not holding signs.
Did you ever see Charlie Chaplin's "Modern Times"? There's a funny scene in there where he picks up a red flag that's fallen off a lumber truck and as he goes chasing after it, from around the corner behind him charges a big labor demonstration.
The cops come in and he gets busted for leading it. Quite funny.
Course I think Chaplin was a commie himself wasn't he?

Subgenius, I think you are showing a lack of the kind of critical thinking of which we accuse woo-woos who believe in Slyvia Browne.

And maybe you haven't noticed in the past that I have been just as passionate in my fight against the White Nationalists and have spent time on Stormfront debating them.

Randi attacks the paranormal folks with the same kind of passion because he feels they are a threat to civilization. I feel that extremist groups are a greater threat to civilization.

Look at their web sites! Everybody likes hopping to woo-woo sites and ogling the freaks. And we like poking holes in their wild theories and bemoan the influence they have on our society. Why not look at these people who are influencing our politics with the same critical eye and with an equal concern?

The claims of these extremist organizations make John Edward's cold reading very pale and dull stuff.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Andalyn


I'd still like an answer to question I posed about the perceptions of the troops. Do they matter?
Of course they do.
Nothing is black and white.
Went to anti-war demo in '72 (?) with a VietNam vet. Did he have a right to protest without being accused of not supporting his friends still there?

[LTC8K6]

pgwenthold, I see what you're saying, but I think my point holds. The protesters do affect the troops. Intended or not. Even the ROK protests got back to the states.

Fortunately for our troops the protesters are only a tiny % of the population.

Will any of these protesters be spitting on GI's when they return? Throwing eggs? Calling them "baby killers"? Will returning GI's be wary of revealing that they are soldiers in certain areas? (From personal experience during desert storm, I would have to say yes, they should.)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by LukeT
Subgenius, I think you are showing a lack of the kind of critical thinking of which we accuse woo-woos who believe in Slyvia Browne.

And maybe you haven't noticed in the past that I have been just as passionate in my fight against the White Nationalists and have spent time on Stormfront debating them.

Randi attacks the paranormal folks with the same kind of passion because he feels they are a threat to civilization. I feel that extremist groups are a greater threat to civilization.

Look at their web sites! Everybody likes hopping to woo-woo sites and ogling the freaks. And we like poking holes in their wild theories and bemoan the influence they have on our society. Why not look at these people who are influencing our politics with the same critical eye and with an equal concern?

The claims of these extremist organizations make John Edward's cold reading very pale and dull stuff.
Extremist groups yes, generally. Commies, no, specifically. See the FBI site for perspective.

As retired military, I can tell you the troops are very, very aware of the anti-war protests. And it doesn't make them feel all warm and fuzzy.

Originally posted by subgenius

Extremist groups yes, generally. Commies, no, specifically. See the FBI site for perspective.

Does the FBI list Slyvia Browne as a threat? Or John Edward? No? Well, then, I guess we can stop examining them and move on.....

[subgenius]

Wow.

Originally posted by subgenius
Wow.

Exactly my reaction every time I look at this organization's web sites.

From the pdf file I linked earlier:

If you are sent to attack Iraq, you will likely be killing innocent civilians. Thousands of innocent men, women, and children will die in a war against the people of Iraq. Do you really
want to participate in a mass slaughter?

So our troops are baby-killers.


You have the right to refuse to fight for big oil!
You have the right to refuse an illegal order to go to serve in an illegal war!

Encouraging our troops to disobey orders. You don't see this as troubling, subgenius?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by LukeT


Exactly my reaction every time I look at this organization's web sites.

From the pdf file I linked earlier:



So our troops are baby-killers.



Encouraging our troops to disobey orders. You don't see this as troubling, subgenius?
No.
Think that those statements are persuasive enough to get any significant number, much less any, to act on them? If they are, we have a big problem in our services.
You keep shifting from commies to John Edwards, I can't follow it anymore. I have heard and understand your position.

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by subgenius

Of course they do.
Nothing is black and white.
Went to anti-war demo in '72 (?) with a VietNam vet. Did he have a right to protest without being accused of not supporting his friends still there?

Again, you bring up "rights". Of course he had the right to be there. He hasn't right to not suffer criticism.

Was he in fact supporting his friends? What did his friends think? I believe that the majority of troops would not have cared for his participation, and still wouldn't even today. Most interviews with troops in regards to the protests then and today would seem to support that.

It's not an accusation. What do the troops think about it? That is the question one should ask before engaging in such behavior with the pretense of "support", when it is not perceived that way by those who matter.

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
pgwenthold, I see what you're saying, but I think my point holds. The protesters do affect the troops. Intended or not. Even the ROK protests got back to the states.

Fortunately for our troops the protesters are only a tiny % of the population.

Will any of these protesters be spitting on GI's when they return? Throwing eggs? Calling them "baby killers"? Will returning GI's be wary of revealing that they are soldiers in certain areas? (From personal experience during desert storm, I would have to say yes, they should.)

The protests get way too much media coverage though...

[Tmy]

Werent grass roots protestors a big part of ending our involvement in Nam? What if they bought into the "we're at war nows not the time to protest" line. How much longer would that war (which now has been seen to be a mistake by our nation)have gone on with out the protestors efforts to stop it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
shanek, I'm not saying people should be in favor of the war because the marxists are against it. I guess you haven't understood what I've been saying for weeks now.

I have no problem with someone being against the war. I can respect that. I do have a problem with the horse some of these misguided people have hitched their wagon to.

I think I get the distinction now, after seeing the pictures you posted. I might agree with the KKK with their stance on gun freedom, but I wouldn't hold up a sign at a gun freedom rally that had their logo on it.

Originally posted by subgenius

No.
Think that those statements are persuasive enough to get any significant number, much less any, to act on them? If they are, we have a big problem in our services.
You keep shifting from commies to John Edwards, I can't follow it anymore. I have heard and understand your position.

My point about JE and the marxists is that both are a detriment to our society. I used the term "threat" for both earlier and perhaps you put more emphasis on that term. I do see political groups as a greater detriment and as having a greater impact on our day to day lives than any psychics do.

Just because the FBI does not list them as a literal threat doesn't mean they aren't a political threat. Or detriment, if you prefer.

I also believe, and I assume we are all in the Politics and Current Events section of this forum for this reason, that we need to think critically about the issues that come up. Twice in the last week or so, someone has assumed that no one who is against the war would be against the troops. That idea needs to be debunked just as thoroughly as anything else.

No, I do not think SNAFU will convince a significant number of troops to defect or whatever. I offered it as a sign of the real motives behind the sponsors of these war protests and as a cry for anti-war people to take their cause back from these people.

[Tula]

I support my troops all the way. I've worked with them, trained with them and those who out rank me I have learned from them. I have as a Navy Doc took care of them and their familyes when they are sick, drew their blood, gave them shots, and audiograms(hear test) for physicals so they can get on that plane and fight and as we have heared and seen on the news become POW's and die. Now like I said I support my troops, but guys I'll tell you I've been having a hard time sleeping at night, the last audiogram I did for a marine was born in 1984 and guys guess were he is now.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Andalyn
The answer lies in what do the troops consider as legitimate support?

I'm reasonably certain you would find that the majority of troops do not consider the protestors to be "supporting" the troops, no matter how often they claim it.

Again, if the troops (who are the ones who count here) do not see the protests to be support, then how is it so?

This is the key thing, IMHO. You cannot support the troops without supporting the war. Talk of "supporting the troops by bringing them home" or variations thereof are nonsense - the troops want to win, and they want people to support them in that aim.

So the question becomes not can you support the troops without supporting Bush, but rather can you support the war without supporting Bush. A more difficult task, I think.

As one recent thread put it, it all comes down to : even if you think the war is wrong, do you still want us to win? If so then you are effectively supporting Bush whether you want to or not.

It must be a pretty nasty dilemma for the anti-war folks.

[DavidJames]

"Subgenius, I think you are showing a lack of the kind of critical thinking of which we accuse woo-woos who believe in Slyvia Browne."

Amazing, maybe you should take your conspiracy theory to banter or the paranormal forums. :rolleyes: You are partially right though, critical thinking skills are severely lacking here, take a look in the mirror.

Originally posted by DavidJames
"Subgenius, I think you are showing a lack of the kind of critical thinking of which we accuse woo-woos who believe in Slyvia Browne."

Amazing, maybe you should take your conspiracy theory to banter or the paranormal forums. :rolleyes: You are partially right though, critical thinking skills are severely lacking here, take a look in the mirror.

I have carefully documented my claims over the past few weeks, and have not been refuted because it is irrefutable.

If you think I am wrong about who is sponsoring the war protests, then prove it. Better still, look at the evidence I have provided these last weeks, instead of mocking from the sideline, and see for yourself. Have you even done that?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus


This is the key thing, IMHO. You cannot support the troops without supporting the war. Talk of "supporting the troops by bringing them home" or variations thereof are nonsense - the troops want to win, and they want people to support them in that aim.

So the question becomes not can you support the troops without supporting Bush, but rather can you support the war without supporting Bush. A more difficult task, I think.

As one recent thread put it, it all comes down to : even if you think the war is wrong, do you still want us to win? If so then you are effectively supporting Bush whether you want to or not.

It must be a pretty nasty dilemma for the anti-war folks. I disagree entirely. It is perfectly possible to support the troops and hope they won't get hurt, and yet at the same time feel that the war was unnecessary or even wrong. I really don't see how this is hard to understand.

The troops have been ordered into combat. They are from "our" society and we may even personally know someone in action (I do). Of course I wish them all possible luck and am willing to support them, even financially.

This has no influence at all on whether I feel the war is justified/right/legal/etc.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus
As one recent thread put it, it all comes down to : even if you think the war is wrong, do you still want us to win? If so then you are effectively supporting Bush whether you want to or not.

It must be a pretty nasty dilemma for the anti-war folks.

No dilemma at all to me... before the war, there were three possible futures (listed in my order of preference).

1. Not go to war at all
2. Go to war and succeed
3. Go to war and fail/lose/stagnate/whatever.

Now that #1 is not an option, I don't feel at all odd about switching to my second preference.

Most political commentators I have heard on the radio would have you believe that I want #3, so that I can use it for political ammo in the next election. That's basically accusing me of wanting others to suffer for the benefit of my politics. Is it any wonder I resent it?

[LTC8K6]

Agreed, Andalyn.

I think someone who feels the way gnome feels is just as patriotic as someone who is for the war.

Overall, I would say that most of our troops have been in favor of the war from the get-go. This is just a wild-assed guess based on my own military experience.

It is understandable that they would be wary, if not mistrustful, of those who oppose the war. The wounds of being called baby-killers and murderers have not quite closed, despite the fact that the soldiers who were called that are, for the most part, long gone. There is a "corporate memory."

A military man fears a long conflict, for obvious survival reasons. Secondary to that is the fear that support for the cause will wane during a long conflict, as it did in the last long conflict.

So you will have to excuse the soldier who feels, "You might be patting me on the back now, but what about later on down the road when it gets rough?"

A military man keeps on the job until it is done. He does it with the aim of winning. He doesn't quit because it is taking too long. And if a supporter isn't with him for the whole shebang, no matter how long it takes, then he would just as soon say thanks but no thanks for your fair-weather support.

There is no two-way communication between the man on the battlefield and the man in the street. The man on the battlefield is going to make some assumptions about the man in the street holding a protest sign. They might be wrong assumptions, but there is a history behind those assumptions. And it doesn't help if he sees that sign has a socialist logo. That cuts deep.

[Bentspoon]

I quote Andalyn

Again, to me it all about the perception of the troops. If they feel that those who protest in the street are not supporting them, then they are not. It's that simple

So does it hold that if the Iraqi people hate us for what we are doing, we are still liberating them?

Don't get me wrong. I support the action because of the threat of WMD and the failure to disclose as mandated.

I have always thought this "liberation for the Iraqi poeple" was always a bunch of disingenuous BS.

So I saw this analogy to what you said.

Bentspoon

[DanishDynamite]

LukeT:it doesn't help if he sees that sign has a socialist logo. That cuts deep. Why? Would it be better if it said "Republicans for Isolationism", or "Libertarians for limited government"?

[Supercharts]

This is not 1991.
The replays on Discovery and History Channels have no relevance to what is happening now. Different game plan.
Now the Coalition Forces are out to Destroy and replace SH.
The French have proven how mediocre they are at diplomacy. The UN has failed to understand the significance of this war.
[I'm waiting for someone to post a reply on how this is "The Jews" fault. Someone work in the Palistinian angle - thanks]
Dubya is obviously a "Jew" in disguise. His pecker is shortened. But not his understanding of the Genie that's out of the bottle. Pay a few thousand and you can order fermentation tanks from Germany and culture some Anthrax. [I could be wrong on this but in 2 weeks we can chat] And France can supply the know-how to build a nuclear power plant for a country that is swimming in oil - go figure...
:confused:

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
LukeT: Why? Would it be better if it said "Republicans for Isolationism", or "Libertarians for limited government"?

In my opinion? Yes. In fact, if a significant number of Republicans were opposed to the war, that would probably make me, as a military man, begin to doubt the cause more than a million Socialists could.

edited to add: Make that a billion Socialists.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by LukeT

In my opinion? Yes. In fact, if a significant number of Republicans were opposed to the war, that would probably make me, as a military man, begin to doubt the cause more than a million Socialists could. You surprise me, Luke. I thought you could think for yourself and make your own decisions. It now seems that your view on whether the war is right or wrong could be determined by which organization was backing a protest against the war. (I almost want to say something about fundie sheep, but I won't.)

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
You surprise me, Luke. I thought you could think for yourself and make your own decisions. It now seems that your view on whether the war is right or wrong could be determined by which organization was backing a protest against the war. (I almost want to say something about fundie sheep, but I won't.)

I will explain my thinking, DD.

I think marxism, under the banner of socialism (United Soviet Socialist Republics, for example), is the worst political system to ever mar the face of the earth.

Therefore, I distrust anything socialists have to say about just about anything. So if a socialist tells me my government is misleading me, I have to wonder if it is actually the socialists who are being misleading.

And that is precisely what caused me to change my mind about being anti-war. I read their sites, and found the roots of the catch-phrases and rhetoric behind the anti-war movement was emanating from marxists. And a critical examination of their claims shows they are full of ****.

I mean, North Korea apologists accusing the United States of war crimes! Like I said in another topic, I would be laughing if it wasn't so disgusting.

If you think I haven't been putting much thought into this, then you haven't seen the dozens (hundreds?) of posts I have made in the last few weeks on this matter.

I have gone from pro-war to anti-war and back to pro-war in the last few weeks. If that isn't the sign of someone battling with his thoughts, I don't know what is.

Now, Republicans on the other hand, while not perfect, are far more trustworthy and far more dedicated to real freedom.

These are not conclusions I have reached lightly or without a great deal of thought. I have been involved in politics since I was 14 years old. At 15, I was making speeches before my state senate.

I might come across as a jokester a lot of the time on here. That is only because I have been there, done that, and am a little tired in my old age. But don't mistake that for a lack of depth, please.


edited to add: I didn't finish my thought on Republicans. If the Republicans, who I see as champions of freedom, were to come out against a war, that would get my attention.

edited again to add: Especially since they are the party of the President who got us into this war.

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
Now, Republicans on the other hand, while not perfect, are far more trustworthy and far more dedicated to real freedom.

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/roflmao.gif

Just couldn't let the phrase "dedicated to real freedom" to refer to "Republicans" go un-laughed at...

[Dymanic]

Again, to me it all about the perception of the troops. If they feel that those who protest in the street are not supporting them, then they are not. It's that simple
There it is again. All this stuff seems to be so simple for so many people. Maybe I'm overthinking things?

I have gone from pro-war to anti-war and back to pro-war in the last few weeks. If that isn't the sign of someone battling with his thoughts, I don't know what is.
Glad to see I'm not the only one that doesn't find it all so simple. My perception of those who have taken their opinions into the streets is that, for the most part, they seem to have somehow found a shortcut to the truth in this matter.

I'm not sure waving signs around in the streets is a particularly good way of making one's opinion known in the first place. There is a common perception that it was the protests that brought the Vietnam war to and end, but I have a hard time seeing that as being quite that simple either.

I distrust anything socialists have to say about just about anything.
See, now that's pretty similar to my instinctive tendency to oppose anything George Bush is in favor of just on that basis alone. I have to make a consious effort to curb that sort of thinking.

Is a matter such as this to be considered closed to further discussion once we have troops on the field?

Originally posted by shanek


http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/roflmao.gif

Just couldn't let the phrase "dedicated to real freedom" to refer to "Republicans" go un-laughed at...

I actually imagined you laughing when I wrote it. :)

Originally posted by Dymanic

See, now that's pretty similar to my instinctive tendency to oppose anything George Bush is in favor of just on that basis alone. I have to make a consious effort to curb that sort of thinking.

I have a much greater wealth of data on which to draw an opinion of marxists/socialists. And have. And I have examined what data there is on Bush, too.

Is a matter such as this to be considered closed to further discussion once we have troops on the field?

No. Absolutely not. I would dare say the question of supporting the troops is now even more topical.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by gnome


No dilemma at all to me... before the war, there were three possible futures (listed in my order of preference).

1. Not go to war at all
2. Go to war and succeed
3. Go to war and fail/lose/stagnate/whatever.

Now that #1 is not an option, I don't feel at all odd about switching to my second preference.

Most political commentators I have heard on the radio would have you believe that I want #3, so that I can use it for political ammo in the next election. That's basically accusing me of wanting others to suffer for the benefit of my politics. Is it any wonder I resent it?

Perhaps....but you cannot seriously be for #2 if your actions make #2 less likely. In other words,...if you want the troops to succeed once comitted to the battlefield you should cease protesting the war, and get behind the troops. Don't tie up our police forces in trying to keep you out of the roads etc...when the nation is on orange alert, and we are fighting a hot war. The constant protests take more police away from the important tasks of homeland security...making a terrorist attack more likely.... (Unless of course you are secretly in favor of #3)

-z

[UnrepentantSinner]

This order of battle (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/british/british.army/) is precisely why I love the British Army and it's unit names.

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by Bentspoon
I quote Andalyn



So does it hold that if the Iraqi people hate us for what we are doing, we are still liberating them?

Don't get me wrong. I support the action because of the threat of WMD and the failure to disclose as mandated.

I have always thought this "liberation for the Iraqi poeple" was always a bunch of disingenuous BS.

So I saw this analogy to what you said.

Bentspoon

Possibly. Perception being the key, if the Iraqis hate us then it would follow that they don't perceive we are "liberating" them.

I don't think this is likely, or as likely a scenario as with the troops. I would assume that most Iraqis know what kind of ruler they have. Also, if just a portion of the stories we have heard about the people being coerced to fight are true, then most should be happy being free of Saddam. Couldn't say for sure.

I am reasonably certain of what many troops think and feel about anti-war protestors, however.

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by Dymanic

There it is again. All this stuff seems to be so simple for so many people. Maybe I'm overthinking things?

Why? To me, it seems quite... simple :D

If the vast majority of the troops feel that the anti-war protestors are not supporting them, then how can they be? If the troops feel that the anti-war protestors are somehow working against their mission, how can that be considered "support" in the mind of a soldier?

It doesn't help matters that the organizers of these protests are decidedly anti-American. Troops by their nature are just somewhat required to be patriotic. :)


Perception is the key here I believe.


Originally posted by Dymanic

Is a matter such as this to be considered closed to further discussion once we have troops on the field?

I've stated a few times on this forum that I believe that when our troops are fighting and dying, public dissent is in bad taste. When I say "public dissent", I refer to the protests - not this forum or what you say or what you think.

Well, maybe a little in bad taste on the forum, but I'm reasonably certain most of our boys over there aren't keeping up on the topics here. Many do watch CNN or whatever and get to watch these people with their signs and "civil disobedience". Can't be too good for morale. They seem much bigger and more representitive on the news than they actually are.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Supercharts
This is not 1991.
The replays on Discovery and History Channels have no relevance to what is happening now. Different game plan.
Now the Coalition Forces are out to Destroy and replace SH.
The French have proven how mediocre they are at diplomacy. The UN has failed to understand the significance of this war.
[I'm waiting for someone to post a reply on how this is "The Jews" fault. Someone work in the Palistinian angle - thanks]
Dubya is obviously a "Jew" in disguise. His pecker is shortened. But not his understanding of the Genie that's out of the bottle. Pay a few thousand and you can order fermentation tanks from Germany and culture some Anthrax. [I could be wrong on this but in 2 weeks we can chat] And France can supply the know-how to build a nuclear power plant for a country that is swimming in oil - go figure...
:confused:

what? You got AUP on ignore or have ya just missed the posts that lean that way?;)

[Troll]

Originally posted by Andalyn


Why? To me, it seems quite... simple :D

If the vast majority of the troops feel that the anti-war protestors are not supporting them, then how can they be? If the troops feel that the anti-war protestors are somehow working against their mission, how can that be considered "support" in the mind of a soldier?

It doesn't help matters that the organizers of these protests are decidedly anti-American. Troops by their nature are just somewhat required to be patriotic. :)


Perception is the key here I believe.




I've stated a few times on this forum that I believe that when our troops are fighting and dying, public dissent is in bad taste. When I say "public dissent", I refer to the protests - not this forum or what you say or what you think.

Well, maybe a little in bad taste on the forum, but I'm reasonably certain most of our boys over there aren't keeping up on the topics here. Many do watch CNN or whatever and get to watch these people with their signs and "civil disobedience". Can't be too good for morale. They seem much bigger and more representitive on the news than they actually are.

Most of the troops, and I speak from experience, are disappointed in the protesters. But they are equally pondering the question as to whether or not the protesters know where theire freedom to protest comes from.

I've a good number of friends that have protested actions I took part in. They always made it clear that it was the "cause" and not the warrior that they were against. They also complained of acts of civil disobedience that caused any sort of damage, including the act of kicking the car of someone that disagreed with them.

You have to remember, our last big protesty type war in the US had people spitting on and blaming those that risked and lost their lives, and many for a cause they never fully understood themselves because the country and it's politicians, at that particular time, never explained it to them, and backstabbed them more than once.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Troll

Most of the troops, and I speak from experience, are disappointed in the protesters. But they are equally pondering the question as to whether or not the protesters know where theire freedom to protest comes from.


This one always bothers me.

"We are fighting to protect your freedom to protest, so you shouldn't do it"?

It's not about me or you. It's about the constitution. You cannot defend the constitution by restricting the rights guaranteed by it.

[Dymanic]

Now, is there a valid argument that the perception of the troops does not matter?

The perception of the troops does matter. For one thing, the success of their mission is to some degree dependent on their confidence that what they are doing is morally right and in the best interests of their country. As individuals, they certainly have each given thought to that, and I would be surprised if the conclusions they have reached are as unanimous as has been suggested here. However, our military does not operate in as democratic a manner as does the country they represent. By becoming soldiers, they they not only accepted the personal risks associated with that, they also accepted that their personal opinions would not be considered by the ones who gave their orders, and they made a promise to follow those orders regardless of that. In doing so, they placed great faith in the ones who decide what those orders will be.

I would argue that the perception of the troops is not the sole factor, nor the most important factor, in determining whether or not this war is a correct course of action.
I've stated a few times on this forum that I believe that when our troops are fighting and dying, public dissent is in bad taste.
..Well, maybe a little in bad taste on the forum
Perhaps you just kind of generally find any opinion that differs from your own to be in bad taste?

[Troll]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


This one always bothers me.

"We are fighting to protect your freedom to protest, so you shouldn't do it"?

It's not about me or you. It's about the constitution. You cannot defend the constitution by restricting the rights guaranteed by it.

I did not make that claim. I said they ponder that subject. Dureing the first Gulf war one of the very first questions made over the phones and in mails home were about protests and if there were any and what were they saying. You have to remember that even during the American revolution there were those that were agaisnt the war. No one is denying a person's right to an opposing view. Just wondering if they are really thinking about the big picture.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Troll


I did not make that claim. I said they ponder that subject. Dureing the first Gulf war one of the very first questions made over the phones and in mails home were about protests and if there were any and what were they saying.

Come home soon!



You have to remember that even during the American revolution there were those that were agaisnt the war. No one is denying a person's right to an opposing view. Just wondering if they are really thinking about the big picture.

I thought that protecting the life and liberty of folks at home _was_ the big picture?

[Troll]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Come home soon!




I thought that protecting the life and liberty of folks at home _was_ the big picture?

It is indeed the big picture. So tell me, why would one protest someone doing just that to begin with? ;)

that is what we wonder. But like i said either in this thread or another, I'm not agaisnt the protestors nor their right to protest peacefully. Someone here mentioned the perception of the protestors by the troops and I was speaking on that subject from my own experiences.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Troll
[B]

It is indeed the big picture. So tell me, why would one protest someone doing just that to begin with? ;)


From my perspective? Because I don't think the thing you are fighting is really a threat to our liberty. But that is a political decision, and not something the troops have anything to do with. The commander in chief tells you to do it to protect your country, you do it. And do it darn well, you will.

But I really want to expand on something I said earlier. You said

During the first Gulf war one of the very first questions made over the phones and in mails home were about protests and if there were any and what were they saying.

My response was "Come home soon."

As I think about it, I think that if you were told anything _but_ "Come home soon" then we have to think long and hard about who is really "supporting our troops."

I would have a grave concern about someone who didn't give you nothing but supportive feedback. Even if it required some, uh, distortion of the actual truth (even though "come home soon" is not a distortion of most people's opinion, just maybe leaving some information out).

[Tmy]

Arent we making a big assumtion that all the troops are for the war. Im sure there are soem who feel we shouldntve invaded. Of course they have a job to do an they go do it. Plus they cant exactly question their Commander an Cheifs decisions.

The President can order them to torch the rainforest and they would do it. Would you think it wrong for people to protest such an action?

Originally posted by pgwenthold


This one always bothers me.

"We are fighting to protect your freedom to protest, so you shouldn't do it"?


You know something, pgwenthold? You got me. That's a damn good point.

My only real concern is with who the protestors are allying themselves.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by LukeT


You know something, pgwenthold? You got me. That's a damn good point.

My only real concern is with who the protestors are allying themselves.

Interesting sign at a local pro-war rally:

"Honk if you hate hippies."


Is it acceptable to align yourself with this type of prejudice? Are they pro-war? Pro-troops? Or just anti-hippy?

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I disagree entirely. It is perfectly possible to support the troops and hope they won't get hurt, and yet at the same time feel that the war was unnecessary or even wrong. I really don't see how this is hard to understand.

The troops have been ordered into combat. They are from "our" society and we may even personally know someone in action (I do). Of course I wish them all possible luck and am willing to support them, even financially.

This has no influence at all on whether I feel the war is justified/right/legal/etc.

I agree that it is possible to feel that way (even if you hadn't proven that it is possible by actually feeling it, if you see what I mean). But I'm saying that as a practical matter, polls showing that the majority support the war are going to be seen as support for Bush, no matter what. And if a president is shown as having popular support in the media, then that is surely going to do his actual popularity no harm.

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Interesting sign at a local pro-war rally:

"Honk if you hate hippies."


Is it acceptable to align yourself with this type of prejudice? Are they pro-war? Pro-troops? Or just anti-hippy?

:)

Are the anti-hippies sponsoring the protest?

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by gnome


No dilemma at all to me... before the war, there were three possible futures (listed in my order of preference).

1. Not go to war at all
2. Go to war and succeed
3. Go to war and fail/lose/stagnate/whatever.

Now that #1 is not an option, I don't feel at all odd about switching to my second preference.

Most political commentators I have heard on the radio would have you believe that I want #3, so that I can use it for political ammo in the next election. That's basically accusing me of wanting others to suffer for the benefit of my politics. Is it any wonder I resent it?

Not at all. But as I explained, that's not what I was getting at.

All I am saying is that your option 2 is automatically going to be seen by many as support for Bush, whether you like it or not.

Now of course that doesn't mean you will go out and vote for him in the next election. But there is an extent to which favourable "we're behind the war" type stories in the media are going to translate into a perception of Bush as being a successful president, and actually increase his popularity.

Whether that will win him any elections depends on a million other factors.

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by Dymanic


The perception of the troops does matter. For one thing, the success of their mission is to some degree dependent on their confidence that what they are doing is morally right and in the best interests of their country. As individuals, they certainly have each given thought to that, and I would be surprised if the conclusions they have reached are as unanimous as has been suggested here. However, our military does not operate in as democratic a manner as does the country they represent. By becoming soldiers, they they not only accepted the personal risks associated with that, they also accepted that their personal opinions would not be considered by the ones who gave their orders, and they made a promise to follow those orders regardless of that. In doing so, they placed great faith in the ones who decide what those orders will be.

I would argue that the perception of the troops is not the sole factor, nor the most important factor, in determining whether or not this war is a correct course of action.

Hmm... let me address some points I think you got wrong:

I never stated that the troops were of 100% "unanimous" like mind on this issue, however I am confident that the vast majority do not care for the protests.

My argument is not whether the war is a "correct course of action". The question is "Can you be against the war, and support the troops?". I argue that I believe that one can be personally against the war but wish the troops well, I do not believe that public dissent can be considered support for troops.

You twisted my argument into trying to determine whether this war is a "correct course of action".

Again, quite simple: Can the protestors by their actions actually claim to support the troops when the troops don't consider their actions as support?

Is it actually support if the target of such support is actually offended by it?

The majority of the troops do not care for the protests or the protestors. The protestors claim to support the troops. The majority of the troops find this to be a hypocritical claim, with roots born of guilt and sensitivity to the Vietnam War.

Finally, the perception of the troops is, I believe, the most important factor in judging whether the protestsors can be considered supporting the troops.

Originally posted by Dymanic

Perhaps you just kind of generally find any opinion that differs from your own to be in bad taste?

Perhaps you need to re-read this entire thread. You've missed the point entirely. Go stand in the corner! :D

[LTC8K6]

I think I am psychic, maybe I will qualify for that million duckets. I remember saying something around here about soldiers being wary of wearing their uniforms in public, but I can't find that right now. Anyway..........


Would throwing rocks be support?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82395,00.html


I'll bet they are unaware of this:
Under Vermont law, assaulting or abusing a soldier because of membership in the military is a hate crime. Conviction could bring up to five years in prison.

[DanishDynamite]

LukeT:I will explain my thinking, DD.

I think marxism, under the banner of socialism (United Soviet Socialist Republics, for example), is the worst political system to ever mar the face of the earth.

Therefore, I distrust anything socialists have to say about just about anything. So if a socialist tells me my government is misleading me, I have to wonder if it is actually the socialists who are being misleading. Fair enough. But why try to analyze why socialist organisations support a viewpoint? Look at the facts and make your own decision.
And that is precisely what caused me to change my mind about being anti-war. I read their sites, and found the roots of the catch-phrases and rhetoric behind the anti-war movement was emanating from marxists. And a critical examination of their claims shows they are full of ****.OK.
I mean, North Korea apologists accusing the United States of war crimes! Like I said in another topic, I would be laughing if it wasn't so disgusting.I don't really see the connection. Either there is credible evidence for a contention or there isn't. Who delivers the evidence is generally of little importance.
If you think I haven't been putting much thought into this, then you haven't seen the dozens (hundreds?) of posts I have made in the last few weeks on this matter.
I have gone from pro-war to anti-war and back to pro-war in the last few weeks. If that isn't the sign of someone battling with his thoughts, I don't know what is. I've seen them, and I apologize for my snide remarks.
Now, Republicans on the other hand, while not perfect, are far more trustworthy and far more dedicated to real freedom. :D
These are not conclusions I have reached lightly or without a great deal of thought. I have been involved in politics since I was 14 years old. At 15, I was making speeches before my state senate. :eek: Cool!
I might come across as a jokester a lot of the time on here. That is only because I have been there, done that, and am a little tired in my old age. But don't mistake that for a lack of depth, please. I don't have a smidgen of doubt regarding your depth.
edited to add: I didn't finish my thought on Republicans. If the Republicans, who I see as champions of freedom, were to come out against a war, that would get my attention.Understandable, but nevertheless worrying. Why in the blue blazes does it matter which political group is in favor or not in favor of something? I really don't understand this mentallity. When an issue arises, I peruse my memory for whatever info I already have regarding the issue, and if I'm still in doubt, I try to search for additional information and as many viewpoints as I have time for. I then make a decision. If new facts are presented, I re-evaluate. I generally don't give a d*mn which party is in favor or otherwise.

[DanishDynamite]

Seismosaurus:I agree that it is possible to feel that way (even if you hadn't proven that it is possible by actually feeling it, if you see what I mean). But I'm saying that as a practical matter, polls showing that the majority support the war are going to be seen as support for Bush, no matter what. And if a president is shown as having popular support in the media, then that is surely going to do his actual popularity no harm. Which is why polls, as well as everything else, have to be viewed skeptically. A poll which asks "Do you support the war against Iraq?" would be unanswerable to a lot of people. A bit like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?". The question can't be answered by a simple Yes or No.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tmy
Arent we making a big assumtion that all the troops are for the war. Im sure there are soem who feel we shouldntve invaded. Of course they have a job to do an they go do it. Plus they cant exactly question their Commander an Cheifs decisions.

The President can order them to torch the rainforest and they would do it. Would you think it wrong for people to protest such an action?

Actually a fair number in the first one took the stance of conscienous objector. You always have a right to disobey or not carry out what you feel to be an unlawful order. If your CO told you to shine his boots and pick up his groceries you could easilly refuse, and in turn nail him with his senior officers, just like refusing to burn down a village. Now granted, some cases may get you locked up for a little while until you can get a courts-martial and have your day in court to allow a jury to decide if the order was an unlawful one.

Contrary to what some may think, we like thinkers and individuals that can follow and play by a team concept as well as an individual concept if need be in the military, not robots or blind followers.

[Dymanic]

Perhaps I have missed the point entirely.

Let me try again. The point is that, of course, as citizens of the country that stands for freedom, we all have the right--bought and paid for in blood--to have and express our opinions; to have a voice in our nation's policies. Except not when we are at war; once the decision has been made, and the battle has begun, it's too late to change anything, and if we think it's wrong, we need to keep our mouths shut about it, in case any of the troops might hear us. Or in case some undesireable people also think it's wrong.

Did I get all that right that time, or do I need to go back to my corner?

[DanishDynamite]

Dymanic:Except not when we are at war; once the decision has been made, and the battle has begun, it's too late to change anything, and if we think it's wrong, we need to keep our mouths shut about it, in case any of the troops might hear us. The freedom of speech is automatically cancelled when the country is at war? Sorry, I mean: The freedom of speech is automatically cancelled when the President has ordered troops into harms way?

Where is this law stated?
Did I get all that right that time, or do I need to go back to my corner?The corner beckons. Don't forget the Dunce hat.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Dymanic
Perhaps I have missed the point entirely.

Let me try again. The point is that, of course, as citizens of the country that stands for freedom, we all have the right--bought and paid for in blood--to have and express our opinions; to have a voice in our nation's policies. Except not when we are at war; once the decision has been made, and the battle has begun, it's too late to change anything, and if we think it's wrong, we need to keep our mouths shut about it, in case any of the troops might hear us. Or in case some undesireable people also think it's wrong.

Did I get all that right that time, or do I need to go back to my corner?

find the corner and put your little nose right in it. :p

Troops accept that some will protest. we just want a heads up on whether or not if and when we do come home, we'll be spat on and called names. Not because it's gonna destroy our love for our country. We just wanna know if we still need to fight once we touch ground on the homeland again. ;)

I jest a little there. Some are actually really sensitive and the spitting and name calling would hurt them. The rest of us figured something along the lines of " do these freeaking idiots think we went there just to kill innocent people and have a blast?"

[Troll]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Dymanic:The freedom of speech is automatically cancelled when the country is at war? Sorry, I mean: The freedom of speech is automatically cancelled when the President has ordered troops into harms way?

Where is this law stated?
The corner beckons. Don't forget the Dunce hat.

Oh dear Ed, DD and I agree?;)

[Dymanic]

The corner beckons. Don't forget the Dunce hat.

Oh dear Ed, DD and I agree?

I'm not fallin for it. I know you guys know my post was absolutely dripping with sarcasm, and you're just being meta-sarcastic by pretending not to get it.

Troops accept that some will protest. we just want a heads up on whether or not if and when we do come home, we'll be spat on and called names.

That keeps coming up again and again.

It's hard to fathom that that actually happened to our troops returning from war. I would like to think that we have healed enough from that war that the very idea of it occurring again would be unthinkable, but that scar doesn't even seem to have scabbed over. Maybe it never will. It might help if some of the people who did that would step forward and apologize, but I don't remember ever seeing that happen, and I don't expect to. I can't imagine the ones who live with that shame ever telling a living soul--except maybe a priest or an AA sponsor.

Characterizing all who oppose this war as potential spitters is a good example of the polarization I spoke of in my first post to this thread. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground--you're either for the war, or you're spitting on soldiers.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Dymanic


I'm not fallin for it. I know you guys know my post was absolutely dripping with sarcasm, and you're just being meta-sarcastic by pretending not to get it.



That keeps coming up again and again.

It's hard to fathom that that actually happened to our troops returning from war. I would like to think that we have healed enough from that war that the very idea of it occurring again would be unthinkable, but that scar doesn't even seem to have scabbed over. Maybe it never will. It might help if some of the people who did that would step forward and apologize, but I don't remember ever seeing that happen, and I don't expect to. I can't imagine the ones who live with that shame ever telling a living soul--except maybe a priest or an AA sponsor.

Characterizing all who oppose this war as potential spitters is a good example of the polarization I spoke of in my first post to this thread. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground--you're either for the war, or you're spitting on soldiers.

Oh now I'm gonna hafta accuse you of not fully reading. Sorry. But i did say that we pondered it. because the last major conflict that had mass media attention was vietnam and the guys returning home were treated badly. Nothing had happened since then so we naturally had to ask what was going on on the homefront.

this is a new war and one that has had a precursor of sorts. So the troops now know what we did not during the first. I doubt any feel they will come home and be called baby killers and be spat upon. And I'm glad for that. I'm also glad to see those that protest peacefully. Because the peaceful protestors show their concern for the lives of all, including our troops.

I wasn't making accusations about the protestors, well, unless somewhere in this one I mentioned my differing views of peaceful protestors and those that obstruct others, but I don't think I did that in this thread and even if I did I am not claiming all protestors have a mouthfull of saliva ready and waiting.

there is indeed a middle ground. And it has been found. It wasn't during Vietnam that it was found. And as such, those of us entering the first major conflict since Vietnam had only the experience of the Vietnam vets to go on.

I hope I made myself fully clear this time.

I support troops

Believe in this particular war's cause

Support and give thanks for the rights of peaceful protestors.

Hate the destructive, obstructionsit protestors.

Wonder if there were any protests and the views of the protestors when I went to war in the first major conflict since vietnam where the returning soldiers were treated with disrespect.

Was glad to hear that peaceful protests took place and people supported the troops.

Yes I know I mentioned the spitting thing. I know I brought it up But I explained why.

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by Dymanic
Perhaps I have missed the point entirely.

Let me try again. The point is that, of course, as citizens of the country that stands for freedom, we all have the right--bought and paid for in blood--to have and express our opinions; to have a voice in our nation's policies. Except not when we are at war; once the decision has been made, and the battle has begun, it's too late to change anything, and if we think it's wrong, we need to keep our mouths shut about it, in case any of the troops might hear us. Or in case some undesireable people also think it's wrong.

Did I get all that right that time, or do I need to go back to my corner?

I don't think anyone (including me) is stating that protests should be made illegal, or banned while war is happening. I did state that I felt that while we are engaged in war, the protests are in bad taste.

My reasoning for this is fairly simple:

I believe that the majority of soldiers feel that the protestors DO NOT support them. Many protestors claim they do, but many feel that this is merely hypocrisy and latent sensitivity over the Vietnam War. So... (stay with me here) if the soldiers do not feel that the protestors support them, how can they?

I don't know how many times I can word this differently. You seem to be taking my argument and somehow changing it into a "rights" issue. Of course people have the right to protest. Of course people have the right to free speech. Both can be done in bad taste. Both can be done, under the guise of being "support", but that doesn't make it so.

I'm not banging a drum calling for protestors heads (except those that break the law or throw rocks). I'm not calling for a suspension of free speech. I am stating quite clearly, that I feel that these protests are in bad taste. I am also stating that those that engage in this behavior and claim that they support the troops probably actually do not, as the troops do not perceive this behavior as support.

Now... you can either stay in the corner, or actually attempt to refute actual statements I have made, instead of making some up! :)

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Seismosaurus:Which is why polls, as well as everything else, have to be viewed skeptically. A poll which asks "Do you support the war against Iraq?" would be unanswerable to a lot of people. A bit like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?". The question can't be answered by a simple Yes or No.

Exactly. But the average idiot in the street isn't going to do that, unfortunately.

[Dymanic]

I don't think we really are talking about rights here. I'm not suggesting that anyone has challenged anyone's right to protest. Nobody's talking about banning anything, except maybe rock-throwing (which is already illegal...depending on the target).
We are talking about patriotism, the current definition of which has been improperly co-opted by the pro-war camp, and redefined for their purposes, as: "In support of the troops".

And, we are talking about bad taste.

What I think is in bad taste is the claim, on the part of those who are pro-war, that they are in possession of the moral high ground, and are displaying a superior brand of patriotism than those who oppose the war, based on the idea that we must support the troops no matter what. I'm not directing this at anyone personally; some comments here seem fairly representative of an attitude I see everywhere.

I continue to be bothered by the ease with which the demonstrators on both sides seem to have reached their conclusions. Their enthusiasm (again, so reminiscent of football fans) leads me to theorize that they are relying more on emotion than on reason, and my greater concern is that similar methods seem to have been used in the decision-making process that brought us to this juncture in the first place.

If you take a close look at the constitution, the impression you get is that the ones who wrote it felt that might is not always right, and were anticipating the possibility that the reins of power could fall into the hands of those who did not represent the will of the people. Our whole system of government is in fact designed primarily with that concept in mind; i.e., that those in power may not always make good decisions, and that when they do not, it is our duty to oppose them--by force if necessary. Our right to bear arms is based on the idea that, should the reins of power ever need to be wrested from the hands of misguided leaders, men willing to do that would step forward, and they would require weapons to do the job. The founding fathers would have referred to such men as 'patriots'.

I'm going to continue to insist that the higher form of patriotism (and thereby, good taste) is displayed by he who has the best interests of our people as his first priority. That is supporting the troops; in fact it is the ultimate form of supporting the troops, because it is what insures that the sacrifices they make are worth something.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

Understandable, but nevertheless worrying. Why in the blue blazes does it matter which political group is in favor or not in favor of something? I really don't understand this mentallity. When an issue arises, I peruse my memory for whatever info I already have regarding the issue, and if I'm still in doubt, I try to search for additional information and as many viewpoints as I have time for. I then make a decision. If new facts are presented, I re-evaluate. I generally don't give a d*mn which party is in favor or otherwise.

I guess you missed my second edit of the post I made that said "Especially since they are the party of the President who got us into this war."

If significant numbers of the party of the president who got us into this war came out against the war, that would be quite a red flag, wouldn't it? To be opposed by your own team?

I admit I take some of my cues from which organization supports or opposes something. But I do that only after having deeply examined each of those organizations and their history.

I doubt any of us are free of prejudices or inclinations when it comes to politics. And, seriously, will the marxists ever change their spots?

I still checked way, way down into their organization regardless. Nothing has changed.

I think I did quite the opposite of what you assume, DD. I took some of the rhetoric that is floating around on boths sides of this issue, and traced them back to their sources. And then I applied some critical thinking to them. And I started by examining the rhetoric on the side I favored. And I didn't like a lot of what I found. And that prompted me to start a topic that said I had changed my mind and was against the war. That was very difficult for me.

But I didn't stop there. Once I was anti-war, I began to examine the anti-war rhetoric. I performed the exact same process. And I hated what I found there even more. I found what was behind the mask of both sides.

I have no doubt that both sides have lied. They say that Truth is the first casualty of war.

The causes and motivations of each side are very questionable. So all you can do is guess where each side will take us. I base my guesses on past performance. And that ultimately led me to support the war. A little nervous we'll drop the ball before we reach the end, though.


(yet another edit :rolleyes: : And I'm still waiting for evidence of nuclear, biological and chemical WMD. I have not forgotten the statements by our government that Hussein was "possibly" months away from having a nuke.)

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Dymanic
What I think is in bad taste is the claim, on the part of those who are pro-war, that they are in possession of the moral high ground, and are displaying a superior brand of patriotism than those who oppose the war, based on the idea that we must support the troops no matter what.

I think timing is a factor. Before the decision to commit troops to a conflict is made, the nation ought to have a lively and heated debate about the justification for action.

But once the troops are engaged in the battle, the debate shifts. Once soldiers are shooting at each other, it makes no sense to say, "no war," because the war is.

For the sake of argument, let's grant that it was a mistake to send troops into Iraq. The war protesters were right to oppose that decision. But now, what would happen if the US/UK troops were to pull out of Iraq tomorrow? Might that decision produce an outcome much worse than continuing the battle until the objective is met?

Current protest based upon reasons for not entering Iraq in the first place is not valid. Current protest must be based upon arguments that compare removal of forces verses completing the objective.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by LukeT


I would venture to say that the majority of the ordinary people have no idea what the true nature of this movement is about. They are being used in the very way these organizations are accusing our government of using people.

Funny how people who speak up are being "used". And why does it always seem to be that "my" side is composed of intelligent, reasoning people, while "your" side is composed of manipulated ignorant sheep?

It takes a lot to speak out against the majority. I find it hard to believe that such people have been manipulated. Someone with weak convictions will tend to still home and watch it on TV, not go to a protest march or a parade supporting the troops.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by DrBenway


I think timing is a factor. Before the decision to commit troops to a conflict is made, the nation ought to have a lively and heated debate about the justification for action.

But once the troops are engaged in the battle, the debate shifts. Once soldiers are shooting at each other, it makes no sense to say, "no war," because the war is.

For the sake of argument, let's grant that it was a mistake to send troops into Iraq. The war protesters were right to oppose that decision. But now, what would happen if the US/UK troops were to pull out of Iraq tomorrow? Might that decision produce an outcome much worse than continuing the battle until the objective is met?

Current protest based upon reasons for not entering Iraq in the first place is not valid. Current protest must be based upon arguments that compare removal of forces verses completing the objective.

Happy to address that. Your assumption is that the reasons for not entering the war have now evaporated, while the reasons for entering the war are still valid and beneficial. I don't agree with those implicit assumptions. In other words, the debate may have changed in some areas, but it may not in others.

Reasons to continue war:
1. Remove Saddam from power. Same argument as before war began.
2. Save face - wouldn't want other nations to perceive us as weak-willed. This is new reason to continue the war.

Reasons to stop the war:
3. It is morally/legally wrong. Same argument as before war began.
4. Save face - wouldn't want other countries to perceive us as brutal because of what we are inflicting upon the Iraqi people. This is a new reason to stop the war.

I did not try to iterate every pro and con - you can do that yourself depending on your view. But I don't agree that once a war starts, dissent stops. I would only agree that the arguments may shift somewhat.

There was little public debate before Vietnam - unfortunately. Because many people felt that dissent was somehow "unpatriotic", it took a long time to get public opinion to shift so that the true nature of what we were doing was revealed. Vietnam was a terrible strategic mistake, and I am proud to have been an active dissenter.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Your assumption is that the reasons for not entering the war have now evaporated, while the reasons for entering the war are still valid and beneficial.

Not quite what I wished to convey. I think people on both sides of this debate have to change their footing. "Yes, we ought to go to war," is not the same as "Yes, we ought to keep fighting until the objective is met." Likewise, "No, we ought not go to war," is not the same as, "No, we ought to remove our troops from Iraq immediately."

I can easily see a person opposed to going to war, now being opposed to a premature pull out.

An analogy: a patient has to decide between treatment of a disease by medication or surgery. He opts for surgery. Part way into the surgery, he realizes he wished he'd opted for medication. Should he have the surgeon put down his scalpel at that moment, or let him finish the job?

One consequence of a pull out now: the brutal Ba'ath party has learned more about their true friends and enemies, and will kill off more of the opposition in Iraq.

To add: another consequence (http://www.msnbc.com/news/892536.asp?vts=032920031150}:
Asked whether suicide bombings will now become a policy of the Iraqi military, Ramadan said: “It will be routine military policy. We will use any means to kill our enemy in our land and we will follow the enemy into its land.”

Will a pull out be followed by a build up of Iraqi aggression against the U.S.? I would guess yes. The top of the pyramid in Iraq is a sick lot of sadistic, narcissistic souls who live for this sort of thing.

Will removal of the Ba'ath regime lessen the danger of suicide bombers on U.S. soil? Only if the U.S. invests a sh*itload of money, men, and willpower, into the rebuilding of Iraq, and works with a broader coalition of international support, after this war ends.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by DrBenway


Not quite what I wished to convey. I think people on both sides of this debate have to change their footing. "Yes, we ought to go to war," is not the same as "Yes, we ought to keep fighting until the objective is met." Likewise, "No, we ought not go to war," is not the same as, "No, we ought to remove our troops from Iraq immediately."

I can easily see a person opposed to going to war, now being opposed to a premature pull out.

An analogy: a patient has to decide between treatment of a disease by medication or surgery. He opts for surgery. Part way into the surgery, he realizes he wished he'd opted for medication. Should he have the surgeon put down his scalpel at that moment, or let him finish the job?

One consequence of a pull out now: the brutal Ba'ath party has learned more about their true friends and enemies, and will kill off more of the opposition in Iraq.

Thanks for clarifying. I do agree that it is a different decision after the war has started.

Many people may have switched from being mildly against the war (before) to mildly pro-war (after war started) because they want to "support our troops". So I will ask: exactly what does it mean to support our troops?

-Do we want them to come home safely? I do.
-Do we want them to accomplish their mission of taking out Saddam? I'm not sure, since I believe the purpose of the war is wrong.
-Do we want them to kill civilians or commit other acts of horror? I don't.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Do we want them to accomplish their mission of taking out Saddam? I'm not sure, since I believe the purpose of the war is wrong.
You may be correct, as of February 2003. I'm not sure you're correct now.

Right and wrong are not only determined by ideals, they're also determined by the expected consequences of certain actions.

It's difficult to see how a pull out now would be a good thing for anyone, except the Ba'ath party, OBL, and the like.

You'll have to come up with your own conclusion regarding the anticipated consequences of a pull out vs. continued fighting. For myself, I feel we have to stick with the fighting. Each day, however, we may need to re-assess our objectives, as circumstances change.

I don't think it's possible to answer the "support our troops" question before answering the question regarding the current objective of the troops.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by DrBenway

I think timing is a factor. Before the decision to commit troops to a conflict is made, the nation ought to have a lively and heated debate about the justification for action.
At one time it was even considered appropriate to do this thing called a 'declaration of war', which was a process by which such a decision was made only after careful consideration and discussion by a number of people. Seems like such a silly antiquated notion now.
Current protest based upon reasons for not entering Iraq in the first place is not valid. Current protest must be based upon arguments that compare removal of forces verses completing the objective.
I pretty much agree with all of that. It tends to support my tentative theory that a lot of the demonstrators haven't been entirely thorough in thinking things through, and it's one of the reasons I won't be out protesting against the war (other reasons include the fact that I am not convinced that the action is not something we pretty much have to do. I'm mostly not happy at the decision-making process itself--when it comes to foreign relations, Bush's surgical technique seems to rely more on the chain saw than on the scalpel, and I think it's going to leave a pretty nasty scar).

[gnome]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Perhaps....but you cannot seriously be for #2 if your actions make #2 less likely. In other words,...if you want the troops to succeed once comitted to the battlefield you should cease protesting the war, and get behind the troops. Don't tie up our police forces in trying to keep you out of the roads etc...when the nation is on orange alert, and we are fighting a hot war. The constant protests take more police away from the important tasks of homeland security...making a terrorist attack more likely.... (Unless of course you are secretly in favor of #3)

Actually... I agree provisionally. Once this war has started I think it's perfectly OK to continue to protest in an orderly manner, to keep the political pressure on the leaders that called for this war.... to send the message that we haven't changed our minds about the wisdom of this war. BUT I do not support acts of civil disobedience and disruption under these circumstances.

Regarding the sign I've seen posted from the protests "We support our troops when they shoot their officers," I have this to say--it is clearly a contradictory point of view. If that kind of violence is acceptable to them, what possible objection could they have with American policy in this case?

The complete outrageous lunacy of that message leads me to wonder if it is sincerely meant. Does anyone think it's possible it could be carried by someone angry enough to want to smear the anti-war movement? I guess it's not possible to know what's in someone's head. Unfortunately, I can't rule out the possibility that they mean exactly what they say.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by gnome


Actually... I agree provisionally. Once this war has started I think it's perfectly OK to continue to protest in an orderly manner, to keep the political pressure on the leaders that called for this war.... to send the message that we haven't changed our minds about the wisdom of this war. BUT I do not support acts of civil disobedience and disruption under these circumstances.

Regarding the sign I've seen posted from the protests "We support our troops when they shoot their officers," I have this to say--it is clearly a contradictory point of view. If that kind of violence is acceptable to them, what possible objection could they have with American policy in this case?

The complete outrageous lunacy of that message leads me to wonder if it is sincerely meant. Does anyone think it's possible it could be carried by someone angry enough to want to smear the anti-war movement? I guess it's not possible to know what's in someone's head. Unfortunately, I can't rule out the possibility that they mean exactly what they say.

Oh,...I think they mean just what they say. There are always a few rogue elements in protests. When I first came to DC the first big demonstration I saw up close was a huge gay pride thing. The official speakers were all up on the stage saying how "normal" gay people are. (BTW, I have nothing against gay folk, and understand that they were merely trying to be "on message" by being well dressed, articulate, etc...) Anyway there was a hilarious assemblage of cross dressers and leather clad guys that were obviouly furious about the "normal" message and were happily flaunting their "strangeness" at every turn. :D There was even a group of guys in drag dressed as outrageous Catholic nuns. They carried a sign that said "Spoiling it for everyone!" :D

So, yeah,...there are always spoilers in every protest. Those with more extreme views than the organizers wish to present....but however, tend to represent a very real undercurrent.

So did those guys mean what they were saying about supporting soldiers who frag their officers? I'd bet you a crisp $100 that they did. Just as I'm sure the Columbia Univ prof meant what he said about "1,000 Mogidishus". There is a strong undercurrent of nothing less than enemy sentiment which exists in the mass of these protests. It's real.

-z

[synaesthesia]

I don't think the protestors have always considered their positions carefully. Since it is well known that these protests have a very real effect upon the course of the war (Prolonging it, making the resitance more bitter and the outcome more negative), I think that's a crime to be going out and protesting what you don't understand.

So going out and joining a peace rally is in some ways incompatible with supporting the troops, their safety and the safety of the Iraqi people. That's not to say I oppose the right of individuals to join in protest, but I think it makes is all the more criminal to do so in total ignorance of the motivations behind the war. Something which is terribly common if you go out and talk to the protestors.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by DrBenway
Will removal of the Ba'ath regime lessen the danger of suicide bombers on U.S. soil? Only if the U.S. invests a sh*itload of money, men, and willpower, into the rebuilding of Iraq, and works with a broader coalition of international support, after this war ends.


I see a lot of hope for a postive outcome if the war succeeds. Many countries are onside for post-war democratization and have already committed to contributing very substantial amounts of security, funding, food and transport.

When the war is over, the true battle begins: convicing the Iraqi people that they have been liberated and not defeated. This is a battle that many of those who oppose the war are doing their utmost to thwart. This is unfortunate and is to the detriment of the Iraqi people and the security of the west.

[heath]

In response to the original question: yes.

The troops are following orders and fighting for what they think is right. It's not black and white as to whether they are correct or not. Nor is it really their call. They should be supported for doing exactly what they should be doing.

Whether this is a legal or morally just war is another question entirely. The answer to that question also has not changed one iota since the war actually began.

#-- On topic for the Iraq conflict but not related to the thread question

I'm dismayed by people who's support for this war has only emerged since it began and I am appalled by the sentiment that "now that we have started it we must win". :eek:

Why?

To save face?

Is pulling out with zero further loss of life a bad outcome here? I say no.

It's getting to a point in the war that either a long siege or massive bombing may be required to get any further. It's going to get messier and more people will die. I have to ask what for? What will it accomplish? Is it really worth it?

Try the analogy of deciding whether to get in a fight with a belligerent drunk or not. You can fight the idoit that is trying to pick a fight with you or you can choose not to. You might win. You will definitely bloody up your knuckles and get blood on your nice new shoes. Is it worth it or can you just walk away? Especially if it's a drunk you know and you can always come back later and sort them out.

What if you start fighting then and realise that they are much tougher than you anticipated? Do you back out with minimal harm or do you keep at it knowing that you might actually get your a#se kicked?

Now what if this drunk isn't tougher than you thought and you beat the crap out of them. Is that right? They were beligerent but does that justify you taking them out?

When I was a teenager I'd have fought. As an adult I'd either talk my way out or find some other sollution. Even just turn my back and walk away if that's what it took. If it became physical then I'd use the minimum amount of force to subdue the person and make sure I minimise injury to buth myself and them.

To include the innocent iraqi people into this analogy you could expand it to an abusive drunk with a wife and kids. Do you kick in his door and start a fight? What about the effect on the wife and kids, especially if they don't want your input (for whatever reason)? What if the drunk is the only provider in the house? What if there are repercussions on the family afterwards?...

It's not clear cut in either this war or the domestic abuse analogy but the anwer is not bust in and start a fight if there are alternative ways. Especially if your kids just got a bloody nose from some bully at school and you are busting for a fight to retaliate. With anyone....

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by synaesthesia
I don't think the protestors have always considered their positions carefully. Since it is well known that these protests have a very real effect upon the course of the war (Prolonging it, making the resitance more bitter and the outcome more negative), I think that's a crime to be going out and protesting what you don't understand.

So going out and joining a peace rally is in some ways incompatible with supporting the troops, their safety and the safety of the Iraqi people. That's not to say I oppose the right of individuals to join in protest, but I think it makes is all the more criminal to do so in total ignorance of the motivations behind the war. Something which is terribly common if you go out and talk to the protestors.

You state that protest prolongs war and makes resistance more bitter. Can you back that up? Provide an example? I deny that is true.

You also state that it is "criminal to do so in total ignorance of the motivations behind the war". Heavy duty, so what law is broken may I ask? And why is your standard different for those ignorant of our reasons for going to war who also protest, vs. those who support the war and are just as ignorant? Or am I misreading your words?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by synaesthesia
I don't think the protestors have always considered their positions carefully. Since it is well known that these protests have a very real effect upon the course of the war (Prolonging it, making the resitance more bitter and the outcome more negative), I think that's a crime to be going out and protesting what you don't understand.

So going out and joining a peace rally is in some ways incompatible with supporting the troops, their safety and the safety of the Iraqi people. That's not to say I oppose the right of individuals to join in protest, but I think it makes is all the more criminal to do so in total ignorance of the motivations behind the war. Something which is terribly common if you go out and talk to the protestors. If it is a crime to 'protest what you don't understand', is it OK to protest if you do understand it? How do you see the difference when you look at protestors?

Do you apply the same rules for those who support the war - is it criminal to do so in ignorance of the motivations behind the war? :confused:

[Dymanic]

I think I would agree that to strongly denounce an opposing point of view without having made a decent effort to become aquainted with the substantive aspects of the issue is, if not criminal, at least a minor moral infraction.

What I think I am seeing expressed out there is not informed opinions, but reactive emotions.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Dymanic
I think I would agree that to strongly denounce an opposing point of view without having made a decent effort to become aquainted with the substantive aspects of the issue is, if not criminal, at least a minor moral infraction.

What I think I am seeing expressed out there is not informed opinions, but reactive emotions. How do you spot the difference between those protestors who are idiots and those who know why they are protesting?

If they all march in the same demonstration, are you watching some intelligent people with a lot of idiots, or is it the other way around? How do you know? :confused:

[Dymanic]

How do you tell them apart? Tough one. I guess it's just kind of an intuitive thing.:
http://www.stlimc.org/local/webcast/uploads/metafiles/boeing54kueuvg.jpg

[Tmy]

Funny how wanting peace has become such a horrible thing.

"What! Susan Surandon wants peace?!? Break her legs!!"

[Lurker]

The question seems pretty simple to me. Yes, you can support the troops and still be against the war. And it does not matter what the troops define support as since support really is subjective. As another poster pointed out, we think we support the Iraqi people in their "quest" for liberation. I sincerely doubt a lot of Iraqis would agree with our support. Who is right? It is all subjective.

On another note, some here said it would be in bad taste to continue to protest once the war has commenced. This is lunacy as dissent would be stifled. Did the poster feel the same way when Clinton sent troops to Kosovo? Shut up? No dissent? What is the difference between a protest and a talking head on FoxNews talking about how awful sending troops to Kosovo was? You think the troops in Kosovo are feeling all warm and fuzzy about that person's comments on TV? If a pundit on TV talks about how bad the decision to send troops to Kosovo how is that much different than 100 protesters marching in Portland as it relates to troop morale?

Lurker

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Dymanic
I think I would agree that to strongly denounce an opposing point of view without having made a decent effort to become aquainted with the substantive aspects of the issue is, if not criminal, at least a minor moral infraction.

What I think I am seeing expressed out there is not informed opinions, but reactive emotions.

One of the cornerstones of our great system is the right to vote - regardless of your level of understanding of the issues. Ditto with the right to free speech and assembly, so I guess that puts me on the other side of this issue. But I might be comfortable with the "minor moral infraction" part, maybe I'll meditate on it.

I liked your link about the "intuitive thing".

[Tula]

Ok I have a real quick question(s) for everyone.

How many of you are watching the news coverage?

How many of you have seen or sent in pictures of military loved ones over in the Middle East to the Worlds Bravest Wall that is on MSNBC?

Now here's the real important question.

How many of you cired and morned the loss of those who have died, been labeled MIA, and those who are POW?

And how many of those do you know because you've worked with them, trained with them, learned from them or even loved them as your son, brother, sister, daughter, cousin, any type of relitave, or as a spouse?

This war is going to be one of the hardest. Not because we don't have the technology or so forth. Its because of public view and what the American people feel they don't know. I my self as a military member ask why at least a hundred times a day. Though being at the bottome of the totum pole so to say means you get very little information and just say yes sir or ma'am and do your job. But I do know one thing Saddam gots to go. I support my troops 100% no wait 110% all the way. I love my troops and mourn for every single one who is MIA, POW, and KIA. I cired when I heared that a fellow doc's died (thats what the MArines call us Hospital Corpsmen, doc's cause were the first and a sometimes the last person they'll see.) Me and my husband have a candle lit and it stays lit all day and all night and won't go out until our troops come home. Me and my neighbors have flags up, Navy, Marine, American, and POW flags up and flying high and with pride. Yellow ribbons adorn every door in the apts we live in. But with in my heart of hearts I can't find myself supporting the war. Maybe if it was UN lead yeah, but I will never know what the UN would have decided. Though as I stated earlier I will do my job to protect my home and my country 110% of the way.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tula
This war is going to be one of the hardest. Not because we don't have the technology or so forth. Its because of public view and what the American people feel they don't know.

The blame for this rests squarely on the shoulders of George III. He's been lying to us and jerking us around aboout Saddam for so long, constantly changing from one reason to the next as why we should go after Saddam, claiming there is evidence but not presenting any, explaining it away when evidence fails to provide what he said it would, repeating lies about Saddam, some of which have been known to be lies for over ten years (like the pulling babies from incubators thing), and giving absolutely no clear reason whatsoever for going against Saddam because all of his "reasons" could apply much more closely to Saudi Arabia, who's our ally and is even aiding us against Saddam, or North Korea or Pakistan, who can actually fight back.

And there are people there who actually wonder why we aren't comfortable with this war? :rolleyes:

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by shanek

And there are people there who actually wonder why we aren't comfortable with this war? :rolleyes:

Who's we, white man? :)

Polls are still highly in favor...

[wert]

Originally posted by Andalyn


Who's we, white man? :)

Polls are still highly in favor...
argumentum ad populum (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm)

I see.

It's gotta be right if the polls support it. :rolleyes:

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by wert

argumentum ad populum (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm)

I see.

It's gotta be right if the polls support it. :rolleyes:

Okay... you tell me - why are "we" uncomfortable with this war?

Remember, I spoke in reference to Shane's post. Do you get it now?

Why are "we" uncomfortable with this war? Who is "we"?

CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT. Or maybe it's only a fallacy if it's a view you don't agree with.

[Dymanic]

One of the cornerstones of our great system is the right to vote - regardless of your level of understanding of the issues.
That's a good point. Such a right is not something to be taken lightly; it carries with it the weight of responsibility.
Ditto with the right to free speech and assembly, so I guess that puts me on the other side of this issue.
The demonstrators (both pro and anti) have a right to be there. Is there another side to this issue?

Since we don't all have the time and resources to consider every matter in detail, and our system does not allow every citizen to vote on every issue, we use our voting power to select people who can make that a full-time job. We not only expect, but demand that those people maintain a certain level of understanding of the issues, and we rely on them to represent us. When major decisions are made without their having been properly consulted, taking it to the streets is about the only form of representation any of us is going to get. I mean, when we talk about the right to vote, are we talking about the right to vote in opinion polls?

Tula, thank you for your post. I think you expressed very well what a lot of us are going through.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Andalyn


Okay... you tell me - why are "we" uncomfortable with this war?

Remember, I spoke in reference to Shane's post. Do you get it now?

Why are "we" uncomfortable with this war? Who is "we"?

Count me as one of those uncomfortable with the statements from the administration, and the motivation for this war. Hence, there are at least two.


CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT. Or maybe it's only a fallacy if it's a view you don't agree with.

It is still a fallacious argument. The majority may or may not be right. But they are not right because they are the majority.

But since Shanek's use of "we" did not necessarily refer to the majority, I see your response more as a non-sequitor than anything else (does not follow).

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Andalyn

Why are "we" uncomfortable with this war? Who is "we"?



For a "we" I know several people who agree with the thought that the first "white flag ambush" should have become ground zero for a MOAB as soon as our troops could exit the danger zone.

I'm very uncomfortable with unneeded loss of USofA/Coalition military lives. (The Iraqi's can shoot all the journists they want.)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Andalyn
Who's we, white man?

Those who are against the war, obviously.

Polls are still highly in favor...

That and a quarter will get you a handful of chicklets.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Andalyn
CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT. Or maybe it's only a fallacy if it's a view you don't agree with.

Or maybe you only get to claim context if it's a view you do agree with; otherwise, you get to use the word "we" when it was obviously meant to refer to those who are against the war and make it appear as if the claimant was attempting to speak for everybody. Yeah, that's a proper debate tactic, riiiiight.....