- Joined
- May 21, 2005
- Messages
- 9,163
- Reaction score
- 9,292
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
As a Navy veteran of 5 years, I'm surprised at the other vets who accuse anti-war Americans of not supporting the troops. Disregarding the fact that denouncing the opposition's patriotism is intellectually equivalent to calling them schoolyard names, it seems that some veterans and many non-vets have forgotten what the role of the military actually is.
The military does not dictate foreign policy any more than a gun dictates who it shoots. Just like a gun, the military is a tool, and a tool is only as good as the tool who uses it. And just like the troops, I support a citizen's right to own a gun, but I don't support the killing of an "undeserving" person with it. Whether or not Iraq was "undeserving" should be the argument. Not anyone's patriotism.
If you're concerned about whether the lack of mission support at home might demoralize the troops, or offer encouragement to the enemy, that's a good point. But let us never forget that Americans have a Constitutional obligation to criticize our government whenever necessary and appropriate, and that includes wartime. Especially wartime. This "aiding and abeding the enemy" argument will always be a factor if we continue to be Americans during war. Obviously the criticism should be centered on facts, not conspiracy theories. But the right of American citizens to criticise their government is exactly what every United States soldier and sailor take a solemn vow to defend:
"I, [name], do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. [So help me God.]"
So the fact that we are debating and criticizing our government's actions should encourage them, not demoralize them.
Our soldiers have kicked ass and taken names. They have done everything they were designed to do, and many things they were not, and they did it bravely and professionally. They should get absolutely everything they need. The best equipment, the best training, and the best Christmas cards from us at home. I support the troops. Our President cherry-picked intelligence on pre-war Iraq, exaggerated the link between al'Qaeda and Iraq, and overstated Saddam Hussein's ambitions to directly or indirectly initiate an attack against the United States. I don't support their mission.
See this post (mine and Simon's) for proof that nobody has refuted:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=6300&page=3
The military does not dictate foreign policy any more than a gun dictates who it shoots. Just like a gun, the military is a tool, and a tool is only as good as the tool who uses it. And just like the troops, I support a citizen's right to own a gun, but I don't support the killing of an "undeserving" person with it. Whether or not Iraq was "undeserving" should be the argument. Not anyone's patriotism.
If you're concerned about whether the lack of mission support at home might demoralize the troops, or offer encouragement to the enemy, that's a good point. But let us never forget that Americans have a Constitutional obligation to criticize our government whenever necessary and appropriate, and that includes wartime. Especially wartime. This "aiding and abeding the enemy" argument will always be a factor if we continue to be Americans during war. Obviously the criticism should be centered on facts, not conspiracy theories. But the right of American citizens to criticise their government is exactly what every United States soldier and sailor take a solemn vow to defend:
"I, [name], do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. [So help me God.]"
So the fact that we are debating and criticizing our government's actions should encourage them, not demoralize them.
Our soldiers have kicked ass and taken names. They have done everything they were designed to do, and many things they were not, and they did it bravely and professionally. They should get absolutely everything they need. The best equipment, the best training, and the best Christmas cards from us at home. I support the troops. Our President cherry-picked intelligence on pre-war Iraq, exaggerated the link between al'Qaeda and Iraq, and overstated Saddam Hussein's ambitions to directly or indirectly initiate an attack against the United States. I don't support their mission.
See this post (mine and Simon's) for proof that nobody has refuted:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=6300&page=3
Last edited: