how do you know that, did I miss a referendum or something?
Two-thirds of Americans support military action and the President's ultimatum. This is before the "bump" that will occur when fighting actually starts, too.
Quote:
You may be riught, I don't know for sure (I guess you don't either) but neither of us should confuse our conviction that we are right with not being wrong and that's one purpose of protest, to test whats being claimed by presenting alternatives.
Well spoken. I just hope that protesters will really, really think about what alternatives they're presenting once the war begins, and how they are helping those alternatives to happen. Maybe I wouldn't be so cynical if I had seen even a single "candle-light vigil for Saddam to leave Iraq" out here in Seattle. But it sure seems to me that, once the war begins, an anti-(Bush/US)-war protest will be advocating a drawn-out, bloody war in which enough Americans and Iraqi civilians die to convince Bush to call the whole thing off, leaving Saddam in power claiming victory and ruthlessly re-consolidating his rule. And leaving thousands of American GI's dead with nothing to show for their sacrifice. If that's a protester's idea of a bright future, then by all means, protest.
I thought the NYTimes put it well in their masthead editorial today:
Quote:
Once the fighting begins, every American will be thinking primarily of the safety of our troops, the success of their mission and the minimization of Iraqi civilian casualties. It will not feel like the right time for complaints about how America got to this point. Today is the right time.
I think thjat candle-lit vigils against monsters like Sadaam don't happen because they would have no effect whatsoever. The reason we do protest about the actions of our own Govt's is because they claim to act in our name and we hope that we are able to exercise some influence.
I don't doubt that Sadaam's removal will present an opportunity for the Iraqi people to improve their lives, I do doubt and I'm cynical too, that they will have much of a say in their own future, or whether they consider their lives to be a reasonable price to pay for what they are likely to get.
How would our commitment to democracy stand up to the possibility (should that be their wish) of electing a leadership which comprised strict Muslim leaders with a mandate to found a contry based upon Muslim laws/teaching? (I believe the percieved threat of that possibility is what keeps us supporting the house of Saud).
I don't think this war is a war to liberate Iraq (though that would be a wonderful side effect if it came true..) and I don't believe that Sadaam presents a real danger to the West. The whole has a nasty ring of hypocrisy and deception about it. I hope that I am wrong.
Anyone think that the Iraqi conscripts should follow the same honour code and obey the orders that they are given?
Sure. Then they would have to fight, just like the US troops who follow their orders. Except the Iraqi soldiers and magnitudes more likely to be killed during the fighting.
Quote:
Originally posted by Zarathustra
Who was the US Govt representative responsible for the message to those guys that they should not just follow orders and remember that war crimes trials could follow any action in the Gulf?
Perhaps only our troops should blindly obey orders because only our leaders are infallable. Maybe as we know that we will win, we know we will be the ones conducting any trials afterwards - so it doesn't matter what we do.
Umm..gee...how does one even answer this shit? Here's an idea...soldier on both sides go ahead and decide for themselves if they should follow orders. Both sides will be answerable to their govenments for actions of desertion if they refuse to take part. hmmm think the Iraqi desserters will to account to Saddam after the war ? As for war crimes, of course Iraqi soldiers would be prosecuted if the commit war crimes. I am not sure that the US would order their troops to commit war crimes..perhaps you know better.
The point about War crimes being that we are certain to be in the position of deciding what those crimes were.
Whilst Iraq may be trying to develop so called weapons of mass destruction the US continues to develop and refuses to rule out the use of battlefield tactical nuclear weapons such as the recent device intended to target deep bunkers. Who is it that decides what is right and what is wrong.....the winner! 'You used XXX! That's not allowed, we said so, you've commited a war crime'
Are you suggesting that no war crimes have been committed by US troops? Vietnam anyone? if US commanders wouldn't order troops to commit war crimes and US troops wouldn't commit them why opt out of coming under the jurisdiction of permenant war crimes courts.
Hands up any country who doesn't want to be regulated by international law....
to quote badly Thucydides said 2.500 years that 'powerful states do what they have the power to do', it doesn't seem that much has changed.
They're just trying to avoid the uncomfortable fact that their anti-war (but pointedly NOT anti-Saddam) protests serve the interests of our troops' enemies and put our troops in greater danger. Saddam was quite explicit in expressing his delight at the widespread anti-war demonstrations a few weeks ago. More demonstrations after the war starts will encourage him, and the die-hards among his troops, that maybe if they kill enough GI's or get enough of their own people killedthey might actually win.
I'm not saying you should all be arrested. Say what you gotta say, it's a free country. But understand that "we support our troops, but..." is a fig leaf that is transparent even to your own subconscious.
Personally, I think that the protests should stop once the bombs start dropping. You did your best, and it was a noble effort, but you failed to convince either your President or a majority of your fellow citizens. At this point, everyone's interests (including the Iraqis) will be best served by a war as brief and bloodless as possible. So take that moral high ground and start protesting for the future of Iraq's new government, rather than against the efforts to depose its current one. Or even better, protest that we don't forget Afghanistan in the middle of all this. We have a long, long way to go in rebuilding that country, and no one seems too eager to spend the money to do it right. Protest that.
I've been in the Navy now for almost 15 years. Pretty soon I'll be out deployed on an aircraft carrier. People in the military appreciate the support. They really do.
My father was on the USS Coral Sea during Vietnam. In fact he was on it when I popped out of Mom After that he went to flight school and rose to command the VP-40 Squadron out of Moffet. (holly crap reading the history page is a part of my life) I find it funny that the stone marking my father grave reads "Vietnam" when I feel it should say "Cold War".
Anyway, stay safe, keep the sprits up, and here's hopin' you don't have to hot bunk!
It's just funny to see anti-war lobbyists encouraging people to support the troops.
I think that's because you don't have the ability to comprehend the anti-war point of view. To someone that can't or doesn't understand, it would look hypocritical. To someone that can comprehend this point of view, it's crystal clear.
Tonton, you're arguing that we shouldn't be going to war. Fine, fair enough. I'm happy people feel that way, misguided though I think it is. It contributed something important to the debate in this nation and around the world about whether we should go to war.
But that's not the question. The question is once we're AT war, should people protest for it to STOP - in victory for Saddam. Are you saying "Yes"? I'm really curious to hear how that will help protect our troops and the Iraqi people. How, exactly, do you "support" American troops in combat while encouraging their enemies to persevere? Please, help a poor dumb East-coast liberal understand.
You don't think it's a bit superficial to claim both support of the troops and of the anti-war movement? You're not supporting the troops by being anti-war. You may feel sympathetic because they will be in harm's way, but that's not 'supporting the troops.' Support is more akin to belief (in what the troops are doing.)
Empathy isn't support.
Example: You can feel sympathy for Rachel Corrie and her family, but you don't necessarily have to support her cause just because.
I comprehend the situation perfectly. The question is: do you support the troops and their actions, or do you merely feel for them, tonton?
No. Once the war starts, it's too late. We can't go back. So we need to pray for a quick and peaceful end to the war through Saddam's surrender. That would be the only way out. Protests against the war should stop for the duration of the war.
After the war, calls for punitive action against the warmongers should be resumed with vigor. Ther should be calls for Bush to resign or face impeachment for ignoring international treaties, and those responsible for deaths - both directly and indirectly associated with the war (i.e. retaliatory terrorism)- should be held accountable.
In the least, Bush and his club should be elected out of office.
But that won't cancel the damage that already will have been done. The US will be arrogant villains in the eyes of the world for a very, very long time.
I think that was very eloquently put, and I hope it relfects the attitudes of most "anti-war" folk. In fact, if so, it would likely give Bush opponents renewed vigor and, especially, credibility after the war.
Wow is that twisted. Their sole purpose is to defend the country. That's almost exactly the opposite of what you claim.
Splitting hairs? Listen, fighting and engaging in war often IS "defending the country". But when time DOES come for military action, then - like it or not - that is indeed their job. Do you think they should be putting on song and dance revues and ladling out hot soup? They're the MILITARY. They fight. Jeez.
Why don't you think a little, or stop and re-read or think a bit more about what I wrote. Nothing "twisted" about it.
Nowhere did I say "going around and STARTING wars is the military's job and acting as the agressor is what we're all about...and that's good!". If YOU saw/read it that way, that's your problem.
We should just stay here in America and only fight when terrorists or other troublemakers attempt to march down our streets?
Don't ever tell me "what I claim". You have no earthly idea.
Don't ever tell me "what I claim". You have no earthly idea.
I'm not telling you "what [you] claim" because you've posted it for us. Here's what you said: "...their sole purpose to exist is to fight and wage war..."
I disagree. Defending the nation is their sole purpose. Someone joining the military does so because they want to defend our nation not fight and wage war...kill people and break things. If that's why they joined the military they should be discharged with dishonor.
One of the best ways of supporting the troops is lobby the Pentagon and the V.A. to meet their obligations towards veterans, once the war is over. It is unfortunate how so many service personnel who risk everything in combat end up having to fight an often long and frustrating war against intransigent bureaucrats once they come back home.
Lets us hope that in the (likely) upcoming war against Iraq, all the troops return home safely, and soon. Even better, but unfortunately unrealistically, the weapons inspections and peaceful disarmamant of Iraq can be resumed, so our troops wont be ordered into harm's way.
My father was on the USS Coral Sea during Vietnam. In fact he was on it when I popped out of Mom After that he went to flight school and rose to command the VP-40 Squadron out of Moffet. (holly crap reading the history page is a part of my life) I find it funny that the stone marking my father grave reads "Vietnam" when I feel it should say "Cold War".
Anyway, stay safe, keep the sprits up, and here's hopin' you don't have to hot bunk!
I'm on the USS Enterprise CVN-65. And I never hot-rack on the surface! I only did that crap on submarines!!
You oppose the war, but you support the soldiers who wage the war? That's a farce, and you know it. Tell that to a leatherneck's face. Say this: "This war is a mistake and soldiers will die for no good reason, but I support you 100%!" Come back to me with his response.
Joining the military is a voluntary move. Soldiers believe in the cause or aren't morally opposed to it. If they were, they'd desert and face the consequences. If you truly are opposed to a war on Iraq, you should be opposed to the people that fight it.
Comments
how do you know that, did I miss a referendum or something?
Two-thirds of Americans support military action and the President's ultimatum. This is before the "bump" that will occur when fighting actually starts, too.
You may be riught, I don't know for sure (I guess you don't either) but neither of us should confuse our conviction that we are right with not being wrong and that's one purpose of protest, to test whats being claimed by presenting alternatives.
Well spoken. I just hope that protesters will really, really think about what alternatives they're presenting once the war begins, and how they are helping those alternatives to happen. Maybe I wouldn't be so cynical if I had seen even a single "candle-light vigil for Saddam to leave Iraq" out here in Seattle. But it sure seems to me that, once the war begins, an anti-(Bush/US)-war protest will be advocating a drawn-out, bloody war in which enough Americans and Iraqi civilians die to convince Bush to call the whole thing off, leaving Saddam in power claiming victory and ruthlessly re-consolidating his rule. And leaving thousands of American GI's dead with nothing to show for their sacrifice. If that's a protester's idea of a bright future, then by all means, protest.
I thought the NYTimes put it well in their masthead editorial today:
Once the fighting begins, every American will be thinking primarily of the safety of our troops, the success of their mission and the minimization of Iraqi civilian casualties. It will not feel like the right time for complaints about how America got to this point. Today is the right time.
I don't doubt that Sadaam's removal will present an opportunity for the Iraqi people to improve their lives, I do doubt and I'm cynical too, that they will have much of a say in their own future, or whether they consider their lives to be a reasonable price to pay for what they are likely to get.
How would our commitment to democracy stand up to the possibility (should that be their wish) of electing a leadership which comprised strict Muslim leaders with a mandate to found a contry based upon Muslim laws/teaching? (I believe the percieved threat of that possibility is what keeps us supporting the house of Saud).
I don't think this war is a war to liberate Iraq (though that would be a wonderful side effect if it came true..) and I don't believe that Sadaam presents a real danger to the West. The whole has a nasty ring of hypocrisy and deception about it. I hope that I am wrong.
Originally posted by Zarathustra
Anyone think that the Iraqi conscripts should follow the same honour code and obey the orders that they are given?
Sure. Then they would have to fight, just like the US troops who follow their orders. Except the Iraqi soldiers and magnitudes more likely to be killed during the fighting.
Originally posted by Zarathustra
Who was the US Govt representative responsible for the message to those guys that they should not just follow orders and remember that war crimes trials could follow any action in the Gulf?
Perhaps only our troops should blindly obey orders because only our leaders are infallable. Maybe as we know that we will win, we know we will be the ones conducting any trials afterwards - so it doesn't matter what we do.
Umm..gee...how does one even answer this shit? Here's an idea...soldier on both sides go ahead and decide for themselves if they should follow orders. Both sides will be answerable to their govenments for actions of desertion if they refuse to take part. hmmm think the Iraqi desserters will to account to Saddam after the war ? As for war crimes, of course Iraqi soldiers would be prosecuted if the commit war crimes. I am not sure that the US would order their troops to commit war crimes..perhaps you know better.
Whilst Iraq may be trying to develop so called weapons of mass destruction the US continues to develop and refuses to rule out the use of battlefield tactical nuclear weapons such as the recent device intended to target deep bunkers. Who is it that decides what is right and what is wrong.....the winner! 'You used XXX! That's not allowed, we said so, you've commited a war crime'
Are you suggesting that no war crimes have been committed by US troops? Vietnam anyone? if US commanders wouldn't order troops to commit war crimes and US troops wouldn't commit them why opt out of coming under the jurisdiction of permenant war crimes courts.
Hands up any country who doesn't want to be regulated by international law....
to quote badly Thucydides said 2.500 years that 'powerful states do what they have the power to do', it doesn't seem that much has changed.
Originally posted by Towel
They're just trying to avoid the uncomfortable fact that their anti-war (but pointedly NOT anti-Saddam) protests serve the interests of our troops' enemies and put our troops in greater danger. Saddam was quite explicit in expressing his delight at the widespread anti-war demonstrations a few weeks ago. More demonstrations after the war starts will encourage him, and the die-hards among his troops, that maybe if they kill enough GI's or get enough of their own people killedthey might actually win.
I'm not saying you should all be arrested. Say what you gotta say, it's a free country. But understand that "we support our troops, but..." is a fig leaf that is transparent even to your own subconscious.
Personally, I think that the protests should stop once the bombs start dropping. You did your best, and it was a noble effort, but you failed to convince either your President or a majority of your fellow citizens. At this point, everyone's interests (including the Iraqis) will be best served by a war as brief and bloodless as possible. So take that moral high ground and start protesting for the future of Iraq's new government, rather than against the efforts to depose its current one. Or even better, protest that we don't forget Afghanistan in the middle of all this. We have a long, long way to go in rebuilding that country, and no one seems too eager to spend the money to do it right. Protest that.
Originally posted by His Dudeness
I've been in the Navy now for almost 15 years. Pretty soon I'll be out deployed on an aircraft carrier. People in the military appreciate the support. They really do.
My father was on the USS Coral Sea during Vietnam. In fact he was on it when I popped out of Mom
Anyway, stay safe, keep the sprits up, and here's hopin' you don't have to hot bunk!
Originally posted by pscates
...their sole purpose to exist is to fight and wage war...
Wow is that twisted. Their sole purpose is to defend the country. That's almost exactly the opposite of what you claim.
Originally posted by Eugene
It's just funny to see anti-war lobbyists encouraging people to support the troops.
I think that's because you don't have the ability to comprehend the anti-war point of view. To someone that can't or doesn't understand, it would look hypocritical. To someone that can comprehend this point of view, it's crystal clear.
But that's not the question. The question is once we're AT war, should people protest for it to STOP - in victory for Saddam. Are you saying "Yes"? I'm really curious to hear how that will help protect our troops and the Iraqi people. How, exactly, do you "support" American troops in combat while encouraging their enemies to persevere? Please, help a poor dumb East-coast liberal understand.
Originally posted by tonton
BINGO!
Bing Crosby!
You don't think it's a bit superficial to claim both support of the troops and of the anti-war movement? You're not supporting the troops by being anti-war. You may feel sympathetic because they will be in harm's way, but that's not 'supporting the troops.' Support is more akin to belief (in what the troops are doing.)
Empathy isn't support.
Example: You can feel sympathy for Rachel Corrie and her family, but you don't necessarily have to support her cause just because.
I comprehend the situation perfectly. The question is: do you support the troops and their actions, or do you merely feel for them, tonton?
Originally posted by tonton
No. Once the war starts, it's too late. We can't go back. So we need to pray for a quick and peaceful end to the war through Saddam's surrender. That would be the only way out. Protests against the war should stop for the duration of the war.
After the war, calls for punitive action against the warmongers should be resumed with vigor. Ther should be calls for Bush to resign or face impeachment for ignoring international treaties, and those responsible for deaths - both directly and indirectly associated with the war (i.e. retaliatory terrorism)- should be held accountable.
In the least, Bush and his club should be elected out of office.
But that won't cancel the damage that already will have been done. The US will be arrogant villains in the eyes of the world for a very, very long time.
I think that was very eloquently put, and I hope it relfects the attitudes of most "anti-war" folk. In fact, if so, it would likely give Bush opponents renewed vigor and, especially, credibility after the war.
Originally posted by bunge
Wow is that twisted. Their sole purpose is to defend the country. That's almost exactly the opposite of what you claim.
Splitting hairs? Listen, fighting and engaging in war often IS "defending the country". But when time DOES come for military action, then - like it or not - that is indeed their job. Do you think they should be putting on song and dance revues and ladling out hot soup? They're the MILITARY. They fight. Jeez.
Why don't you think a little, or stop and re-read or think a bit more about what I wrote. Nothing "twisted" about it.
Nowhere did I say "going around and STARTING wars is the military's job and acting as the agressor is what we're all about...and that's good!". If YOU saw/read it that way, that's your problem.
We should just stay here in America and only fight when terrorists or other troublemakers attempt to march down our streets?
Don't ever tell me "what I claim". You have no earthly idea.
Originally posted by Eugene
The question is: do you support the troops and their actions...
That may be what the question is now because it more closely represents your point, but that's not was the question was.
Originally posted by pscates
Don't ever tell me "what I claim". You have no earthly idea.
I'm not telling you "what [you] claim" because you've posted it for us. Here's what you said: "...their sole purpose to exist is to fight and wage war..."
I disagree. Defending the nation is their sole purpose. Someone joining the military does so because they want to defend our nation not fight and wage war...kill people and break things. If that's why they joined the military they should be discharged with dishonor.
Originally posted by bunge
That may be what the question is now because it more closely represents your point, but that's not was the question was.
How do you support somebody, yet vehemently oppose his actions?
Originally posted by Eugene
How do you support somebody, yet vehemently oppose his actions?
Who said anything about opposing an individual's actions?
Lets us hope that in the (likely) upcoming war against Iraq, all the troops return home safely, and soon. Even better, but unfortunately unrealistically, the weapons inspections and peaceful disarmamant of Iraq can be resumed, so our troops wont be ordered into harm's way.
Originally posted by Scott
My father was on the USS Coral Sea during Vietnam. In fact he was on it when I popped out of Mom
Anyway, stay safe, keep the sprits up, and here's hopin' you don't have to hot bunk!
I'm on the USS Enterprise CVN-65. And I never hot-rack on the surface! I only did that crap on submarines!!
www.enterprise.navy.mil
Joining the military is a voluntary move. Soldiers believe in the cause or aren't morally opposed to it. If they were, they'd desert and face the consequences. If you truly are opposed to a war on Iraq, you should be opposed to the people that fight it.