Can you support our troop but not support the war?

[Ardent Listener]

Can an American support our troops but not support the war in Iraq?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Sure,

I certainly support our troops, appreciate their loyalty and sacrifice and am doing all in my power to get them back home where they belong. They are doing their job which is WAY more than I can say about Shrub!

 

[Pah]

It was my generation that detested the troops for their part in VietNam. Let's not make that mistake again.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Absolutely. I don't see why one can't disagree with the war but support the ones having to fight it.
The troops are just doing their job. I like to volunteer free chair massages for the troops and their families. They're not the ones sending others into war, they're the ones who're actually having to go to war, or having loved ones overseas or coming back, changed. They, themselves, didn't do anything to 'invoke' my views, so they shouldn't have to be treated badly for it.

 

[Majikthise]

No. Dissent at home does nothing for their morale, and that is a key factor for survival. All the armor plated Hummers on Earth can't save you from your own self doubt. Diplomacy and debate are for those can afford to hesitate without risking their own lives, not for people in the field who face their own mortality with every waking moment. Cold hard fact.

 

[Scuba Pete]

We learned a lesson there Pah. Let's hope we never forget it!

 

[almifkhar]

i am sure that many of you are going to say that i am vile, but i don't care. i don't support the troops because they can make a choice and not fight in this rich mans war. if our freedom was at stake and some other country sent troops here on our land to fight, i would support them and would probably fight right next to them, but this is not the case. they to me are just as much war criminals as is bush for they are doing his bidding. what really cemented it for me was the intorragation tactics and the refusal of letting red cross and red cresent into areas to help the civilians who could not leave their homes and ended up getting hurt in the fighting.

 

[Majikthise]

i am sure that many of you are going to say that i am vile, but i don't care. i don't support the troops because they can make a choice and not fight in this rich mans war. if our freedom was at stake and some other country sent troops here on our land to fight, i would support them and would probably fight right next to them, but this is not the case. they to me are just as much war criminals as is bush for they are doing his bidding. what really cemented it for me was the intorragation tactics and the refusal of letting red cross and red cresent into areas to help the civilians who could not leave their homes and ended up getting hurt in the fighting.

Just goes to show , you can't polish a turd.

 

[drekmed]

almifkhar,
the troops over there are just doing their job. many of them joined before the iraq war, and signed a contract to be in the military for a certain amount of time. we have been in iraq since march 2003, thats just 2.5 years ago. the contract i signed in june 2000 was for 6 years, and even though i dispise that we are over there, i have no choice but to go if im ordered to. i say no choice because if i refused to go, or missed my plane ride, i would be dishonerably discharged, and probably placed in prison for a while. this would effectively ruin the rest of my life, making it nearly impossible to get a good job, ever.
fortunately i have not gone, and will not go because i have had some unfortunate situations happen at the time i was scheduled to in the past, and am now do not have enough time left in for them to be able to send me. i have been picked 4 times to go, and all 4 times, something happened shortly before i was scheduled to leave, and that kept me from going, death in the family the first 3 times, and this last time, i got out of it because i am about to go in for multilevel spinal fusion on 23 november.

90% of the people i know, in the military, have been sent to iraq, 20% of those have been more than once, and only 3 or 4 people i work with joined since we invaded iraq. half of the 90% are completely against us being there.
it is not the fault of the troops that they are there.
the person responsible for us being there, is not the one fighting, and he has nothing to lose now for it.

supporting the the troops is like rooting for a high school football team, going up against a professional team in a game. you know the outcome will suck, but you still hope everybody comes out of it without getting hurt.

Drekmed

edit: i should add that when i joined i thought we had learned our lesson of vietnam, and that i wouldn't ever be sent into what i felt would be an unjust war. also, the only choice i had at that time was to join the military.

 

[almifkhar]

maj all i have to say to you is whatever man.
dre i understand most of them signed up before the war, but they still have a choice. me personally, i would rather sit in jail and have a crappy job the rest of my life than to know that i killed many a people so a few guys could line their pockets with blood money. i personally just could not have that kind of thing on my conscience. i still feel that a bunch of them are indeed war criminals and should be held accountable for their actions. i understand that they are doing what they are odered, but this also makes them just a guiltiy for their actions as bush and rummy are for ordering them. i do not support this war and i don't support our troops. because with out troops bush couldn't have his little war. it is unjust! i do understand that there are some good people over there fighting and i hope their safe return and an end of this war. i would never go out of my way to treat any vetern like crap like how the vietnam vets suffered and continue to suffer, but i am still intitled to my opinion just like everyone else.

 

[retrorich]

I can, and do, support our troops wherever they serve. In no way do I support our incompetent president, George W. Bush, or his unjustifiable, unnecessary, unwinable war in Iraq.

 

[Valjean]

Oppose the war but support the troops? That's like saying "Oppose the rape but support the rapist."

The troops are the war. They are its agents; they perform the war and commit the carnage and destruction that defines war.
These are men and women that voluntarily joined an organization whose whole purpose is to project power through wanton killing and destruction, an organization they may reasonably expect will require them to perform morally objectionable acts.
The military is a fundamentally immoral and decidedly anti-Christian organization. Those that join it ally themselves with Satan. They and their infamous works should not be supported.

 

[Pah]

Oppose the war but support the troops? That's like saying "Oppose the rape but support the rapist."

The troops are the war. They are its agents; they perform the war and commit the carnage and destruction that defines war.
These are men and women that voluntarily joined an organization whose whole purpose is to project power through wanton killing and destruction, an organization they may reasonably expect will require them to perform morally objectionable acts.
The military is a fundamentally immoral and decidedly anti-Christian organization. Those that join it ally themselves with Satan. They and their infamous works should not be supported.

There would be no war if superiors, and I include the Commander-in-Chief, would not prosecute a war. It is not the decision of the troops to go to war and it is the decision of the people, through representative government, to fund the war..

Howerver, I take offense at being called an "ally of Satan" - not that God or Satan have meaning for me - but they have meaning for you. I rather tired of incurring a label of "immoral" regardless of whether it is beacuse I served my country or I am an Atheist.

 

[Ardent Listener]

It was my generation that detested the troops for their part in VietNam. Let's not make that mistake again.

Let's not by all means. :clap I never detested the troops who served in Vietnam though I was against that war. I'm not ashamed to admit that I cried for those who did not return when we finally pulled our troops out of that hell-hole. They were my brothers and sisters too. I heard a Vietnam vet once say that the rejection he faced from the general public did not hurt half as much as the rejection he faced from his fellow non-Vietnam vets!

As this war drags on, the reactions from the public back home are starting to appear more and more like Vietnam. If you are against this war in Iraq, for what ever reason, your patriotism is questioned and so is your support of the troops in general. Dispite that, many patriotic conservatives are speaking out against this war though it may be for reasons greatly different than those of many patriotic liberals who oppose it. In additon, some posts on this thread show that people are starting to detest the very troops who serve and die over there.

 

[Valjean]

I apologize for giving offense, Pah, But I can find no redeeming qualities in war or warriors. War is the most detestable and terrible activity ever conceived by man. It is the bane of our species. We surround it with a facade of glory and honor. We call it "service."

How are our current warriors "serving" our country? They are not generating safety or prosperity. They are generating international fear, distrust and ill-will toward our country. The death and destruction they leave in their wake creates thousands whose hatred toward the US burns white-hot -- tomorrow's terrorists. It was, in fact, the military that was a primary cause of the 9/11 tragedy that launched this comedy of errors. It was our military base in Saudi Arabia that Bin Ladin cited as his primary casus belli.
The military do not "serve" their country, they harm their country.

 

[Valjean]

It was my generation that detested the troops for their part in VietNam. Let's not make that mistake again.

I, too, am of the Vietnam generation and, as I recall, there was a reason the troops were disparaged -- they routinely committed inconceivably heinous atrocities and crimes against humanity. There was a Tiger Force, and My Lai was remarkable primarily for the fact that it was made public. There were "free fire" zones where any man, woman or child could be -- and, for security reasons, often was -- shot. "We had to destroy the village to save it" was standard operating procedure.

 

[Pah]

I apologize for giving offense, Pah, But I can find no redeeming qualities in war or warriors. War is the most detestable and terrible activity ever conceived by man. It is the bane of our species. We surround it with a facade of glory and honor. We call it "service."

How are our current warriors "serving" our country? They are not generating safety or prosperity. They are generating international fear, distrust and ill-will toward our country. The death and destruction they leave in their wake creates thousands whose hatred toward the US burns white-hot -- tomorrow's terrorists. It was, in fact, the military that was a primary cause of the 9/11 tragedy that launched this comedy of errors. It was our military base in Saudi Arabia that Bin Ladin cited as his primary casus belli.
The military do not "serve" their country, they harm their country.

Our interntional wars have been primarily defensive and not at our initiation. That's one way of serving I find noble. I also take pride in my service of the cold war when I was part of the the Mutual Assured Destruction policy. I have had other responsiblities in being prepared for war. I see today's forces honoring the self same commitment that has been abused by our leaders. Very few soldiers and airmen and sailors want war but the majority stand ready to defend our nation.

There is a mentality that seeks war within the forces and that, in my mind, is to secure a career or endulge in what you detest. Sometimes both. It's found in leaders and politicians.

The citizen soldiers - the ones carrying the weight in Irag, however, are mostly honoring a commitment. The regulars are, by and large, still at home, still ready to defend.

Yet all, the honorable and the ugly, still yell hurahhh. You can only tell the differnce by personal and individual observation. I speak from what I have observed. I speak of the soldiers in Germany that had a designated task of being canon fodder and those in the second wave who would save as many of the advanced as possible.. I speak of those who maintained Air Force aircraft and performed the mydraid othewr support tasks.

Those are my sisters and brothers and you, YOU, don't get to criticize MY family with impunity.

 

[Pah]

I, too, am of the Vietnam generation and, as I recall, there was a reason the troops were disparaged -- they routinely committed inconceivably heinous atrocities and crimes against humanity. There was a Tiger Force, and My Lai was remarkable primarily for the fact that it was made public. There were "free fire" zones where any man, woman or child could be -- and, for security reasons, often was -- shot. "We had to destroy the village to save it" was standard operating procedure.

So you blamed all?

Tell me how you could tell the differnce from my uniform when I served in Japan, Korea, and Omaha during 'Nam

 

[BUDDY]

Oppose the war but support the troops? That's like saying "Oppose the rape but support the rapist."

The troops are the war. They are its agents; they perform the war and commit the carnage and destruction that defines war.
These are men and women that voluntarily joined an organization whose whole purpose is to project power through wanton killing and destruction, an organization they may reasonably expect will require them to perform morally objectionable acts.
The military is a fundamentally immoral and decidedly anti-Christian organization. Those that join it ally themselves with Satan. They and their infamous works should not be supported.

While I disagree with you on your entire stance concerning the war, I think that this statement and the one by almifkhar makes more sense to me than the "I support our troops but hate the war" mentality. I know for a fact, that when you are serving in the miltary, in a combat zone, and you read, see or hear protest against actions that you are involved in, it makes it very much harder to stay positive and do your job. It doesn't make sense to me to think that you can openly oppose a war, and not think that it will be taken by the troops as opposition to their actions. Their job is war. The two go hand in hand. And if you think for a minute that opposition to the war does not have an effect on them mentally, think again. The louder the message of those opposed to the war becomes, the more American casualties can be expected. Low moral leads to depression, and depression leads to not doing your job correctly, making mistakes, and lower attention. If you make a mistake in this job, you die. Plain and simple. Anti-war protesting = lower moral and depression = American casualties. You may disagree with me, but I have been there and I have seen it. A buddy of mine, Sgt., well I am not going to tell you his name, but we called him Rosie, was recently seriously wounded. I have talked to some of his platoon mates. While in Iraq, he was sent a letter from his fiancee, letting him know that she was opposed to what he was doing over there, against the war, he was murdering innocent people, etc. Two days later, he missed spotting an IED and boom, he lost a leg and sight in his right eye. His second tour in Iraq (he volunteered to go back) and he was a great Marine, there is no way he normally misses spotting that. Anti-war sentiment has an effect folks, and if you think that your protests make a difference only to those in power, think again. The ones that it effects the most are our brothers and sisters in arms, who have volunteered to do a very difficult job. They deserve our full support, which means not making them feel subhuman by talking about hating their actions out of one side of our mouth, whil telling them we support them out of the other side. They are smarter than you give them credit for and know what you are really saying.

 

[Valjean]

It is a good thing to instill doubt or discomfort in troops, EEWRED. It encourages soldiers to evaluate and modify their actions. It promotes morality.
Dissent may be annoying to the powers-that-be, it may disrupt the dehumanization and unfeeling hatred toward the enemy that is so important in maintaining effective opposition, and it may discourage soldiers from blindly following orders, but presenting a balanced and critical analysis of both sides of a conflict is likely to stifle the conflict!

If Hitler's SS had been made to weigh two opposing positions what effect might it have had? How about Pol Pot's troops? Napoleon's army? Japan's?

In almost all cases, anything that encourages troops to throw down their arms and go home to their families is a good thing. It is desirable that people beat their swords into plowshares.