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

[AronL]

Hortlund

It is very possible to support the troops because they are humans and human lives are valueable.

Not supporting war is logical unless you like killing and destruction.

Was that clear enough for you?

[Batz]

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.

I dont know what you read but thats no where close to my point.

What I am saying is that there are folks who claim the Attack on Iraq is an unprovoked war of agression against the Iraqi people to steal that Nation resources. All "crimes" under international law.

So following their reasoning Bush is initiating a crime that is obvious to any right thinking leftist. No soldier is obligated to carry out orders that are "illegal". "I was just following orders" is not a defense.

What I said is if they feel Bush is commiting a crime, then it stands to reason that anyone carrying his criminal orders are guilty as well.

How can they turn around and say "I support the troops".

They dont support the troops, they just hope they dont die while carrying out the illegal invasion and confiscation of Iraqi resources.

[Yeager]

Like it really matters.

[ra]

Not supporting war is logical unless you like killing and destruction.

Here is an example of how the peace movement has deteriorated to pure sloganeering.  Peace at all costs is a foolish policy.  If you are against this or any other war, you have to make arguments relevant to the current situation.  Blanket statements about doves and rainbows cannot be taken seriously.

ra

[crowMAW]

Hortland...I'm assuming that you didn't live in the US during the Vietnam War.  To help give you an understanding of what the statement "I support the troops" means to Americans you need to understand how people who were opposed to the Vietnam War treated soldiers.  It was quite disgraceful...returning soldiers, some of whom had been drafted and had no choice about serving in 'Nam, were cussed, spit upon, battered and berated.  Young men who were simply in ROTC (a training corps set up by the armed forces at universities and high schools to teach very basic military discipline without officially joining the Army/Navy/Air Force) were treated similarly.  Some ROTC buildings on colleges campuses were bombed or fired by protesters.

These soldiers were simply doing their job.  They were not the source of the policy that caused or perpetuated the war.  Yet they were used as scapegoats by the protesters.

What Americans who oppose the war with Iraq mean when they say that they support the troops but not the war, is that they understand that the troops are doing a job that has been given them and that no blame will be levied towards them for doing that job when they return.

[aztec]

Precisely my point ra...blanket statements about ANYTHING cannot be taken seriously.

Upon reflection perhaps my intial response to this post was a bit harsh...please accept my most humble apologies Hortlund, I have the utmost respect for your inalienable right to be full of toejam.

[john9001]

if you say 'i support the troops" but am against the war, that means you don't know what "support the troops " means.
to you it's just another slogan.

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by AronL
Hortlund

It is very possible to support the troops because they are humans and human lives are valueable.

Not supporting war is logical unless you like killing and destruction.

Was that clear enough for you?

Write your congressman and inform him that he must spend more money on education.

[Toad]

Originally posted by AronL

It is very possible to support the troops because they are humans and human lives are valueable.

How valuable are the Iraqi human lives that will be extinguished (or have been extinguished.... a minimum of 100,000 Kurds during the Anfal operation) if Saddam remains in power another year?

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by Toad

You can draw some *really* interesting conclusions about the anti-war protestors with this kind of stuff.

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by Oedipus
"You can draw some *really* interesting conclusions about the anti-war protestors with this kind of stuff."

 Same with the hawks with thier  'we'll kill 'em in order to free 'em, regardless of whether they want it or not"  reasoning.

Ok, so I guess that means we're back at square one, eh?  Im right and youre wrong.  

[Toad]

Oh, I think eventually, the Iraqis themeselves will prove the value of this operation.

There's a lot here to consider from the first invasion of Kuwait through the long years of UN attempts to verify disarmament to the WMD actual programs or rumors and to the unassailable record of human rights atrocities and genocide against the Kurds.

There can be no doubt Saddam is an evil.

Whether this invasion was worth it or "justified" will be proven by the reaction of the Iraqi people in the short rather than long term. I don't think we'll need a decade. Maybe just a year or two.

My .02.

(Still think it needed another vote in the SC. The fact that it couldn't get one may herald a new era in the future (or non-future) of the UN).

[Sandman]

I am a USN veteran. I work for the USN. Our function at work is to test the self defense systems on board Naval tactical aircraft. Support of the warfighter is what I do for a living and I absolutely believe that what I and my coworkers do directly supports the "troops" and their capability to fulfill their mission.

That said... I'm 100% against this war.

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by 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."

Having no soldiers fighting in Iraq I can understand your misunderstanding of what it means to want our soldiers to return home safe.

 Tronsky

[beet1e]

I firmly believe that this war is correct. I also firmly believe that Saddam would trade WMD with AQ in a heartbeat, and that thousands more Iraqis will be tortured and killed if  he stays in power.

The antiwar protesters are mistaken. I wouldn't say they are "wrong" because they are entitled to voice their mistaken beliefs - a privilege denied to Iraqi citizens.

Where are the 1983 "Peace" Wimmin, who encircled USAF Greenham Common in their condemnation of the presence of cruise missiles at that base? They were the ones who thought that Britain should give up its nuclear weapons, in the hope (yes, the **HOPE**) that Russia would do the same.

Those "wimmin", upon being proved wrong, have disappeared!

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

To me, that sounds like the first steps being taken in the long crawl back into the woodwork.