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

Prudence · 04-09-2006, 11:11 PM

Quote:

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 · 04-10-2006, 08:49 AM

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 · 04-10-2006, 09:01 AM

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.

scaeagles · 04-10-2006, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

How can one "support" the war if one hasn't actually enlisted to go fight in it?

So no one under 18 can support the war. No one in a wheel chair can supprt the war. No veterens of WWII or Vietnam can support the war.

Alex · 04-10-2006, 09:07 AM

That makes no sense at all. (To SacTown Chronic)

innerSpaceman · 04-10-2006, 01:15 PM

Withdrawal may be defeat, but it's defeat without our soldiers' deaths. Scrooge went on to terrifically rebut Alex's assertion about defeat being death or nothing, so I won't belabor the point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

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.

It doesn't much matter if you're ineligible to serve, I agree with what SacTown wrote. Folks who are ineligble to serve can do plenty in terms of material and active support.

Supporting the troops with zero action to actually do so is kinda like all those people who "own" sports teams because they watch them on TV (The "my team" syndrome).

The only team that's "yours" is one you play on or own shares in, and there's precious little "supporting" our troops by simply saying so.

Alex · 04-10-2006, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Withdrawal may be defeat, but it's defeat without our soldiers' deaths. Scrooge went on to terrifically rebut Alex's assertion about defeat being death or nothing, so I won't belabor the point.

Considering I never said that I would assume it easily rebutted.

wendybeth · 04-10-2006, 01:36 PM

Oh, people who can't serve do plenty to help the effort! They support sending other people's kids, spouses and parents in as cannon fodder for the war, they support using other people's money to pay for the war, they vote the people into office that will pass laws to continue the war, keep the homeland safe and dismantle the Constitution in the process, and they are active in making sure that public funds aren't diverted into such nonesense as welfare, housing and medical care for those who can't afford it.

It's hard work being a true patriot!

wendybeth · 04-10-2006, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Oh, people who can't serve do plenty to help the effort! They support sending other people's kids, spouses and parents in as cannon fodder for the war, they support using other people's money to pay for the war, they vote the people into office that will pass laws to continue the war, keep the homeland safe and dismantle the Constitution in the process, and they are active in making sure that public funds aren't diverted into such nonesense as welfare, housing and medical care for those who can't afford it.

It's hard work being a true patriot!

Going back to the post Scaeagles was referring to, he is correct- I did bring that into the conversation, but it was intended to be ironic on several levels:
I. That the party in control of this mess was elected to take care of the latter part of my post, and
II. That the people re-elected same party with the knowledge that they were using public funds, the same funds that enabled such programs as listed above, to fund the war. The same people cannot be unaware of the impositions and infringements on our constitutional rights that the current administration has instituted, as illustrated by the continuance of the Patriot Act and other travesties.

In short, I was pointing out the irony that the same group of people that wanted to stop funding social programs on the public dime have no problem using the public's money to go to war. They also seem to think that it is enough to say they "support the war" without really sacrificing jack **** for it. I really pay no attention to such people- I admire the men and women in our military, and I appreciate the work they are trying to do, but it's going to be all in vain, a fact I despise along with the people who put them there. I look at individuals like Pat Tilman and my daughter's best friends' dad, and I think they rock. I'm just sorry they were and are being put in harm's way for what amounts to a nothing more than a lie. It's a ****ing shame and sin that they are being wasted for that worthless pile in the White House, and all their business cronies.

Alex · 04-10-2006, 01:38 PM

There are many ways to win a war without killing somebody. There are many ways to lose a war without having had any people killed. There are many ways to avoid a war in the first place. We can all wish for those to have happened (I think the war is a just one but one that shouldn't have been started for non-moral reasons). But we're not talking about a general concept, we're talking about a specific situation.

The specific situation is that right now two groups of people are killing each other. How do you support American troops in that endeavor while simultaneously opposing, as immoral, the purpose for which they are doing it? Yes, you can also advocate that we simply leave right now and fight no more. But until that happens, how do you support the soldiers in their efforts to do that which you consider immoral, especially when they are doing it of their own volitoin?

That support is not the same thing as simply saying "I don't want you to die."

If we are wrong to be in Iraq, then Iraqis are justified in commiting violence against our soldiers to force us out (and third-parties are right to help them). Unless you are purely a pacifist.

Maybe it would be instructive to me in trying to understand how you can hold such contradictory ideas to ask this:

what does "support the troops" mean to you?

what does "oppose the war" mean to you?

04-10-2006, 08:49 AM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.
	Submit to Quotes

04-10-2006, 09:01 AM	#3
SacTown Chronic the myth of the dream Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,217	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.
	Submit to Quotes

04-10-2006, 09:07 AM	#5
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	That makes no sense at all. (To SacTown Chronic)
	Submit to Quotes

04-10-2006, 01:36 PM	#8
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Oh, people who can't serve do plenty to help the effort! They support sending other people's kids, spouses and parents in as cannon fodder for the war, they support using other people's money to pay for the war, they vote the people into office that will pass laws to continue the war, keep the homeland safe and dismantle the Constitution in the process, and they are active in making sure that public funds aren't diverted into such nonesense as welfare, housing and medical care for those who can't afford it. It's hard work being a true patriot! __________________
	Submit to Quotes

04-10-2006, 01:38 PM	#10
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	There are many ways to win a war without killing somebody. There are many ways to lose a war without having had any people killed. There are many ways to avoid a war in the first place. We can all wish for those to have happened (I think the war is a just one but one that shouldn't have been started for non-moral reasons). But we're not talking about a general concept, we're talking about a specific situation. The specific situation is that right now two groups of people are killing each other. How do you support American troops in that endeavor while simultaneously opposing, as immoral, the purpose for which they are doing it? Yes, you can also advocate that we simply leave right now and fight no more. But until that happens, how do you support the soldiers in their efforts to do that which you consider immoral, especially when they are doing it of their own volitoin? That support is not the same thing as simply saying "I don't want you to die." If we are wrong to be in Iraq, then Iraqis are justified in commiting violence against our soldiers to force us out (and third-parties are right to help them). Unless you are purely a pacifist. Maybe it would be instructive to me in trying to understand how you can hold such contradictory ideas to ask this: what does "support the troops" mean to you? what does "oppose the war" mean to you?
	Submit to Quotes