Supporting the troops, but not the war: An Oxymoron?

[TheNoNamedOne]

I will sometimes hear, and it has already been said on the other thread on Iraq (Do you support the U.S. war in Iraq?) that, "I support the troops, but not the war." Well, what does that mean? Isn't it contradictory -- if not a full fledged oxymoron?

If you don't support the war, then why would you, and how can you logically support the machine that combines its part to prosecute the war?

Of course we support our fathers, brothers, sisters, daughers and friends in that we should be respectful to their situation and person on a personal level, but, if you say you do not support the war, then just what does telling your congressman to vote for financing of the war means? After all, that financing is going to pay for flak jackets, Hummvee armor, weapons (both offensive and dfensive type measures), etc...

Can't you state a refusal to supply those things so that the war is not funded, and, therefore, halted financially and still be a supporter of the troops on an emotional level? IF so, how, when the commanders will argue we don't have enough money to protect our troops with body armor?

Those against the war let too often themselves be defined with small quips and soundbites against them. I would say, cut off funding so that our troops do not have flack jackets, armored humvees, defensive or offensive weapons, AND THEN turn the question toward the leaders of this debacle asking them, "How can you send inadequately supplied troops into harm's way? You know you don't have the recourses to properly protect them, so why make them cannon fodder?"

There is more than one way of supporting the troops, and that does not have to include arming the whole war machine. The best way of supporting the troops is offering oversight of the funds that are used to send them into harm's way, and sometimes denying one those things that will be used to convince them to go their possible end is the most supporting way to go.

I could say:
"Yes, I love that you are offering yourself as service to our country, but I support you by not payinig to send you into an unjust war, and therefore will not pay for your armor and munitions. If you choose to go into battle inadequately prepared, then that is the decision you have agreed to knowing the dangers. I think after you cooly reflect upon the situation, you will decide to not walk into a hail of bullets unarmed and unprotected. If you do, and your leaders send you into that, then they will lose legitimacy in the eyes of the public they represent."

"I support the troops, but not the war," as it is now, and parroted by most, is just an oxymoron. And, as long as they want the war machine funded from flack jackets to bombers, it will remain so.

[dk]

It means that I do not support the reasoning behind the war, and I know for a fact that bush is too bullheaded to pull out even if every person outside of his cabinet in the whole world was convinced that the so called war was wrong.

However, knowing that Bush will not pull out our troops, I would like to see them as safe as possible. When it comes down to it, they are Americans, and I like Americans a hell of a lot more than I like Iraqis. And even if a war is incorrect, they are stuck over there. Against their will. The best we can do is make sure they have what it takes to get home and at least survive this presidency.

That's what I define as supporting the troops and not the war.

I don't agree with pulling funding and leaving our troops high and dry. I will not support that. Ever.

[TheNoNamedOne]

It means that I do not support the reasoning behind the war, and I know for a fact that bush is too bullheaded to pull out even if every person outside of his cabinet in the whole world was convinced that the so called war was wrong.

I understand what you mean, dk, but, I don't think he is THAT bullheaded. If his arm were more strongly twisted by all members of society in a variety of ways, I think he would disengage. He would have to, short of becoming a dictator in the true sense of the word.

However, knowing that Bush will not pull out our troops, I would like to see them as safe as possible.

But that is the thing, it is the emotional aspect of the argument (concern for loved ones) that Bush and Company aim towards the people and that is what lets the war continue. Sometimes being stern to those coming to you for requests is the best way to stop the request and the reason for that request coming in the first place.

When it comes down to it, they are Americans, and I like Americans a hell of a lot more than I like Iraqis.

I know this may sound strange, but it is really hard for me to understand that from a humanitarian point of view, and the thought that as humans, a sense of egalitarian should be driving our thoughts so that we become as altruistic and peace loving as possible.

Have you met anywhere near the number of Iraqis as Americans in order to base that thought of liking them better? I would geuss that liking them better is related to value, for we do like what we value more comparatively to something else.

I am sure you know that the deaths of Iraqis since the war began is now probably into the 100,000s. Do you think the 3000 lives of combatant (those volunteering for a job inherently violent) Americans are worth more than the 100,000 innocent men, women, and children deaths mixed in with the combatant Iraqis? Do numbers ever matter in the tipping scales of value, so much that allegience to humanity is more important than allegience to nationalies? I think it does.

How about those dispicable Americans who massacred those innocent people in Haditha? Were those American lives more to the liking than those men, women, and children they slaughtered? I am sure you are going to say "no", but when a general statement is issued as a default, it lacks a certain degree of humanity where the stumblling block is our filter of "us verses them", when it may not be so. It may be that the stumbling block causing most of the problems is us verses us. Remember the quote:
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." -- Pogo.
I think he is referencing our inner battles that divide humanity, not nationalities, and liking a group of people more because they are Americans and less because they are not Americans is that battle

Or is all that murder of innocents just dismissed as collateral damage -- as the old generals and war prosecutors would like us to label and believe it? At what exchange rate of American blood do we set against Iraqis? 1:5, 1:10, 1:100, 1:1,000?

And even if a war is incorrect, they are stuck over there. Against their will. The best we can do is make sure they have what it takes to get home and at least survive this presidency.
That's another thing, our war funding bills do not stipulate funds for just protecting them and bringing them back. It is all one wrapped up bundle of offensive and defensive bag of tricks. It is illusory to believe otherwise, and I don't think you do believe that for one second.

That's what I define as supporting the troops and not the war.

I don't agree with pulling funding and leaving our troops high and dry. I will not support that. Ever.

When does altruism for humanity come into play? Never?

Look at Germany in WW2 (or even WW1). Of course we know they embarked on an illigitimate war of aggression and fabricated pretenses for going to war. How do you look upon those Germans who recognized that and did not support their countries war effort in any way what so ever, and in fact worked against it to bring it to its demise? Do you view them as traitors, or do you view them as patriots for humanity raising above their allegience to country and countrymen?

Was Schindler bad for purposely designing military munitions and parts in his slave factories that would break down on the front line (i.e. not supporting German troops) so that German forces would not be victorious, or was he good because he answered a higher calling to humanity? Surely there were many nice German boys in the German army who were not ruthless Nazi SS killers and were just caught up in the political situation of their country.

So, was it wrong for Schindler or others like him who did not support the troops through the physical demands of armaments for the war machine to do what they did and cause the death of many soldiers of their own home country? Most of us look at Schindler or others like him who followed their concience above allegience to country as heros, despite it meaning not supporting their own soldiers.

Why should our illigitimate war be afforded a different standard, particularly when all our soldiers volunteered for an inherently violent job and not being forced to do it?

[dk]

I really don't have the energy to debate many topics related to the Iraqi invasion any more. I'm sorry to say that, I just don't have it in me anymore. Pretty much everything I said in my previous post is how I believe. I do hold all life to be sacred. I suppose it was rash of me to say that I like Americans more than I like Iraqis, and I suppose it was a little dishonest of me to say as well. It just sort of came out.

I just don't have it in me to debate this issue anymore. I did a few years ago, and I probably would have sided with your arguement 100% then instead of 80 or 90% as I do now. But what I said in my post about supporting the troops is how I see it.

You asked the question on how we define it. That's how I define it. :)

I would enjoy reading other members' views on the topic though. I just don't have it in me to debate the Iraqi invasion anymore. I think I've been desensitised by disgust over the years and am now at the point where I've just about run out of "care" for the topic.

Sorry to brush you off like this. Not trying to be a prick. hehe. I know you're just looking for discussion on the topic. I'll just be more of a spectator and occasionally throw in a few lines as I see fit.

[TheNoNamedOne]

All fair enough, dk. I understand. No biggy.

Like you, I want to hear others' ideas and thoughts on it as well.

At times I get tired of topics and debating as well. It cycles through me.

[bokuwa]

The Prosecutor wrote;
I could say
"Yes, I love that you are offering yourself as service to our country, but I support you by not payinig to send you into an unjust war, and therefore will not pay for your armor and munitions. If you choose to go into battle inadequately prepared, then that is the decision you have agreed to knowing the dangers. I think after you cooly reflect upon the situation, you will decide to not walk into a hail of bullets unarmed and unprotected. If you do, and your leaders send you into that, then they will lose legitimacy in the eyes of the public they

How in the world did you come up with this? Do you believe what you wrote here?

I think what was written by DK says what many people are saying, when they state, I support the troops not the war.

I think what you, prosecutor , wrote is pretty silly stuff.

[TheNoNamedOne]

The Prosecutor wrote;
I could say
"Yes, I love that you are offering yourself as service to our country, but I support you by not payinig to send you into an unjust war, and therefore will not pay for your armor and munitions. If you choose to go into battle inadequately prepared, then that is the decision you have agreed to knowing the dangers. I think after you cooly reflect upon the situation, you will decide to not walk into a hail of bullets unarmed and unprotected. If you do, and your leaders send you into that, then they will lose legitimacy in the eyes of the public they

How in the world did you come up with this? Do you believe what you wrote here?

Do you think it is supporting the troops when you send them into an illigitimate war, ill conceived, and ill planned?

I think what was written by DK says what many people are saying, when they state, I support the troops not the war.

How is that not an oxymoron?

I think what you, prosecutor , wrote is pretty silly stuff.

And I gave Germany and German citizens as an example showing non support of troops as the higher calling when one's country is engaged in illigitimate aggression. You haven't addressed that. You've just declared.

[bokuwa]

Do you think it is supporting the troops when you send them into an illigitimate war, ill conceived, and ill planned?



How is that not an oxymoron?



And I gave Germany and German citizens as an example showing non support of troops as the higher calling when one's country is engaged in illigitimate aggression. You haven't addressed that. You've just declared.

You have heard the expression, I respect your decision, but I don't agree with it.

There are just some things that you do not have to be a rock scientist to figure out and this is one of them. You can support the troops, respect that they decided to go, and not agree with the government for sending them.

[Asshat]

It is foolhardy to expect troops not to be put in harms' way if the ability to protect them is not present. How can anyone say they "support the troops" then "not" fund them?

This is a cop out. If one does not opt to protect the troops, one is not supporting them. Because of the lessons learned in the years following Viet Nam, we are too politically correct to ever spit on someone getting off a plane.

No, the majority of Americans utter that PC phrase; "I support the troops, but not the war," engaging in an obvious oxymoran. Our elected officials will moan and groan because Hillary never said she was sorry for voting for the war, but how easily they voted to fund the troops. (But not the war)

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I have met people born in Vietnam and The Middle East, and they are some of the nicest, hardest working Americans I know. It's difficult to see how Americans feel so separate from those living in other countries, when every American has their roots in another place, and most not so many generations back.

[DougP]

I don't find it so hard to believe. Even though America is fairly mixed there is still a lot of segregation going on. A lot of people stay on their side of the fence and have no real interaction with others outside of their own group let alone outside the country.

[Asshat]

I have met people born in Vietnam and The Middle East, and they are some of the nicest, hardest working Americans I know. It's difficult to see how Americans feel so separate from those living in other countries, when every American has their roots in another place, and most not so many generations back.

Curious about this post. The one before it, (mine) was three months ago, and your post is about something different.

By the way, my family has been in America since the mid-1600's. That's quite a few generations. Yet it is Americans who I can not understand.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Curious about this post. The one before it, (mine) was three months ago, and your post is about something different.

Not at all. I read the entire thread, and commented on what interested me. I think that's what we all do. If we all commented on merely the last post in a thread, we'd be off on tangent so fast and far it'd be time for a new thread...

[DougP]

I also support them but there are many different types of support. Moral, monetary, etc.. You don't have to give them money to support them. However anyone that pays taxes is also supporting the military with their money whether they like it or not. Its the truth.

That's why when I say I support the troops I mean just that. I'm morally behind the men and women serving. Why because they're just as much an american as the people who are protesting and "not" supporting them. So for those who say they don't support the troops think a little more carefully about who it really is that you're not supporting. :)

[ja_Patriot]

"Supporting the troops but not the war".

For the libs, which is most Dems, it's a camouflage. They have to cater to their fringe left supporters (who provide a lot of cash but relatively few votes) but at the same time don't want to be perceived as weak on defense.

But the libs often count on mass-amnesia of the electorate. When in power you see these same liberals implement massive cutbacks on military and defense spending and human intel (the CIA etc..) and disparage the troops at every opportunity ("winter soldier" Kerry, "war is lost" Reid, "murderers" Murtagh, Durbin, Levin, Schumer). Their buddies in the NY Times and main stream media oblige but then we have Rush and the conservatives, the new media, milbloggers, and Fox News who will have nothing to do with burying the truth about anti-military liberals.

For conservatives to say the same phrase could mean a host of things.

For me personally, you either support the troops or don't. You don't support basketball players and then don't care if they get massacred in a basketball game. And war is more than a ball game. It's about life and death.

Would I have misgivings about the Iraqi War? When we hear this guy Maliki say that our guys can leave anytime we want; they'll just look for new friends, you have to ask yourself: is our sacrifice worth this man's and his people's arrogance and ignorance? Why can't he get rid of this ungrateful s.o.b. Al Sadr? Maybe we should have let Saddam wack this guy just like he murdered his father, before getting rid of Saddam.

On the other hand, we are in the process of building up what will hopefully be a strong, major ally in that troubled part of the world. This can only mean something good for future American and free world generations.

So while there should be no question about patriots supporting other patriots - the troops, the question about continuing to sacrifice our sons and daughters for the benefit of Iraqis and their Arab ilk, whether this will be worth it in the long run remains to be seen.

America will win and we will leave Iraq at the time and place of our choosing. As Dubya says, Return on Success. We fervently hope.

[Asshat]

America will win and we will leave Iraq at the time and place of our choosing. As Dubya says, Return on Success. We fervently hope.

The one glaring problem with that statement is that we see a complete void of diplomacy.

The US is using the military as it's diplomats, and history shows us this is not going to work in the long run.


I like what you said about history. We do suffer from mass amnesia.

I like what the "libs" have done for we vets though. Much more than the "cons" have done. "Disbarge" is not the word I would use, since it is easy to verify just who have been behind the vets....and that aint the republicans. They seem to be the ones currently who aren't concerned about the vets.

[ryukyuboi]

The "cons" like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity have no military service record, and feel quite comfortable supporting the troops and the war on terror in Iraq as a valid foreign policy. The "libs" like Kerry and Murtha have military records, support the troops and oppose the present war on terror in Iraq as a failed foreign policy.

Americans do support members of the US military as fellow citizens. But most Americans do not support the present policy of the US government still in Iraq - which the US military implements by direction.

Support the troops (people), and not the war (policy).

[TheNoNamedOne]

People are needed to carry out the policies.

[DougP]

People are needed to carry out the policies.

And pay taxes that fund the policies:thumbup1:

[TheNoNamedOne]

And pay taxes that fund the policies:thumbup1:

That is why we should support and tell legislatures to not vote for funding using our tax money to support the war -- everything from providing flak jackets to newly rushed armor plated humvees etc... to them. Then the president can decide if he wants to send/kee them in uprepared without the supporting hardware.

[ryukyuboi]

Obviously people are needed to carry out a policy. Peace Corps volunteers could carry out a policy.

Federal personal income taxes have not always been used to support US government policy. Many rich Americans today pay no Federal taxes at all. However, if your point today is the potential power of the purse, no doubt about that.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Obviously people are needed to carry out a policy. Peace Corps volunteers could carry out a policy.

Yes, but they are not part of an oxymoronic equation costing billions of dollars a month and causing thousands of deaths and injuries.

[ryukyuboi]

Cutting off funding is only one of the possible options to consider. Public support for this option isn't very strong today, and never has been in conflicts.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I think the public is pissed that after having given the Dems a chance to reign in this president, they caved. Have you seen any polls recently on whether the public would support cutting off funding? I am wondering if the numbers are a majority since the Dems numbers in the polls of job approval are going down. Why would that job approval rate be going down if not for not having reigned in the President?

[ryukyuboi]

Have you contacted your representative demanding the cutting of funds? It is a great stategy if publicly supported. Of course, the individual citizen would have to know who represents them in Congress, and by and large, they do not know this information, much less care.

I have not seen any recent poll results indicating the public would support cutting off funding. Have you? My guess is that the public would not support cutting funds at this time.

For Congressional action to succeed still requires cooperation between the two major political parties. The Democratic Party's Congressional majority is very slim. I think the public is pissed because of gridlock in Congress - thus lower approval ratings. All are punished.

[DougP]

Polls :rolleyes: More like false representation. I never believe the polls. Ever see the amount of people that actually participate in them? How often are they conducted fairly and not by a biased group or organization?

[DocTurtle]

I will sometimes hear, and it has already been said on the other thread on Iraq (Do you support the U.S. war in Iraq?) that, "I support the troops, but not the war." Well, what does that mean? Isn't it contradictory -- if not a full fledged oxymoron?
Like said several times before, and I agree with those who have said it, it's not an oxymoron. "I love war, but not death" is an oxymoron. "I love troops, but not guns" however, is not. Like previously posted. You support the people, not always for what they are doing, but more to keep them safe. It's rough when you are out there and to know that there are people out there that care about you when you are in the shit, really does make a difference. Support doesn't mean "I hope you kill more people on the other side, then they kill on ours." Support means you are in our prayers. It means we hope you come back safe. It means I hope you stay out of the fire fight. It means I hope that mortar doesn't hit your tent. That's the support people are talking about.
Now there are those who support in the opposite way, but often IMO those people are the ones that also support the war effort.
...if you say you do not support the war, then just what does telling your congressman to vote for financing of the war means?... Like said before me, most people don't even know who their congressman is! We got into this war because people didn't care enough to stop it. The war is still going on, because people don't care enough to stop it. The majority are stagnant and have no idea what is really going on. If you subtract those people from every major conflict or even vote, you can make any arguement. I think the arguement you want to make is "WTF Stagnant People?? Wake the hell up and look what's going on!!" I feel, that above, will go towards a good bit of your debate here.

I would say, cut off funding so that our troops do not have flack jackets, armored humvees, defensive or offensive weapons, A good bit of the forces out there only have flack jackets and sappi plates. Armored humvees? Please, we buy those and just give them to the locals. The Marines ordered 2000 MRAPS, and the Army decided they were going to cancel that order last minute and gave the 2000 to the Iraqi locals. Wtf? "How can you send inadequately supplied troops into harm's way? You know you don't have the recourses to properly protect them, so why make them cannon fodder?" That's any war. No person is EVER adequately supplied. Reminds me of this quote, "We have done so much, with so little, for so long, that now with can do anything with nothing."

There is more than one way of supporting the troops, and that does not have to include arming the whole war machine. This is true. But until we have the masses woken up, we have to support our troops for having to face the hardships that they are having to endure. Otherwise you are saying they don't matter and they are just another wasted life.

I think it is safe to say that a majority of people in a war don't want to be. A lot of people would rather be at home with their families. Others would rather be where they are because they would rather make the sacrifice than have to let others make it for them. For that you should support them, if nothing else?? I'm sure if nothing else, you have sympathy for those people that are out there. You may not agree with what they are out there doing or why they are having to do it, but you have to let them know you are thinking of them. That's support.

The best way of supporting the troops is offering oversight of the funds that are used to send them into harm's way, and sometimes denying one those things that will be used to convince them to go their possible end is the most supporting way to go.
How condescending of you. J/K!!! The best way of supporting troops is not putting them in harms way from the start. Often we don't see the error of our ways though until the wheels are already set in motion.

I could say:
"Yes, I love that you are offering yourself as service to our country, but I support you by not payinig to send you into an unjust war, and therefore will not pay for your armor and munitions. If you choose to go into battle inadequately prepared, then that is the decision you have agreed to knowing the dangers. I think after you cooly reflect upon the situation, you will decide to not walk into a hail of bullets unarmed and unprotected. If you do, and your leaders send you into that, then they will lose legitimacy in the eyes of the public they represent."That is a great idea. Unfortunately I think that is an unfair statement. Like I stated before, I strongly feel that the majority don't want war. Most don't want to go there. But yet they do go becuase you(as a generalization, not specifically) will not.

"I support the troops, but not the war," as it is now, and parroted by most, is just an oxymoron. And, as long as they want the war machine funded from flack jackets to bombers, it will remain so.
I just asked someone about that quote and they straight up agreed with you. I asked him why and he fumbled to find any words...he finally came up with, "It just is. You can't support the troops and not the war." I asked him what does he think supporting the troops means? He was silent. I said to him what I posted in the first paragraph and he shook his head and said, "Hmm...never thought about that."

I also noticed you brought up Schindler. We consider him a hero, true. He purposely made weapons that would break apart on the front line. A hero to us, a traitor to the Naziis. He was fighting for "our" side. That's why we praise him. Do I think he did it because he didn't want his country men to not fight...I don't know. I don't know much past what you have written about him. I would dare to say not and that you might be bending things to meet your point. But, again, I don't know the whole story so I really can't debate it. Guess I have more homework.

[okisteve]

I predict more people will be supporting both the war and the troops now that (stealthily) Bush has changed his strategy and the troops are doing what they should have been doing all along: trying to help people instead of busting down doors and scaring the hell out of them.

I hate to be cynical ;) but this IS an election year.

[Tony Stacks]

It's not an oxymoron!
I support the troops but not the war. Yes I am all for funding for them. Why? Because why should they suffer more than they already are because of politicians stupidity.
Why else do I support the troops? Because I was a troop so wtf. I know what it's like.

[Tony Stacks]

Also I think anyone that does not support the troops should be charged with treason.

The way our guys were treated during Vietnam was BULLSHIT too. They were FORCED to go they did'nt choose to go and then got treated like shit by ppl that were to pussy to go.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Also I think anyone that does not support the troops should be charged with treason.

So much for living in a country that values freedom. Forced to support, eh, Tony? Constitutional Amendment perhaps?

Just what happened to freedom? Did it die when the Liberty Bell cracked way back then?

[Tony Stacks]

So much for living in a country that values freedom. Forced to support, eh, Tony? Constitutional Amendment perhaps?

Just what happened to freedom? Did it die when the Liberty Bell cracked way back then?


You know what when I posted this it was all emotion on my part and I did'nt put any thought behind it.


But in reality I do NOT agree with you BUT I support your right to have your own view.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Thanks, Tony.

I respect those who can look back on things said in the past and clarify things a little better -- if not differently.

[dk]

The way our guys were treated during Vietnam was BULLSHIT too. They were FORCED to go they did'nt choose to go and then got treated like shit by ppl that were to pussy to go.
Takes a lot more bravery to say "**** this, I don't support this" when everybody else does, even if you are wrong in saying so. Sure, it's a different sort of bravery, and probably a lot safer, but the threat of death isn't the only factor, and I can personally remember people on the old forums saying they wanted and were willing to kick my ass for not supporting the Iraq/Afghanistan invasion.

On an island like this, it's probably more dangerous to be against military action, and it takes a bit of bravery (or stupidity, or both) to make a public stance about it, especially when you're not difficult to track down.

[jimbob17755]

I will sometimes hear, and it has already been said on the other thread on Iraq (Do you support the U.S. war in Iraq?) that, "I support the troops, but not the war." Well, what does that mean? Isn't it contradictory -- if not a full fledged oxymoron?

If you don't support the war, then why would you, and how can you logically support the machine that combines its part to prosecute the war?

Of course we support our fathers, brothers, sisters, daughers and friends in that we should be respectful to their situation and person on a personal level, but, if you say you do not support the war, then just what does telling your congressman to vote for financing of the war means? After all, that financing is going to pay for flak jackets, Hummvee armor, weapons (both offensive and dfensive type measures), etc...

Can't you state a refusal to supply those things so that the war is not funded, and, therefore, halted financially and still be a supporter of the troops on an emotional level? IF so, how, when the commanders will argue we don't have enough money to protect our troops with body armor?

Those against the war let too often themselves be defined with small quips and soundbites against them. I would say, cut off funding so that our troops do not have flack jackets, armored humvees, defensive or offensive weapons, AND THEN turn the question toward the leaders of this debacle asking them, "How can you send inadequately supplied troops into harm's way? You know you don't have the recourses to properly protect them, so why make them cannon fodder?"

There is more than one way of supporting the troops, and that does not have to include arming the whole war machine. The best way of supporting the troops is offering oversight of the funds that are used to send them into harm's way, and sometimes denying one those things that will be used to convince them to go their possible end is the most supporting way to go.

I could say:
"Yes, I love that you are offering yourself as service to our country, but I support you by not payinig to send you into an unjust war, and therefore will not pay for your armor and munitions. If you choose to go into battle inadequately prepared, then that is the decision you have agreed to knowing the dangers. I think after you cooly reflect upon the situation, you will decide to not walk into a hail of bullets unarmed and unprotected. If you do, and your leaders send you into that, then they will lose legitimacy in the eyes of the public they represent."

"I support the troops, but not the war," as it is now, and parroted by most, is just an oxymoron. And, as long as they want the war machine funded from flack jackets to bombers, it will remain so.
Prosecutor,
Most people,including myself,DO support our men in uniform,the difference being not everyone supports or is favor of the Policies from Wash.,D.C.,that these men are sworn to enforce, wheather they themselves agree,or disagree. These military men are really nothing more than hired enforcers of the politcians opinions/policy.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Prosecutor,
Most people,including myself,DO support our men in uniform,the difference being not everyone supports or is favor of the Policies from Wash.,D.C.,that these men are sworn to enforce, wheather they themselves agree,or disagree. These military men are really nothing more than hired enforcers of the politcians opinions/policy.

Sounds like you are hinting at the Nuremberg "just serving and and following orders" defense.

[myungheek]

Sounds like you are hinting at the Nuremberg "just serving and and following orders" defense.
TP,
If the military is not the enforcers of U.S. foreign policy, how would you describe the role they are presently playing in Iraq? Peacekeepers? Freedom fighters? They are there as the executioners of Pres.Bush's Iraq foreign policy. Feedback-Jim

[Crazysix]

Sounds like you are hinting at the Nuremberg "just serving and and following orders" defense.

To you are such a piece of shit and yes I said it. if aint about animal rights or anything you like you use your BS power to mod it, dude , maybe you didnt have bros die in these places but I did and for all of them I tell you to kiss my ass and anyone elses who agrees with me, you use the right these men and women die for, to slander them. I piss on you and any one like you....FVCK OFF. Nurenburg your sorry ass has no idea about the place all you care about is fluffy and fvcking burgers. you are a piece of work. I hope to hell you get yours in the end...now mod this and hide but everyone needs to see it.........

[badkitty]

I think that even if you don't support the war or anything else that we 'the troops' do, you still should respect us and support us. Cause with out us yall aint shit.

[TheNoNamedOne]

To you are such a piece of shit and yes I said it. if aint about animal rights or anything you like you use your BS power to mod it, dude , maybe you didnt have bros die in these places but I did and for all of them I tell you to kiss my ass and anyone elses who agrees with me, you use the right these men and women die for, to slander them. I piss on you and any one like you....FVCK OFF. Nurenburg your sorry ass has no idea about the place all you care about is fluffy and fvcking burgers. you are a piece of work. I hope to hell you get yours in the end...now mod this and hide but everyone needs to see it.........

Enjoy your points, C6. -- TP

Do not reply to this post.

[AFuel567]

Its not an oxymoron and comes out of American history, Vietnam also an unpopular war, fought by a lot of draftees that had no choice but to serve, but the anti war movement denigrated the soldiers as if they had a choice. So lesson learned from history (what a concept) support the folks who serve, even if you don't agree with the policy, because troops don't make policy.

[P_chan]

(deleted) ah, I really need to lay off the whiskey.

[dk]

(deleted) ah, I really need to lay off the whiskey.
I never took you for a whiskey person!!! :eek:

[Sex Wax]

....huh?....do i need to state this again? ....JESUS FVCKING ON THE CROSS CHRIST!!!!!!!!,.......YOU SHOULD SUPPRORT YOUR MILITARY.!! WHEN THERE IS A DRAFT....FEEL FREE TO PROTEST ABOUT THAT, THERE IS NO DRAFT NOW......STFU!!!!!!!!!!!!!.......THE PEEPS IN THE SERVICE AT THIS MOMENT....CHOSE TO BE THERE.....ONLY THE WEAK DONT MAKE IT THROUGH BASIC. CO$K LICKING, ANTI-MILTARY, SIGN-HOLDERS CAN FEEL FREE TO COME TO MY HOUSE AND PROTEST. I AM ALWAYS ON THE LOOKOUT FOR MORE STUFF TO B-B-Q.,............I GUESS IF I COOK UP A FEW "PEACE BOTS", THINGS WILL BE MORE COOL.....FOR ME.....AND THE DOGS WILL HAVE SOME TENDER, SPINELESS FAGMEAT TO CHEW ON
:thumbup1:

[vSTINGERv]

The Prosecutor wrote;
I could say
"Yes, I love that you are offering yourself as service to our country, but I support you by not payinig to send you into an unjust war, and therefore will not pay for your armor and munitions. If you choose to go into battle inadequately prepared, then that is the decision you have agreed to knowing the dangers. I think after you cooly reflect upon the situation, you will decide to not walk into a hail of bullets unarmed and unprotected. If you do, and your leaders send you into that, then they will lose legitimacy in the eyes of the public


You're really saying, 'Screw them, send them in unarmored and let the leaders pay the consequences' Wouldn't the person getting killed or malformed be the one paying the consequence? And are you honestly implying that a soldier should refuse orders? If you work at a hospital and know that a certain type of prescription doesn't work as well as another, are you going to tell your bosses, "I refuse to prescribe this medication" knowing that you will either be fired never to work in the medical field again or be reduced to changing bed pans for the rest of your career with a lower salary???

[P_chan]

I never took you for a whiskey person!!! :eek:

Beer and Whiskey FTW:thumbup:. My wife thinks I'm crazy for drinking that stuff.

[okisteve]

You're really saying, 'Screw them, send them in unarmored and let the leaders pay the consequences' Wouldn't the person getting killed or malformed be the one paying the consequence? And are you honestly implying that a soldier should refuse orders? If you work at a hospital and know that a certain type of prescription doesn't work as well as another, are you going to tell your bosses, "I refuse to prescribe this medication" knowing that you will either be fired never to work in the medical field again or be reduced to changing bed pans for the rest of your career with a lower salary???

Assuming you have the right to prescribe, you must have taken the Hippocratic Oath, in which you swear not to do harm. It could be construed as doing harm when you give an inferior medicine. Couldn't you (or whoever) even discuss the issue without fear of getting bedpanned?

[TheNoNamedOne]

You're really saying, 'Screw them, send them in unarmored and let the leaders pay the consequences' Wouldn't the person getting killed or malformed be the one paying the consequence?

There would be no way for the government to prosecute the war for any length of real time if the public were vocal in their total nonsupport of the war, and with that total non support of the war, extra funds for flack jackets or additional armor for vehicles would have a very hard time being procured if representatives listened to their constituencies when it came time to vote for war funding bills.

It would be politically unfeasible (if not tactically impossible) to send them in defenseless so long as the public opened their eyes and did not delude themselves into believing an oxymoron.

[quiltpig]

There would be no way for the government to prosecute the war for any length of real time if the public were vocal in their total nonsupport of the war, and with that total non support of the war, extra funds for flack jackets or additional armor for vehicles would have a very hard time being procured if representatives listened to their constituencies when it came time to vote for war funding bills.

It would be politically unfeasible (if not tactically impossible) to send them in defenseless so long as the public opened their eyes and did not delude themselves into believing an oxymoron.

That is the whole point isn't it. There is one sure fire way of ending the war...get your ass out and vote. How much more vocal could the public be? Oh wait, we've had several elections since the beginning of this thing, and we're still there. Hmmm...I guess the general populace of the U.S must not be as against it as you claim. And don't start spouting poll numbers, if the people want an end to this war, they'd vote in a congress and a president that would end it. They're just too lazy, ignorant or both. Should our troops have to pay the price for that?

Your solution is cruel. In order to make a statement you'd put thousands of lives at risk. I guess it's okay though since we're only talking about human beings.

Of course you can support the troops, but not the war. It is my opinion, that while a majority of U.S. citizens want to see this thing end, the majority of them also do not want to see our troops suffer any more than they already have. Not everything is black and white...there's gray, red, blue, .....

[Son Kokujin]

I also support the troops as well as the military, though I don't always agree with the wars, I do understand. Hell, the troops may not agree with the war, but they understand that they have orders, and must follow them as lawfully and as honorably as they can. Believe me, it's not easy being green. Semper Fi to all the troops out there. Son Kokujin hasn't forgotten where he came from.

Oh...and to those who judge and hate the military so much, I ask that you try and remember that they are human beings-just like you. Please utilize some clarity in your thinking. There is that precentage of us everywhere who do the wrong thing, and/or act without thinking or consideration. but the solution isn't condemnation, but education and rehabilitation. I said this to the leaders in the military, but I believe that it applies here as well. There are jerks and bullies all over this planet with power...someone has to stand up to them. That's one of the honorable things about the military. The bravery that is generated as a civilian can be galvanized in the military-if the person is willing to listen to good, upstanding, people both in the military as well as outside of it. Please take this into consideration...ther are times that we all feel like this...(let's see who remembers this)

http://albanysinsanity.wnymedia.net/blogs/files/2007/11/howard-beale.jpg

I'M MAD AS HELL>>>AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE!