Anti-war does not equal Anti-American or Anti-Troops

[Roadtoad]

I should explain what I'm about on this one...

As a kid growing up in a military family, I remember well some of the things that went on during the Vietnam conflict. My mother wasn't all that fond of military housing, (we were "too good" for that, she once remarked), so we wound up living on the local economy much of the time. The general exceptions being when my Dad was assigned to Germany, and when we lived in Hawaii. (Ain't no way we could have afforded to live among the locals in those two locales at that time, at least not voluntarily...)

About the time my dad went off to Vietnam, we were starting to hear about a place in South Vietnam called My Lai. As the year he was away progressed, I heard people frequently refer to my father as a "baby killer," (usually the older siblings of my classmates), and heard lots of tales of "crazy" GIs who came home and did horrible things in their hometowns.

Ah, yes! The gratitude of America for those who keep her free...

So, now, here I am, 43 years old, with a kid just back from Gulf War II. And my son and I are arguing about this war. We're agreed on the reality that it was a necessary fight, but stuck on why. (I say that we should had stayed in force, and made a greater effort to protect the Kurds, while my son thinks there was little else we could have done...)

We argue a lot about stuff. I love him. He thinks for himself, for the most part, even when he's got people with brass on their shoulders trying to think for him. Pretty hard to dislike someone like that. I'm proud of my boy.

But one thing stands out: My son reminds me that the reason he went was so that we could disagree with him.

I have a number of friends who were opposed to this war from teh very beginning. Many of them think the diplomacy angle was used in a clumsy, hamfisted manner, and that was why it failed. Others think that until we had greater backing from the Iraqi people, and a willingness on thier part to overthrow Hussein, we were simply creating greater problems than we were going to solve. There's validity in both points. I'm sure there's others which I haven't discussed in sufficient detail, yet.

Most of these folks are people I grew up with in one way or another. Many of them I went to high school with, and they went through what I did. There's real pain in watching the man you admire and love the most being spit on. We love and support our troops, and hope that in the future, maybe people will respect them, and employ them more wisely.

But there is also room for discussion on why we're even there, given our recent past. There's room for argument on how this benefits our nation. There's room to discuss the nation's policies that led up to this conflict. This is not an act of treason; it's an act of supreme love for our country. Sometimes, to speak out against a popular war is the greatest act of patriotism. It's tough love, for sure, but love nonetheless.

I don't put much stock in what Hollyweird says, on either side of this argument. Most of those folks have never served in the military, and most of them simply toss a few bucks into someone's collection plate, and think they're big sh**. "See? I'm compassionate! I gave money to a charity. I don't know what they do, but I'm a compassionate person." (Oh, please...) I've yet to hear about any of them even giving blood or registering with a genetic registry for bone marrow donation or anything like that. Pretty vapid bunch if you ask me. But the average person on the street...?

I find myself arguing this war with people who have served in all branches of the military. I am arguing this with people who regularly donate blood, who serve in their churches, who volunteer in the community. Maybe, just maybe, this time, among those who are protesting our nation's actions, people are getting it right.

[shanek]

I personally know several veterans who are against the Iraq war.

[Gem]

You mean some people in the US military oppose this war?

Communists! Facists! American Haters! If they would love America, like true patriots, they would join the military and donate blood!:D

You're right. I was against this war before it started, but now I partially changed my mind (that means that I agree with some points of the war, but not all). I'm Canadian, but ask me about the US military and it's past actions, I can talk on and on about em with admiration and pride. I would compare the US military with the Roman legions.

Gem

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Gem
You mean some people in the US military oppose this war?

Communists! Facists! American Haters! If they would love America, like true patriots, they would join the military and donate blood!:D

:D :D :D :D

[a_unique_person]

This is a complex subject.

For example, there were US soldiers who killed babies. My Lai was not an isolated example, and the results were a whitewash. One person prosecuted and then give a slap on the wrist.

As I have said before, a family I know personally had a son volunteer for vietnam, only to be ordered to drive an APC through a hut containing civilians.

So, what do we have.

A military that appears to condone atrocities if it believes they are justified for the prosecution of the war, that is, 'we had to destroy the village to save it'.

War is infamous for atrocities, many combatants join just because they enjoy war and killing. (When I say many, I should qualify that by saying that this would still be a minority of the total participants).

In the current war, anti-personnel weapons such as cluster bombs have been used. These are killing and maiming children right now. Given that the US was always going to crush Iraq, was there any need to use them. They may be a 'nice to have' from a military point of view, but where was the 'need'.

So where does that leave the actual troops who join for a principle, only to find that those principles they might believe in are not shared.

I would say they should, on principle, resign from the army. While they may have joined for one reason, the army is clearly not supporting those reasons.

[Denise]

Roadtoad, that was a great post and I want to thank you for sharing all that. I was on the fence about the war and did decide to support it. I won't get into all the detail but I believe the title of the thread is correct. A person can be against the war and still love the troops. It makes me ill when people think that war protesters are anti-American. That's what makes democracy great- the right to air our disagreement. This is not saying that I agree with the Workers World Party that organized some of the major rallies etc., I think chatting about all that is just fine. But, when people say that Girl6 or others who are against the war are traitors etc. it's a tad ridiculous!

[Baker]

I also agree Roadtoad that was a well thought out post I don’t have a problem with them being against the war as long as they don’t blame the troops fighting over there as they did in Vietnam.
And of course they don’t misinterpret the facts or try to twist the truth to back their argument.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Baker
And of course they don’t misinterpret the facts or try to twist the truth to back their argument. But one man's truth is another man's propaganda, and only our opponents are misinterpreting the facts. Our friends are just interpreting it. :)

Roadtoad, I liked your post! :p

[Trollbane]

Originally posted by Gem
I would compare the US military with the Roman legions.

Gem

I sure hope not.. The legions arent really a model example because of the atrocities they did and the disipline they showed in combat had a lot to do with the harsh punishments inflicted upon them if they failed..

[Baker]

Originally posted by Bjorn
But one man's truth is another man's propaganda, and only our opponents are misinterpreting the facts. Our friends are just interpreting it. :)

Roadtoad, I liked your post! :p

Let's not twist the facts of the topic here. j/k
But besides that its not a bad point.:D

[Gem]

I sure hope not.. The legions arent really a model example because of the atrocities they did and the disipline they showed in combat had a lot to do with the harsh punishments inflicted upon them if they failed..

I was refering to the discipline and tactical superiority they had at the time. The roman legions spent countless hours doing "community work" (digging ditches and so forth, which was used to keep the army occupied). The US military is doing some humanitarian aid too from time to time.

It's a far strech, of course, but there are simlilarities between the two.

Gem

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Trollbane


I sure hope not.. The legions arent really a model example because of the atrocities they did and the disipline they showed in combat had a lot to do with the harsh punishments inflicted upon them if they failed..

Ever hear of the word decimate? The origin of the word was from the Roman practice of killing every tenth soldier if it was felt they did not perform well in battle.

The Roman army also changed from a conscript army of Roman citizens to a mercenary one. As time went on, the army became almost entirely mercenary, IIRC, and when the funds ran out, so did the mercenaries.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
In the current war, anti-personnel weapons such as cluster bombs have been used. These are killing and maiming children right now. Given that the US was always going to crush Iraq, was there any need to use them. They may be a 'nice to have' from a military point of view, but where was the 'need'.


Why do people get in such a froth over cluster bombs? just lots of little bombs instead of 1 big one.

[LW]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Why do people get in such a froth over cluster bombs? just lots of little bombs instead of 1 big one.

Duds.

If all bomblets exploded as they are intended to, there would be no problem. Some time ago I read that about 1% of cluster bomblets fail to explode (I'm not completely certain about the percentage, to tell the truth). Those duds can then later explode when picked up. So, in effect, each dropped cluster bomb can potentially create a minefield that can stay dangerous for decades.

[LW]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Ever hear of the word decimate? The origin of the word was from the Roman practice of killing every tenth soldier if it was felt they did not perform well in battle.

I would change that to "if they routed from a battle".

[Troll]

For the record I was always for this war. I was for this war when I was in Gulf 1. But as for those that are or were against it, or those that openly and actively protested it, so what? It's their right to do so. It's what I spent 12 years defending.

But on a side note, Tim Robbins is an idiot. He should realize that people have the right to say and do as they feel pertaining to certain situations and if he can do it then so can those that oppose his views.

[Dancing David]

I Thank You for this thread.

I think the deal about cluster bombs is that they are designed to kill people. really cool weapons would just destroy weapons without killing people.

They are an incredable hazard in the post war enviroment, which given the nature of modern war is something that should be considered. Hopefully our nation is not setting out mine.

Thank You to all vetrans in peace and war who have chosen to put thier life on the line in defense of our nation!

Peace
dancing david

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
This is a complex subject.

For example, there were US soldiers who killed babies. My Lai was not an isolated example, and the results were a whitewash. One person prosecuted and then give a slap on the wrist.

As I have said before, a family I know personally had a son volunteer for vietnam, only to be ordered to drive an APC through a hut containing civilians.

So, what do we have.

A military that appears to condone atrocities if it believes they are justified for the prosecution of the war, that is, 'we had to destroy the village to save it'.

War is infamous for atrocities, many combatants join just because they enjoy war and killing. (When I say many, I should qualify that by saying that this would still be a minority of the total participants).

In the current war, anti-personnel weapons such as cluster bombs have been used. These are killing and maiming children right now. Given that the US was always going to crush Iraq, was there any need to use them. They may be a 'nice to have' from a military point of view, but where was the 'need'.

So where does that leave the actual troops who join for a principle, only to find that those principles they might believe in are not shared.

I would say they should, on principle, resign from the army. While they may have joined for one reason, the army is clearly not supporting those reasons.

My son is rather pissed, (irritated for you Brits), AUP, because he wanted to be a part of the humanitarian effort that was to follow the war. That was the real reason he wanted to go to the Gulf: to help people. He's a good kid, and I'm proud of him.

Since it looks like his military career is over, he wants to become a teacher. Sounds like he's got his work cut out for him.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


My son is rather pissed, (irritated for you Brits), AUP, because he wanted to be a part of the humanitarian effort that was to follow the war. That was the real reason he wanted to go to the Gulf: to help people. He's a good kid, and I'm proud of him.

Since it looks like his military career is over, he wants to become a teacher. Sounds like he's got his work cut out for him.

I once had the idea that I wanted to join the police force to help people. The police force is more of a garbage collection service of people.

Why do you say his military career is over?

I certainly don't think being in the military doesn't mean you are good. I do think that is not a simple matter that being in the military makes you a defender of freedom, though.

I also worry that being in the military makes you biased towards it's point of view. That is, you assimilate it's culture into yourself, and as the old saying goes, to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[EvilYeti]

My main concern with the war protests has not been anti-war sentiment (which there is actually very little of), but anti-american sentiment. The vast majority of the protestors arguments distill to "everything America does is wrong", which I find bothersome.

Regarding being pro-troops but against the war, thats a total cop-out. Can you be opposed to book-burning while supporting book-burners? The entire premise is nonsensical. One is meaningless without the other. If you oppose the war, support the American troops that deserted prior to deployment or claimed conscientious objector status. Not the ones over there fighting.

But of course no one is going to do that, because it would "make them look bad". Maybe they should give their position some serious re-thinking if that is the case.

I don't understand why so many people seem to think they can just do whatever they want without making concessions or sacrifices. One can't have everything.

[VernorsRush]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Regarding being pro-troops but against the war, thats a total cop-out. Can you be opposed to book-burning while supporting book-burners? The entire premise is nonsensical. One is meaningless without the other. If you oppose the war, support the American troops that deserted prior to deployment or claimed conscientious objector status. Not the ones over there fighting.As a veteran I support the troops. They've done the job they were given masterfully. Their families deserve our support, expecially those who are having trouble making ends meet right now. They and their kids deserve top-notch education programs, both on-base and in the communities where service families attend. Reservists deserve to have their jobs waiting for them when they return, with no loss of seniority or vacation time. All of the troops deserve to have their veteran's benefits waiting intact for the day they leave the service. My congressional delegation receives a steady stream of mail from me letting them know how I feel about how they vote on these issues. That's how I support the troops.

My misgivings about the war and what comes next involve serious doubts about our troop's political leadership. Whether you agree with my politics or not, how is that position a cop-out or non-sensical?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by VernorsRush

My misgivings about the war and what comes next involve serious doubts about our troop's political leadership. Whether you agree with my politics or not, how is that position a cop-out or non-sensical?

Because the troops that are fighting the war SUPPORT the war and their political leadership. You are supporting people that are enforcing policy you disagree with. Why don't you support me as well? You can PM me for my PayPal info.

Again, you should be supporting the deserters and objectors. That would at least make some sort of sense. But being a veteran I'm sure you think the deserters should be locked up.

So, you believe that people that disagree with you should be supported and rewarded and those that agree should be imprisioned.

Nonsensical and hypocritical to the extreme.

[VernorsRush]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Because the troops that are fighting the war SUPPORT the war and their political leadership. You are supporting people that are enforcing policy you disagree with. Why don't you support me as well? You can PM me for my PayPal info.I suppose you have evidence showing that all the troops support the war and their political leadership? Even if they don't (which I'm sure some percentage do not) it doesn't matter, they're still doing the job they swore to do, which is to obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over them. That's admirable and no disagreement I have with the administration's policy changes that.

Again, you should be supporting the deserters and objectors. That would at least make some sort of sense. But being a veteran I'm sure you think the deserters should be locked up.Deserters and objectors in an all-volunteer service. If you're looking for a good definition of hypocritical and non-sensical, they would be it.

So, you believe that people that disagree with you should be supported and rewarded and those that agree should be imprisioned.:rolleyes: Just a wee bit of a strawman there, wouldn't you say?

[Roadtoad]

A wee bit of a strawman? I'd say we're looking at a wicker man in the front yard, amigo.

Yes, you can in fact support the troops and yet oppose the mission they are called upon to perform. The troops are called upon to serve; no one has ever asked them their opinion of their missions. That's basic to any fighting force.

Many times, troops are called upon to perform duties they would ordinarily not do, not the least of which is to kill other people, something we would generally consider pretty heinous in any other venue. That's part and parcel with this little endeavor we call "war." Support for the troops includes having jobs for those who return, and it includes making certain we provide at least adequate medical care for those who have given to our nation. We are not called upon to like their missions; hell, I'd say we've an obligation to OBJECT to the missions when we have solid grounds to do so. (The fact that we've yet to find the WMDs we were told were in Iraq is certainly working on my mind.)

You cannot entirely hold the troops accountable for the orders given to them. You damn well ought to hold the leadership accountable.

AUP, as to my son, he was injured prior to going to the Gulf, and his injury was not adequately treated. He may not be able to continue in the service as a result. He's been pretty athletic throughout his life, so it's hard to say at this point.

I agree: just because someone is a soldier doesn't make them a good person any more than sleeping in a garage makes them a car. American Heritage several years ago had an article by the man from the Army's Inspector General's office who actually investigated the My Lai incident. (BTW: his assessment was that it was also a whitewash, and that Calley was anything but a hero. You have to wonder how a guy like Ernest Medina sleeps at night, but then I might not get any sleep...) Assimilation of a culture or a philosophy can happen quite quick, or it can take years. Part of my fear involving the Cold War was that in order to fight it, we almost had to adopt the Soviet Union's methodology in some areas. We may not actually imprison our dissidents, but we have all kinds of ways of silencing them, not the least of which includes all manner of dirty tricks, such as those used by Richard Nixon, (which they called Rat F*cking).

But you have to have some hope that you've provided your kids the best you can, some semblance of ethics and morality so they can stand up and say "No," when someone gives them either an illegal or immoral order. You have to hope that eventually, as they continue in the nation's service, and gain rank, they learn, and are able to prevent what your family's friend's son went through in Vietnam.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by VernorsRush
Even if they don't (which I'm sure some percentage do not) it doesn't matter, they're still doing the job they swore to do, which is to obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over them. That's admirable and no disagreement I have with the administration's policy changes that.

Last time I checked, "I was only following orders" was no longer a valid excuse.


Deserters and objectors in an all-volunteer service. If you're looking for a good definition of hypocritical and non-sensical, they would be it.


Hahahahaha!!! The military is volunteer up and until you sign up, after that its anything but. Get caught after going AWOL and you are looking at spending life in a military prision. Don't tell me you thought a soldier could just "opt-put" of going to battle?

Just a wee bit of a strawman there, wouldn't you say?

I would say you are more like scarecrow, what with the missing brain and all.

[a_unique_person]

Thanks Toad.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me. (I would be worried if they did). But I do like to think that people try to think about thinkgs a bit more than just 'my country right or wrong'. I am sure all countries have their own 'Mai Lais' in their history, it is just a matter of whether we learn from our mistakes or feel that blind allegiance and patriotism prevents self criticism.

The current state of affairs in the Middle East is not just the work of the US, although it certainly has had it's finger in the pie, but also France, Germany and all the other colonial powers that have created bizarre borders, propped up tin pot dictators, and overthrown legitimate governments.

I don't know how it will ever be unravelled, perhaps the current process is one step in that. Only time will tell. I am just wary in having one country making unilateral decisions about how the world is run. Is this a Benevolent Dictator we find ourselves living under, or Judge Dread?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Roadtoad

Yes, you can in fact support the troops and yet oppose the mission they are called upon to perform. The troops are called upon to serve; no one has ever asked them their opinion of their missions. That's basic to any fighting force.

********. You are redefining the word "support" to suit your argument. The meaning used in the context of this debate is "To aid the cause, policy, or interests of". Well, the "cause, policy, interest" of our troops was to remove Saddam's regime from power. We are not talking about fiscal or material support here. If thats the case then everyone who pays taxes "supports" the war.

Support for the troops includes having jobs for those who return, and it includes making certain we provide at least adequate medical care for those who have given to our nation.

Again you are talking about material support, which NOT what this debate is about.

You cannot entirely hold the troops accountable for the orders given to them. You damn well ought to hold the leadership accountable.

We sure did at Nuremberg!

[VernorsRush]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Last time I checked, "I was only following orders" was no longer a valid excuse. Check again. That stipulation only applies to orders that violate the Uniform Code Of Military Justice. Disagreeing with Bush's decision does not make his orders unlawful.
Hahahahaha!!! The military is volunteer up and until you sign up, after that its anything but. Get caught after going AWOL and you are looking at spending life in a military prision.Puh-leese! AWOL might get you 30 days in the stockade at best. In any case your argument is irrelevant. Everyone's given a copy of the rules and the oath before they sign. If the thought of being ordered into combat bothers someone then they should seek other employment.
Don't tell me you thought a soldier could just "opt-put" of going to battle?I didn't tell you that, or anything even resembling that. You're imagining things again.
I would say you are more like scarecrow, what with the missing brain and all.:rolleyes:

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by VernorsRush

Puh-leese! AWOL might get you 30 days in the stockade at best. In any case your argument is irrelevant. Everyone's given a copy of the rules and the oath before they sign. If the thought of being ordered into combat bothers someone then they should seek other employment.



Puh-leese yourself. The penalties for going AWOL or deserting vary greatly and depend on the circumstances. During times of war execution is even possible, albeit rarely enforced.

[VernorsRush]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Puh-leese yourself. The penalties for going AWOL or deserting vary greatly and depend on the circumstances. During times of war execution is even possible, albeit rarely enforced. Granted for desertion, though under article 86 of the UCMJ AWOL is not designated as a capital crime under any circumstances, but your point is still irrelevant. Don't sign the papers if the threat of these penalties is a problem.

[Roadtoad]

EY, people support the troops rather than the mission more often than you realize. It's not as black and white as you seem to want to believe. I could be wrong, of course, but that's the feeling I'm getting from you.

I have serious trouble with the notion that someone who says they don't want our troops sent into a conflict which they believe is a mistake to become involved in is somehow "Anti-American." Or, that they don't support the troops. Not everyone who opposed Vietnam, for example, opposed the troops. (Check out Bob Hope's book, DON'T SHOOT! It's only me! He cites a couple of examples of it there.) Girl 6 opposes the war: she does not oppose the troops. Her point, which I think she's made elsewhere, (sorry, I'm not sure where to find the citation, but I'm sure if she takes a moment, she can steer us in the right direction), is that she opposes the misuse of our troops.

Maybe you should listen to someone other than Rush...

I guess it is difficult to imagine what it sounds like to a military man who is about to fight for, or just has fought for, his country to hear someone say something like, "I support you, buddy, but I think it is wrong."

Gee, thanks. :rolleyes:

Imagine someone telling you they think you are doing a great job but that what you do is evil, or is just making the world a worse place. How could you not feel defensive about it?

I would also like to know who called Girl6 a traitor, Denise. I really would.

I have never said anyone against the war is a traitor. I have said the organizers of the largest protests are anti-American. I have never said any of the average protestors are.

I also get pretty sick of hearing how much someone cares about America, and then harps on all of its screw-ups. The complaints are way out of proportion. For a topic all about loving the troops, there sure is a lot of crap about what bad things a couple/few of them have done. There was even a smack against the police snuck in there.

If you are against the war, fine. If you love your country, too, fine. If you want to buy a soldier a drink when he gets home, that's fine, too. But you need to understand what an insult it is to tell him you think he was involved in something wrong. If you can just get that through your heads, I'll be happy.

[Bjorn]

What if I was against the war, but my brother was serving in the marines? Wouldn't I obviously be able to be for the troops and against the war at the same time?

[DrBenway]

Hey Roadtoad,

Found this blog site from a Marine roaming around Iraq at the moment. Thought you might enjoy. Wonder how he's able to get on the net...

http://www.pontifexexmachina.com/


ON MY WAY, DON'T KNOW WHERE I'M GOING:
Rolling out the gate, the guard gets a quick ‘hook-em, horns’ sign as we weave through the barricades. Then we’re off, cruising through the desert in a battered-up SUV. On the eve of war, only one thing passes through our minds: is there going to be any appropriate music on the radio?

That’s not true – all sorts of worries come to mind, but there’s little profit in worrying about them. So instead, we crack jokes as best we can about the two Western radio stations we get, in the midst of more traditional programming in Arabic.

On the way over, both stations went for R&B and hip hop, nothing too uptempo or exciting: what an old roommate called music to “get a girl’s panties wet.” That was of little use to us. We wanted something to reflect our mood – aggressive, pent-up, frustrated.

We were hopeful that Nas, with his thug persona, might finally fit the bill, but no, he instead rapped on the merits of world peace and railed against Bush and war. (Apparently, violence is only for entertainment, not to correct wrongs and redeem one’s mistakes that have cost thousands of innocent lives.)

Flip to the other station: “…and he wasn’t elected, he was installed by the Supreme Court. He’s in this for revenge. He wants to get back at the guy that tried to kill his pappy…” So, folks, that’s what your nationally-syndicated R&B DJs are spinning between platters. (And this on AFN radio intended for the soldiers and airmen in Europe. But they can’t play Rush Limbaugh. Ugh.)

The music got vaguely better. We got to hear Red Hot Chilli Peppers, probably the high point of the ride. There was also a halfway decent Limp Bizkit song, which only required forgetting Fred Durst’s Grammy comments to enjoy.

Then some Sum-41 song came on, and I tried headbanging to imitation Blink-182.

We were passed by a small pickup with a cow in the back. My passenger joked that we were looking at dinner. I flashed another ‘hook-em, horns’. I quickly withdrew it, thinking that the gesture might not be universally understood.

But the sentiment probably would be, except in places like the august halls of the United Nations and the streets of Paris. JFK told Germans separated from loved ones by a brutal Soviet schism that he understood their place on the brink of war, that he, too, was a Berliner. On September 12th, Le Monde asserted that we were all Americans.

Now, having assembled a coalition of the willing, Bush has had the world show their hands in a game of Texas Hold-em, where most of the cards were out already.

We are all Texans now. Hook ‘em horns, indeed.

Posted by pontifex at March 18, 2003 11:20 AM

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LukeT
I guess it is difficult to imagine what it sounds like to a military man who is about to fight for, or just has fought for, his country to hear someone say something like, "I support you, buddy, but I think it is wrong."


You want to think that something that is wrong is right?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Bjorn
What if I was against the war, but my brother was serving in the marines? Wouldn't I obviously be able to be for the troops and against the war at the same time?
Protest the war up until the shooting starts. Then be careful what you say. If the enemy shooting at your brother sees television shots of you and others demonstrating against the war, the enemy will take courage from that. He'll imagine your country doesn't have depth or heart for the battle. He may put away thoughts of deserting or surrendering, thanks to you. Your brother's life will be put at greater risk.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Protest the war up until the shooting starts. Then be careful what you say. If the enemy shooting at your brother sees television shots of you and others demonstrating against the war, the enemy will take courage from that. He'll imagine your country doesn't have depth or heart for the battle. He may put away thoughts of deserting or surrendering, thanks to you. Your brother's life will be put at greater risk. But the question was if it is possible to be against the war and for the troops at the same time.

The question if marching against it is a wise thing to do when your country is at war, is a very different one, at least to me.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Bjorn
But the question was if it is possible to be against the war and for the troops at the same time.

The question if marching against it is a wise thing to do when your country is at war, is a very different one, at least to me.
You're right.

If you are against the war, but support the troops, what exactly does "support" mean to you?

TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: sup·port·ed, sup·port·ing, sup·ports
1. To bear the weight of, especially from below. 2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping. 3. To be capable of bearing; withstand: “His flaw'd heart . . . too weak the conflict to support” (Shakespeare, King Lear 5.3.197 1605). 4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen: The letter supported him in his grief. 5. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities. 6. To furnish corroborating evidence for: New facts supported her story. 7a. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign. b. To argue in favor of; advocate: supported lower taxes. 8. To endure; tolerate: “At supper there was such a conflux of company that I could scarcely support the tumult” (Samuel Johnson, OED (letter to Mrs. Thrale) 1773). 9. To act in a secondary or subordinate role to (a leading performer).
NOUN: 1a. The act of supporting. b. The state of being supported. 2. One that supports. 3. Maintenance, as of a family, with the necessities of life.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English supporten, from Old French supporter, from Latin supportre, to carry : sub-, from below; see sub– + portre, to carry; see per-2 in Appendix I.
SYNONYMS: support, uphold, back, advocate, champion. These verbs mean to give aid or encouragement to a person or cause.

From


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. (http://www.bartleby.com/61/66/S0906600.html)

[hammegk]

I don't know why one of our logicians hasn't named the logical fallacy involved here. :confused:

Grandma used to call it "wanting to have your cake and eat it too". :D

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by LukeT
If you are against the war, but support the troops, what exactly does "support" mean to you? Luke, I'm not sure if I could define it myself.

After I left the Navy, if my ship had left for some war-zone, I would have 'supported' the men even if the war in question was 'wrong' in my eyes. Not because I know them, but because I know how it is to be there. I could change 'Navy' to 'Armed Forces', it wouldn't make a difference.

I don't want them to get hurt, I want them to win and be back home safe and sound ASAP, they are fighting that war even if I was against it and now we can only hope they make it.

I think most people understand the position I'm trying to explain, even if it doesn't fit one of the dictionary definitions you posted. :confused:

[Dancing David]

I suppose some people might voice such concerns to a returning soldier, I hope not.

While I might feel it is appropriate to carry a sign at a rally, I hope that I would never voice concern to a soldier that what they had done was wrong. I am of an age where I have known many Vietnam vets, I only listened to them when they chose to discuss the war. I never asked them about the morals of what they did.

Two asides: I feel it is futile to protest the war now that it has started. Rally around the flag and all.

Second aside: many religions say that killing is wrong, so would a religious person who condems killing be able to support the troops?

Peace
dancing david

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Two asides: I feel it is futile to protest the war now that it has started. Rally around the flag and all.

I think that this gets to the heart of it.

I do not think that the US was justified in invading Iraq. I don't think that other avvenues were given an appropriate chance of success, and I am skeptical of the reasons given by the BUsh administration.

Having said that, however, once the war begins you have two choices of who to root for: the US or Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Seems like an easy choice to me.

Think of it this way: I am not in favour of "vigilante justice" or the death penalty. But if a child molestor and the father of his victim are locked in a room and only one can come out, no one is rooting for the child molestor. But many can oppose sending in the father in the first place.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Thanz
Think of it this way: I am not in favour of "vigilante justice" or the death penalty. But if a child molestor and the father of his victim are locked in a room and only one can come out, no one is rooting for the child molestor. But many can oppose sending in the father in the first place. I like that, is it original? Can I use it?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Thanz


I think that this gets to the heart of it.

I do not think that the US was justified in invading Iraq. I don't think that other avvenues were given an appropriate chance of success, and I am skeptical of the reasons given by the BUsh administration.

Having said that, however, once the war begins you have two choices of who to root for: the US or Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Seems like an easy choice to me.

Think of it this way: I am not in favour of "vigilante justice" or the death penalty. But if a child molestor and the father of his victim are locked in a room and only one can come out, no one is rooting for the child molestor. But many can oppose sending in the father in the first place.

Bull's eye.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Thanz


I think that this gets to the heart of it.

I do not think that the US was justified in invading Iraq. I don't think that other avvenues were given an appropriate chance of success, and I am skeptical of the reasons given by the BUsh administration.

Having said that, however, once the war begins you have two choices of who to root for: the US or Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Seems like an easy choice to me.

Think of it this way: I am not in favour of "vigilante justice" or the death penalty. But if a child molestor and the father of his victim are locked in a room and only one can come out, no one is rooting for the child molestor. But many can oppose sending in the father in the first place.

Except that in this case, the room did not appear by magic, it was created by one of those in the room.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Thanz
Think of it this way: I am not in favour of "vigilante justice" or the death penalty. But if a child molestor and the father of his victim are locked in a room and only one can come out, no one is rooting for the child molestor. But many can oppose sending in the father in the first place. Yeah. And some say: 'I hope the father comes out alive - but I still think we shouldn't have sent him in there'.
Why is that a problem? :confused:

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I am of an age where I have known many Vietnam vets, I only listened to them when they chose to discuss the war. I never asked them about the morals of what they did.


Vietnam was moral at the time. As are all wars, at the time. Immorality is something that historians discuss. In ten years we may be able to better judge the morality of the decisions surrounding these wars in Iraq. At the moment, the trumpets are still blaring and the flags are still waving and people are still pounding thier chests. We have even found the usual token civilian casualty to give unlimited medical attention to. It has to be a child or someone nice looking. Old smelly people can go away. Vietnam had its burnt girl, Iraq gets a boy.

This current band of soldiers may return home to a big parade but soon they will ask why they had to shoot people.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by RandFan
I like that, is it original? Can I use it?

Yes, it's original and yes, you can use it. :)

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Except that in this case, the room did not appear by magic, it was created by one of those in the room.

I really don't know what you mean by this. Please explain.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Except that in this case, the room did not appear by magic, it was created by one of those in the room.

Originally posted by Thanz
I really don't know what you mean by this. Please explain.

It is referring to the "child molester and victim's father" in the room scenario you proposed. AUP is pointing out that there would have never been a need for this confrontation had not the "good guy" enabled the "bad guy" to do his bad things in the first place.

While this is true, I reiterate that hindsight is only helpful as a learning tool (so we don't do it again). We still needed to remove the bad guy, especially so since he is our creature. I don't agree that this war was the best way to do it, but I am certainly not going to cheer for the bad guy.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tricky




It is referring to the "child molester and victim's father" in the room scenario you proposed. AUP is pointing out that there would have never been a need for this confrontation had not the "good guy" enabled the "bad guy" to do his bad things in the first place.

While this is true, I reiterate that hindsight is only helpful as a learning tool (so we don't do it again). We still needed to remove the bad guy, especially so since he is our creature. I don't agree that this war was the best way to do it, but I am certainly not going to cheer for the bad guy.

Not quite. The room is the war. The war was created by one of the actors in this scenario.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Not quite. The room is the war. The war was created by one of the actors in this scenario.
Oops! That's what I get for trying to interpret somebody else's words. My bad.:(