NationStates Jolt Archive

Even if you are against the war in Iraq, I urge you to support the troops who are stationed there.

I say this because I saw a group of protestors spit at and cuss at a solider outside our statehouse the other day. They were calling him a baby killer and accusing him of raping the Iraqis of their freedom.

This solider had just returned from Iraq and was only trying to get home to his family.

When I saw this it made me so sick that I almost walked over and beat the crap out of the protestor, would have if a cop wasnt standing there.

No matter what your opinion of the war is, don't treat these poor soliders like crap. They deserve much better.

Remember its nt the soldiers fault that he/she is part of this war. So don't berate them, support them, they need it.

I support out troops. I feel sorry for them that they have to fight a war because of whatever Bush's real reasons are going to war with Iraq.

The best way to support our troops is to encourage the administration to bring them home.

I don't personally know a single person againt the war that has anything against the soldiers. But I know PLENTY of people against the war.

I say this because I saw a group of protestors spit at and cuss at a solider outside our statehouse the other day. They were calling him a baby killer...


deja vu all over again

I support the troops. My cousin was severely wounded in Iraq. Another one of my cousins was killed in Fallujah a few days ago, and my dad's in Iraq right now. I got into a fight with someone the other day in my neighborhood when he said the US troops should burn in hell. The soldiers are doing what their president is asking them to do. The troops are doing a great job protecting our country, and they don't deserve to be spit on.

I support the troops for one of our schools history teachers went over to Afganistan recently and then others I know have been in Iraq. It is a shame that the American People can't understand that the soldiers do not have much of a choice if they want to go or not, if their called, they go, serve the nation, and come back, easy as that. Besides support of our troops is dire for morale, we don't wan't another Vietnam.

Support our troops. Bring them home.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

I support the troops for one of our schools history teachers went over to Afganistan recently and then others I know have been in Iraq. It is a shame that the American People can't understand that the soldiers do not have much of a choice if they want to go or not, if their called, they go, serve the nation, and come back, easy as that. Besides support of our troops is dire for morale, we don't wan't another Vietnam.
Sure they have a choice. They can resign their commission. It's not like they were drafted into service.

Sure they have a choice. They can resign their commission. It's not like they were drafted into service.

"The stop-loss program allows the Services to retain individuals on active duty beyond their date of separation. Those affected by the order generally cannot retire or leave the service as long as reserves are called to active duty or until relieved by the President, whichever is earlier." - DoD News: DoD Authorizes Stop Loss ( http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/b09242001_bt454-01.html )

"Stop-loss allows DoD to involuntarily extend military members on active duty. Those subject to the order cannot retire or separate from the service. Exemptions include members being involuntarily discharged and those waived by their services because of specific circumstances.
Stop-loss also "freezes" reserve component personnel's status if they are currently on active duty or are called up in the future. For example, a reserve component member could not move to an inactive status." - DefenseLINK News: Air Force, Navy Move on Stop-Loss After Rumsfeld Gives OK ( http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/n09242001_200109249.html )

"The current stop-loss restrictions took effect Nov. 13 and cover active-duty soldiers while they are deployed outside the continental United States in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.
The restrictions bar voluntary separations and retirements for soldiers in designated units beginning 90 days before deployment until 90 days after their units return to their home stations.
In addition, the stop-movement policy essentially suspends the normal rotation of soldiers into and out of affected units." - DefenseLINK News: Army to Expand Stop-Loss Program ( http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2004/n01022004_200401023.html )



No, nobody was drafted into the war. They were just drafted back into it.

Even if you are against the war in Iraq, I urge you to support the troops who are stationed there.

I say this because I saw a group of protestors spit at and cuss at a solider outside our statehouse the other day. They were calling him a baby killer and accusing him of raping the Iraqis of their freedom.

This solider had just returned from Iraq and was only trying to get home to his family.

When I saw this it made me so sick that I almost walked over and beat the crap out of the protestor, would have if a cop wasnt standing there.

No matter what your opinion of the war is, don't treat these poor soliders like crap. They deserve much better.

Remember its nt the soldiers fault that he/she is part of this war. So don't berate them, support them, they need it.

"Supporting the troops" only keeps the war and killing to go on.

Why "support the troops" when they signed up to kill? They know what they were getting into when they signed up. If they were drafted, it would be different, but they specifically signed up for it.

The protestor was did nothing bad.

Sure they have a choice. They can resign their commission. It's not like they were drafted into service.

"The stop-loss program allows the Services to retain individuals on active duty beyond their date of separation. Those affected by the order generally cannot retire or leave the service as long as reserves are called to active duty or until relieved by the President, whichever is earlier." - DoD News: DoD Authorizes Stop Loss ( http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/b09242001_bt454-01.html )

"Stop-loss allows DoD to involuntarily extend military members on active duty. Those subject to the order cannot retire or separate from the service. Exemptions include members being involuntarily discharged and those waived by their services because of specific circumstances.
Stop-loss also "freezes" reserve component personnel's status if they are currently on active duty or are called up in the future. For example, a reserve component member could not move to an inactive status." - DefenseLINK News: Air Force, Navy Move on Stop-Loss After Rumsfeld Gives OK ( http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/n09242001_200109249.html )

"The current stop-loss restrictions took effect Nov. 13 and cover active-duty soldiers while they are deployed outside the continental United States in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.
The restrictions bar voluntary separations and retirements for soldiers in designated units beginning 90 days before deployment until 90 days after their units return to their home stations.
In addition, the stop-movement policy essentially suspends the normal rotation of soldiers into and out of affected units." - DefenseLINK News: Army to Expand Stop-Loss Program ( http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2004/n01022004_200401023.html )



No, nobody was drafted into the war. They were just drafted back into it.
Hmm, Bush&co have been busy I see.

Were you listening to The Rush Limbaugh show today? Rush wasn't on, in was Roger, but they played an audio clip of a speaker at an anti-war rally... She said that we should support the iraqi resistance and help them bomb the american troops, to scare the americans into leaving like what happened in vietnam.

I think what we need is a middle ground. I do NOT support the troops, but I also do not support spiting on them... If you do not support them then don't go welcome them home... simple as that... write a letter to your local government, and news paper, if your in school try and educate those around you on the facts of the situation, join an open debat in your community, but what does spitting do... makes those troops (who are coming home so are not even fighting anymore) know that your so smart and well educated on the war that you can spit at people....
I don't like that war but I show it in ways that will maybe do some good, and not make myself look like a red neck hypocrit (spelling)....

Do or Don't support the troops... but don't look like a moron.

The best way to support our troops is to encourage the administration to bring them home.


If we withdraw who will we leave in our wake? All you'll leave behind is a massive security vacuum which would probably lead either to a violent seizure of power by a party similar to the Baathists or even cause a civil war. Either way the bloodshed would be enormous and the undeniable hand of the US in such an occurence would doubtless be perceived across the whole of the Middle East and breed even more hostility toward the West than already exists. All of the lives lost thus far will be for nothing and all of the measures taken towards making Iraq a better place will be erased.

We're past the point of no return.

"Supporting the troops" only keeps the war and killing to go on. Why "support the troops" when they signed up to kill?


The idea that the soldier is the one responsible for war is false. Take for instance Switzerland. Every able bodied male Swiss citizen is a member of the Swiss military or is on reserve until age 60.

That country is quite literally filled to the brim with fully armed soldiers, who have access to their arms at all times in their own homes. That country has also never been involved in any modern war. This is because that country, filled up with people who supposedly "signed up to kill," has a long history, back to the founding of The Swiss Confederation in 1291, of military neutrality.

Switzerland is a country filled up with citizen soldiers who do everything possible to avoid war. As such, Switzerland is enough to explode the myth that all soldiers know is killing.

Instead, I'd say it is more likely that politicians who do not have to go onto the battlefield themselves, and who are not concerned with preventing bloodshed since their own blood is not at risk, are the ones who perpetrate war and killing.

Some of us anti-war people know who the real enemy is.

The best way to support our troops is to encourage the administration to bring them home.


If we withdraw who will we leave in our wake? All you'll leave behind is a massive security vacuum which would probably lead either to a violent seizure of power by a party similar to the Baathists or even cause a civil war. Either way the bloodshed would be enormous and the undeniable hand of the US in such an occurence would doubtless be perceived across the whole of the Middle East and breed even more hostility toward the West than already exists. All of the lives lost thus far will be for nothing and all of the measures taken towards making Iraq a better place will be erased.

We're past the point of no return.

Were you listening to The Rush Limbaugh show today? Rush wasn't on, in was Roger, but they played an audio clip of a speaker at an anti-war rally... She said that we should support the iraqi resistance and help them bomb the american troops, to scare the americans into leaving like what happened in vietnam.

This individuals willingness to use and support violence simply confirms that she really isn't anti-war at all.

I don't feel a need to "support troops," either Iraqi insurgents or American soldiers. Both have made a conscious decision to actively kill people (which is double unfortunate because those that become suicide bombers or join the US army tend to be of the lower class and there is an economic incentive to do both). To support troops, or insurgents for that matter, is wishing dead on the other side. That is something i refuse to do.

Support Our Troops :D many peple have died in Iraq :cry: but do you think its wrong fiting for our contry. we are stopping bad gys from doing bad things you have your ipinyoun I have mine. :wink:

I should support your troops?

Does that mean I should find a drugdealer so I can tell them where they can buy x and hashish when they ask me?

Saying all American troops are murderers is like saying all Americans are evil. It's stupid.

I, myself, am not American, so I have no idea how you feel. It's not an American war in Iraq, it's Bush's war. You Americans... I know some of you support him, but most of you disagree with him. Your soldiers are fighting cause it's their job. I support no one but a health end to this problems.

Saying all American troops are murderers is like saying all Americans are evil. It's stupid.

Troops, if involved in combat, have most likely killed people. Calling people who kill people murderers is entirely different than calling all americans evil. There is a clear causality with my statement that just doesn't exist with your statement. Actually, that's stupid :lol:

I should support your troops?

Does that mean I should find a drugdealer so I can tell them where they can buy x and hashish when they ask me?

What the hell are you talking about?

"Supporting the troops" only keeps the war and killing to go on. Why "support the troops" when they signed up to kill?


No one goes into this job wanting to kill people. Except maybe Marines and SEALS. The rest of us are here to defend our country. We accept that there are moral issues to deal with, and that we will kill if necessary, but we don't go looking for it, despite what stereotypes might suggest. The last thing I want to do is hit the fire button and drop that white phosphorus, but I will if it is asked of me.

We don't sign up to kill. We sign up to protect and ultimately to save lives.

"Supporting the troops" has nothing to do with the cause or the actions. All it means is to support the men and women who are sent to carry out orders whether they agree with them or not.

Saying all American troops are murderers is like saying all Americans are evil. It's stupid.

Troops, if involved in combat, have most likely killed people. Calling people who kill people murderers is entirely different than calling all americans evil. There is a clear causality with my statement that just doesn't exist with your statement. Actually, that's stupid :lol:So, they're supposed to throw their guns down in combat and die? :roll:

Why "support the troops" when they signed up to kill? They know what they were getting into when they signed up. If they were drafted, it would be different, but they specifically signed up for it.

The protestor was did nothing bad.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many of this great nation sign up for service to protect the rights of us all.
If you support them or not, that's your choice, but because of them, YOU are able to make that choice. Some soldiers pay the highest price for our freedom. So next time you holler out some anti slogan, you can thank them to.

So, they're supposed to throw their guns down in combat and die? :roll:

At that point, i was just making an observation, a soldier, irrespective of whether or not you agree with their actions, is a murderer

and since the ability to see th rest of the post didnt work, this is for the guy right under Langham, sure past troops have fought wars to protect freedom, World War 2 springs to mind, but they've also faught many more wars which have had no affect on my freedom, and adverse effects on the freedom of others, many more examples spring to mind in this category.

Madrigals, we can't pick and choose which fights we engage in. If we could, I bet you'd see significantly lower numbers in quite a few conflicts.

Madrigals, we can't pick and choose which fights we engage in. If we could, I bet you'd see significantly lower numbers in quite a few conflicts.

I don't wish death upon troops, i want that to be clear, but to actively support troups means that you
a) support the actions they're taking
b) support them over others which amounts to increasing the importance of one life or another

Armed intervention during WW2, i fully support
Interventions throughout latin america and asia during the cold war and Iraq now, those troops i do not support

So, they're supposed to throw their guns down in combat and die? :roll:

At that point, i was just making an observation, a soldier, irrespective of whether or not you agree with their actions, is a murderer


Legally and morally, "murder" is generally defined as the unjustified or unlawful taking of human life. While I won't deny that this has happened in any particular war, to suggest that the normal duty of armed combat is murder is wrong. Killing a real and armed enemy who is doing his best to do the same to you is NOT murder.

One can argue that a soldier commits homocide, but still, the legal and moral definition of "homocide" allows for certain situations in which this action is justifiable or excusable. Preserving one's own existance by neutralizing a real and eminant threat is certainly justifiable and excusable.

Madrigals, we can't pick and choose which fights we engage in. If we could, I bet you'd see significantly lower numbers in quite a few conflicts.

I don't wish death upon troops, i want that to be clear, but to actively support troups means that you
a) support the actions they're taking
b) support them over others which amounts to increasing the importance of one life or another

Armed intervention during WW2, i fully support
Interventions throughout latin america and asia during the cold war and Iraq now, those troops i do not support

Can I ask why? The objective was to take out hostile and oppressive governments, to provide better quality of life for the people who live there. Now whether that was successfully accomplished is another matter, but I fail to see a problem with the cause.

Madrigals, we can't pick and choose which fights we engage in. If we could, I bet you'd see significantly lower numbers in quite a few conflicts.

I don't wish death upon troops, i want that to be clear, but to actively support troups means that you
a) support the actions they're taking
b) support them over others which amounts to increasing the importance of one life or another

Armed intervention during WW2, i fully support
Interventions throughout latin america and asia during the cold war and Iraq now, those troops i do not support

Can I ask why? The objective was to take out hostile and oppressive governments, to provide better quality of life for the people who live there. Now whether that was successfully accomplished is another matter, but I fail to see a problem with the cause.

Overthrowing the democratically elected Allende and replacing him with Pinochet was improving the way of life?

Sadly, thte interventions of the coldwar had little to do with improving the quality of life but instead to ensure corporate interests in teh face of left leaning democratic governments who wanted to nationalize foreign owned industries.

Jesus, you people are anal retentive.

Calling someone a baby killer when they've just come out of a warzone is like making fun of someone whose mom has died.

They are there, we are stuck with fixing Iraq, pulling out will make Iraq a million times worse, support the troops, get the job done, and get them home.

Its the only friggin way

Assholes.

Yes, by all means I support the US troops in Iraq. Do I think they should be there?? No, but I do not blame them, they are simply following the orders givin. As a member of the Canadian Forces and as a CANADIAN I will always support US and any NATO or UN troops overseas. God Bless to them all and may they return home safely.

PS and as for the person who spit on that soldier, I agree, I would have wanted to smack them too, at least the soldier was the better person. And really, baby killer??? Cmon guys Vietnam is over, ya gotta think of something new!!!

All of you who agreed with the protestor make me sick.

The poor man was just trying to get home to his family.
How would you like it if that was your father, brother, sister, or someone else u loved. Think about that before you go insulting or spitting on ANY countrie armed forces.

All of you who agreed with the protestor make me sick.

The poor man was just trying to get home to his family.
How would you like it if that was your father, brother, sister, or someone else u loved. Think about that before you go insulting or spitting on ANY countrie armed forces.

All of you who agreed with the protestor make me sick.

The poor man was just trying to get home to his family.
How would you like it if that was your father, brother, sister, or someone else u loved. Think about that before you go insulting or spitting on ANY countrie armed forces.

That just doesn't float with me, use the same argument but put in a victim of "collateral damage" (A truly awful term) or even an enemy combatant (in the true non bush sense of the word).

I wouldn't spit on a member of an armed forces but i definetly wouldn't support them.

Better stop supporting Policemen, Firefighters, Paramedics, Surgeons, Coast Guard... pretty much anyone who has ever had a life in their hands or had to sacrifice one life for another.

So, they're supposed to throw their guns down in combat and die? :roll:

At that point, i was just making an observation, a soldier, irrespective of whether or not you agree with their actions, is a murderer

and since the ability to see th rest of the post didnt work, this is for the guy right under Langham, sure past troops have fought wars to protect freedom, World War 2 springs to mind, but they've also faught many more wars which have had no affect on my freedom, and adverse effects on the freedom of others, many more examples spring to mind in this category.

A soldier is a murderer?..not friggin likely...Charlie had just as much chance of killing me as I did him...murder?..that's a stretch.

Better stop supporting Policemen, Firefighters, Paramedics, Surgeons, Coast Guard... pretty much anyone who has ever had a life in their hands or had to sacrifice one life for another.
Had you ended it at policemen, you would have maintained your argument. Firefighters, paramedics, surgeons, and coast guards have not been given the right to murder (although anti abortionists would make the argument that doctors have). They are entrenched with the burden of protecting life.
Police, while being granted the right to kill, do protect citizens. Since WW2, when has a western army actually protected its citizens?
England in the Faulkland Islands, France and the US in Vietnam, Russia in Afgahnistan? (I suppose a strong argument coudl be made for the Israeli argument) These wars have not increased our liberty, nor have they helped the people they've occupied.

Better stop supporting Policemen, Firefighters, Paramedics, Surgeons, Coast Guard... pretty much anyone who has ever had a life in their hands or had to sacrifice one life for another.
Had you ended it at policemen, you would have maintained your argument. Firefighters, paramedics, surgeons, and coast guards have not been given the right to murder (although anti abortionists would make the argument that doctors have). They are entrenched with the burden of protecting life.
Police, while being granted the right to kill, do protect citizens. Since WW2, when has a western army actually protected its citizens?
England in the Faulkland Islands, France and the US in Vietnam, Russia in Afgahnistan? (I suppose a strong argument coudl be made for the Israeli argument) These wars have not increased our liberty, nor have they helped the people they've occupied.
Ah, so the Iraqis were better off under Saddam? Coulda fooled me.

So, they're supposed to throw their guns down in combat and die? :roll:

At that point, i was just making an observation, a soldier, irrespective of whether or not you agree with their actions, is a murderer

and since the ability to see th rest of the post didnt work, this is for the guy right under Langham, sure past troops have fought wars to protect freedom, World War 2 springs to mind, but they've also faught many more wars which have had no affect on my freedom, and adverse effects on the freedom of others, many more examples spring to mind in this category.

A soldier is a murderer?..not friggin likely...Charlie had just as much chance of killing me as I did him...murder?..that's a stretch.

Armies, especially non conscription ones where it is a conscious choice, by definition of their actions, are a group of killers. That is a matter of fact. You referred to"Charlie," which from what i understand is a vietnam reference (why i do not know, if i'm wrong, i do appologize). The US had no business being there in the firts place.
The army is just state sanctioned murder.

Better stop supporting Policemen, Firefighters, Paramedics, Surgeons, Coast Guard... pretty much anyone who has ever had a life in their hands or had to sacrifice one life for another.
Had you ended it at policemen, you would have maintained your argument. Firefighters, paramedics, surgeons, and coast guards have not been given the right to murder (although anti abortionists would make the argument that doctors have). They are entrenched with the burden of protecting life.
Police, while being granted the right to kill, do protect citizens. Since WW2, when has a western army actually protected its citizens?
England in the Faulkland Islands, France and the US in Vietnam, Russia in Afgahnistan? (I suppose a strong argument coudl be made for the Israeli argument) These wars have not increased our liberty, nor have they helped the people they've occupied.
Ah, so the Iraqis were better off under Saddam? Coulda fooled me.

I really didn't want this to turn into another Iraqi war debate.
I don't ahve much confidence in teh US ability to put people above profit. Ignoring historical examples, look at Afgahnistan. Northern Alliance is not much better than the Taliban (who's powerbase is increasing again). Opium sales are at an all time high and the country is a warzone, same thing in Iraq, where the whole fricking country has been privatized and sold to foreign interests. Can't have a democracy when you don't control your own economy. That war was never about human rights.

(But Iraq is all this forum ever argues, can we please continue along this debate).

Madrigals, we can't pick and choose which fights we engage in. If we could, I bet you'd see significantly lower numbers in quite a few conflicts.

I don't wish death upon troops, i want that to be clear, but to actively support troups means that you
a) support the actions they're taking
b) support them over others which amounts to increasing the importance of one life or another

Armed intervention during WW2, i fully support
Interventions throughout latin america and asia during the cold war and Iraq now, those troops i do not support

Can I ask why? The objective was to take out hostile and oppressive governments, to provide better quality of life for the people who live there. Now whether that was successfully accomplished is another matter, but I fail to see a problem with the cause.
ALL war is wrong. Sometimes though it is necessary, such was the case in WW 1 and WW 2.

Having said that, this war in Iraq is not only wrong, but immoral. Not that the soldiers are immoral, but the reasons for the war in the first place is immoral.

Iraq was NOT hostile to the US. They might not like Americans but they were not involved in 9-11 (most of those were Saudis). WMD were non existent. Their air force was a zero factor because the US has been bombing Iraq installations for the past 14 years, and the US controlled the air space thanks to two no fly zones.

There are many hostile and oppressive regimes in the world. Is it the job of the US to change this? If so, who gave America the job? The UN sure didn't. All this war is doing, is making more problems for the people of America.

If you think Americans are being received with open arms in Iraq, check out this web site (gruesome content).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4551230/

Also check out this article:

Poor morale and high suicide rates point to big problems for troops in Iraq

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4632956/

The Middle East is a powder keg waiting to explode and now America is caught in the middle. Is the cost worth it?

Best bet-----establish a provisional government and get out quick!!