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

[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)

[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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Alex]

Also, by SacTown's definition the only people who can support the war in Iraq are the 300,000 people currently over their fighting it. And since each of them is over there when they had the opportunity to not be, I think they can be counted as supporting (by action if not by oratory).

Also, by his defiition I am also unable to support the removal of dams on the Klamath River simply because I am not going to go there and knock them down myself.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

It doesn't much matter if you're ineligible to serve, I agree with what SacTown wrote.

Except that Sac wrote that it is impossible to support the war if you are not fighting it yourself.

Originally Posted by sactown chronic

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

I assume he is asking the question rhetorically.

And to address your team analogy, I do have part "ownership" in this "team" of soldiers. Regardless of what else I may do, I pay taxes. Acting as if you are not part "owner" is, by default, disowning them. They are the US Military. I am a taxpaying US citizen.