Can you support our troop but not support the war?

[painted wolf]

I do not support the decisions of the politicians that sent our troops to die for a blurry, hyped up, and ill conceved "cause".

Having said that I support our troops and detest that they are the ones suffering for our leaders hyperactive egos.

wa:do

 

[michel]

Yes, the two are seperate issues.

I support anyone who joins the forces, with the intention to do so in defense of their homeland. The trouble is that a soldier can't turn round and say "I'm not playing in this one, because it's not my scene...................."

The war is about Oil, greed, political kudos, old scores that needed to be settled (for Daddy ?).........The troops are guys who are doing a job I am sure they would rather not do.

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

I don't like the war, I don't think it was just, but it isn't the troops fault that they have to fight for unjust causes. Support the troops.

 

[Pah]

It is a good thing to instill doubt or discomfort in troops,

That, my naive friend, will get you killed

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.

And that will get you a court marshal for mutiny - especially after comandeering the aircraft. You're just not thinking straight

 

[Scuba Pete]

I know for a fact,

Then please provide the case studies on this. Somehow, I believe you have overstated your case... again.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

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.

That's an interesting observation. Coming out strongly against the war, in the last couple of year, has meant that you faced the possible brand of being 'un-patriotic'. Now that some who have supported the war, previously, and others who had been silent are learning more what might have been immoral ways of deciding to attack Iraq, I think that their voices are all the louder because perhaps they feel that they've been betrayed.

Now, hopefully, we're working toward a state where speaking out against the war won't get you a reputation of anything other than being against the war.

On an unrelated note, Ardent Listener, would you mind if I added an 's' in the title? I keep getting visions of one poor guy out there, heheee!

 

[BUDDY]

Then please provide the case studies on this. Somehow, I believe you have overstated your case... again.

I think experience counts for something. The fact that I have seen and experieced it myself makes it fact to me. For you to think it has no effect on the troops, is an overstatement on your part.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I think experience counts for something. The fact that I have seen and experieced it myself makes it fact to me.

I guess this means you have NOTHING to back up your claim but your feelings. Sorta what Shrub used to invade Iraq with. Well excuse me if I find your "feelings" a bit lacking on the "fact" scale.

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

doc, i think a soldier, who went to war with these men would know much more about their thoughts and feelings,than a scuba-diving conspiracy theorist posting on an online forum.

 

[spacemonkey]

The best way to support the troops is to BRING THEM HOME! I can't honestly say that supporting a war that only benefits Haliburton and Exxon, keeps young men and women away from their homes and families, and lets them die in some hostile, foriegn land supports the troops in ANY way.

 

[Scuba Pete]

doc, i think a soldier, who went to war with these men would know much more about their thoughts and feelings,than a scuba-diving conspiracy theorist posting on an online forum.

Which war? What action has he seen? Even then, how does that make him an "expert" on war time psychology? They are the mere rantings of a war monger. No more and certainly no less.

As for conspiracies, I dare say that you and he see ten times the conspiracies among those "evil Democrats" than I see. I only see one evil shrub that is doing his best to make a buck for his homies. Not much of a conspiracy, and far less of a president.

But back to the thrust of this thread... there is no reason why we can support our troops and be completely against the war. Our troops didn't create or declare this war: Shrub did. Some point to a fictitious war on terror: show me ONE INSTANCE where Iraq has posed a threat, or initiated a terrorist action against the US. If you feel that this is lost to our troops, then you have a mighty low opinion of their mental faculties.

 

[Fluffy]

What do you mean by "support" the troops? If you mean anything beyond a rather meaningless (or at least it should be to them at any rate) judgement on my part as to the morality of their actions then no, I do not support the troops in Iraq.

I don't think it is possible to support the troops in Iraq in any physical capacity with regards to the reason for them being over there without also showing some support for that reason. I can support them for other reasons, such as their situation which is an indirect factor of the war, without supporting the war itself, however.

I support them as much as I would any other human being... the fact that they are doing something that I find morally abhorrent does not affect the way I would act towards them nor the way I view them. Their humanity is wholly seperate from their actions.

 

[Valjean]

My primary problem with "supporting" the troops, whatever that may mean, is that these troops have abdicated any individual decision-making or moral responsibility for their actions. They have given themselves over to be used as tools of a government that has a very spotty record of international relations. Anyone with a knowledge of history who joins the military should expect to be used for ignoble rather than noble purposes.

I am not, Pah, saying that every individual soldier is a monster. Many seem to be quite decent folks when you meet them individually on the street. But I am reminded of an old maxim: One may be decent, one may be intelligent, and one may be a soldier -- but one cannot be all three.

If you are decent and a soldier, then you are not intelligent. If you are intelligent and a soldier, you are not decent, and if you are intelligent and decent you are not a soldier.

 

[joeboonda]

My friend at work was in Nam, he said he never wore his uniform because people would spit on him and worse. He was drafted, and just doing his duty. I support any american soldier serving their country. Whether the leaders are right about the war or not we cannot always know. And there is a time, unfortunately, for war, and a time for peace, one is not immoral or not intelligent, nor has one given up their individual choice or morality to the government, not in all cases. Sometimes there is a time for war, its the nature of this fallen creation, that evil-doers will necessitate use of force, it is our job to discern whether or not we need to fight, and it is a hard job, not easy to figure out, not easy to rise up and do. Ok, I ramble, peace!

 

[spacemonkey]

Sometimes there is a time for war, its the nature of this fallen creation, that evil-doers will necessitate use of force, it is our job to discern whether or not we need to fight, and it is a hard job, not easy to figure out, not easy to rise up and do. Ok, I ramble, peace!

Since when are we the judges of what is right and wrong? If you ask the people of the Middle East WE are the "evil-doers" and who is to say they are not right? WE are invaders on their land, not the other way around. To them, we are a modern day Roman Empire, the epitome of evil in the New Testament. Perhaps a more fitting comparison would be the Crusades, leaders who use the beliefs of their followers to wage a war that benefits them financally.

 

[Ardent Listener]

My primary problem with "supporting" the troops, whatever that may mean, is that these troops have abdicated any individual decision-making or moral responsibility for their actions. They have given themselves over to be used as tools of a government that has a very spotty record of international relations. Anyone with a knowledge of history who joins the military should expect to be used for ignoble rather than noble purposes.

I am not, Pah, saying that every individual soldier is a monster. Many seem to be quite decent folks when you meet them individually on the street. But I am reminded of an old maxim: One may be decent, one may be intelligent, and one may be a soldier -- but one cannot be all three.

If you are decent and a soldier, then you are not intelligent. If you are intelligent and a soldier, you are not decent, and if you are intelligent and decent you are not a soldier.

Do you feel that police officers are not intelligent or decent too?

 

[spacemonkey]

The stament wasn't that they weren't intelligent OR decent, just that they couldn't be both, or one would surely be repulsed by what they were doing. IMO (it wasn'y my post, just my interperatation).

 

[Ardent Listener]

The stament wasn't that they weren't intelligent OR decent, just that they couldn't be both, or one would surely be repulsed by what they were doing. IMO (it wasn'y my post, just my interperatation).

Could a police officer be both? Or would they too be repulsed by what they were doing?

 

[spacemonkey]

I would say that a police officer that was both decent and intelligent is entirely posible. At the same time he may be repulsed by some of the laws he is to uphold, but that is not the same thing as being a soldier. For one thing, a soldier has no choice, by definition he is property of the government and a tool of politicians. A police officer can choose not to enforce laws that they feel are unjust, I've had cops not bust me for possesion of marijuana before because they didn't feel it was a crime.

 

[Ardent Listener]

I would say that a police officer that was both decent and intelligent is entirely posible. At the same time he may be repulsed by some of the laws he is to uphold, but that is not the same thing as being a soldier. For one thing, a soldier has no choice, by definition he is property of the government and a tool of politicians. A police officer can choose not to enforce laws that they feel are unjust, I've had cops not bust me for possesion of marijuana before because they didn't feel it was a crime.

No its not that. I just wondered if he thought all people who put their lives on the line to protect his were all either idiots or indecent. That's all.