Can you support out troops and still be against the war?

[MSgt]

Most people don't "deserve to die" but I am not going to sympathize with those who are fighting a cause I don't believe in.

And this would be the moral dillema in our country. What is a good cause to you? People can complain all day about Presidential speeches and political undermining, but no one can deny that in the course of what ever reason (as if there is a single one) we went to Iraq:

1) Iraq: Over 20 million people no longer live under Saddam Hussein and now have an opportunity to shape their own destinies. For the first time, an Arab country voted on the rules that would govern them. Despite the violence of those that long for their damaging traditions they now have more civil rights than before. They must continue to move forward despite the fact that they are unable to live peacfully without the abuse and oppression their former leader prescribed.

We went to war in Afghanistan out of revenge. In the course...

2) Afghanistan: The oppressions of the Tali-Ban and their power has been dismantled. They no longer present a problem to the governing body who represent their people. Women are no longer forced to be hidden away from the world behind restrictive clothing. The brutalities of Islam have been trumped by the more liberal definitions of Islam.

Throughout the region: Women are treated as material objects, homosexuals are stoned, there is a low evaluation of education, there is a restriction of the free-flow of information, poverty and unemployment percentages are astronomical and worsening, religious perversion is rampant, and on top of a dramatically rising population growth there is a fresh water per capita supply shortage on the rise.

All of this has occurred due to our refusals to continue to look away for our oil (which is complained about by the same critics). Religious terrorism is the result of such misery. Misery that we simply accepted for our "stability." 9/11 was simply a symptom. Conspiracy theories and determined focus on "Bush lies" only serves to dismiss everything else. Of course, we have to reflect on the life Muslim leaders prescribe to their people as we park our jets on their sands. If we are to condemn the actions that destabilize the Middle East then we have accepted the oppressive stability that ensures our oil. In effect, we have accepted our roles as the Arab scapegoat and the religious terror that ensues.

So again...what is a good cause to you?

 

[Iriemon]

Yes. If a soldier is doing something in violation of his/her own principles then they are no different.

If soldiers are equivalent to criminals as you maintain, do you thing they should be put in jail as criminals are?

what level of punishment in your opinion is appropriate for these soldiers?

I never even implied that.

Then you are retracting you assertion that "They have the right to disobey an order which they believe to be morally, ethically, and/or legally bankrupt."

If one believes the policy to be wrong then one must also believe the enforcement of that policy to be wrong as well.

How does that logically follow? I believe the drug policy is wrong. Does that mean logically I believe all cops are criminals for doing their job of enforcing the policy? That therefore I should have no sympathy for them getting killed in the line of duty enforcing drug laws because they are enforcing a policy I disagree with?

There is a difference between the policy and those who are doing their job to enforce it. Where you are wrong, IMO, is that you are blaming those who are doing their job for a policy they did not make that you (and I) disagree with.

Most people don't "deserve to die" but I am not going to sympathize with those who are fighting a cause I don't believe in.

Alright, they don't deserve to die. That is at least something. Do they (speaking generally) deserve to live? Or are you just totally indifferent to their plight because they are doing their job of enforcing a policy that it your opnion is wrong.

 

[Iriemon]

And this would be the moral dillema in our country. What is a good cause to you? People can complain all day about Presidential speeches and political undermining, but no one can deny that in the course of what ever reason (as if there is a single one) we went to Iraq:

1) Iraq: Over 20 million people no longer live under Saddam Hussein and now have an opportunity to shape their own destinies. For the first time, an Arab country voted on the rules that would govern them. Despite the violence of those that long for their damaging traditions they now have more civil rights than before. They must continue to move forward despite the fact that they are unable to live peacfully without the abuse and oppression their former leader prescribed.

We went to war in Afghanistan out of revenge. In the course...

2) Afghanistan: The oppressions of the Tali-Ban and their power has been dismantled. They no longer present a problem to the governing body who represent their people. Women are no longer forced to be hidden away from the world behind restrictive clothing. The brutalities of Islam have been trumped by the more liberal definitions of Islam.

Throughout the region: Women are treated as material objects, homosexuals are stoned, there is a low evaluation of education, there is a restriction of the free-flow of information, poverty and unemployment percentages are astronomical and worsening, religious perversion is rampant, and on top of a dramatically rising population growth there is a fresh water per capita supply shortage on the rise.

All of this has occurred due to our refusals to continue to look away for our oil (which is complained about by the same critics). Religious terrorism is the result of such misery. Misery that we simply accepted for our "stability." 9/11 was simply a symptom. Conspiracy theories and determined focus on "Bush lies" only serves to dismiss everything else. Of course, we have to reflect on the life Muslim leaders prescribe to their people as we park our jets on their sands. If we are to condemn the actions that destabilize the Middle East then we have accepted the oppressive stability that ensures our oil. In effect, we have accepted our roles as the Arab scapegoat and the religious terror that ensues.

So again...what is a good cause to you?

IMO the issue isn't whether it is a good cause or not. Our national policy isn't set by soldiers or even by the military. It is set by elected civilian leaders. If you have a disagreement with the policy your disagreement is with the national leaders and ultimately those who elect them or keep them in office.

Rather, the issue is simply a matter of respect and sympathy for those who are doing their job of risking their lives for our country, whether or not they believe in the policy behind the war. That is a soldier's job, not to make policy but to enforce it. Blaming the soldier for national foreign policy is misplaced enough -- having absolutely no sympathy for those individuals who give their lives or are maimed for life because you disagree with national policy borders on psychopathic, IMO.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

If soldiers are equivalent to criminals as you maintain, do you thing they should be put in jail as criminals are?

Don't make generalizations. Should those who violate their moral principles and kill for a cause they don't believe in be tossed into prison? No, but they shouldn't be regarded as heroes either and they should be frowned upon.

Then you are retracting you assertion that "They have the right to disobey an order which they believe to be morally, ethically, and/or legally bankrupt."

No, I'm not. People have the right to do whatever they want but that doesn't mean that it will or should go unpunished.

How does that logically follow? I believe the drug policy is wrong. Does that mean logically I believe all cops are criminals for doing their job of enforcing the policy?

If they are enforcing that policy in violation of their own individual principles then, yes, they are no different than criminals.

That therefore I should have no sympathy for them getting killed in the line of duty enforcing drug laws because they are enforcing a policy I disagree with?

Right.

Where you are wrong, IMO, is that you are blaming those who are doing their job for a policy they did not make that you (and I) disagree with.

I don't blame them for the policy; I blame them for enforcing the policy.

Or are you just totally indifferent to their plight because they are doing their job of enforcing a policy that it your opnion is wrong.

I'm indifferent.

 

[MSgt]

IMO the issue isn't whether it is a good cause or not. Our national policy isn't set by soldiers or even by the military. It is set by elected civilian leaders. If you have a disagreement with the policy your disagreement is with the national leaders and ultimately those who elect them or keep them in office.

Rather, the issue is simply a matter of respect and sympathy for those who are doing their job of risking their lives for our country, whether or not they believe in the policy behind the war. That is a soldier's job, not to make policy but to enforce it. Blaming the soldier for national foreign policy is misplaced enough -- having absolutely no sympathy for those individuals who give their lives or are maimed for life because you disagree with national policy borders on psychopathic, IMO.

I agree completely.

He said that he didn't believe in this cause. I was just curious about what he thinks is a good cause. Shouldn't we cast all of the partisan slavery aside and decide what is and is not a good cause for war? Should we deserve to be the most powerful nation in history and be the greatest power for good if we are to only use it to seek revenge or immediate gain? Is it right to accept Muslim oppression and the religious terrorism that comes from it for the sake of oil stability (as we have done for decades)?

The action taken is debatable as is the timing, but what is a good cause?

 

[Iriemon]

Don't make generalizations. Should those who violate their moral principles and kill for a cause they don't believe in be tossed into prison? No, but they shouldn't be regarded as heroes either and they should be frowned upon.

You are now agreeing they are not morally equivalent to criminals, at least.

No, I'm not. People have the right to do whatever they want but that doesn't mean that it will or should go unpunished.

A "right" implies that you have the ability to do something without being punished. Otherwise you'd have to say I have the "right" to murder someone, I'll just be punished for it. That is an ability, not a "right".

If they are enforcing that policy in violation of their own individual principles then, yes, they are no different than criminals.

Oooops, I thought we were making progress.

A criminal is someone who intentionally violates the criminal law.

A cop who swears to uphold the law and who enforces a drug law he personally thinks is wrong is not intentionally violating a law.

No difference to you, eh?

I don't blame them for the policy; I blame them for enforcing the policy.

Right

OK. That would make it pretty hard to be a cop, wouldn't it? If there are laws that you disagree with you either have to violate your sworn duty (and suffer the legal consequences) or do your duty, and in your view, be the moral equivalent of a criminal deserving no respect of sympathy.

Pretty tough standard you are asking of military and law enforcement personnel, IMO.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

You are now agreeing they are not morally equivalent to criminals, at least.

No, I'm not.

A "right" implies that you have the ability to do something without being punished.

Not really, unless of course you want to say that revolutions are never a right at which time you would have say that the United States is an illegitimate nation.

A criminal is someone who intentionally violates the criminal law.

A criminal is someone who violates a moral or ethical code. If a police officer violates his/her own moral or ethical code then they are no different.

Pretty tough standard you are asking of military and law enforcement personnel, IMO.

If you consider being a man or woman of principle to be a "tough standard" then I pity you.

 

[Iriemon]

Not really, unless of course you want to say that revolutions are never a right at which time you would have say that the United States is an illegitimate nation.

OK, it is semantics. I agree that a cop or a soldier has the "right" to refuse to do his duty and get thrown in jail.

A criminal is someone who violates a moral or ethical code. If a police officer violates his/her own moral or ethical code then they are no different.

That is not a criminal by any standard definition at all. You can violate your own moral and ethical code and not be guilty of any crime. You can deem it immoral to have premarital sex, and if you do it anyway, that doesn't make you a criminal by anyone's definition.

If you consider being a man or woman of principle to be a "tough standard" then I pity you.

The tough standard is how you define a person of principle. A person of principle can recognize that he or she has the duty follow a law even if they disagree with the law.

 

[MSgt]

No, I'm not.



Not really, unless of course you want to say that revolutions are never a right at which time you would have say that the United States is an illegitimate nation.



A criminal is someone who violates a moral or ethical code. If a police officer violates his/her own moral or ethical code then they are no different.



If you consider being a man or woman of principle to be a "tough standard" then I pity you.

This fabricated level of superiority you are trying to invent for yourself just doesn't work in the real world. Civilizations are built on the backs of men who follow orders and men who adhere to the common law of society. If men were to cast aside their duties of being a part of a progressive society, then they are destined for anarchy. You are attempting to portray the American "soldier" as a Nazi on his way to the furnace.

You speak of "ethical code and moralty," yet you have difficulty in providing a base line. Life isn't a college classroom or an organized campus protest. And this has more to do with your personal issues about the military in general. You may have learned to be more honest in your protest, but at least be completely honest.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

OK, it is semantics. I agree that a cop or a soldier has the "right" to refuse to do his duty and get thrown in jail.

:2razz:

That is not a criminal by any standard definition at all. You can violate your own moral and ethical code and not be guilty of any crime. You can deem it immoral to have premarital sex, and if you do it anyway, that doesn't make you a criminal by anyone's definition.

It makes you morally and ethically bankrupt just as a criminal is.

The tough standard is how you define a person of principle. A person of principle can recognize that he or she has the duty follow a law even if they disagree with the law.

A person of principle doesn't abandon their principles like a coward when the risk of being persecuted for their beliefs presents itself.

 

[Iriemon]

It makes you morally and ethically bankrupt just as a criminal is.

Depending upon the circumstances. Moral behavior and criminal acts are not necessarily correlated and are not the same.

But even someone who acts immorally can be worthy of sympathy, in my view.

A person of principle doesn't abandon their principles like a coward when the risk of being persecuted for their beliefs presents itself.

And a soldier or policeman who believes that in the principle of his obligation to do his duty is not abandoning his principles because he disagrees with the national policy he is asked to enforce.

What you really are saying is that someone whose principle of doing their sworn duty outweighs their principle about whether a law or action is right is unworthy of respect or sympathy, because in your opinion they should place their principle about the law or action above their principle to do their sworn duty.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

But even someone who acts immorally can be worthy of sympathy, in my view.

Not when they know they are acting in violation of their principles, IMO.

What you really are saying is that someone whose principle of doing their sworn duty outweighs their principle about whether a law or action is right is unworthy of respect or sympathy, because in your opinion they should place their principle about the law or action above their principle to do their sworn duty.

Do you have sympathy for the loyalists from the American Revolution?

 

[tryreading]

And here it is folks. This sort of sentiment is exactly why so many in uniform do not understand how so many can say "Support the Troop, Not The War." At least Napolean is being honest with his protest. Now, obviously, some individuals truly believe they can support the troop while casting bad grades on our mission. But most are simply hiding behind the PC notion.

You sure this isn't simply about the same old issues you always have about not being able to enlist because your lifestyle?

Here it is not. The opinion of one goddam nut doesn't represent much of a percent of Americans. There is no way anybody can make me believe that the troops can't separate that type of attitude from what many of us think, that Iraq shouldn't have been attacked, but the troops are doing what they are supposed to do and we support them.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

...being a part of a progressive society...

It's nice to hear a Republican finally acknowledge that progressive is the way to be.

And this has more to do with your personal issues about the military in general.

It doesn't but since you seem to believe that you have the ability to read minds why don't you tell all of us what the next winning lotto numbers will be?

 

[Navy Pride]

I support the troops fully. I don't support the war. See? It's possible!


Duke

Well if you don't support the war do you want our troops to be successful in Iraq?

 

[Duke]

Well if you don't support the war do you want our troops to be successful in Iraq?

Don't be silly, Navy Pride! I think America should support our troops by doing what's best for them and the nation: pulling them out of Iraq.


Duke

 

[Navy Pride]

Don't be silly, Navy Pride! I think America should support our troops by doing what's best for them and the nation: pulling them out of Iraq.


Duke

You need to learn how to read the question for the poll.....

 

[Duke]

You need to learn how to read the question for the poll.....

I can read it just fine, thank you for your concern.

But I noticed that you completely ignored this post of mine:

Don't be silly, Navy Pride! I think America should support our troops by doing what's best for them and the nation: pulling them out of Iraq.


Duke

What, can't you face the fact that I can both be against the war and for the troops? Or are you going to dodge that again and bring up something irrelevant?


Duke

 

[jamesrage]

You can't support the troops and be against what they are trying to accomplish.....They are trying to win the war you have lost the stomach for and want to cut and run from..........Its as simple as that...........

I agree,not only that they will seek any means to undermine the war.Filthy rat cockroaches like Jane Fonda during the Vietnam war is a prime example of someone who did not support the war and did everything she could to undermine the troops.

The same people who say they support the troops but not the war are the same people who do not think it is treason for a newspaper to print classified material,they are the same people who think it is okay to ignore the accomplishments of our troops while only showing the bad things that a few bad apples in the military did.

 

[Moot]

Cheap Shot? Those...words....were....yours.

Um, no. Those... were... your... words... thrown back in your face.

A lack of integrity is believeing in a war for revenge or to merely protect oneself and dismissing the needs of others that suffer. Leaving Saddam (our mistake in the first place) to his luxuries is lacking integrity.

Papa Bush was absolutely right to not attack Saddam. Junior's arrogance and incompetance have proven Papa Bush right. Boy, what a mistake that invasion was and one the American people or the world won't soon forget. No matter how much you try to spin it.

Ergo, lack of integrity was attacking a weak, defenseless soveriegn nation and then claiming victory. We could have gotten the same satisfaction out of stepping on an defenseless little bug and saying we won.

Ummm.....no. Nothing was out of context and nothing was altered. You are responsible for your own words. It's not even a change of subject. You claim to support the troop and I merely reminded you what you have said.

Lack of integrity is what you did when you took my words out of context from another thread and tried to apply it to this thread. And in doing that, you not only lack integrity, but it shows you aren't qualified to speak on the troops behalf.

However, what you wrote below...is changing the subject....

Let's help you out here....

1) Saddam's military was disbanded after the invasion, because it was not feasable to allow them to continue patrolling the streets of the villgages and towns where they abused and terrorized under Saddam's leadership and control. The Iraqi civilians needed to see that they were no more. If Iraqis choose to punish individual Iraqi soldiers for their crimes (as we do in America) then that will be their decision. Our concern was Saddam.

Disbanding Saddam's military and firing thousands of school teachers and Baath goverment workers was the STUPIDEST MISTAKE Bremer under the direct command of Rumsfeld could have ever done. THAT IS A FACT, JACK.

At this very moment in time, Prime Minister Al-Maliki is trying to lure the very hundreds of thousands of Baath party government workers back to their old jobs in an attempt to undo the damage done by Bremer ala Rumsfeld. What a waste of life, money and time this occupation has been thanks to this incompetant, arrogant, administration.

2) Bush, despite your hatreds and desperate leanings, has not ordered the massacre of civilians, built torture chambers, oppressed populations, or accepted the rapes conducted by a few of his troops. The whole fact that we are held accountable for our sins in combat through Court Martials is the difference. Any spin on your part is mere desperation to exhonerate your morality about helping others.

Tell that to yo mama. If Bush himself didn't think he was guilty of allowing for and covering up atrocities in Iraq, then he wouldn't have made the sneaky and unprecendented act of "pardoning" himself and his administration for war crimes. Now isn't that interesting because that is exactly what Saddam did for himself, too.

Bush seeks retroactive immunity for violating War Crimes Act

The ''pardon'' is buried in Bush's proposed legislation to create a new kind of military tribunal for cases involving top al-Qaida operatives. The ''pardon'' provision has nothing to do with the tribunals. Instead, it guts the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal law that makes it a crime, in some cases punishable by death, to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and makes the new, weaker terms of the War Crimes Act retroactive to 9/11.....
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/68705,CST-EDT-REF23B.article

You see, this is the real world. A world where bad men are fought with the very tool he would oppress with - a military. If you still feel the need to cling to the notion that Bush is a mass murderer under the efforts of the troops (you claim to support) then you may as well be true to your fantasies - Roosevelt, Kennedy, Lincoln, etc. are all genocidal maniacs. Perhaps the anti-war voices would be more effective if they stuck to reality rather than creating fantasies from it. Funny how so many shed crocodile tears for civilains in Iraq, but not a tear for civilians in Afghanistan. I guess the anti-war voice only cares about American troop "victims" in wars they don't agree with. In the mean time, it is those uniformed "murderers, rapists, and genocidal maniacs" that are trying their best to keep Muslims safe from their own kind.

You are doing our troops a dis-service with your twisted lies and propaganda. You have rendered their service and sacrifice meaningless by denying your fellow Americans the right to empathize with them and to criticize the bastards who sent them there. Your hatred for your fellow Americans knows no bounds and yet you have the audacity to say you care about our troops and even shed a crocidile tear for Muslims because it suits your twisted agenda to do so. Sorry Charlie, but our eyes are wide open, even if yours are not and we see the Iraq occupation for what it really is.

You can put lipstick on that pig of a war, but it will still look like a pig.

 

[Willow]

I'm also military, 22 years worth and quite frankly I don't give a damn if any of you support the troops or not. Some people do, some people don't ..it's still a free country. It's not up to me or anyone else to tell someone what their opinion should be.
I think the question of whether you support the troops or not and linking it to whether you support this war or not is simply a excuse for trying to drag the soldiers into a political battle. Using them as pawns to consolidate your political points of view is disingenuous and sad to boot irregardless of what side you're coming from. There are approximately 1.5 million members of the military, to assume that they all feel the exact same way about this war is, as all generalities are, really quite stupid.

 

[Gibberish]

Can I support the war in Iraq and our decision to go there but not support the troops? Just curious.

 

[Duke]

Can I support the war in Iraq and our decision to go there but not support the troops? Just curious.

I don't see why not, but there might be something wrong with your head..... :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


Duke

 

[ProudAmerican]

I absoultely believe that you can support the troops and not the war. I WAS a troop, as was my husband. He did two rotations in Iraq. Neither one of us has supported why we're there. But I dare anyone to tell me that I didn't support him, or that he didn't support himself or the other men in his unit.

I don't agree with why we're there, but we are, and that's not going to change anytime soon. I just pray that as many of our troops as possible make it home safely.

the way for the most troops to make it home safely is to take of the kid gloves and finish the job deciseively, quickly, and with authority.

the longer we play games, and fight half assed wars, the more American troops will die.

 

[tryreading]

the way for the most troops to make it home safely is to take of the kid gloves and finish the job deciseively, quickly, and with authority.

But the President and Donald Rumsfeld did not have the balls to do that. And you can blame anybody you want to, but the two people in charge didn't have a sac between them, or they would have done it your way, right?