Not supporting the war BUT supporting our troops

[ProudDem]

Got it. So you meant to say, "Since you two have twisted my words and disregarded my original meaning I do not value your opinion on my intelligence."

The part about them being Conservatives has no real value to the sentence, if a Liberal had twisted your words would it make their opinion full of probative value? That you found it important to state that part of the reason you found their opinion valueless was the fact that they were Conservatives spoke volumes to me.

I really didn't think about my use of the word "conservatives" in that sentence, except that it is a true statement. It probably relates to the fact that most liberals do not attempt to twist my words around when it comes to my addressing politics (since we usually agree ).

 

[trobinett]

One of the trends that started back in the early 60`s in these United States, that I fine disturbing, is an unwillingness to "follow through", "stay the course", show some amount of that charater trait, that most fine admirable, stick to the job until its DONE.

The country has far too many people, that have grown up with the "cut and run" mentailty.

Want it all now, and don`t want to pay for it.

You can see it all around, a great example is credit card abuse.

We must "stay the course" in our fight againts terror around the world, if not, what we, as a country enjoy`s most, freedom, will be lost.

Supporting the troops is what is required of a countries citizens, and I know, the troops thank you.

Marching in protest againts what the troops are DOING, is NOT supporting the troops, and only prolongs the war.

It would seem therefore, that those that do both, really put the troops in harms way.

Let`s fianlly put a period on this, and move on by showing a solid front to those that use terror to achive their ends.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

One of the trends that started back in the early 60`s in these United States, that I fine disturbing, is an unwillingness to "follow through", "stay the course", show some amount of that charater trait, that most fine admirable, stick to the job until its DONE.

The country has far too many people, that have grown up with the "cut and run" mentailty.

Want it all now, and don`t want to pay for it.

You can see it all around, a great example is credit card abuse.

We must "stay the course" in our fight againts terror around the world, if not, what we, as a country enjoy`s most, freedom, will be lost.

Supporting the troops is what is required of a countries citizens, and I know, the troops thank you.

Marching in protest againts what the troops are DOING, is NOT supporting the troops, and only prolongs the war.

It would seem therefore, that those that do both, really put the troops in harms way.

Let`s fianlly put a period on this, and move on by showing a solid front to those that use terror to achive their ends.

That's be fine, but lefties really want America to fail.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I really didn't think about my use of the word "conservatives" in that sentence, except that it is a true statement. It probably relates to the fact that most liberals do not attempt to twist my words around when it comes to my addressing politics (since we usually agree ).

Yeah. Well. They possess the same malformed memes.

 

[xen]

This is disingenuous at the face value of it. It disregards the ability of the people in the armed forces to maintain a set of morals beyond, "Follow Orders!" In the past the I was following orders excuse has not excused actions considered illegal. If the war is illegal moral indicators would require that they not follow their orders or they can be prosecuted for their immoral action. To disregard these people as humans and say, "They are only following orders!" is simply an attempt to dodge the reality of their humanity and disregard the fact that they have their own moral judgement. This dehumanizes those in the armed forces and assumes an automation that is not there in reality.

Either you think the war and therefore the actions of those that support it immoral or you do not. Excusing them by denying their basic humanity is not support, it is disregard.

Why must everyone here insist that everything is a black and white issue?
Its SO obvious that the troops are not even part of the issue, they are doing nothing illegal and are killing our enemies.
Bush supporters are saying if ' IF the war is illegal, then the troops are doing something illegal too'. THIS is a tragic idea and the whole reich wing should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[no1tovote4]

Why must everyone here insist that everything is a black and white issue?
Its SO obvious that the troops are not even part of the issue, they are doing nothing illegal and are killing our enemies.

Because the only way that they could be doing nothing illegal is if the war itself is not illegal. Choosing to participate in an illegal activity is in itself illegal. Saying that "they have no choice" or "they are just following orders" dehumanizes them as automatons with no access to moral values of their own. Either they are choosing to participate in an (as described by you) illegal action or they are not, there is no in between in this case unless you dehumanize those that choose to actively participate in that action.

Once again, it is tragic to disregard those who serve as even human enough to judge the morality of the action in which they participate. Even the courts do not do this and you will be tried for illegal activity during a war, it is only people that want to "support the troops but not the war" that do such things to people that are in the service.

Bush supporters are saying if ' IF the war is illegal, then the troops are doing something illegal too'. THIS is a tragic idea and the whole reich wing should be ashamed of themselves.

LOL. "reich wing". There is no more positive sign that somebody has drank the kool-aid than such a denigrating and dehumanizing statement such as that and comparing all people who might agree with the war as "nazis".

It is always amazing to me that people would attempt to dehumanize their fellow citizens in such a way as if they were an enemy, not just of a different opinion and object to dehumanizing an actual enemy as if they were an ally. Actions speak volumes to your actual meaning and whom you actually consider to be an enemy or an ally.

 

[dmp]

Because the only way that they could be doing nothing illegal is if the war itself is not illegal. Choosing to participate in an illegal activity is in itself illegal. Saying that "they have no choice" or "they are just following orders" dehumanizes them as automatons with no access to moral values of their own. Either they are choosing to participate in an (as described by you) illegal action or they are not, there is no in between in this case unless you dehumanize those that choose to actively participate in that action.

Once again, it is tragic to disregard those who serve as even human enough to judge the morality of the action in which they participate. Even the courts do not do this and you will be tried for illegal activity during a war, it is only people that want to "support the troops but not the war" that do such things to people that are in the service.


LOL. "reich wing". There is no more positive sign that somebody has drank the kool-aid than such a denigrating and dehumanizing statement such as that and comparing all people who might agree with the war as "nazis".

It is always amazing to me that people would attempt to dehumanize their fellow citizens in such a way as if they were an enemy, not just of a different opinion and object to dehumanizing an actual enemy as if they were an ally. Actions speak volumes to your actual meaning and whom you actually consider to be an enemy or an ally.

 

[Zhukov]

Well, this thread has come along way in my absence.

I do not support the cause of this war. We were told that Saddam Hussein was making WMDs and that we could not wait any longer to take him out. He was a danger to the world and a danger to us. And we should take him out before it's too late. He reminds us of how vulnerable we were on September 11th.

All of which the majority of people in the know believed at the time.

So our soldiers run in there, without enough troops I might add,

Your opinion.

and they're able to take Saddam out of there very quickly.

How do you figure? He was out of power in a month, captured within seven, what more do you want?

Therefore, I don't appreciate our soldiers getting killed over there for NOTHING. I know Saddam was a horrible dictator and that we are doing the Iraqis some good; however, that is not enough reason for us to go in there.

I really don't think you understand what's going on. Well first of all, you think the President exaggerated, and that's your main opposition to the war? Did you oppose the war before we went in, or only after a certain length of time elapsed without finding stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons? Hypothetically, if they found that Saddam smuggled weapons into Syria, would that change your mind? I'm not going to throw up links to articles about people who think that happened, I'm just curious, if tommorow Syria fessed up and undug the thousands of barrels of nerve gas Saddam passed to them at the begining of the invasion would that matter to you?

But when I say I don't think you know what's going on is that you seem to have a very narrow view about what the Iraq war is all about, because Iraq is just the most visible battle in the global war.

We get people who come in here all the time (some have posted in this thread) who say, 'Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11, al-Qaeda did', or say 'we should be going after the leaders not wasting time in Iraq', or say 'well most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, why don't we attack them?'

People who say 'Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11, al-Qaeda did' misunderstand who the enemy is.

People who say 'should be going after the leaders not wasting time in Iraq' underestimate our capability.

People who say 'well most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, why don't we attack them' are ignorant of our strategy.

The enemy is not the 19 guys who attacked us on 9/11, nor is it the one group that organized the attack. The enemy is every fascist moslem who seeks the downfall of the US, every disgruntled moslem who follows the fascists, and every two-bit dictator who provides some form of aid to the fascists. That is alot of people. It includes Kim and Fidel, al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, a handful of other dictators, several terrorist organizations, and maybe hundreds of thousands of otherwise average people.

The enemy has many faces, all of which need to be addressed in a seperate fashion. In order to not be forced to kill the hundreds of thousands of otherwise average people (after all, we could just nuke everyone, like they would us if given the oppourtunity, but we are the good guys) we need to show them not only that their leaders are wrong and going to lose, but that there is another way for them to live their lives that doesn't involve killing innocent people. That's what Iraq is all about. It's about showing our enemies if you think you can snub your nose at us, conspire to attack us or conspire with forces that wish to destroy us, and brutalize your people we are going to take you out. Iraq was a message to the two-bit dictators.

The only problem with it was all the complaining from the U.S. and Europe about it. Sure, it scared them at first, Ghadafi shit himself, the Iranians got real quiet, Kim protested but it sounded more like a frightened animal than a strong affronted enemy. Then something happened. People over here started bitching and moaning. Not alot of people by any means, but their voices were amplified by a media that agreed. France complained, it was amplified as if France's opinion were important. Cracks in the armor, and the two-bits saw it. Iran is now blatantly saying their going to proceed with their nuclear ambitions, North Korea is demanding a nuclear reactor again, Fidel and Hugo are getting all chummy. The psychological impact of Iraq is being squandered.

As for our capabilities, we still have nearly 20,000 troops in Afghanistan 'going after the leaders', along with other NATO forces, but most people seem to conveniently forget that when it comes time to enumerate the reasons why 'Iraq was bad', as if every soldier in the US military was now wandering aimlessly around Baghdad getting shot.

Our intelligence, in conjuction with intelligence agencies around the world, are constantly arresting people.

But you don't see that, and you won't see that.

Most everything you see is the most visible aspect of this war, and that is Iraq, and despite all the spin, we won the war, we are kicking the shit out of both domestic thugs and foreign terrorists there, and the Iraqis are stepping up to take over for us so we can leave.

When I read the newspaper and it has articles about another burial at Arlington Cemetery, it upsets me because I care about them. I see the number of soldiers that are dead increasing regularly. This bothers me.

It bothers anyone with a heart and a soul. Do you think it doesn't bother people who disagree with you about the war? Do you really think it doesn't bother the President. The only difference is some people believe the sacrifice is necessary.

Emotion can't be an obstacle to action when action is necessary.

May I pass on this right now? I don't have the energy to come up with a thoughtful answer.

Whenever you feel like it, but one might hope that it would involve a better future for all the innocent people involved.

We can agree to disagree.

I don't agree to that.

 

[xen]

Because the only way that they could be doing nothing illegal is if the war itself is not illegal. Choosing to participate in an illegal activity is in itself illegal. Saying that "they have no choice" or "they are just following orders" dehumanizes them as automatons with no access to moral values of their own. Either they are choosing to participate in an (as described by you) illegal action or they are not, there is no in between in this case unless you dehumanize those that choose to actively participate in that action.

Once again, it is tragic to disregard those who serve as even human enough to judge the morality of the action in which they participate. Even the courts do not do this and you will be tried for illegal activity during a war, it is only people that want to "support the troops but not the war" that do such things to people that are in the service.


LOL. "reich wing". There is no more positive sign that somebody has drank the kool-aid than such a denigrating and dehumanizing statement such as that and comparing all people who might agree with the war as "nazis".

It is always amazing to me that people would attempt to dehumanize their fellow citizens in such a way as if they were an enemy, not just of a different opinion and object to dehumanizing an actual enemy as if they were an ally. Actions speak volumes to your actual meaning and whom you actually consider to be an enemy or an ally.

Oooh, nice..
Okay let me put it this way:
I don't believe they are participating in any illegal activity. Taking control of a Iraq to protect our country is not illegal, the military is doing a great job. OOH RAH!
The path taken by civilian leadership is my problem, the path to this war was illegal, not the war itself...there will always be bad people and people who hate you in this world, no matter how many of them you kill, you either CHOOSE to fight them forever, or you have a fruitful nation.
Its not cool to think that ANYONE on the left or right would be considering our troops inhuman. They ARE us.

can i ask you as question though?
Why would YOU blame the troops for participating in wars started for the wrong reasons? What could they do thats illegal?


Reich?
Yep, I DO believe this administration is the fourth reich. Not even sorry for saying it.
The same money/power that leeched onto the german people, brainwashed them and enabled them to become their worst.
Is and has always been around. Its now looting our nation of every single thing we hold dear.
Just look at alaska now. The WHOLE world values this natural treasure, and we are going to let the oil dogs get a sample to save a pence?
Its totally unamerican.
This is why your ideology makes you apologetic to big business all the time!

 

[dmp]

the path to this war was illegal

What makes you think that?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

So our soldiers run in there, without enough troops I might add,

Your opinion.

Hey! What a coincidence! It's also the opinion of all our generals in Iraq!

The snoodiness of this remark "Your opinion." is outrageous. You're Goddamned right it's his opinion! Opinions matter in a democracy. Unfortunately, 48 percent of American's opinions aren't represented by a federal government that has a Conservative Legislature, Judiciary and Executive branch!

 

[no1tovote4]

Oooh, nice..
Okay let me put it this way:
I don't believe they are participating in any illegal activity. Taking control of a Iraq to protect our country is not illegal, the military is doing a great job. OOH RAH!
The path taken by civilian leadership is my problem, the path to this war was illegal, not the war itself...there will always be bad people and people who hate you in this world, no matter how many of them you kill, you either CHOOSE to fight them forever, or you have a fruitful nation.
Its not cool to think that ANYONE on the left or right would be considering our troops inhuman. They ARE us.

The path to the war was not illegal. Iraq had violated cease fire agreements which by international law is a declaration of war. We brought a war to a nation that had already declared war on ours.

can i ask you as question though?
Why would YOU blame the troops for participating in wars started for the wrong reasons? What could they do thats illegal?

I would not absolve people of moral obligation just because they are troops, such absolution dehumanizes any human as it is the obligation of all humans to act morally. If a war is unjustified, it is unjustified regardless of their status as troops. If an illegal order is given it is the moral duty of all serving not to follow the order.

Reich?
Yep, I DO believe this administration is the fourth reich. Not even sorry for saying it.
The same money/power that leeched onto the german people, brainwashed them and enabled them to become their worst.
Is and has always been around. Its now looting our nation of every single thing we hold dear.
Just look at alaska now. The WHOLE world values this natural treasure, and we are going to let the oil dogs get a sample to save a pence?
Its totally unamerican.
This is why your ideology makes you apologetic to big business all the time!

You have no idea what my ideology is. My ideology is not "for" big business, it is "for" the individual. You have made an assumption that you cannot back up with any data. For about the fifth time since you began posting I will once again tell you that I am not a Republican.

 

[Hobbit]

Xen, you're basically saying that our poor little troops are just slaves to this evil administration and cannot do anything about it. Do you have any idea what the re-enlistment rate is? It's astronomical because the soldiers aren't little slaves to the administration who have to go along with this "illegal" war because they have no choice. The majority of them *support* the war, and those who didn't before are, at the very least, completely and totally against the cutting and running you seem to want.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

This thread exploded in my absence.


Going back to the start of things, is it possible to support the troops but question the strategy? I think the outcome of the war in Iraq will be a good thing for the country, and as such I'm not as concerned with how we were told it was necesarry or not. The ends, I hope, will justify the means.

I have problems now with the way things are being run. I don't think we have enough troops over there to handle the situation. The terrorist loyalists who resist defeat need to be overwhelmed, and there aren't enough troops there for that.

I guess, going back to the football analogy, I'm not dressing up in the other team's jersey and screaming for them to win... I'm just not happy about the last couple plays that were run by my team, and question whether or not the coach or his assistant coaches have the right game plan.

At no point have I, nor will I, root for the other team, and I'm always supportive of the players, but if the coach continues to call run plays when maybe a pass would work better, that concerns me.

At the end, I realize I'm merely a spectator not involved. As such, there's no way any of us can really know the intelligence and the strategy behind what is going on over there. I can only go off of the appearances, and right now, it appears as though progress has stalled.

I guess I kind of feel like we thought this might have been easier than it now is, and at times it doesn't always look like there has been careful planning in the long-term scope of the war.

I still want victory, and have no sympathy for the enemy, but is it not possible to support the players while not supporting parts of the playcalling?

 

[xen]

Sorry i gotta goto work. i KNOW most of you are at work so , GIT R DONE!

 

[Zhukov]

Hey! What a coincidence! It's also the opinion of all our generals in Iraq!

All, huh, I'm sure you can prove that right?

Fact is it's not the opinion of one very important person, and that's the Secretary of Defense.

He wanted to blow the hell out of the country and leave. Which is funny because that sounds amazingly like what many who oppose the war now say they wish we had done.

The snoodiness of this remark "Your opinion." is outrageous. You're Goddamned right it's [her] opinion! Opinions matter in a democracy.

The opinions of 'our generals in Iraq' don't matter in a democracy actually. That's why our military has a civilian leadership. The civilian leadership was democratically elected. The civilian leadership determined the troop levels. Your opinion, her opinion, my opinion, on our civilian leadership was already asked for and received (assuming you two voted; I did, and I didn't vote for the President the first time). 'Your opinion' is a statement of fact. You read 'snoodiness' in it? Good for you.

Unfortunately, 48 percent of American's opinions aren't represented by a federal government that has a Conservative Legislature, Judiciary and Executive branch!

They are represented. Funny how you disdain the democracy you held out like a shiny beacon of truth two sentences ago. My dear boy, in a democracy 50%+1 beats 48% everytime.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Xen, you're basically saying that our poor little troops are just slaves to this evil administration and cannot do anything about it. Do you have any idea what the re-enlistment rate is? It's astronomical because the soldiers aren't little slaves to the administration who have to go along with this "illegal" war because they have no choice. The majority of them *support* the war, and those who didn't before are, at the very least, completely and totally against the cutting and running you seem to want.

What is the re-enlistment rate? I'm actually curious to know the retention in the armed forces. All I've heard is that recruitment isn't meeting their goals, but nothing about re-enlists...

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Unfortunately, 48 percent of American's opinions aren't represented by a federal government that has a Conservative Legislature, Judiciary and Executive branch!

Untrue. Every citizen is a member of the political process. You can't lose the process and then claim it doesn't represent you. Move to Canada if this country doesn't represent you. You might not agree with the end result, but you can't disown it when it doesn't serve your purpose. Well you can, by leaving...

These kind of statements make it so hard for other people to offer opposing viewpoints...

 

[Zhukov]

Retention is good.

Even as they conduct combat operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom 3, Task Force Baghdad Soldiers continue to reenlist at rates that top previous goals.

http://www.blackanthem.com/News/military_2005091103.html

reenlistment in the National Guard is at an all-time high

http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050920-secdef3941.html

At present, U.S. Army and Marine Corps reenlistment rates are strong.

http://web.krg.org/articles/article_detail.asp?LangNr=12&RubricNr=&ArticleNr=6063&LNNr=28&RNNr=70

 

[Hobbit]

What is the re-enlistment rate? I'm actually curious to know the retention in the armed forces. All I've heard is that recruitment isn't meeting their goals, but nothing about re-enlists...

No official numbers off the top of my head, as most of the legacy media (they're not mainstream anymore) doesn't want to publish them, but I can tell you that I hardly ever hear of people not re-enlisting at least once over there unless they only joined for the college money and tried to dodge actual service in the first place.

As far as criticism, you're fine if you think the war isn't being fought correctly. I, personally, think we're being too PC and need to take off the kid gloves. It's guys like xen who like to use buzzwords like "illegal war," "quagmire," and "Nazi" that I have a beef with.