Is Supporting Troops More Important Than Protesting Government Decisions?

[Kerrie]

Support our troops for america...

Yay! i am the first to post in this forum...and i want to start it out right and clean ( is that possible when the word politics is concerned? )...

anyway, i hear a lot of people bad mouthing the american president about the possibility of war, here in hippie land (that would be orygun) there are many marches for peace...yet i don't see the same loud support for our troops that are away from home, their families, sleeping on the floors/sand/ground etc, away from any communication source to call their wife, their children...

so here's food for thought...instead of protesting how our government is making choices, lend some care, compassion and support to the men and women who are sacrificing by sending letters, care packages, pictures and words of love and support for the tremendous courage they have for being on the forefront of this nation's security...

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

you bet kerrie, even though I have a few friends stationed in the middle east I still support the war. we can't sit and wait for another act of terrorism. I just hope it can be quick, successful and with minimal loss.

 

[Zero]

I would change one word of that...'instead' to 'also'. You can supprt the troops and protest at the same time!

 

[Kerrie]

my best friend's husband had a few months to go before he was free and clear of the marine reserves...he just finished his bachelor's at PSU, and just proposed to my best friend and they planned to marry this november...i guess i get a little irritated of those who are so busy critisizing our governement more then they mention that we have real people who are in the middle east dealing with this reality that we are just reading and hearing about via the media...

while i realize that our government has some faults, to me it is more important to support those who are facing one of the most real human experiences that has ravaged our planet for years, and that is war...

 

[Monique]

Sorry to say, I don't support the war and especially not the way that it is being declared. I should've written down the number of contradictions that people speak in a single sentence.. let's make peace by going to war.. they are a threat to our country so let's attack them first.. a mother with a 3 month old child at the front line.. a father with a newborn undergoing a heart transplant at the front line.. a little too eager in my opinion.

Sorry to taint your well meant thread Kerrie, so are American required under penalty to go to war? That would make me understand your thread better.

And Greg, I really don't think that this is going to be quick as advertised by Bush.. just think of all the counter actions that will follow.. when you give the first strike, you sure can expect to be hit back, hard.

 

[Kerrie]

monique~

if one joins the military reserves, they are pledging a promise to serve our country shall war be at hand...or they go to jail...but those who join the reserves usually do so to help with college, or just to better themselves...my fiance has just a couple more weeks to go until he is free and clear of the army reserves calling him up, and we are waiting it out patiently...chances are he won't, but anything is possible...

my issue was not in support of any war...just for those who wonder, i am against war, but as it is obvious, it is not up to us citizens of america to choose the fate of our country, but rather the very few who hold the most power of this country...

i am advocating, that regardless of what you believe (war or no war), we need to support those who are dealing with this reality at the very front-our troops-they were called up to leave their homes and it is for them we need to give our loud support for because of what they are sacrificing...

 

[Monique]

Hi Kerrie, thanks for clarifying that. There is a big difference in supporting the fighting troops (when I oppose war) if they themselves believe in a war or not. The dutch army is a professional one, from your post I am not yet clear whether the American army is a professional one or are people over the age of 18 (or 21?) summoned to report when troops are needed?

 

[Kerrie]

we call it the draft when young men are called (regardless of their enrollment into the military) to serve our country as troops...our military (currently) is entirely voluntary, and there are many perks to serving our country, such as health care, college money, and help with buying a first home...

 

[Monique]

So during such a draft they are free to deny serving the military or will there be actions taken against them if they do (just curious to know).

 

[Kerrie]

the draft is far from voluntary...if a young man is drafted, he is going into the military whether he likes it or not, otherwise he faces jail time...my dad (being the hippie that he was and is) fled to Canada when the draft started calling his friends...he was never called while in Canada, but shortly after coming home he was sent the dreaded letter of the obligation to serve his counrtry...

i believe that the draft is outlawed here in america...someone correct me if i am wrong...

one may say "if you oppose war, don't join the military", but those who join are typically just starting out adulthood and the military provides direction (at least it is suppossed to)...a lot of times, the possibility of war doesn't seem that near...

 

[FZ+]

Let's try and get a consensus here.
Though we all may nor may not belief that war is the right course of action, that responsibility lies with the administration in charge. Though we may or may not support the actual war, we fully support those soldiers who feel that they are doing their duty for the nation, and wish them luck in whatever endeavor they do. We have the greatest respect for these men, indeed, all men who are so prepared to lay down their lives, and trust in their capabilities. We may not agree that these capabilities should be used, but we may be anti-war, not anti those who simply do their duty.

Agreed?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

And Greg, I really don't think that this is going to be quick as advertised by Bush..

I diagree, there is no reason for the US to wait. I expect a move as early as late wednesday.

 

[Ganshauk]

I support the war, I know many actives who likewise support it. That is, as has been pointed out, neither here nor there at this point.

We are committed now. Either you support it or you don't.

No disrespect, but saying you support the soldiers but not the war is like saying you support the furnace operator but not the extermination of Jews. With such an attitude, you could not but despise the forces of Hussein who surrender offhand, while respecting those who kill our own troops.

Taking orders is not an excuse for destroying life. It is a personal act, justified by the intention alone. Courage and honor - not duty - drive the soldier.

Protesting the war is protesting the mechanism of that war - the soldier - especially since every soul over there is there by choice. There is no draft.

To me, saying "I protest the war but honor the soldier" is asinine, a politically correct statement that sounds good but signifies nothing. You don't laude the engineer by telling him his building sucks! You don't hail the manufacturer by telling him his automoblile is trash. You don't applaude the baker by telling him his loaf is foul.

You don't uphold the soldier by telling him his war is unjust.

 

[Galatea]

Originally posted by Ganshauk
Courage and honor - not duty - drive the soldier.

I think that's a bold statement to make. A lot of the younger people in the military are doing so for the reasons Kerrie stated - money for college, stability, direction etc. I would not claim this is the majority as I have no real statistics but I should remind you that you don't either. It's awfully idealistic to assume all people join the military with such lofty goals. Are they courageous an honorable in the right situation? I'm sure. But I think a lot of them do it strictly because of duty.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ganshauk


Taking orders is not an excuse for destroying life. It is a personal act, justified by the intention alone. Courage and honor - not duty - drive the soldier.

LOL

You left out the part about not wanting to get shot.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Galatea
I think that's a bold statement to make. A lot of the younger people in the military are doing so for the reasons Kerrie stated - money for college, stability, direction etc. I would not claim this is the majority as I have no real statistics but I should remind you that you don't either. It's awfully idealistic to assume all people join the military with such lofty goals. Are they courageous an honorable in the right situation? I'm sure. But I think a lot of them do it strictly because of duty.

I was in the Marines...most folks were there for the college money. Duty was important, and courage isn't even a factor.

 

[bogdan]

Romania supports 100% the US...
Unfortunately we hurry too much to show our support...
For example Turkey requested 30 billion $(!) for economical growth to permit their air-space to be used...
Us...romanians...requested nothing...and what will we receive ?
Maybe some anthrax...
I have nothing to argue to this war...but history is repeating...
Have you read "Dune", by Frank Herbert ? Do you see the similarities ? spice->oil;...so on...
minimal loss..the road to hell is...(don't know the word) with good intentions...and because of this war it will be hell here on earth...
Let's hope Shaddam will have the wisdom to leave Iraq...because we are on the edge of the abys...
God bless America and its allies...

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Ganshauk
Taking orders is not an excuse for destroying life. It is a personal act, justified by the intention alone. Courage and honor - not duty - drive the soldier.

seems to me ganshauk that you could be a recruiter for the U.S. Miltary...as this comment is the ideal for which the military promotes, but the ideal and realistic world are two different things...most young "courageous and honorable" people join the armed forces for reasons that are more practical and beneficial to them on the individual level over the collective level of defending our country...

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by FZ+
Let's try and get a consensus here.
Though we all may nor may not belief that war is the right course of action, that responsibility lies with the administration in charge. Though we may or may not support the actual war, we fully support those soldiers who feel that they are doing their duty for the nation, and wish them luck in whatever endeavor they do. We have the greatest respect for these men, indeed, all men who are so prepared to lay down their lives, and trust in their capabilities. We may not agree that these capabilities should be used, but we may be anti-war, not anti those who simply do their duty.

Agreed?

O...M..G..! I just cannot believe what you are saying! I just cannot believe it.. Ganshauk made some good comments.. Where to begin, let's just say that you are supporting the whole thing you are fighting against. Iraqi people supporting Saddam Hussein, not questioning him since he is the leader and he means the best for his country. You guys are unbelievable, no offence

And Bogdan, why do you think that Romania supports Bush 100%? Could it have anything to do with just being accepted to Nato?

 

[bogdan]

Nope...
Romanians are very unsure of them...We can be good friends...we forget many things...
Unfortunately we don't know how to make ourselfes more "pretious", more wanted...to impose conditions and to win strategic advantages...
We are too friendly...
Actually, romanians don't support US 100%...not all the people...
We...for example...have ruined our relationship with the other countries in europe (France...neighbours...) for so many times...(for example the war in Yugoslavia...we helped the USA and turned our back to our old friends the yugoslavs...)

 

[STAii]

First of all i would like to point out that the ideas being said here are very shocking !
I will be frank in what i am saying, so please forgive me if i am too frank (but this has a big affect on the people living in the middle east (like myself), and a lot more than those living far from here)

Originally posted by Kerrie
if one joins the military reserves, they are pledging a promise to serve our country shall war be at hand...or they go to jail...but those who join the reserves usually do so to help with college

Can i translate this to "The guy will do whatever he is asked for even if he does not believe in it (or it is wrong) only to enter a university ?"
He will kill innocent people, make big problems in the world, even change a whole diplomatical issue only for his own personal sake ?

my issue was not in support of any war...just for those who wonder, i am against war, but as it is obvious, it is not up to us citizens of america to choose the fate of our country, but rather the very few who hold the most power of this country...

i am advocating, that regardless of what you believe (war or no war), we need to support those who are dealing with this reality at the very front-our troops-they were called up to leave their homes and it is for them we need to give our loud support for because of what they are sacrificing...

Aha, right.
So why not also give you loud support to the people that are sacrifying from the Iraqi side ?
Why not support them too ?
They don't want the war too, they are sacrifying too, they did not do anything wrong too, they care about their own life too.
But the difference is that their country can do nothing about war, while your country can stop it.
And the Iraqi soldiers actually need the support more than the US soldiers, they have no technology.
Imagine that they actually are low on food, they sometimes have to eat uncooked dogs only to stay alive !
And lastly, who gave the right to US to decide who should rule and who should not (since US says that Saddam should not rule Iraq).

Originally posted by FZ+
we fully support those soldiers who feel that they are doing their duty for the nation, and wish them luck in whatever endeavor they do

Can you please define those soldiers ?
I guess you mean US and UK soldiers, but why do THOSE deserve support and the other side does not deserve support ?

Originally posted by Greg
I diagree, there is no reason for the US to wait. I expect a move as early as late wednesday.

Well, i think they were supposed to wait the decision of the UN, but they don't have to anymore, after they found that that the UN will not accept it anyway !

Originally posted by Zero
I was in the Marines...most folks were there for the college money. Duty was important, and courage isn't even a factor.

I think that you (along with Galatea) are missunderstanding the point of Ganshauk (specially that you are looking only at a sentence in the paragraph).
If you look at the whole paragraph, you will see the meaning a little clearer.
"Taking orders is not an excuse for destroying life. It is a personal act, justified by the intention alone. Courage and honor - not duty - drive the soldier. "
I personally see that Ganshauk meant (by the whole paragraph) that the reason the soldier actually accepts the orders is not because he feels the duty is pushing him, it is for another reason (maybe honor as Ganshauk sees, or college (and other things) as the others see), and therefore the idea that the soldier does not agree with the orders but still do them (under the name of "doing the duty") is not right.

 

[Njorl]

It is certainly possible to oppose a war and support the soldiers fighting it. Opposition to the war is a belief that the war should not be fought. It is certainly possible to make that sentiment known, and at the same time demand that the soldiers fighting it receive the best possible equipment, logistical support and leadership available.

Opposition to the Vietnam war, for instance, was the best support a soldier could have. Our country was throwing away the lives of soldiers to no rational end. Those who opposed the war helped bring those soldiers home. There were certainly a lot of anti-war activists who did not support the soldier, but by the end, most protesters were against the war because their sons, brothers or husbands were being drafted.

Njorl

 

[Zero]

Paradox

I don't support this sort of war. I think the Republican plan is ignorant, and more harmful to the Iraqi people than it needs to be. How can I support the troops? Because I don't want anyone innocent to die. Not our troops, not their civilians. For the most part, I don't want to see Iraqi troops die, since my understanding is that many of them are conscripted, and will be shot if they don't fight.

Now, on the other hand, the draft dodgers planning the war (with the exception of Colin Powell, who is barely in the loop sometimes), should I support them?

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by STAii
So why not also give you loud support to the people that are sacrifying from the Iraqi side ?
Why not support them too ?
They don't want the war too, they are sacrifying too, they did not do anything wrong too, they care about their own life too.
But the difference is that their country can do nothing about war, while your country can stop it.
And the Iraqi soldiers actually need the support more than the US soldiers, they have no technology.
Imagine that they actually are low on food, they sometimes have to eat uncooked dogs only to stay alive !
And lastly, who gave the right to US to decide who should rule and who should not (since US says that Saddam should not rule Iraq).
[/B]

you have a valid point here STAii...I did label this thread as "Support our troops for America" though, and that is what I am addressing, perhaps you might want to start a new thread making this point? As I do find it a valid one...I am uneducated on the military process of Iraq, therefore I cannot offer my opinion of the other side, I would much rather have a native of the Middle East discuss what they are witnessing then rely on the DAM (Dysfunctional American Media)...perhaps you can restart a new thread and enlighten us all?

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Njorl
It is certainly possible to oppose a war and support the soldiers fighting it. Opposition to the war is a belief that the war should not be fought. It is certainly possible to make that sentiment known, and at the same time demand that the soldiers fighting it receive the best possible equipment, logistical support and leadership available.

Opposition to the Vietnam war, for instance, was the best support a soldier could have. Our country was throwing away the lives of soldiers to no rational end. Those who opposed the war helped bring those soldiers home. There were certainly a lot of anti-war activists who did not support the soldier, but by the end, most protesters were against the war because their sons, brothers or husbands were being drafted.

Njorl

Where are your morals? You are against a war, that means that you do not support the reasons for which it is fought.. and then you say that they should get the best possible equipment and logistical support to do as much and overwhelming damage as they can? Don't let the American/British soldiers be hurt, but whoever is on the other side.. good luck?

Not all that is unknown is evil.

 

[FZ+]

Agreed?

I guess no.

No disrespect, but saying you support the soldiers but not the war is like saying you support the furnace operator but not the extermination of Jews. With such an attitude, you could not but despise the forces of Hussein who surrender offhand, while respecting those who kill our own troops.

So we should have killed all the Germans after the war for supporting Hitler?
Your furnace operator comment is appealing for irrationality. In reality, if any sort of good is to come out of this, some sort of reconcilliation must take place. If we do not forgive and forget, we will never make progress. That is a fact. It's hard to accept, but that is a fact.
We must recognise that the soldiers on both sides of the conflict are simply doing their duty. In the armed forces, duty was the primary thing in your minds. The effect is, soldiers do not kill because they want to, but because they have to. Either that or you write off a generation as murderers.
We have to recognise these men's bravery, no matter which side they are on. If they surrender, they are brave for daring to defy Saddam. If they fight on, they should be respected for their determination. Even if they are our enemies. Tell me, if you were an Iraqi conscript, educated into the belief in protecting your country, what would you do? Their deaths are not meaningless. Neccessary in the horror of war, but they should be recognised. The same may not be applied to those who genuinely have a choice. Any commander remember that the responsibility of the war rests in their hands. The troops on the ground and on either side do not neccessarily have the blame.
I did limit it to those who genuinely feel they are doing their duty. Those doing it for economic purposes need not apply.

O...M..G..! I just cannot believe what you are saying! I just cannot believe it.. Ganshauk made some good comments.. Where to begin, let's just say that you are supporting the whole thing you are fighting against. Iraqi people supporting Saddam Hussein, not questioning him since he is the leader and he means the best for his country. You guys are unbelievable, no offence

I feel regret for the people doing that, but I do not support the thing itself. We respect the individuals caught up in a situation they have no power over, and sympathise with their situation. We do not neccessarily support the "thing", the cause. People are going to die. At least we can feel sorry.

Can you please define those soldiers ?
I guess you mean US and UK soldiers, but why do THOSE deserve support and the other side does not deserve support ?

It doesn't actually matter which side they are on. I mean we respect the individuals on each side, even if we do not support the cause of either side. They may be troops, but each is a person. We need to remember that. We need to remember war is a horrible thing.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Monique
Where are your morals? You are against a war, that means that you do not support the reasons for which it is fought.. and then you say that they should get the best possible equipment and logistical support to do as much and overwhelming damage as they can? Don't let the American/British soldiers be hurt, but whoever is on the other side.. good luck?

Not all that is unknown is evil.

I know where my morals are. First, I did not say that I opposed this war. I do not. I was speaking generally. But even specifically for this war, one could support the objectives of disarmament and regime change, but be opposed to fighting a war to do it.

Perhaps the protester does not think the goals are worth the lives of his countrymen. If the government then decides to fight a war anyway, the protester is perfectly logical in wanting his countrymen to have every advantage in that war. If the basis of the protest is the welfare of the soldier, it is logically consistent that the protestor should want the soldier to be as safe and effective as possible during the war.

Njorl

 

[Monique]

Hi Njorl, that is good logic, for a selfish person. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to offend you, I am interested in the views that people have and how they go against their own believes.

A leader only leads a country if the people support him. Support should be measured in standing for the actions that are being taken, not about being patriotic. That is where things go wrong, if people were standing up for their believes in Iraq, they would probably be able to overthrow Saddam Hussein themselves. Instead they are 'patriotic' and will fight for their leader, just because he is the leader (and in case of Hussein, fear of torture plays a role).

I mentioned the word selfish, since Americans are attacking Iraq out of patriotic believes, if one is against a war, but is being called upon to fight, one should object and spent 3 years in jail, if that is what it takes to stand up for an opinion. It SHOULDN'T be logically about wanting the soldier to be safe, if that very same soldier is going to inflict damage upon other people.. I realize that it IS that way, but it shouldn't.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Monique
Hi Njorl, that is good logic, for a selfish person. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to offend you, I am interested in the views that people have and how they go against their own believes.

A leader only leads a country if the people support him. Support should be measured in standing for the actions that are being taken, not about being patriotic. That is where things go wrong, if people were standing up for their believes in Iraq, they would probably be able to overthrow Saddam Hussein themselves. Instead they are 'patriotic' and will fight for their leader, just because he is the leader (and in case of Hussein, fear of torture plays a role).

I mentioned the word selfish, since Americans are attacking Iraq out of patriotic believes, if one is against a war, but is being called upon to fight, one should object and spent 3 years in jail, if that is what it takes to stand up for an opinion. It SHOULDN'T be logically about wanting the soldier to be safe, if that very same soldier is going to inflict damage upon other people.. I realize that it IS that way, but it shouldn't.

I'm not really sure I understand your claim "Americans are attacking Iraq out of patriotic believes" maybe you can explain that a bit?
It appears to me that you want to see things in a very black and white manner, unfortunately in many cases life is just not so clear...or maybe you know something I don't?

 

[Laser Eyes]

We have the greatest respect for these men, indeed, all men who are so prepared to lay down their lives, and trust in their capabilities.

I notice you don't say "We have the greatest respect for these men who are prepared to kill ..."

Laser Eyes

 

[Laser Eyes]

so here's food for thought...instead of protesting how our government is making choices, lend some care, compassion and support to the men and women who are sacrificing by sending letters, care packages, pictures and words of love and support for the tremendous courage they have for being on the forefront of this nation's security

It is impossible to support the members of any armed forces who go to kill other people in a war if you disagree with the reason for the war. The two things just do not stand together. There is an inconsistency. The point that everyone is missing is that no member of the American forces (or any other country) can be forced to go into battle and kill other people against their will. No matter the reason they joined the military they can refuse to fight an unjust war. There may be serious consequences for them if they do but standing up for the right principle has always had a cost.

Laser Eyes

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Monique
Hi Njorl, that is good logic, for a selfish person. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to offend you, I am interested in the views that people have and how they go against their own believes.

A leader only leads a country if the people support him. Support should be measured in standing for the actions that are being taken, not about being patriotic. That is where things go wrong, if people were standing up for their believes in Iraq, they would probably be able to overthrow Saddam Hussein themselves. Instead they are 'patriotic' and will fight for their leader, just because he is the leader (and in case of Hussein, fear of torture plays a role).

I mentioned the word selfish, since Americans are attacking Iraq out of patriotic believes, if one is against a war, but is being called upon to fight, one should object and spent 3 years in jail, if that is what it takes to stand up for an opinion. It SHOULDN'T be logically about wanting the soldier to be safe, if that very same soldier is going to inflict damage upon other people.. I realize that it IS that way, but it shouldn't.

No Monique, you do wish to offend me. You have called me immoral and selfish. You then cravenly add a disclaimer that you don't wish to offend me. Had you truly not wished to offend me you could have pointed out how my opinions were wrong. Instead you insult me and ramble illogically about patriotism.

Let me put this argument in the simplest possible terms. Imagine your son is in the army, and is sent to fight. You opposed the war, though he did not. Do you want your son to receive a faulty gun, so that he will die instead of the enemy? That is not unselfish, that is unnatural.

Njorl

 

[Siv]

What objectives ?

If there's one objective the US is not going to achieve with this war, that's preventing further terrorist attacks. Quite the contrary. The moment you remove Saddam, the next in command (until this lady takes over) will sell all the weapons to the highest (terrorist) bidders and escape.

I'm surprised elementary logic is beyond Bush and co. Actually no ... I'm not surprised.

- S.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Njorl
No Monique, you do wish to offend me. You have called me immoral and selfish. You then cravenly add a disclaimer that you don't wish to offend me. Had you truly not wished to offend me you could have pointed out how my opinions were wrong. Instead you insult me and ramble illogically about patriotism.

Let me put this argument in the simplest possible terms. Imagine your son is in the army, and is sent to fight. You opposed the war, though he did not. Do you want your son to receive a faulty gun, so that he will die instead of the enemy? That is not unselfish, that is unnatural.

Njorl

I didn't call YOU immoral or selfish, I called your arguments that way. There is an ever so slight difference. I am not attacking you as a person since I don't know you, and your nuances.

It is very clear that that argument you just presented is selfish, you cannot deny that. A son is sent into war, a parent doesn't want him to get hurt, ofcourse, but how about the people that he is going to attack? Just who is right and who is wrong in these fights? Whose lifes are more important?

And it is clear to me that Americans are very patriotic and sometimes (more often than not as I have observed) say things that are offending to non-americans. I live here in a very multi-cultural community and I am not the only one with this opinion.

 

[Monique]

Bush: 'New and undeniable realities'
South End Editorial Board



The president's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein and his sons last night could best be described as pure Shakespeare: "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

In his rehash of the same noble-sounding rhetoric that the American people have been listening to for months, Bush built his justification for a pre-emptive strike on the nation of Iraq from our "sovereign right to defend ourselves" to insinuating that "the security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now."

Yet the demand resounded hollow. Only Saddam and his sons were ordered to leave, under threat of attack from the United States to take place "at a time of our choosing."

Our president cannot rally the nine members of the Security Council to his cause, yet he claims to know what is best for the world. Our president has boldly pulled out of treaties and defied the will of the United Nations, yet he claims to be making the world safe for peace and democracy. Fear and perpetual war do not make peace. Ignoring popular opinion and usurping the democratic process do not furnish democracy.

His message to the Iraqi people, military and officials was absurd. From warnings not to harm the oil (and wine) to a sly Nuremberg Trials reference, Bush made it a "war crime" for an Iraqi citizen to defend his or her homeland.

Removing Saddam and his sons, should this farce of an ultimatum be complied with, will do little other than disrupt the region. It is not a viable solution, and our administration knows this.

This can be construed as little other than an attempt to feign a peace process and start war. Ironically, the president might have a higher approval rating if he would stop lying about his true intentions.

http://www.southend.wayne.edu/days/2003/march/3182003/oped/bush/bush.html