Can you be anti-war AND support the troops?

I think a lot of people who are pro-military action seem to be under the impression that you can't be against the war and still support the troops (especially in the US, the primary combatent force in Iraq).

I think it's really a matter of personnal choice, that you can be against the Bush Administration's decision to go in but support the troops involved. me personnally, I know at least one person over there personnally who'se stationed in Israel with the US army, and there are probably plenty of old friends or acquaintances whom I've lost touch with who are serving over there right now or may be soon. I'm not anti-military, I just disagree with the current course of action being a preemptive strike (and let's not cut corners, this IS a preemptive strike on the US's part, and it's a nasty way to start a war. Hell, we generally let the other guy have the first go before striking back).

I guess what I'm saying is: I am against the way this war began, and if it becomes a debacle I will hold the administration responsible, but I support our troops overseas doing their duty. They didn't ask for war, and they should not be blamed for it if it goes bad. Basically I'd just like this to be a challenge to all those "either you're with us or you're against us" blowhards (many of whom never served in the military in the first place, save maybe ROTC in high school) that there is little or no proof that anti-war protesters can't support the military. Sure, there are some nutjobs who want us all to sit around the camp fire, passing the weed around to mellow us out and end war forever. But there is support from the majority (at least from what I've seen) for the troops.

I just wanted to get everyone's opinion on this, espcially those in the US and the UK. I've made my point (I hope) that such a combination can exist. I don't think anyone save the extremeist anit-war people who never liked the military will not support our troops, even if they don't support the governments.

I guess it depends how you define supporting the troops. Personally I am anti war generally, except for obvious self defense, which I do not accept as the case in Iraq, that is, defense is at least a significant part of the reason but I don't think it had to come to war as soon and in the particlar way that it did. I am not an apologist for Saddam, I think he should be tried at the Hague like Slobo, but in my opinion we are now dangerously close to being involved in a larger regional/religious conflict that we didn't want, and more resistance from Iraq than there might have been, if we had brought in the UN on our side that risk would have been much lower. However, I have no reason to criticize the troops themselves, either in terms of how well they do their jobs or as a matter of ethics, because they don't have that choice. Now, if some kind of terrible atrocities were committed by them, like the My Lai massacre, that would be a whole 'nother story. But I think they (the military) have changed a lot since then and the current administration has tried to cast the war as ultimately being a benefit to Iraq (which it likely will be as long as nothing horrible/big happens), between that and the amount of scrutiny there is I don't think we could see another My Lai. Not that I am accusing them of being disposed to anything like that, I'm rather trying to make it clear exactly where I draw the line as far as not criticizing the military personnel.

I support the troops and am very much against the war.

I come from a military family - my parents were both in the Air Force when they met and my father was in Viet Nam for a year. My mom's uncle was killed in Holland on her birthday in 1945. My great-great-grandfather fought against the South in the Civil War. There are others but I'm not as familiar with what they did.

I have a friend I went to school with somewhere around Iraq right now. She's been there for about a month. She was also in Bosnia.

I grew up and still live near Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, and the military is the only thing I've ever known. All of our friends were either military or ex-military and the street my mom lives on has at least 6 ex-military families on it.

SO....I'll support the military because it's been a huge part of my life. I'll always disagree with anything Bush does and I believe it's his fault that we're in this mess in the first place.

:D:D:D:D:D:D anita

Does anyone support the War on the board?

I don't "want" war, I don't know what Georges' real reasons for the war are, but I know that it will be worth it if Saddam is gone and his people freed. I also know why people really don't think this is the answer or the right time for action, and I know we can't know for sure the effects of having the war now, but it says something when children ran into the streets and cheered our troops.

I'm still a "don't know". Pathetic, isn't it?

I don't think WMD is a justification for the war anyway. I can't understand what the big deal is, many, many countries have such weapons (Israel, Pakistan, Russia, USA, etc), the American Anthrax and Japanese nerve gases were apparently domestically produced, and terrorists clearly don't need such things to kill lots of people anyway.

And what is our nuclear deterrent for, if we don't trust it to deter WMD attacks?

And finally, even if terrorists did feel they needed them, and that box-cutters or conventional explosives weren't enough, I'm sure they could get them from places other than Iraq (Russia and Pakistan, for starters, and I expect some American company would sell the stuff).

The whole WMD thing seems like an exercise in manipulation, terrifying people into going along with you.

The only justification for this war that makes sense to me is to free the Iraqis from Saddam the butcher. And whether that's worth it or not depends on how the war goes and what happens afterwards, all of which is a big unknown to me, hence I'm a "don't know".

(By the way, is it possible to support the war but be against the troops? Just so I know all the options)

of course you can be against the war and support the troops! my cousin sean is a marine and is in iraq right now and i want to see him and his fellow marines ALIVE, AT HOME and i want to see sean finishing his degree and getting on with his life. the armed forces are there to protect the united states from agression, not to make pre-emptive strikes against other nations because we don't like them or what they may be capable of doing in the future. if this is the precedent we're setting, then india can attack pakistan over kashmir, greece can attack turkey over cyprus, and algeria can attack morocco over western sahara by using the same logic. if iraq had invaded a US ally, it may be a different situation. the fact is, they didn't, and this war is not setting an example that we want other nations (or ourselves) to emulate in the future.

so, yes, you can support our troops, support their safety, but oppose this war. not all wars the US enters into are just. we are not infallible, and we should not put our military men and women in danger in the name of an open-ended incursion into a region where we are not welcome.

Originally posted by AgentWood the armed forces are there to protect the united states from agression, not to make pre-emptive strikes against other nations because we don't like them or what they may be capable of doing in the future.

How do you reconcile these two statements?

I didn't agree with the war at first... not so sure now.

Originally posted by Major Tarantino I didn't agree with the war at first... not so sure now.

I was uncertain at first, now I'm not so sure

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by AgentWood> the armed forces are there to protect the united states from agression, not to make pre-emptive strikes against other nations because we don't like them or what they may be capable of doing in the future.

How do you reconcile these two statements?

nothing to reconcile. he said 'protect the united states from aggression', not 'protect the united states from the speculative possibility of aggression in the future'.

Originally posted by 404 error > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > Originally posted by AgentWood> > the armed forces are there to protect the united states from agression, not to make pre-emptive strikes against other nations because we don't like them or what they may be capable of doing in the future. >

How do you reconcile these two statements?

nothing to reconcile. he said 'protect the united states from aggression', not 'protect the united states from the speculative possibility of aggression in the future'.

precisely. aggression by another nation does not include the possibility of aggression in the future. that is speculation not covered under international law. aggression assumes immediate danger. our great general, eisenhower, was one of the most vocal opponents of pre-emptive war, by the way.

oh, and i'm a she, not a he. :D

Originally posted by AgentWood oh, and i'm a she, not a he. :D

Oops. Though, have you double checked? I'm normally infallible you know.

Originally posted by 404 error > Originally posted by AgentWood> > oh, and i'm a she, not a he. :D

Oops. Though, have you double checked? I'm normally infallible you know.

let's see...

yep, just checked. still a femme. :D

Originally posted by Texas hooligan 5) I'm with the Bushes personally, but not with his current politics. Because I visited Bush's house and he turned to be a very nice man.

It's easy for the powerful and priviledged to appear personaly 'nice', because they can do all their wickedness by proxy at a distance. Poor people have to do their own dirty work, so might not appear so pleasant in person, but its a distinction without a difference. Falling for that is just rewarding privilege.

Originally posted by Texas hooligan 5) I'm with the Bushes personally, but not with his current politics. Because I visited Bush's house and he turned to be a very nice man.

It's easy for the powerful and privileged to appear personaly 'nice', because they can do all their wickedness by proxy at a distance. Poor people have to do their own dirty work, so might not appear so pleasant in person, but its a distinction without a difference. It seems to me that falling for such charm is just rewarding privilege.

Originally posted by 404 error > Originally posted by Texas hooligan> 5) I'm with the Bushes personally, but not with his current politics. Because I visited Bush's house and he turned to be a very nice man.

It's easy for the powerful and privileged to appear personaly 'nice', because they can do all their wickedness by proxy at a distance. Poor people have to do their own dirty work, so might not appear so pleasant in person, but its a distinction without a difference. It seems to me that falling for such charm is just rewarding privilege.

What a horribly simplistic, prejudiced statement......

Originally posted by almanso > Originally posted by Texas hooligan> I got enough.> I support the U.S. army, which is the best army in the world and I hope they will bring Hussein down quite soon with fewer victims. I'm proud of what the American army does there. Keep on, boys. We all think of you.

..... anyway

What, exactly, is your problem with the Texas Hooligan's statement?

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by 404 error> > > > Originally posted by Texas hooligan> > 5) I'm with the Bushes personally, but not with his current politics. Because I visited Bush's house and he turned to be a very nice man.>

It's easy for the powerful and privileged to appear personaly 'nice', because they can do all their wickedness by proxy at a distance. Poor people have to do their own dirty work, so might not appear so pleasant in person, but its a distinction without a difference. It seems to me that falling for such charm is just rewarding privilege.

What a horribly simplistic, prejudiced statement......

No prejudice involved. postjudice perhaps.

Originally posted by 404 error > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > Originally posted by 404 error> > > > > > > Originally posted by Texas hooligan> > > 5) I'm with the Bushes personally, but not with his current politics. Because I visited Bush's house and he turned to be a very nice man.> > >

It's easy for the powerful and privileged to appear personaly 'nice', because they can do all their wickedness by proxy at a distance. Poor people have to do their own dirty work, so might not appear so pleasant in person, but its a distinction without a difference. It seems to me that falling for such charm is just rewarding privilege.

What a horribly simplistic, prejudiced statement......

No prejudice involved. postjudice perhaps.

Oh my, he can't be too happy about this.....the Russian judge has only awarded him a 7 for his semantic gymnastics routine.......