NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I keep hearing people who say that they support our troops but don't support the war.......I don't understand.

Okay, I can understand not supporting the war, but how exactly are you supporting the troops when you don't agree with what they are doing, or even think that what they are doing is harmful.

Someone made the statement this week that "I don't support any war, least of all the war in Iraq, but I support our troops and I respect them for what they are doing"

if you respect them for what they are doing don't you also have to respect what they are doing?

:confused:

if you respect them for what they are doing don't you also have to respect what they are doing?

:confused:

Nope ;)

Nope ;)
and how exactly does that work?

I don't think most people support the troops. They just say so because they are expected to say so.

Which is sort of sad, when people fear bad consequences if they say what they really think.

So, I keep hearing people who say that they support our troops but don't support the war.......I don't understand.

Okay, I can understand not supporting the war, but how exactly are you supporting the troops when you don't agree with what they are doing, or even think that what they are doing is harmful.

Someone made the statement this week that "I don't support any war, least of all the war in Iraq, but I support our troops and I respect them for what they are doing"

if you respect them for what they are doing don't you also have to respect what they are doing?

:confused:I support the troops, but don't support the war. It is as simple as this: They didn't make the choice to go to war. I support them by fighting to bring them home safe. They didn't make the decision to go to war, didn't ask to be stationed in Iraq, etc.

I don't think most people support the troops. They just say so because they are expected to say so.

Which is sort of sad, when people fear bad consequences if they say what they really think.
yeah, I get that feeling too.

I think it's kinda like when people say they are Christian hoping that the Christians will leave them alone.

I have talked to so many people who say "oh, yeah, I am Christian, and you know believe in Jesus and all, but I don't really think that like anyone is going to hell because that's not fair, but yeah I believe in the Bible."

:rolleyes:

It's a multilayered thing. The troops are people who, for a variety of reasons, chose military service. I respect that choice. One consequence is, they do what they are told. So, even if I don't like what they've been told to do, I still support them as people doing a job many (including myself) choose not to.

I feel when people say that they are trying to say they dissaprove of the war, but are trying to avoid people of a more hawkish disposition claiming that they are 'unpatriotic because they don't support the troops'. Why you have to agree with what your leaders are telling the troops to do, in order to have respect for the troops and what they do - that's what I don't understand.

For the record, I have no more 'respect' for 'the troops' than I do for the Police/Firemen/Mountain Rescue, less, perhaps.

and how exactly does that work?

You don't support what they are doing, but you don't wish death upon them either.

I personally feel people are afraid to speak out against the military including the troops because they would be deemed ''enemies of the State'' and rounded on by everyone, 'traitor', 'unpatriotic' etc etc.

I support the troops, but don't support the war. It is as simple as this: They didn't make the choice to go to war. I support them by fighting to bring them home safe. They didn't make the decision to go to war, didn't ask to be stationed in Iraq, etc.

so, basically you just don't want them to die?

I am not trying to be annoying I just really don't understand how people can say

"oh, you are a baby killer, but I respect your service, even though the military is murdering people who didn't ask to be saved"

not that you personally said that, but that's the type of thing I hear, I think that they think that if they don't say it all in one breath like that, that I won't catch it, but I do.

and how exactly does that work?
War = Baaaaaaad. Stupid republicans! Fart in your general direction!
Troops = They're there for a stupid reason yet they are fighting to protect us and putting their lives on the line. They arent there being lazy jackoffs, they're doing their job. Therefore.. Troops = Yay!

Is there an answer in there?

So, I keep hearing people who say that they support our troops but don't support the war.......I don't understand.

Okay, I can understand not supporting the war, but how exactly are you supporting the troops when you don't agree with what they are doing, or even think that what they are doing is harmful.

Someone made the statement this week that "I don't support any war, least of all the war in Iraq, but I support our troops and I respect them for what they are doing"

if you respect them for what they are doing don't you also have to respect what they are doing?

:confused:
Its simple, they are being typical liberal hypocrites. They say they support troops in one breath but will call them baby killers in the next.

I don't think most people support the troops. They just say so because they are expected to say so.

Which is sort of sad, when people fear bad consequences if they say what they really think.
There is a reason why the military is there. To protect the citizens of any given country. I hold the belief that many of the troops join out of the love of their country and not for a war that they are being misled into. I am against the politicians who put our troops into harms way for dubious reasons. Therefore, I support the troops and not the war.

It's pretty easy to understand.

I respect the fact that American troops are putting their lives on the line in Iraq. This does not imply that I believe that the war in Iraq was a good decision on the part of our leaders.

Or, to put it in somewhat shorter form similar to that used by one of my family members: "I support the troops. I don't support the leaders who put them in Iraq in the first place."

Well, I look at it this way: not supporting the war is still supporting the troops, because part of the reason I don't support the war is that I don't think Americans should be killed for the reasons they're currently being killed for. I think the troops should be brought home now, so no more of them die. How can you be more supportive than that?

It's a multilayered thing. The troops are people who, for a variety of reasons, chose military service. I respect that choice. One consequence is, they do what they are told. So, even if I don't like what they've been told to do, I still support them as people doing a job many (including myself) choose not to.

so you respect them because they are doing something you don't want to? like you would respect the guy who cleans out the sewer?


okay, sorry.

new question, because maybe I am more confused than what I previously believed

What does it mean to "support the troops"?

so you respect them because they are doing something you don't want to? like you would respect the guy who cleans out the sewer?


okay, sorry.

new question, because maybe I am more confused than what I previously believed

What does it mean to "support the troops"?
To provide them with good training, adequate supplies, have them fight for reasons necessary for the good of the citizens and to grant them the respect and honor they deserve when they come home.

and how exactly does that work?
George Orwell called it "double-think." The far left has it down to a science.

What does it mean to "support the troops"?
To stand behind them and what they do no matter what and their commander in chief. If your not doing that chances are you hate America and the war.

so, basically you just don't want them to die?

I am not trying to be annoying I just really don't understand how people can say

"oh, you are a baby killer, but I respect your service, even though the military is murdering people who didn't ask to be saved"

not that you personally said that, but that's the type of thing I hear, I think that they think that if they don't say it all in one breath like that, that I won't catch it, but I do.
Well, I personally have several friends who are either currently, formerly, or will soon be in the forces, as well as many in ROTC programs...so clearly would not call them baby killers, or want them to die :)

However, I respect them because they are put in a situation I would never want. Being in war, having to kill or be killed, all that...I know it isn't easy. For that reason, I respect them. In the case of Iraq, I don't agree with why they are there, but that is an issue with the current admin and congress, not the men and women fighting. If they were in Darfur, I would support both their cause and the people themselves. Iraq, I just support the individuals in the forces. Does that make sense?

so, basically you just don't want them to die?

I am not trying to be annoying I just really don't understand how people can say

"oh, you are a baby killer, but I respect your service, even though the military is murdering people who didn't ask to be saved"

not that you personally said that, but that's the type of thing I hear, I think that they think that if they don't say it all in one breath like that, that I won't catch it, but I do.

Well, personally, I don't support any soldiers who deliberately and knowingly kill babies (or civilians of any sort). I don't support Lynndie England or her ilk, either. But I have nothing whatsoever against soldiers in general, and respect them as much as I'd respect anyone performing a difficult and dangerous job.

To stand behind them and what they do no matter what and their commander in chief. If your not doing that chances are you hate America and the war.
And you would say that if there were a far left wing liberal who became Commander in Chief?

Why am I egged on by you so much?

What does it mean to "support the troops"?
supporting the troops is supporting the individual men and women who make up the military. For example, overall, I support the troops. I'm trying to think of a good analogy and cant think of any, but if I come up with a good one, I'll let you know.

George Orwell called it "double-think." The far left has it down to a science.
The far left? I could say the same about the far right.

George Orwell called it "double-think." The far left has it down to a science.

You're turning into Bill O' Reilly methinks.

Question the troops for an instant and you're called 'far left'. :rolleyes:

George Orwell called it "double-think." The far left has it down to a science.
George Orwell called it a complex thought process, just like everyone else.

And you would say that if there were a far left wing liberal who became Commander in Chief?

Why am I egged on by you so much?
1. That will never happen
2. I dont know

George Orwell called it "double-think." The far left has it down to a science.
they also have proganda and media control down to a science too.

so you respect them because they are doing something you don't want to? like you would respect the guy who cleans out the sewer?

Yep. That sums it up quite well.

George Orwell called it "double-think." The far left has it down to a science.
If you had read the book recently, you would then have to accept that the far left genuinely cares for the troops.
I assume you don't believe that.

Why am I egged on by you so much?
Because he delivers ammunition to the likes of me? ;)

they also have proganda and media control down to a science too.
nonono...thats the illuminati and the jews, respectively.:rolleyes:

if you respect them for what they are doing don't you also have to respect what they are doing?

:confused:

That's silly. Support for people doesn't mean agreeing with what they do. I beleive that many of them made the choice to join the military with the best intentions for friends, family, and nation. That doesn't mean I think what they do is actually good, but I am grateful that they are generous enough to try and help.

I support them as people, I don't want them to die, I'll make an honest effort to stop their abuse by the militaristic right, and I try to do what I can to help friends with family overseas. That doesn't mean I want the military to be misused and abused by the right for their unjustifiable crusades.

Do you think that just because I think that the Iraq war is wrong that I want every soldier dead?

You're turning into Bill O' Reilly methinks.

Question the troops for an instant and you're called 'far left'. :rolleyes:
Thats because questioning the troops who just do what they are told is un-American and not very respectful.

1. That will never happen
2. I dont know
WHAT IF IT HAPPENS? ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I can assure you that I am consistent in my hatred of the war and the troops.

Thats because questioning the troops who just do what they are told is un-American and not very respectful.
I'm almost certain you're a puppet.

If your confusion leads to prebid... leave it to the nort and don't even think the second one who may take your place as the third one from the second placer...

Thats because questioning the troops who just do what they are told is un-(GERMAN) and not very respectful.

Now, who does that sound like? :eek:

Thats because questioning the troops who just do what they are told is un-American and not very respectful.

Suits me.

If your confusion leads to prebid... leave it to the nort and don't even think the second one who may take your place as the third one from the second placer...
I agree fully.

WHAT IF IT HAPPENS? ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I will cross that bridge when we come to it.

Now, who does that sound like? :eek:

Eut? :p

Is that a subtle violation of Godwin's law?

Now, who does that sound like? :eek:
you misquoted me

I will cross that bridge when we come to it.
So, you're saying you might not support the commander in chief.

I don't particularly agree with the reasons our troops were sent there in the first place, and I don't agree with many of our president's decisions.

HOWEVER, I do agree that we cannot just pull out of there willy-nilly; I believe that the vast majority of soldiers there are doing a dangerous job to the best of their ability in order to protect the US and to improve the lives of people in Iraq (whether they are successful at it is a matter of open debate at the moment) and I believe that the vast majority of soldiers are decent people and not abusive little sociopaths like the morons at Abu Ghraib.

I do wish they would get the materials they need to remain safe.
I don't wish them ill and I do wish them home safely and soon.
And when the hell is Sheehan's 15 minutes of fame going to be up? ;)

I'm almost certain you're a puppet.
He leaves that sort of impression, doesn't he.

But I'm pretty sure he's for real. He's even had his own puppet agreeing with him. :D

Thats because questioning the troops who just do what they are told is un-American and not very respectful.
a) nothing in inherently "American" nor is anything inherently "un-American". McCarthyism is SO last season.

Second, they are still able to make their own judgements, and are still able to tell that torturing someone or killing a civilian who has done nothing is wrong.

I do not support the troops in an unjust war with a volunteer military.

Drafted? Fine, you had little choice. There's a difference, though.

If you volunteered to go do this little activity currently going on, though, I do not support that. You are not doing anything for me, my freedoms, or my general well-being. Iraq was never a threat to the United States or to anyone for that matter. Saddam was an asshole, but hardly a global threat. A few kurds getting gassed doesn't stop me from being able to vote or eat McDonald's or buy a new car whenever I need one.

Not since WWII has a war been fought to protect our freedoms. Hitler was a mad man bent on world domination and needed to be stopped. Vietnam? Forget it ... the Communist North took over anyway and, guess what, I still have freedom of speech. Zowie. The Communist menace did not strip me of my Constitution and my basic rights - even though people like Lyndon Johnson and Sen. Thomas Dodd had the country convinced that a Communist South Vietnam would - and the US Military had nothing to do with that. I do feel sorry for the men who served in that god-awful mess because many of them were drafted and had absolutely no clue what they were getting themselves into.

Now we know better.

I see a soldier volunteering for this mess now as being no better than someone who takes up smoking after it having been proven extremely bad for you. I just shake my head and say, "Well ... good luck with that."

you misquoted me

Yup. I changed your quote (NOTE THE PARENTHESES AND CAPS) to expose you as a fascist ;)

See, I never understood how people wouldn't understand that.

I'm not American, so I don't have to "support the troops" or anything. But for me it's certainly always the case that I have a lot of empathy for the soldiers, even though I may absolutely condemn the reason they're fighting for. Now, I'm aware that many soldiers couldn't care less for any "empathy" of someone who thinks they're not doing something worthwhile, but there's two things really:

1) I'm not so sure I'd want to use "respect". I mean, I obviously don't respect them any less than anybody else; and if they happen to perform very bravely in a specific situation, I may respect them for that, but I'm not inclined at all to respect soldiers in general more just because they're soldiers. To be honest, in RL, on first glance I'd rather be turned off by anyone who told me that he volunteered for the military because he wanted to fight for his country (yeah, I guess it#s pretty obvious that I'm not American...). There's also too many assholes (just like in everyday civilian life) who are soldiers and who behave utterly disgusting, so I don#t see how they deserve my respect any more than any asshole behaving that way at home (plus, they're likely to behave even worse in war, just because they can).

2) I do think that war is something that should be avoided at all cost and is inherently destructive not only for the people it is waged upon but also for the people fighting it. So I honestly first of all feel sorry for soldiers in a war zone (again, I'm pretty sure they'd tell me to take my sorry and shove it, but that's how it is). Maybe it's because I've read too much during the course of my studies about war trauma, and post traumatic stress disorder, and what war can do to you, how it can turn you into something you never thought you could become and wished you never had to see.
God, I once was writing a big term paper on soldiers' "going crazy", what one author called their "berserk rage", and I ended up not writing it. I did so much research, and read, and read, and I had so much material, and so many quotes of veterans of wars ranging from the American Civil War to the two World Wars, to Korea, Vietnam, and up to the first Gulf War, that would bring tears to your eyes just reading them because you would stand speechless in the face of the horror that war is and the power it has to utterly destroy people's lives.
I had all this material and I couldn't write it. It was so much, and I just could not find any way to limit myself to only some sources, because it was so damn important. I felt like I had to do these stories justice, and didn't see how I could.
And yes, I know that sounds utterly pathetic, because who gives a shit about a stupid term paper, but that's how it was.

I remember when I was pretty new here Eutrusca misunderstood something I had posted as having been disrespectful towards war memorials. And while it was cleared up, I felt horrible. Just horrible. I mean, I don't know what people expect when they say "How can you support the troops if don't support the war?" - the troops are the men and women out there somewhere fighting , if they want to or not, if they believe in it or not, and of course I support them. Do you think I want to see them dead?

I don't particularly agree with the reasons our troops were sent there in the first place, and I don't agree with many of our president's decisions.

HOWEVER, I do agree that we cannot just pull out of there willy-nilly; I believe that the vast majority of soldiers there are doing a dangerous job to the best of their ability in order to protect the US and to improve the lives of people in Iraq (whether they are successful at it is a matter of open debate at the moment) and I believe that the vast majority of soldiers are decent people and not abusive little sociopaths like the morons at Abu Ghraib.

I do wish they would get the materials they need to remain safe.
I don't wish them ill and I do wish them home safely and soon.
And when the hell is Sheehan's 15 minutes of fame going to be up? ;)hear, hear!

Thats because questioning the troops who just do what they are told is un-American and not very respectful.

Have you read US history? this nation got its start by rebelling against King George because the government was seen as unjust....

Questioning the government is VERY American -- or have you not read the Declaration of Independence? how about the Constitution of the US? I suggest the Bill of Rights as a good place to start....

I do not support the troops in an unjust war with a volunteer military.

Drafted? Fine, you had little choice. There's a difference, though.

If you volunteered to go do this little activity currently going on, though, I do not support that. You are not doing anything for me, my freedoms, or my general well-being. Iraq was never a threat to the United States or to anyone for that matter. Saddam was an asshole, but hardly a global threat. A few kurds getting gassed doesn't stop me from being able to vote or eat McDonald's or buy a new car whenever I need one.

Not since WWII has a war been fought to protect our freedoms. Hitler was a mad man bent on world domination and needed to be stopped. Vietnam? Forget it ... the Communist North took over anyway and, guess what, I still have freedom of speech. Zowie. The Communist menace did not strip me of my Constitution and my basic rights - even though people like Lyndon Johnson and Sen. Thomas Dodd had the country convinced that a Communist South Vietnam would - and the US Military had nothing to do with that. I do feel sorry for the men who served in that god-awful mess because many of them were drafted and had absolutely no clue what they were getting themselves into.

Now we know better.

I see a soldier volunteering for this mess now as being no better than someone who takes up smoking after it having been proven extremely bad for you. I just shake my head and say, "Well ... good luck with that."
I also think there needs to be a line drawn between those who joined only to fight the war, and those who joined to either get an education or job training.

Have you read US history? this nation got its start by rebelling against King George because the government was seen as unjust....

Questioning the government is VERY American -- or have you not read the Declaration of Independence? how about the Constitution of the US? I suggest the Bill of Rights as a good place to start....
I'm not exactly sure he can read. I think he just copies words out of Ann Coulter books.

He leaves that sort of impression, doesn't he.

I dont know why, I just state my opinion like everyone else.

Yup. I changed your quote (NOTE THE PARENTHESES AND CAPS) to expose you as a fascist ;)
name calling is a last resort for people with no argument.

I dont know why, I just state my opinion like everyone else.
According to Desperate Measures, you just state Ann Coulters opinion. :eek: I think we've rumbled you.

The far left? I could say the same about the far right.
As could I. Stupidity knows no boundaries.

name calling is a last resort for people with no argument.

Touche, tho I'm too lazy to post an argument about why fascism is bad.

As could I. Stupidity knows no boundaries.
Agreed.

It's a multilayered thing. The troops are people who, for a variety of reasons, chose military service. I respect that choice. One consequence is, they do what they are told. So, even if I don't like what they've been told to do, I still support them as people doing a job many (including myself) choose not to.

Now, there's an argument with a long history of legal effectiveness:

"Sorry I was complicit in crimes against humanity in the Second World War, Mr. Nuremberg prosecutors, but I was only following orders! <smile>".

That worked really well, didn't it?

Even people who live and work within a hierarchical system can still follow their conscience and disobey what they consider to be immoral orders. A British SAS soldier was recently given the equivalent of an honourable discharge despite refusing to serve any longer in what he considered to be an illegal war in Iraq (though cynics might think that the SAS were clever enough not to draw unwanted publicity by throwing the book at him). Small numbers of Israeli soldiers regularly refuse to serve in the West Bank and Gaza when they consider the Israeli occupation to be illegal. Clearly it's possible for soldiers to ignore what they consider immoral actions.

But the basic paradox here is that the armed forces - through their need for unquestioned obedience on the field of battle - actively discourage independent thinking on the morality of a soldier's actions.

I thought the war was immoral and profoundly un-Christian, and I don't support people who carry out immoral orders just because they were told to do so. Last time I checked, the 6th commandment said 'though shalt not kill', not 'though shalt not kill unless thy superior officer tells you to'.


<just realised I'm logged in with my puppet. If it matters, I usually post with The Archregimancy.>

name calling is a last resort for people with no argument.

I don't see it as name calling; I saw it as pointing out a very similar mindset.

I also think there needs to be a line drawn between those who joined only to fight the war, and those who joined to either get an education or job training.

Heh ... I'm reminded of a line in Jarhead where the drill instructor asks, "What the fuck are you doing in my Corp?"

"I guess I got lost on the way to college, sir!"

It was funny.

I can assure you that I am consistent in my hatred of the war and the troops.
This comes as no surprise to anyone who has read your previous rants.

"Sorry I was complicit in crimes against humanity in the Second World War, Mr. Nuremberg prosecutors, but I was only following orders! <smile>".

That worked really well, didn't it?

Oh come on ... we're not talking about Nazis here. Our men and women aren't over there driving Jews into gas chambers or setting up forced labor camps where medical experiments are being carried out.

Not even Jane Fonda would go that far.

I call Godwin.

Eut? :p

Is that a subtle violation of Godwin's law?
Not at all, and yes.

Heh ... I'm reminded of a line in Jarhead where the drill instructor asks, "What the fuck are you doing in my Corp?"

"I guess I got lost on the way to college, sir!"

It was funny.
haha...I still have to see that.
The only reason I ask is because I do have so many friends who are ROTC and that is the only reason they can afford to be here

According to Desperate Measures, you just state Ann Coulters opinion. :eek: I think we've rumbled you.
Ann Coulter is hot and right on most issues

... they are still able to make their own judgements, and are still able to tell that torturing someone or killing a civilian who has done nothing is wrong.
I agree. And failure to DISobey an UNlawful order can result in a General Court Martial and many, many years of incarceration.

Ann Coulter is hot and right on most issues
oddly enough, I agree completely.

assuming you don't mean "right" as in correct.

oddly enough, I agree completely.

assuming you don't mean "right" as in correct.
Yes, I did mean correct

"We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril." - John F. Kennedy, Oct. 22, 1962.

The War in Iraq was never a war about American freedoms or rights, except in the abstract. The war was about three things - stopping Saddam from developing WMDs (or removing the ones he had), removing Saddam from power and helping to establish a functioning democracy within the heart of the middle east. Those are all legitimate goals. At the same time, you can't ignore the fact that Iraq controls a significant amount of oil and that oil is a vital national security resource to the US. Control of vital resources has always been a casus bellum since the start of recorded history. It's the reason the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor.

Whether or not you agree that Saddam was a threat to the US, no one can claim that he wasn't a threat to the other states in the region, and to his own people. He'd attacked two of his neighbors, as well as Israel. Containment wasn't working - it was merely delaying the inevitable. He was going to resume all the crap he had been doing pre-1991 as soon as the sanctions were gone. That in and of itself is enough to justify us taking action.

I can't believe that some folks here think that sending troops to Darfur is a legitimate use of American military power, but sending them to Iraq is not. Troops in Darfur would be a strictly humanitarian mission, unlike Iraq, which has a variety of interests including humanitarian. That people would be willing to support the spilling of American blood there and not in Iraq strikes me as contradictory.

I understand why some people say they support the troops but not the war, but in the end, that attitude is just a mere platitude. Whether or not you agree with the reasons the war began, America is at war, and it is a war we can't afford to lose. Support the troops and support your country. If you don't like the politicians who started the war, vote them out when they're up for relection. But don't claim that you support the troops but you don't care if they lose what they're fighting for. No one wants to think they or their comrades died for no reason, and that's exactly what that message conveys.

haha...I still have to see that.

See it ... pretty good flick.

The only reason I ask is because I do have so many friends who are ROTC and that is the only reason they can afford to be here

Yes, and I agree. I just wish our country would afford all men and women that same opportunity without forcing them to do the unspeakable. I understand poverty ... I've been poor ... and not "I can't buy DVDs until they're in the $10 bin" poor, but serious "government cheese" and "you best learn to grow food, boy, cuz we can't afford it" poor. I also understand that the military appeals to those in dire need of such an opportunity.

I just wish it didn't have to be that way.

Oh come on ... we're not talking about Nazis here. Our men and women aren't over there driving Jews into gas chambers or setting up forced labor camps where medical experiments are being carried out.

Not even Jane Fonda would go that far.

I call Godwin.

OK, on as my usual self now.

Fair enough point that calls for clarification on my part.

I'm not making the mistake of claiming absolute moral comparability between the actions of the Third Reich and the actions of the allies in Iraq. I recognise the distinction between the two.

I am, however, using an extreme example to emphasise that 'just following orders' isn't an adequate defence for carrying out an immoral action just because you were told to do so.

Which last time I checked is a rhetorical technique with more than 2000 years worth of tradition.

I agree. And failure to DISobey an UNlawful order can result in a General Court Martial and many, many years of incarceration.

Thank you! This distinction, between lawful and unlawful orders, is the difference between rational service and the "Nuremburg" defense.

/salute Eutrusca

I agree. And failure to DISobey an UNlawful order can result in a General Court Martial and many, many years of incarceration.
There was actually a study up here a while ago...participants were asked to read general knowledge questions to people sitting in electric chairs (the people in the chairs were actors). If the answer was wrong, they were to shock the person. Each wrong answer resulted in a higher voltage, well into the fatal level. Almost every person who participated was more than willing to deliver a fatal shock for wrong answers. Their reasoning? "I was just doing what I was told".

God, I once was writing a big term paper on soldiers' "going crazy", what one author called their "berserk rage", and I ended up not writing it. I did so much research, and read, and read, and I had so much material, and so many quotes of veterans of wars ranging from the American Civil War to the two World Wars, to Korea, Vietnam, and up to the first Gulf War, that would bring tears to your eyes just reading them because you would stand speechless in the face of the horror that war is and the power it has to utterly destroy people's lives.

I had all this material and I couldn't write it. It was so much, and I just could not find any way to limit myself to only some sources, because it was so damn important. I felt like I had to do these stories justice, and didn't see how I could.

And yes, I know that sounds utterly pathetic, because who gives a shit about a stupid term paper, but that's how it was.

I remember when I was pretty new here Eutrusca misunderstood something I had posted as having been disrespectful towards war memorials. And while it was cleared up, I felt horrible. Just horrible. I mean, I don't know what people expect when they say "How can you support the troops if don't support the war?" - the troops are the men and women out there somewhere fighting , if they want to or not, if they believe in it or not, and of course I support them. Do you think I want to see them dead?
:fluffle:

You're a good woman. ( And you still have a great voice! ) :)

There was actually a study up here a while ago...participants were asked to read general knowledge questions to people sitting in electric chairs (the people in the chairs were actors). If the answer was wrong, they were to shock the person. Each wrong answer resulted in a higher voltage, well into the fatal level. Almost every person who participated was more than willing to deliver a fatal shock for wrong answers. Their reasoning? "I was just doing what I was told".
I know of that study. All it proves is that we all need to guard very carefully our respose to what we percieve as "legitimate authority." It takes courage to stand up for what you know to be right, but history is changed by people who do that very thing.

OK, here's an example. Unlike many Republicans(or at least from my impressions) I support and respect the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, I was very, very unhappy with the Kelo v. New London ruling.

Does it lessen my respect for them? I don't think so. Dies it make me want to encourage legislation against eminent domain? Yes.

Whether or not you agree with the reasons the war began, America is at war, and it is a war we can't afford to lose.

Yet it is a war you (pl) can never win either....


Support the troops and support your country.

And damn you if you start thinking! Don't dare try to question! Tow the damn line!

:fluffle:

You're a good woman.
Thank you. I always feel like a big bleeding heart jerk when I talk about this and actually started welling up even when typing this, so thanks. :fluffle:

so what does it mean to support the troops if you support the war? does it mean that they can do no wrong? that you are OK with them being there for the next 10 years? that when the death toll for military dead gets to 58,000 youll happily put up a wall?

it goes both ways.

for most people who oppose the war, supporting the troops means you dont blame them for the bad things that happen. that you dont want them to feel like the vietnam vets felt when they got home, that everyone hated them for participating in a stupid useless war.

we have a professional military doing an excellent job in extremely tough circumstances. we should all be proud of the job they do even if the war is stupid. things would be much worse if our men and women werent doing their jobs so well.

Yet it is a war you (pl) can never win either....


Nonsense.

And damn you if you start thinking! Don't dare try to question! Tow the damn line!

Questioning is fine. Voting against the people who made the decision to go to war is fine. Those are legitimate stances. But don't spout mealy-mouthed platitudes about supporting the troops but not the war. Either you support the troops and what they fight for, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

I don't have a problem with people saying they want us to lose the war - they're entitled to their opinion. And I am entitled to thinking they are mental midgets. Just be honest about it.

Ann Coulter is hot and right on most issues
Ann Coulter is haggard looking and makes Gengis Khan look like Teddy Kennedy. She's still funny, though. :D

*snip*
If it isn't about our security, or isn't a UN/NATO action, we have no business being there.

I know of that study. All it proves is that we all need to guard very carefully our respose to what we percieve as "legitimate authority." It takes courage to stand up for what you know to be right, but history is changed by people who do that very thing.
Definatly. Just look at My Lai.
It makes me happy to know my teacher (who participated in the study) went up to the person running it, said "this is wrong in every possible way" and spit on him. Never delivered a single shock.

If it isn't about our security, or isn't a UN/NATO action, we have no business being there.

There are plenty of arguments as to why its about our security, but they are all abstract. And Israel is a non-NATO ally, and we would defend them if they were attacked, as we did Kuwait, and as we would many of the states within that region.

Ann Coulter is haggard looking and makes Gengis Khan look like Teddy Kennedy. She's still funny, though. :D

She's much better looking in person, but she's too skinny for me. I ran into her in line at Ronald Reagan's viewing in 2004.

"We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril." - John F. Kennedy, Oct. 22, 1962.

The War in Iraq was never a war about American freedoms or rights, except in the abstract. The war was about three things - stopping Saddam from developing WMDs (or removing the ones he had), removing Saddam from power and helping to establish a functioning democracy within the heart of the middle east. Those are all legitimate goals. At the same time, you can't ignore the fact that Iraq controls a significant amount of oil and that oil is a vital national security resource to the US. Control of vital resources has always been a casus bellum since the start of recorded history. It's the reason the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor.

Whether or not you agree that Saddam was a threat to the US, no one can claim that he wasn't a threat to the other states in the region, and to his own people. He'd attacked two of his neighbors, as well as Israel. Containment wasn't working - it was merely delaying the inevitable. He was going to resume all the crap he had been doing pre-1991 as soon as the sanctions were gone. That in and of itself is enough to justify us taking action.

I can't believe that some folks here think that sending troops to Darfur is a legitimate use of American military power, but sending them to Iraq is not. Troops in Darfur would be a strictly humanitarian mission, unlike Iraq, which has a variety of interests including humanitarian. That people would be willing to support the spilling of American blood there and not in Iraq strikes me as contradictory.

I understand why some people say they support the troops but not the war, but in the end, that attitude is just a mere platitude. Whether or not you agree with the reasons the war began, America is at war, and it is a war we can't afford to lose. Support the troops and support your country. If you don't like the politicians who started the war, vote them out when they're up for relection. But don't claim that you support the troops but you don't care if they lose what they're fighting for. No one wants to think they or their comrades died for no reason, and that's exactly what that message conveys.
Excellent exposition! [ applauds ]

So, I keep hearing people who say that they support our troops but don't support the war.......I don't understand.

Okay, I can understand not supporting the war, but how exactly are you supporting the troops when you don't agree with what they are doing, or even think that what they are doing is harmful.


The same way you can still support and love your children when they take a path in life that you don't approve of. Just because someone does something you disagree with doesn't make them evil or beyond redemption. You still seek out what is good in them and try to encourage them to move in a better direction.

.

See it ... pretty good flick.
Jarhead was a sucky movie. I wish I had saved my money, but then I'm not you, a fact for which I'm sure we are both grateful. :D

Nonsense.

so, you're saying the War on Terror is winnable then?


Questioning is fine. Voting against the people who made the decision to go to war is fine. Those are legitimate stances. But don't spout mealy-mouthed platitudes about supporting the troops but not the war. Either you support the troops and what they fight for, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

I don't have a problem with people saying they want us to lose the war - they're entitled to their opinion. And I am entitled to thinking they are mental midgets. Just be honest about it.

And what about those 48% of people who didn't vote of Mr. Bush? Are they expected to shut up, fall in line and turn off their brains for the next 4 years?

Or do they do their duty as citizens and question their govt., its actions and its policies? People who criticise the war and/or the troops are immediately rounded on and labelled 'far left', 'unpatrioic, 'un American' and so forth - all of which has happened in this very thread!

Can you blame them for not wanting to stick their heads above the paratpets one more time?

Excellent exposition! [ applauds ]

Thanks, E.

There's gotta be a few of us conservatives who can write out there to take on everyone else. :)

Nonsense.



Questioning is fine. Voting against the people who made the decision to go to war is fine. Those are legitimate stances. But don't spout mealy-mouthed platitudes about supporting the troops but not the war. Either you support the troops and what they fight for, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
I call bullshit and furthermore, I dare you to say that I do not support the troops despite the fact that I, in no way, shape, nor form, support the war.

And additionally, how exactly do you win a war against what is a concept? Terror is not a noun, and therefore cannot be defeated.

It is also fun when people realize that not all of our troops are in Iraq.

Thank you. I always feel like a big bleeding heart jerk when I talk about this and actually started welling up even when typing this, so thanks. :fluffle:
I'm still very, very sorry for misinterpreting what you said back then, but as I've said before, I tend to get very defensive and go into attack mode when people seem to be bad-mouthing either my Country or my beloved brothers and sisters in the military. Please forgive me, nice lady. :fluffle:

we have a professional military doing an excellent job in extremely tough circumstances. we should all be proud of the job they do even if the war is stupid. things would be much worse if our men and women werent doing their jobs so well.
Thank you, dear Ashmoria. I know quite a few of those young men and women and I have nothing but respect for them.

so, you're saying the War on Terror is winnable then?

I think it is. We've already seen one century old terrorism campaign fizzle out in Ireland - to think that its impossible to win this war is pessimistic, in my opinion.

And what about those 48% of people who didn't vote of Mr. Bush? Are they expected to shut up, fall in line and turn off their brains for the next 4 years?

There are elections all the time. Vote. Make your opinion heard. Lobby your Congressman and Senators. Join a political organization. There are ways to participate in the political process even if the guy you vote for didn't win. Bush was the first Presidential candidate that I voted for who won. I wasn't out screaming for Clinton's impeachment (hell, I was working for him in 98) because I didn't vote for him. That doesn't help the process at all. You move on and look to the next election.

Or do they do their duty as citizens and question their govt., its actions and its policies? People who criticise the war and/or the troops are immediately rounded on and labelled 'far left', 'unpatrioic, 'un American' and so forth - all of which has happened in this very thread!

I'm never going to call anyone who disagrees with the war unpatriotic, unAmerican or so forth - frankly I believe that is a straw man argument. I have never seen anyone seriously question someone's patriotism because they disagreed on the war. If I did, I would call that individual unAmerican for spitting on our fundamental right to self-expression.

All I am saying is that those who claim to support the troops but not support the war are trying to be politically correct, but they're in fact being wishy washy. Support the war and the troops, or don't. But don't claim that you support someone while condemning their actions. That's treads too close to hypocrisy for my taste.

B

Thanks, E.

There's gotta be a few of us conservatives who can write out there to take on everyone else. :)
"Us?" Hmmm. I don't consider myself a conservative, although I do tend to get rather viciferous about my support for both my Country and my brothers and sisters in the military. Thanks anyway though. I'm sure you meant well. ;)

I call bullshit and furthermore, I dare you to say that I do not support the troops despite the fact that I, in no way, shape, nor form, support the war.

And additionally, how exactly do you win a war against what is a concept? Terror is not a noun, and therefore cannot be defeated.

It is also fun when people realize that not all of our troops are in Iraq.

How can you support the troops but not support the cause they are dying for? Would you be willing to tell someone who lost a family member or friend over there that their loved one died for nothing? That's what you're doing if you say you support the troops, but don't "in no way, shape nor form" support the war.

You could say the same thing about the war on communism, and that's been won. If you want to play word games, go buy Scrabble.

Do you think that just because I think that the Iraq war is wrong that I want every soldier dead?

of course not, but just not wanting them dead, doesn't seem like support or respect for me.

I think Sarkhaan is right that if someone could come up with an analogy of how you can respect someone for doing something but not respect what they are doing, that I might understand.

Jarhead was a sucky movie. I wish I had saved my money, but then I'm not you, a fact for which I'm sure we are both grateful. :D

Well there's no accounting for tastes. :p

I thought it was pretty good. Great scenery, great acting, descent enough plot to keep me entertained. It's just a movie based on a book by a guy who was in ODS. I liked it.

"Us?" Hmmm. I don't consider myself a conservative, although I do tend to get rather viciferous about my support for both my Country and my brothers and sisters in the military. Thanks anyway though. I'm sure you meant well. ;)

I don't know. I've seen some of what you've written. I think you could be persuaded to see things the right way. :)

Would you be willing to tell someone who lost a family member or friend over there that their loved one died for nothing?

I told Cindy Sheehan just that, actually. She agreed.

I think it is. We've already seen one century old terrorism campaign fizzle out in Ireland - to think that its impossible to win this war is pessimistic, in my opinion.
A derisive Hah! is all I have to say about that.



There are elections all the time. Vote. Make your opinion heard. Lobby your Congressman and Senators. Join a political organization. There are ways to participate in the political process even if the guy you vote for didn't win. Bush was the first Presidential candidate that I voted for who won. I wasn't out screaming for Clinton's impeachment (hell, I was working for him in 98) because I didn't vote for him. That doesn't help the process at all. You move on and look to the next election.
True- that is one way, albeit a little long winded and time consuming. Public and legal displays of dissent are another.



I'm never going to call anyone who disagrees with the war unpatriotic, unAmerican or so forth - frankly I believe that is a straw man argument. I have never seen anyone seriously question someone's patriotism because they disagreed on the war. If I did, I would call that individual unAmerican for spitting on our fundamental right to self-expression.
Really?
Look to the start of this thread- first 2 pages roughly.


All I am saying is that those who claim to support the troops but not support the war are trying to be politically correct, but they're in fact being wishy washy. Support the war and the troops, or don't. But don't claim that you support someone while condemning their actions. That's treads too close to hypocrisy for my taste.


Oh, I agree. I think now the shadow of Sept. 11th is leaving people are feeling freer again to dissent and display anger and disaffection with the govt.

A nice half century long and near-bankruptingly expensive 'war' is the right answer I'm sure.

I told Cindy Sheehan just that, actually. She agreed.

Tell someone who hasn't gone off the deep-end.

You could say the same thing about the war on communism, and that's been won. If you want to play word games, go buy Scrabble.

What? China, Cuba and North Korea don't count anymore. :confused:

You can support the effort. They are men and women who are risking their lives on a daily basis because they love their country enough to fight for it.

However, you don't have to support what they are doing. Just because you respect the fact that they love something enough to die for it, doesn't mean you have to respect what they are willing to die for.

Tell someone who hasn't gone off the deep-end.

You asked if someone would be willing. I proved I would.

She also has not gone off the deep end. She is a perfectly sane, reasonable person asking a question millions of people are asking.

Tell you what, you pick who I tell. Will that make you feel better?

All 2400 some-odd soldiers who have died in the war in Iraq have died for nothing. All of them. I pity anyone who thinks otherwise.

How can you support the troops but not support the cause they are dying for? Would you be willing to tell someone who lost a family member or friend over there that their loved one died for nothing? That's what you're doing if you say you support the troops, but don't "in no way, shape nor form" support the war.

You could say the same thing about the war on communism, and that's been won. If you want to play word games, go buy Scrabble.
Do you honestly think every person fighting right now supports the war? And you know what? I have, as I've said before, many friends who are ROTC, in the services, and some who are over there. Every last one of them knows that I do not support the war because I've said it to them. They also know that I support them like all hell. Ironically enough, it is one of them that is telling me that it really isn't worth getting pissed off about right now.

Additionally, there is still communism in the world, which, moreover, isn't a bad thing. Yes, terrorism has slowed in Ireland. However, it has just popped up in new places. You cannot defeat a concept. People will always be willing to go to extremes to carry their message. This isn't a word game, this is called logic. I can punch a wall. I can not punch terrorism.

I think Sarkhaan is right that if someone could come up with an analogy of how you can respect someone for doing something but not respect what they are doing, that I might understand.

Check out post #89 for an analogy.

.

of course not, but just not wanting them dead, doesn't seem like support or respect for me.

I think Sarkhaan is right that if someone could come up with an analogy of how you can respect someone for doing something but not respect what they are doing, that I might understand.

Ok....

I can respect someone for not wanting to go on public assistance... but not believe that becoming a call girl or drug dealers is a good way to do it.

A derisive Hah! is all I have to say about that.


What can I say. I'm an optimist.

True- that is one way, albeit a little long winded and time consuming. Public and legal displays of dissent are another.

I didn't say they weren't. They're not as effective as some of things on my list, but they're part of it.

Really?
Look to the start of this thread- first 2 pages roughly.

LOL, you can't take anything UN Abassadorship says literally. He's a joke.

Oh, I agree. I think now the shadow of Sept. 11th is leaving people are feeling freer again to dissent and display anger and disaffection with the govt.

A nice half century long and near-bankruptingly expensive 'war' is the right answer I'm sure.

The war is never going to become "bankruptingly expensive". We're at the lowest level of taxation in two decades. The money's there if we need it. I would rather spend it on defense than on entitlements anyway.

You could say the same thing about the war on communism, and that's been won. If you want to play word games, go buy Scrabble.

So you have no problem with the fact that Communist China controls such a massive interest in the US economy that they could cripple us with the stroke of a pen?

We didn't win that war, son. Not by a long shot.

What? China, Cuba and North Korea don't count anymore. :confused:

China's form of communism isn't really communism at all anymore. Cuba and North Korea are a joke.

Communism is a completely discredited system. There is no danger of it taking over the world anymore.

There is no danger of it taking over the world anymore.

There never was.

This is how I feel about the troops.

I know that there are hundreds of thousands of men and women in the military whose first and foremost responsibility is protecting their country and the people in it. They fight to save people they've never even met and their families. They sign up for whatever branch of the military they choose and they have no idea what their assignments will be. They have to be willing to accept whatever they are instructed to do and go wherever they are instructed to go. Not many people can do that. I know I couldnt. Could you?
Do I have to support the assignments they are given? No. Do I have to respect someone who risks their life for me and you and our families? Absolutely.

Ok....

I can respect someone for not wanting to go on public assistance... but not believe that becoming a call girl or drug dealers is a good way to do it.

and once again Kat explains on a level I can get.....

I will have to think on that......

it does make more sense to me now though........ a little bit.

You asked if someone would be willing. I proved I would.

She also has not gone off the deep end. She is a perfectly sane, reasonable person asking a question millions of people are asking.

Tell you what, you pick who I tell. Will that make you feel better?

All 2400 some-odd soldiers who have died in the war in Iraq have died for nothing. All of them. I pity anyone who thinks otherwise.

Sheehan is obviously unhinged. The things she says and claims with a straight face are just ludicrous. She is entitled to her grief, but she needs mental help, and I mean that in a serious way, not in a smartass flame war kind of war.

Saying that the soldiers in Iraq died for nothing is a small-minded, callous and completely untrue statement. Ask anyone who has served over there, and they'll tell you what their comrades died for. Have a little compassion.

This is how I feel about the troops.

I know that there are hundreds of thousands of men and women in the military whose first and foremost responsibility is protecting their country and the people in it. They fight to save people they've never even met and their families. They sign up for whatever branch of the military they choose and they have no idea what their assignments will be. They have to be willing to accept whatever they are instructed to do and go wherever they are instructed to go. Not many people can do that. I know I couldnt. Could you?
Do I have to support the assignments they are given? No. Do I have to respect someone who risks their life for me and you and our families? Absolutely.
well said.

and Kat, that works well. Thank you...I still couldnt come up with one.

So, I keep hearing people who say that they support our troops but don't support the war.......I don't understand.

Okay, I can understand not supporting the war, but how exactly are you supporting the troops when you don't agree with what they are doing, or even think that what they are doing is harmful.

Someone made the statement this week that "I don't support any war, least of all the war in Iraq, but I support our troops and I respect them for what they are doing"

if you respect them for what they are doing don't you also have to respect what they are doing?

:confused:

Your logic is a little muddled. The troops are doing their job, they are fighting to protect us and they are supported for that. However, their superiors are performing a poor job in allocating how, who, and where our troops are fighting.

Certainly one can oppose the war based on the cost it has on troops. That would be a blatant example of both fully supporting the troops and opposing the war.

What can I say. I'm an optimist.
What can I say. I live here. ;)


The war is never going to become "bankruptingly expensive". We're at the lowest level of taxation in two decades. The money's there if we need it. I would rather spend it on defense than on entitlements anyway.

How many trillions in 3/4 years?

How many trillions more in 50 years?

D'you think even the United States' creditors will be that patient?

The things she says and claims with a straight face are just ludicrous.

Such as?

Saying that the soldiers in Iraq died for nothing is a small-minded, callous and completely untrue statement.

No ... saying they're dieing for something important is all of that and more.

Have a little compassion. Tell King George to bring them home. Yesterday.

So you have no problem with the fact that Communist China controls such a massive interest in the US economy that they could cripple us with the stroke of a pen?

We didn't win that war, son. Not by a long shot.

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm about the biggest China hawk out there. But they're not a threat because they're communist. They're a thread because they have 1.5 billion people, and a government who doesn't value human life they way we do. Their way of thinking is alien to the Western mind, and vice versa.

Sheehan is obviously unhinged. The things she says and claims with a straight face are just ludicrous. She is entitled to her grief, but she needs mental help, and I mean that in a serious way, not in a smartass flame war kind of war.

Saying that the soldiers in Iraq died for nothing is a small-minded, callous and completely untrue statement. Ask anyone who has served over there, and they'll tell you what their comrades died for. Have a little compassion.
I direct you to my friend Kris, who came home from Iraq just over 4 months ago, and agrees that they are dying for nothing.

There never was.

Hindsight is 20/20. It certainly didn't look that way in 1945.

of course not, but just not wanting them dead, doesn't seem like support or respect for me.

I think Sarkhaan is right that if someone could come up with an analogy of how you can respect someone for doing something but not respect what they are doing, that I might understand.
welp smunk, does "supporting the troops" mean giving up your political judgement? to be "rah rah" all in support of any war any time no matter what the place, time and motive?

do we support our troops so much that we let craven politicians spend their lives as they please without ever questioning the wisdom of the job they are doing?

our military is all volunteer, all professional. they are given orders and they obey them. its not their job to question the mission, its their job to get it done.

SOMEONE has to question the mission. they cant. i DONT support the president and his buddies who have no problem with 2300 dead and 17,000 wounded with no real end in sight. if *I* dont question what they are doing, iran is next. and who knows where after that.

if not wanting them to die for bush's stupidity is not supporting them, then id rather be a bad american and have them come home alive.

China's form of communism isn't really communism at all anymore. Cuba and North Korea are a joke.

Communism is a completely discredited system. There is no danger of it taking over the world anymore.

So then it wasn't a war against Communism then was it? Merely a protracted non-shooting war with the Soviet Union.

Communism still exists like it or not- that war wasn't 'won' by using your earlier examples either.

I direct you to my friend Kris, who came home from Iraq just over 4 months ago, and agrees that they are dying for nothing.

Ouch.

How many trillions in 3/4 years?

Probably $1 trillion total from 2003-2010. That's a wild ass guess, but when supplementals have been around $100-200 billion each, that works.

How many trillions more in 50 years?

D'you think even the United States' creditors will be that patient?

The biggest creditor the US has is its own citizens. Yes, as long as we've got the strongest economy in the world and can keep paying our debts, we've got nothing to worry about. And there's no reason to think we won't be able to continue doing that for a quite a long time. We're not in nearly as bad a shape as we were after the Revolution.

Such as?

"Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by George [W.] Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy…not for the real reason, because the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn’t changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq…in fact it has gotten worse."

A bunch of half-baked conspiracy theories and some anti-semitism thrown in for good measure.

No ... saying they're dieing for something important is all of that and more.

Have a little compassion. Tell King George to bring them home. Yesterday.

They are dying for something important, and your unwillingness to recognize that is sad. But if saying that makes you feel better, feel free to keep up the worthless rhetoric. At least someone will be better off for it.

I direct you to my friend Kris, who came home from Iraq just over 4 months ago, and agrees that they are dying for nothing.

I can direct you to a half a dozen of my friends who are back from Iraq and would disagree with your friend Kris.

Don't you just love playing Dueling Anecdotes?

Probably $1 trillion total from 2003-2010. That's a wild ass guess, but when supplementals have been around $100-200 billion each, that works.

Ehhh... I have a doubt about that.

The overall National debt is $8.2 trillion dollors as of this month. In 2000 it wasn't even $6 trillion. In Jan 2004 it hit $7 trillion.
See a pattern emerging?

I can direct you to a half a dozen of my friends who are back from Iraq and would disagree with your friend Kris.
you said
Saying that the soldiers in Iraq died for nothing is a small-minded, callous and completely untrue statement. Ask anyone who has served over there, and they'll tell you what their comrades died for. Have a little compassion.
I directed you to my friend who disagrees with you. He agrees with me. You paint with too wide a brush. Not every person over there agrees with the mission.

I directed you to my friend who disagrees with you. He agrees with me. You paint with too wide a brush. Not every person over there agrees with the mission.

You've got a sharp edge on your hair-splitting knife there.

You've got a sharp edge on your hair-splitting knife there.
I'm glad you've noticed. But it is hardly hair splitting. Many of the people in the armed troops are there for financial reasons. There is no little paper they have to sign, no pledge they have to recite, that requires them to believe their actions are just or right. Come to many college campuses and talk with the people in ROTC.

I'm glad you've noticed. But it is hardly hair splitting. Many of the people in the armed troops are there for financial reasons. There is no little paper they have to sign, no pledge they have to recite, that requires them to believe their actions are just or right. Come to many college campuses and talk with the people in ROTC.

Been there, done that. If I wasn't willing to give my life in defense of my country, I wouldn't have signed up. There is an oath and everything.

If you're just in it for the money, there are many easier, less risky ways of paying for college.

Been there, done that. If I wasn't willing to give my life in defense of my country, I wouldn't have signed up. There is an oath and everything.

If you're just in it for the money, there are many easier, less risky ways of paying for college.
You'd be amazed. ROTC programs, the military itself, and even national guards offer great incentives and benefits. And it isn't about not being willing to give your life. It is about whether or not you agree with the troops being in Iraq. That has nothing to do with being willing to die for the country.

You'd be amazed. ROTC programs, the military itself, and even national guards offer great incentives and benefits. And it isn't about not being willing to give your life. It is about whether or not you agree with the troops being in Iraq. That has nothing to do with being willing to die for the country.

I'm not amazed at all. I know the financial benefits. But again, there are much less risky ways of making money than joining the Armed Forces. I have a number of old shipmates who were smart enough to get scholarships and financial aid who are dead now - they didn't join up because there was no other way of doing it. If you're just in it for the money, you're in it for the wrong reasons.

I believe that if you died in Iraq, you died defending America and what we stand for. If you aren't willing to fight and die if necessary, don't sign up. That's my point.

I'm not amazed at all. I know the financial benefits. But again, there are much less risky ways of making money than joining the Armed Forces. I have a number of old shipmates who were smart enough to get scholarships and financial aid who are dead now - they didn't join up because there was no other way of doing it. If you're just in it for the money, you're in it for the wrong reasons.

I believe that if you died in Iraq, you died defending America and what we stand for. If you aren't willing to fight and die if necessary, don't sign up. That's my point.
$40,000 a year. No, sorry, there aren't great ways to get that much money. They are willing to die for their education. As I said, this thread has nothing to do with supporting the troops overall. I say I support the troops but do not support the war..the war being the war on terror, and more specifically, in Iraq. They are clearly willing to fight and die, or else they wouldn't be in it. That isn't the point. The point is that they disagree with what they are fighting for. That doesn't make them any less willing to fight and die.

$40,000 a year. No, sorry, there aren't great ways to get that much money.

Plus medical benefits and VA loans, retirement packages....it's very attractive from the chair in the recruiting office I'm sure.

$40,000 a year. No, sorry, there aren't great ways to get that much money. They are willing to die for their education. As I said, this thread has nothing to do with supporting the troops overall. I say I support the troops but do not support the war..the war being the war on terror, and more specifically, in Iraq. They are clearly willing to fight and die, or else they wouldn't be in it. That isn't the point. The point is that they disagree with what they are fighting for. That doesn't make them any less willing to fight and die.

It's called "student loans". That's what I got to pay for school after I quit ROTC.

I've already explained why I think that supporting the troops but not supporting the war is a cop out. Its unfortunate that you've got a friend who was over there and thinks that way.

It's called "student loans". That's what I got to pay for school after I quit ROTC.

I've already explained why I think that supporting the troops but not supporting the war is a cop out. Its unfortunate that you've got a friend who was over there and thinks that way.
It's also called no benefits, as well as interest.

Also, it is not only him. He just happens to be sitting right here. Many of my friends feel that way, and from what they have said, many people over there.

It's kind of like, I don't like the policies of Wal-Mart, but I don't blame the check-out person for those policies.

I don't support the war but I do support the troops, as one might not support a cult or its leader but you do feel sorry for the cult followers and wish they'd wake the fuck up and realize what's really going on. Just because our troops are brainwashed into thinking they're doing a good thing doesn't mean they don't deserve our pity.