's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

The time for debate has passed....(21 posts)

The time for debate has passed....ClydeTri
Mar 19, 2003 10:25 AM
The US, Britain, and Australian troops will soon be riding into battle, with support troops from other countries helping out. Now is the time for all those who "oppose" this war, to realize it is happening, and support the troops and wish them a decisive and speedy victory. The quicker and more decisive the victory, the less lives that will be lost on both sides.
You can support the troops...Dwayne Barry
Mar 19, 2003 11:08 AM
and still lay into the administration that sent them into war. If nothing else, you may prevent it from happening again.
Mar 19, 2003 11:11 AM
wait until hostilities are over..the guys and gals on the front lines need to hear positive speech, not negative..after cessation of hosilities, then speak up..
have the right to speak now? of course..wise? no.
See I don't get that...Dwayne Barry
Mar 19, 2003 11:40 AM
but I've never been one to be influenced by how others saw me or my actions.

If you're not comfortable as a US soilder in doing what the prez asks, you shouldn't have signed up in the first place. If you have doubts about what you are doing I hope those doubts are a result of your own introspection and assessment of the situation. If a significant percentage of the US population is opposed to a war you're participating in, why should that make you feel bad, didn't you consider that was a possibility when you joined?
See I don't get that...ClydeTri
Mar 19, 2003 12:07 PM
lets say you were given a task..and it is a life and death task....perform it to your best you live, and if you dont, you might, lets say there are 20,000 people watching..which do you think would spur you on to greater performance, people cheering you on or people booing you, spitting on you, calling you a baby point is, get the behind the troops til it is over, then ask the questions...
Ah, I see the problem...Dwayne Barry
Mar 19, 2003 12:23 PM
you equate being opposed to the war with "booing, spitting- on and calling the soilders baby killers". I don't equate the two and it's unfortunate if a soilder does. I think its equally unfortunate if an "antiwar" person can't separate the two.
I give our troops more credit than that.czardonic
Mar 19, 2003 12:32 PM
Certain people seem to think they are weak-minded, weak-willed and in need of constant coddling and approval. I have confidence in their ability to do their job, period. If they can't take vocal criticism at home, how the hell are they going to win a war?
those that forget the past...ClydeTri
Mar 19, 2003 12:42 PM
Vietnam..soldiers came home to taunts of "baby killers" , being spit on...I am just saying..get thru this, then monday morning quarterback..
I also do not understand this,TJeanloz
Mar 19, 2003 12:54 PM
If you are opposed to war, in general or specific, how can you not be opposed to those who execute it? I think that position is less defensible now that it was in Vietnam, when conscripts were sent to fight a war they didn't necessarily want to.

The soldiers we have on the front volunteered -- and you can't tell me that when they enlisted, a war with Iraq didn't seem probable. The soldiers are going, on their own free will, and executing a policy that you may be opposed to; how do you then suddenly support the executors?
I also do not understand this,ClydeTri
Mar 19, 2003 1:33 PM
The soldiers are tools of our government. They do not decide to go and fight anywhere, they go where told to go by the President/Congress....if you have a beef, call your congressman/senator/president.....the soldier in the field is just doing his/her job...they do NOT make policy or decide when or where to fight, just carry out orders.
This isn't attack of the clones,TJeanloz
Mar 19, 2003 1:44 PM
Guess what, if my boss tells me to do something that I believe to be morally wrong, I might think twice before just "doing my job". And I think people have every right to criticize me if I do just "do my job" and it leads to nasty consequences.

To every extent, it's MY fault for not doing the right thing. In fact, by your reasoning, we should also support the Iraqi troops -- after all, they're just doing their job.
Give up Tri...some idiots will never understand. nmhycobob
Mar 19, 2003 3:20 PM
Evidently. (nm)czardonic
Mar 19, 2003 3:33 PM
The war and the warriorMe Dot Org
Mar 19, 2003 2:13 PM
If you are opposed to war, in general or specific, how can you not be opposed to those who execute it?

It's the idea of "blame the war, not the warrior". If you see all war as indefensible (WWII, for example) then I think you tend to see all soldiers as being caught in the same trap, regardless of country or ideology. If you are opposed to this war specifically, that's another matter. But when you say "you can't tell me that when they enlisted, a war with Iraq didn't seem probable.", you're asking 18 year-olds to be more prescient that political prognosticators.

Vietnam went on for more than 10 years. The escalation (a word that hardly existed in that context before Vietnam) of the war was pretty slow until 1965, so a lot of people who fought had a lot of time to observe and think about the war. There was a draft, but there were deferrments. People got married and had kids to avoid the draft. Lord knows a lot of guys stayed in school because of the draft.

The anti-war movement didn't really get going until 1965. By 1968, I think a lot of the Pro and Anti-War lines were pretty well drawn. But it was a process that took years.

Vietnam was also a war where it was difficult to tell the combatants from the civilians. (Whether or not this is a problem in Iraq remains to be seen.) So you're a soldier, and you're not sure if someone is the enemy. Do you let them go out of compassion? Or do you kill them out of self-preservation?

I think a lot of guys became jaded because they had to, in order to survive. Vietnamese became "gooks" or "slopes", and it was a lot easier to kill if you didn't think about them as human beings.

So there were atrocities in Vietnam, and a lot of anti-war people blamed the soldiers. But as in this war, a lot of the soldiers were the poorest, the least educated. Say what you want about the military, for many people it represents a way up and out.

But that war still hurt. I think that's one reason drugs were such an important part of that war. Many Vets came back and spoke out against the war.

This war is a little different. Militarily, it's a lot easier fighting with 21st Century weaponry in the desert than it was in the 60's in the jungle. I believe most Iraqis hate Saddam Hussein. But I also think there is a much more highly-developed sense of Anti-Americanism.

Either you say that all war is wrong, and anyone who joins the military is an idiot, or you say that if we are going to have a military that is proficient at war, but also knows what to do when the bombs stop falling. If we are going to have an all-volunteer army, you'd better make sure the President is going to send them to the right place.

If you don't like the idea of professional soldiers, the alternative is the draft.
Supporting the troops & opposing the war..............Len J
Mar 19, 2003 9:01 PM
are not mutually exclusive.

I oppose the war on the grounds that the demonstrated threat is not worth risking the lives of our troops. I can't see a better way to support the troops than by opposing the war.

Supporting the troops & opposing the war..............TJeanloz
Mar 20, 2003 12:32 PM
Then do you also support the Iraqi troops?

If its not worth risking American lives, how can it be worth risking Iraqi lives?

Or is an American worth more?
I'm confused.......Len J
Mar 20, 2003 12:58 PM
I'm against the war because I don't think that the threat is great enough to risk American Troops. Where does your question come from? I didn't intend, nor do I think I said that an American life was worth more or less than an Iraqi. It is up to the Iraqi's to decide if they support Saddam or not & if they are willing to fight for him, the same way it is up to each American. I, as one American, choose not to support the President's position, and I don't believe that we should put our troops at risk based on what little threat to US security Saddam has been.

I would say that this position is Pro-US troops. Unlike the original poster who seems to be implying that not supporting the President is somehow anti-US troops.

I am too,TJeanloz
Mar 20, 2003 1:20 PM
So you don't support the President's position, i.e. the war, but you do support the persons perpetrating the war?

That seems like not supporting the death penalty, but being all for the guy who sticks the needle in. Not supporting abortion, but backing the doctor.

Without the soldiers, there's no war.
Nice try but........Len J
Mar 20, 2003 1:34 PM
I'm doing nothing of the sort.

We have an all volunteer Military. I recognize and respect the need for armed forces to protect our Country. I also admire anyone who is willing to lay down their life for an ideal, a belief. Many (maybe most) of the military fall into this catagory (when you cut through all the bull). These people don't necessarily have to agree with me on the validity of this particular war. I suspect that there are (though I haven't heard of any) members of the armed forces who don't agree with this war & have acted according to their beliefs & not gone. They had the courage of their convictions & are willing to take the consequences. There are also many who do agree & are fighting for what they believe. My support of them is that I want them to come home. I don't want them to die needlessly for a cause that IMO , (at best) might be to eliminate a danger that might exist some day. This cause does not warrant the waste of human life.

Are you suggesting that any Soldier is inherently evil, because they may perpetrate a war (no matter how noble the reason)?

Obviously, this is not as black & white as either of us would like it to be. Each person IMO is accountable ffor their own beliefs & the way they act on them. This goes for soldiers and the way they follow (or choose to not follow) orders as well as the executioner and the abortion doctor.

If I want the soldiers to come home in one piece, how is this not supporting them?

I think you have my suggestion right,TJeanloz
Mar 20, 2003 1:53 PM
I think there is a distinction between wanting the soldiers to come home in one piece and supporting them. I want all of the Iraqi soldiers to go home to their families in one piece, but I don't support their actions. Supporting them is wanting them to come home in one piece via Baghdad, just wanting them to come home in one piece doesn't really support their actions.

I am certainly suggesting that those who believe all war is inherently evil cannot possibly support volunteer soldiers, who have dedicated themselves to war.

For what its worth, I fully support the troops and the War; I think it's the right thing to do. But if I didn't support the War, I don't know how I could morally support the troops.
I see your destinction....Len J
Mar 20, 2003 3:19 PM
It's in the use of the word support. How about we change it to "wishing them minimal harm". In that case We can disagree on the war and still agree to "wish the troops minimal harm"

I also think the troops are victims of bad leadership right now.

Thought provoking comment though, Thanks