I DON'T SUPPORT our troops.

[Mark]

It's funny no one who opposes the war can answer a simple question. Every time I've asked it, the answer has been dodged.

I just read and re-read your last posts. I saw no question. A question is an interroratory sentence with a ? at the end. Just so you know.

Ah!
There it is...thanks, Bob!

Answer: yes, he is doing what he feels is right to support his country. I will respect him and honor him for it, while I also continue to oppose the war. Got it?

Btw, that exact situation is happening in my own home with a young man who has volunteered for Iraq; we respect each others' positions while we continue to disagee. And I buy him meals, and let his girlfriend have a room to stay in, rent free. Supporting the troops.

 

[bob_kark]

A person volunteers to engage in a war you oppose. Do you support him?

I may not support his decision, but I would still support him or her. When it comes down to it, the volunteer, at the very least, will be reinforcing troops in Iraq that are currently dangerously understaffed. Since we're already at war with Iraq and its not feasible to withdraw right now, I don't see a problem.

You would have to be living in a cave to not understand what's going on in Iraq now. So, I really doubt anyone is going into the recruiting office screaming "Hoo-Yaw! I'm gonna kill me some Iraqis!! Yee-Haw!! [obligatory firing of two pistols in the air]" If anything, they're trying to ensure the freedom of the Iraqis, trying to earn a college education, trying to earn a living, or perhaps even trying to follow in their family's footsteps. Why blame them?

 

[Luke T.]

I oppose the war, I don't support your troops. I want them to leave Iraq. How's that for clarity?

Would I be unpatriotic, if I was an US citizen?

That's fine, and I can actually respect that position, regardless if you are a citizen or not.

ETA: To me, being unpatriotic has to do more with how one feels about one's country as a whole. It takes more than someone saying they oppose a war our country is currently engaged in to make me believe they are unpatriotic.

 

[Ed]

You are a liar. Here's what you said: "They then prevent anyone from seeing the flag draped coffins when those troops come back dead." They do not prevent anyone from seeing the flag draped coffins. If the family agrees, the flag draped coffin can have its own show on CBS.

That, Manny, would be a ratings nightmare. On a par with My Mother the Car.

Though it might make it on cable.

 

[Orwell]

Say a fella walked into an army recruiter's office six months ago and volunteered to go to Iraq. And he's there now.

Do you support him?

I would call him an idiot for wanting to risk his life serving in an occupying army that is fighting a morally dubious conflict. He doesn't even have the old "following orders" excuse on his side, since he wasn't in the army yet. How's that for clarity?

 

[Luke T.]

You would have to be living in a cave to not understand what's going on in Iraq now. So, I really doubt anyone is going into the recruiting office screaming "Hoo-Yaw! I'm gonna kill me some Iraqis!! Yee-Haw!! [obligatory firing of two pistols in the air]"

Actually, I bet there are.

If anything, they're trying to ensure the freedom of the Iraqis, trying to earn a college education, trying to earn a living, or perhaps even trying to follow in their family's footsteps. Why blame them?

And there are those types of people joining up, too.

So it is okay with you if someone engages in a war you oppose for money?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Since we're already at war with Iraq and its not feasible to withdraw right now, I don't see a problem.

...snip...

I know this might be seen as picky but the USA is not at war with Iraq - Iraq is an ally of the USA!

 

[Darat]

I would call him an idiot for wanting to risk his life serving in an occupying army that is fighting a morally dubious conflict. He doesn't even have the old "following orders" excuse on his side, since he wasn't in the army yet. How's that for clarity?

The coalition forces can no longer by any definition that means anything be considered an "occupation army".

 

[Orwell]

The coalition forces can no longer by any definition that means anything be considered an "occupation army".

The question said "six months ago".

As for the "not an occupying army", well, there are still a significant number of Iraqis that beg to differ, it seems...

 

[Mark]

The coalition forces can no longer by any definition that means anything be considered an "occupation army".

I am trying to understand your point. Are you suggesting that when the Soviets installed a government in Afghanistan that was sympathetic to their cause, they were no longer an occupation force?

Maybe I am just not getting what you mean.

 

[Luke T.]

I have an aunt who was a radical anti-war protestor during the Vietnam war. She ran with the Berrigan brothers, for those of you familiar with that era. She broke into town halls and burned records. She climbed over the fence at Andrews Air Force base and poured lamb's blood over the aircraft there and was arrested.

When I joined the military and entered the nuclear power field, I represented everything she was against. At one point, she moved near where I was stationed, and so I visited her often. We had many spirited debates, to say the least.

My aunt loved me and I loved her. She didn't want to see me come to harm. But there is no way on Earth she "supported" me.

 

[Darat]

I am trying to understand your point. Are you suggesting that when the Soviets installed a government in Afghanistan that was sympathetic to their cause, they were no longer an occupation force?

Maybe I am just not getting what you mean.

The question said "six months ago".

As for the "not an occupying army", well, there are still a significant number of Iraqis that beg to differ, it seems...

The current government in Iraq is a democratically elected government and they have continued to request the support of the coalition forces being in their country. To me that means it is wrong to describe the coalition forces as an "occupying army".

 

[Mark]

The current government in Iraq is a democratically elected government and they have continued to request the support of the coalition forces being in their country. To me that means it is wrong to describe the coalition forces as an "occupying army".

You may be correct...but it is so close to what the Soviets used to say about Afghanistan---We are there at the invitation of the Afghan government---it makes me squirm just a bit.

 

[Ed]

It means politically castrating yourself, since it is very hard to support the troops while opposing the war.

What do you mean support?

 

[Mephisto]

Now you are getting the picture. Anti-war people who claim to "support the troops" are hard to pin down on what they mean.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. In my post above, I made it fairly clear that I'm anti-war (at least anti-THIS-war), but I support those young men and women who have shouldered the responsibility of military service. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand that it's highly possible to be against the political inadequacies or concerns that result in war, while supporting the soldier's will to survive.

I support the troops in whatever way I can, and that usually involves donations of time or money to veteran's organizations or organizations that provide aid to miltary families who have either lost a loved one or are in dire straits because a family member is currently overseas. Most people who claim to "support the troops" are only talking about a handshake and a thank you when they return. What most Americans DON'T realize is that for many combat veterans, the REAL war doesn't start until they're home, and for that they need all the support we can give them. After all, THEY didn't start the war, they only promised to put their lives on the line when necessary.

 

[bob_kark]

Actually, I bet there are.

How much?

And there are those types of people joining up, too.

So it is okay with you if someone engages in a war you oppose for money?

Have you seen the economy lately? For some people there's not much of a choice. Take a look at towns like Flint Michigan.

I suppose that my views are also based upon the fact that the reasons I don't support the war are not based on a moral objection to the war. Rather because I would prefer there be a stronger force in Afghanistan actually attempting to capture the terrorists. The remainder of our troops would be better used at home in case we need to apply force to Iran or North Korea or to help handle fallout from natural disasters. However, if anything were to happen now that would require the use of military force, we would be vastly unprepared.

I don't see any reason for us to be in Iraq currently. The troops stationed there are under-equipped, poorly supported, and vastly overworked. In addition, by being in Iraq, I feel that we're helping increase support for terrorist organizations by giving them a free and easy recruiting tool. However, its not as if we can just pick up and leave. So while we're stuck there, I'm not going to judge someone for wanting to join up. They had nothing to do with our involvement there.

 

[Darat]

You may be correct...but it is so close to what the Soviets used to say about Afghanistan---We are there at the invitation of the Afghan government---it makes me squirm just a bit.

The difference is that the government in Iraq is a democratically elected government and by all accounts it was a reasonable, fair and well conducted poll - I believe the turn out was around 70%. Therefore I don't think you can argue that it is not a representative and legitimate government.

 

[Bob Klase]

An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying.

Inefficient? It would be much worse than inefficient. It would be chaos. An army of people who all decide which orders they're going to follow or which assignments they're going to accept wouldn't even be able to corral a street gang in LA.

Get a few high randing people making those choices and you're on the road to military junta taking over the country. The founding fathers had good reason to put elected civilian control over the military. Their job is to follow legal/lawful orders.

 

[bob_kark]

I know this might be seen as picky but the USA is not at war with Iraq - Iraq is an ally of the USA!

Whoops, I missed that!

 

[bob_kark]

Inefficient? It would be much worse than inefficient. It would be chaos. An army of people who all decide which orders they're going to follow or which assignments they're going to accept wouldn't even be able to corral a street gang in LA.

Get a few high randing people making those choices and you're on the road to military junta taking over the country. The founding fathers had good reason to put elected civilian control over the military. Their job is to follow legal/lawful orders.

Hey, don't quote me on that. I was just quoting the article.