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

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Osama bin Laden cited our lack of ability to stomach the ugliness of casualities in Somalia as part of his strategy in his campaign of terrorism. Taking our troops out now would only continue to let terrorists know that we do not have the resolve to finish what has been started.

Does it not bother you that bin Laden now sets our foreign policy for us? Bin Laden wants us to attack Iraq and we oblige. He taunts us not to leave and we don't. Lovely! We are puppets on a string, while 36% of the population continue to insist that the chief puppet is a strong leader.

What's particularly ironic is that we wouldn't be chatting so amiably about these issues if the President had taken out bin Laden like he promised instead of leading us into this disastrous adventure in Iraq.

[wendybeth]

What I think is sad is that it was easier to invade a country than it was to get one small group of terrorists led by a physically frail man. Let's face it- Al Qaida was merely the excuse to invade Iraq, plain and simple. Bin Ladin is more useful to Bush alive than dead. He's the boogie man they wave around when they want to scare the masses into submission, and so far that's worked well. I'd still love to see any evidence Iraq to the events of 9/11.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

Does it not bother you that bin Laden now sets our foreign policy for us? Bin Laden wants us to attack Iraq and we oblige.

Actually, bin Laden controlling our our foreign policy would mean more that we are ignoring all else in the effort to find the person who is probably no more than a figure head now. The bi-annual video tape fed to Al Jazeera doesn't make it seem like he's doing too much. Last I checked, our current foreign policy is holding terrorist attacks against the US at bay. Somehow I don't think that bin Laden really feels in control while hiding in some cave in Pakistan. I might be inclined to believe he is in control of our border policy, but that's a different issue.

As I recall, bin Laden very recently offered a pseudo-truce in suggesting we pull out of Iraq. This was so the people of Iraq would not suffer. I found that be amusing, as it is primarily terrorists who are blowing up the people of Iraq.

Wanted us to attack Iraq? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

[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.

[scaeagles]

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]

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

[Scrooge McSam]

It makes more sense than saying since I oppose this war that I wish our soldiers dead.

No, Alex, argue away to your heart's content. No matter your bluster, I don't want my neighbor's son dead because he was obligated to fight a war that I don't support. I get no pleasure from the constant tension my co-worker is under because her son might not come home alive. You can ignore the money I've sent to organizations buying body armor for soldiers who have been under-equipped by this cowboy government. I'll keep doing what I'm doing and keep feeling better because I'm at least able to do some good in this awful situation. The only change I'll make is to start ignoring your hot air.

Good day, sir.