Is Anti-War the same as Anti-Troops?

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hang...

You guys have been caught by the spin. We've got "Anti-War" demonstrators and then we've got the "Support the Troops" demonstrators and somehow it's all been spun so people think that "Anti-War" is the same thing as "Anti-Troop".

From my perspective where "Anti-War" and "Support the Troops" are not mutually exclusive, I cannot share your offense at these pictures.

In my opinion, soldiers, whether U.S. or Iraqi, are instruments of policy. You want to blame Bush? Go right ahead. You want to blame Hussein? Be my guest. I think you oughta blame both... but that's another thread.

The soldiers are to be respected, especially our own.

I don't see it sandy.. and since that other thread is about to be history, lets rumble over here.

item: anti-war sentiment and protest emboldens saddams regime and lengthens the war. this costs troops lives. since we are THERE and we ain't leaving till the regime is replaced, should we not then cease anti-war activisim and instead provide a united front against saddam?

[Dowding]

The troops are instruments of government policy. I was/am against that policy, for various oft repeated reasons. I could go into them, but that would cloud the issue.

Define support. Wishing they don't come to harm? Hoping they don't get maimed, executed, tortured, burnt to death? Hoping they all come home?  

That's my definition and in that case, how can I not support my own countrymen?

Furthermore, are you saying that there will never be a war you won't support, never be a government policy that you won't object to? If that isn't the case, then there will be a time you won't be supporting the troops yourself, going by your logic.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Hangtime
I don't see it sandy.. and since that other thread is about to be history, lets rumble over here.

item: anti-war sentiment and protest emboldens saddams regime and lengthens the war. this costs troops lives. since we are THERE and we ain't leaving till the regime is replaced, should we not then cease anti-war activisim and instead provide a united front against saddam?

I've heard similar arguments in the Senate and House... Some Republicans (have to search for the quotes), have stated that being against this war is the same thing as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." In other words, dissent is treason.

It's just scary and it's shameful.

[Batz]

There have been 2 threads that covered this.

imho you cant rightly feel the war is wrong, unjust, immoral and illegal and think that the officers and troops carrying out the war are great. "I was just following orders" went out the window after ww2.

We have read on this board where folks have said that the President is out to kill Iraqi civilians, steal their oil and conquer and rule over them.

If its so obvious as it seems to be to most leftist then you would expect the "troops" to see it as such as well. Unless the left think they are much smarter then the rest.

They dont "support" the troops they hope no one dies but thats different. Thats easy, we all hope no one dies.

What they basically are saying is "We think the war is wrong and that you are brainwashed mindless drones for not seeing it as such. So even though you are tools for Bush and his oil buddies and are willing to kill civilians if necessary to help the criminal Bush conquer Iraq we hope you dont die."

I dont see how you can seperate the "mission" from the men when its the "mission" that these troops are sacrificing for.

[Batz]

umm dissent isnt treason, dissent is a great part of democracy.

Dissent isnt what jihad err weazels post is, nor is the sign those masked protesters were pictured holding.

Those are lies meant to incite.

[Sandman]

Batz, have you ever been in the military?

[Arlo]

Same thing can be asked of you, Sandy. The UCMJ has provisions dealing with unlawful orders.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

[Sandman]

The guy at the tip of the sword is going to have a hard time proving that any order from the President is unlawful.

In any case, you don't get orders directly from the President. They filter down. The assumption is that the chain of command is making certain that the troops are not doing anything illegal. Occasionally, you might ask yourself, "Is this okay?" The comforting answer is that if the Div O, Dept O, XO, CO and right on up through the type commanders and CINCS believe that it is, well then it must be.

[Toad]

So, you get an order to shoot a POW from your immediate superior.

You'd do it? Using that logic?

[Arlo]

So you're telling me that you couldn't distinguish a lawful order from an unlawful one?

• Your platoon commander orders you to shoot a prisoner. This man is not trying to escape or kill anyone. His hands are tied behind his back and he's placed on his knees.

Lawful or unlawful?

• You catch a member of your unit looting a shop. You tell him to stand down. Your sergeant orders you to leave him alone. He further orders you to carry some of the stolen goods.

Lawful or unlawful?

• You come upon a squad that is raping a civilian. One of the members of the squad outranks you. He tells you that you didn't see a thing. He orders you back to your post and to stay quiet.

Lawful or unlawful?

• Your commanding officer gives you an order to fire on civilians that are protesting in the street. There is no sound of gunfire, no threat to your unit, no weapons obvious in the hands of the protesters. You hesitate. The officer repeats the order.

Lawful or unlawful?

[/list]

[Furious]

Sandman did his time in the "prison with a good chance of drowning", or as it is commonly called the U.S. Navy.


F.

crap, you guys are posting to damn fast.

[Batz]

6 years on Submarine.  Why do wanna know?

And does it make any difference in regards to my opinions?

On the part of  "lawfull orders" we went to classes that discussed what "lawfull orders" are and when you should question those. It all had to do with...... well need to know stuff there but take my word there were "reasons".

But I am not bringing any legal arguement. I bring up logic.

If the war is wrong then its wrong in every way. I dont see how someone can pick and choose the parts they "like".

How can one support the people who are the ones actually "carrying out the crime" ie stealing oil, oppressing civilians and subjugating them.

Its easy to say "I hope no one dies." but in the real world people die and there are things worth killing and dieing for.

If we were to believe the left those troops in Iraq are suckers killing, dieing and sacrificing for what are basically criminals.

As sorry as the Vietnam era was those "dissenters" had the sac to hold to a coherent belief system (degenerate as it was).

Hiding behind "I will support war if 2/3rds of these guys say its ok or if 14 of these UN guys give it a thumbs up or I dont support the war, I support the troops" is plain bs.

[Arlo]

Personally ... most of us preferred "Uncle Sam's Canoe Club". But hey.

Originally posted by Furious
Sandman did his time in the "prison with a good chance of drowning", or as it is commonly called the U.S. Navy.


F.

[Nash]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to have been AGAINST the Vietnam War while at the same time NOT spitting on the soldiers.

Do you have to immediately agree with the policy the minute that troops are sent over to become instruments of it? Because the logical extension of that is that all one has to do to legitimize their policy is send in the troops.

"I think going to war would be a mistake Mr. President because.... oops.... I see you sent in the troops.... seems like a great idea to me God bless and Godspeed".

What's the point of the very American expression of dissent if all one has to do to quell it is to ignore it?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Toad
So, you get an order to shoot a POW from your immediate superior.

You'd do it? Using that logic?

Not what I meant at all. There's great number of directives, standard operating procedures, etc. covering day to day operations. The difficulty comes when something comes up that's out of the norm, something that's not routine. You guys are ex-military... how many times did you question your superior on the source of his orders when you didn't understand why?

As for the war being legal and lawful... who knows? Depending on what court you go to, it might be. On the other hand, it might not. The troops don't have the luxury of waiting to find out. The assumption is that the orders of the President are indeed legal and lawful.

Not that it matters... even if the war on Iraq is considered legal, we can still ask if it's right.