"I'm supporting the troops but I'm against the war."

[Hortlund]

Been hearing that alot lately. Especially on this BB.

I dunno if I'm the only one who feels this way, but that is just pointless BS. It sounds good, but it is like putting icing on a turd.

The only way to support the troops is to support the mission. Because if the troops believe the mission is either hopeless, wrong, evil or a waste of time, then they are not going to function very well.

"I support the troops but I'm against the war" can be translated to "I'd happily piss all over them, but I dont want to face the  consequeces of doing that."

[aztec]

Your full of toejam.

[Nash]

Yup, that's total bs Hortland.

[Dowding]

Passing judgement on other people's opinions based on bizarre logic.

I challenged you on that before, and you scarpered.

[StSanta]

Hortlund, the immediate understanding of that position might be as you state that it is inconsistent. But think about it.

What they are saying is this; we don't want this war. We're against it, and we think it is wrong. Your political leaders have sent you out to risk your lives for something we do not believe in. But we do believe in YOU. We hope and pray for success in your unfortunate endevour; we will stop the war if we can but know that while you are over there and the war is going on, you got our full support. We hope you succeed with your missions but more importantly we hope you safely come home to your loved ones again, soon.  

That is VERY different from the Vietnam era 'baby killer' calls.

So I do not think it is inconsistent once one give it a little thought.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Hortlund
if the troops believe the mission is either hopeless, wrong, evil or a waste of time, then they are not going to function very well.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Dowding
I challenged you on that before, and you scarpered.

Apparently you think you did.

[Hristo]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Been hearing that alot lately. Especially on this BB.

Because if the troops believe the mission is either hopeless, wrong, evil or a waste of time, then they are not going to function very well.

And what if they are about to commit a war crime ?

[Dowding]

You didn't come back to answer my question, Hortlund.

They are not going to commit any war crimes, Hristo.

[Batz]

There was another thread that brouht this same thing up.

We have heard, read (even on this bbs) and watched on tv folks who claim Bush is Hitler or Bush is only going to War to steal Iraqi resources or he such a warmonger that he will disregard the live civilians etc.

We have read on this bbs that those who support the war are tools of US propaganda. In particular by those "enlightened Europeans.

Then when you read from some of these Folks

"well I support the troops"

Well these troops are the instruments of War.

How can you otoh have moral objections toward war and "support the troops"

Supporting the troops implies Supporting the mission.

Now you can hope that now one dies but thats the same as "Support".

So when we read like in other thread from some folks we who out accussations that basically this war is "illegal" and that Bush is evil and a "criminal" then as demonstrated after ww2 those officers and troops that carry out Bush's crime are equally guilty.

I mean its so obvious to the left that the action is wrong then wouldnt be equally obvious to the troops?

"I am just following orders" hasnt been a defense in a very long time.

"Your a tool of the Hitler Bush's criminal campaign to steal Iraqi oil, but I support you" seems like a bunch of double talk bs.

*No offense meant ofcourse...

(*see how that sounds)

[Dowding]

Is it so difficult to understand that we want our lads home ASAP and without loss? The mission is supported in so far that it reaches its conclusion and the troops come home - and not in body bags.

Those that say 'Bush is Hitler' are in the minority on this BBS.

Lastly, there is opposition to this war across the whole political spectrum, and all class boundaries. Your attempt to paint it as a political struggle is roadkill - an easier position for you to debate, but roadkill all the same.

Personally, the time for protest is over in my opinion, although Iw ould never stop someone doing just that. For me, it's time to hope for a swift conclusion with few casualties.

[Batz]

Well I hope no one ever dies,

But by supporting the mission in Iraq you support regime change. That is the mission.

I dont doudt that you dont want anyone to die, but thats not supporting the mission or the troops who are the tools of that mission.

If the mission is morally wrong and being perpetrated so that the Coalition can steal Iraqi oil and install its own puppet regime how do reconcile that with "support".

Maybe I expect to much to be black and white.

If its evil, immoral, and criminal then any one who aids no matter the reason is equally evil, immoral and criminal. Isnt that what the IMT (international military tribunal) and  NMT (Nuremberg military tribunal) taught us after ww2?

I mean you wouldnt come here and say of Nazi Germany "I dont support Hitler but I support the Troops".

Now I know you havent said Bush is like Hitler and yes that is an extreme example.  But I thinks its a fair comparison. The "Bush is like Hitler" folks may be a minority but quite few claim Bush is a warmongering criminal who is out to steal Iraqs oil.

So I think what you are saying is "Gee, I hope no one Dies, especially not folks from my country but I dont support their mission because I believe it to be wrong."

Is that not more accurate?

[Kirin]

Even those who were/are against the war have sons, daughters, spouses, fathers, mothers etc. down there. Naturally they wan't them to return home in one piece and they wish they succeed with whatever mission they're burdened (or honoured, whatever POV you have). Even if it's not their family, it's maybe friends, countrymen whatever...

Well these troops are the instruments of War.

Above all they're still humans. Such phrasing implies much disrespect for those women and men who risk their lifes out there.

Maybe people who are by principle rejected by war have more esteem for a human life than do those who want to see the bombs falling [on CNN]. Some of the grave-dancing on the BBS really repelled me - even more as the same people shed some crocodile tears on other tragic incidents/accidents...

The answer on the thread "what about Iraqi losses"
-> Who cares? pretty much tells the story - well I DO!

the time for protest is over

I do not share this opinion but it's reality. Once the conflict begins people tend to unite. This can be observed in the UK now as the public opinion begins to shift.

Also the overwhelming world-spanning solidarity after 9/11 was a good example of a similar effect.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Kirin
This can be observed in the UK now as the public opinion begins to shift.
 

It had started to shift already before the attack. I think it was something like 38% in favor of attack this Tuesday. That is up from something like 18% just a couple of weeks ago.

[Kirin]

If its evil, immoral, and criminal then any one who aids no matter the reason is equally evil, immoral and criminal. Isnt that what the IMT (international military tribunal) and NMT (Nuremberg military tribunal) taught us after ww2?

It taught as that the people who initiate such crimes, who bear the responsebility don't get away with it (at best). What you imply is that after every conflict the winning party (which usually sets the standards for moral etc.) should execute/punish every indivdual not actively opposing that [taken] wrong, including every fighting soldier and their [supporting] family!?

I just made this statement to point out the invalidy of the above argument for the ongoing discussing about people not sharing G.W.Bush attack policy while still hoping the best for their countrymen.