Is there no good news in the world? There's precious little in this thread.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

It is fine to say that you don't want any soldier to die, but by opposing the war you are saying, in my opinion, that our soldier's death is preferable to their victory (which is a reasonable point of view, just not one I share in this case).

I think you can always hope for non-violent solutions to a conflict - not everything need be reduced to a dicotomy of win-lose or Life- Death. It's that kind of thinking that causes violence to persist.

[Alex]

Yes, you can hope for a non-violent solution, but if in the absence of one you would prefer that we win, then how opposed to the war are you? Pretty much everybody would prefer that wars end without death.

By preferring that our soldiers successfully kill instead of being killed you are essentially saying "I'd prefer that there be no war at all, but if there is one then I support its success."

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

...but if in the absence of one...

Right THERE! That's where we split. You have accepted a position that war was unavoidable. It is not possible for me to disagree more strongly with you than I do on that one point.

It's also what makes it possible for me to reject your argument that to oppose this war is to wish for the death of our troops.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

Right THERE! That's where we split. You have accepted a position that war was unavoidable. It is not possible for me to disagree more strongly with you than I do on that one point.

Wrong. War is unavoidable because the president is persuing a war. You oppose his decision to do this but now that it is happening, do you support the war and its aims or oppose it (and therefore think it should fail)?

You can hope for a peaceful solution and advocate such but since the president has chosen a different course and is fighting a war you consider unjust can you support the successful persuit of that war? If so, then you are not opposing the war, you just haven't placed it at the top of your list of preferred options. You consider it better to not do something unjust but if something unjust is to be done then you prefer that we are successful in doing it.

You can not simultaneously consider this war immoral and hope our soldiers are victorious. That is like saying "I would prefer my brother not rape people but since he is doing it anyway I hope he gets away with it."

If I considered this war to be immoral I too would advocate for its end by withdrawal but while it was happening I would hope that our soldiers failed in every effort to kill those on the other side and that the other side was as successful as necessary to cause that failure.

By saying "I oppose the war but support the troops" you are failing to take a moral stand on the war itself. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Rather than deal with the reality of the situation you are retreating to wishful thinking about what you wish had happened.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

You can not simultaneously consider this war immoral and hope our soldiers are victorious. That is like saying "I would prefer my brother not rape people but since he is doing it anyway I hope he gets away with it."

Is it not more like saying "I consider this war immoral, but unlike Vietnam I will not hold our soldiers personally responsible"? My impression is that the majority of those who remain opposed to the war want to distance themselves from protestors of prior wars (or police actions, as the case may be) who took out their displeasure on the soliders themselves. Of course, "we hate the war but we won't spit on you!" doesn't have the same catchy ring to it.

[Alex]

In my opinion that is exactly what it is. Not holding them responsible for the administrations decision is not the same thing as supporting them in what they do (and it is also somewhat infantilizing). It is just a marketing slogan without actual content. The version of "support the troops, bring them home" is just as vacuous since what it really means is "support the troops if they come home."

For the most part Vietnam soldiers were more worthy of support since they were (for the most part) much more unwillingly there (though if a person drafted was truly opposed to the war they should have been willing to suffer prison rather than engage in it). This time around it is an all-volunteer army where the vast majority of members can claim no true ignorance of the risk of deployment since over the last 15 years the United States militaries have seen open service in Iraq/Kuwait, Haiti, Bosnia, Panama, and Somalia (two of these I opposed and therefore did not support the troops or the administration and considered their defeat -- meaning in many cases death -- to be the appropriate result). It isn't like we'd gone 50 years without military grunts being sent abroad with instructions to kill people as necessary. But there are still tens of thousands of people in the millitary to enlisted after the wars in Iraq and Afganistan began so they truly can't claim ignorance of the use to which they'd be put. Can they be absolved of participation in the moral decision to war? No, no more than can (at the risk of Godwin) Nazi soldiers as the concentration camps claim that they were just following orders. And if they have participated in an immoral war then defeat by whatever means is the appropriate result.

[SacTown Chronic]

How can one "support" the war if one hasn't actually enlisted to go fight in it? I've never understood how people can support sending other people off to see the horrors of war when going to fight in the war themselves is the last thing they would ever do.

Claiming to support our troops while being against the war is no more impossible than claiming to support the war from behind the safety a keyboard.