To those of you that dont support the prez and his war on terror/IRAQ

im 19 as most of you know, so i dont have much experience with war, a couple of my friends are over in iraq, but thats as close as i come to it. and there has been so much BS being thrown on both sides so i just wanted to bring up something....

For those of you that dont support the war on terror or the war in iraq, i have a question for you.

i think that its been assumed by alot of people, not just here but in the outside world that the people that dont support the current wars that america/britan etc..is undergoing that they inturn dont support our troops.

well i went to either shead light on or put an end to that assumption.

While i may disagree with people that agree with the micheal moore etc...i certianly dont hate them, and would really like to know how they feel about the men and women you go out their and fight for their country.

again, the assumption, in the media and everywhere else has been if you dont agree with the war then you dont support the troops and are unpatriotic.....i dont think thats necessarly a fair assumption until we here it from the people themselves..

so those of you that dont agree with the war....is this assumption correct or not?

* and please this is not a thread to bash people who dont agree with the wars, its a place to share their opinons on these assumptions.*

[edit on 10/01/2004 by DigitalGrl]

OK I don't support the Iraq war but 100% support our troops in the field - just a shame our Govenment does exactly the opposite!

Of course it's possible to object on political grounds and yet support the troops - many in the UK felt this way about N Ireland. A waste of squaddies' blood IMO.

People trying to make those who object appear 'unpatriotic' have their own, obvious, agenda.

'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel' - some bloke - true then, true now.

Thanks for your reply CTID56092.

i just wanted to give you guys a place to speak about this issue

You have to support the troops. They don't have a choice, they have a job to do, one that can cost their lives and the lives of others. They put their lives on the lines so people like you, or me for that matter, dont have to.

I dont support the war in Iraq, but it wasn't the troops decision to go there. With regards to the troops, it really doesnt matter whether they should or shouldnt be there, they are there and that isn't going to change. I do believe that the president and their government shouldnt put them in harms way unless its absolutely neccessary (as Michael Moore put it).

People who blast those who don't support the war as not supporting troops or of being unpatriotic are just trying to draw away from facts that make the war seem illegitimate. Maybe because they do believe the war is necessary, or because if it isnt then it means their family, friends, countrymen are dying for nothing. To be opposed to the war and to support the troops in that war are two seperate things, and you can have one without the other.

I find it interesting the American psyche that states that being against a war is against the troops. Maybe people wanting to get them home is the best thing for the troops possible?

Having come from the UK. I do agree with the anti-war sentiment and I know the only reason why we as a country have gotten into this mess is due to the "auld alliance" but I am sick of us being used as a poodle by the US who tend to assume we are on their side all the time.

I support the British servicemen and women in the field in Iraq but we have not suffered the dire and constant attacks that the US has and I am somewhat thankful we have got the experince from Northern Ireland to not get so trigger happy unlike are US counterparts and I think that makes me support are lot more even though I never wanted the war in the first place.

I also have friends with relatives in service there so I do have some idea what they have to put up with in that part of the world.

Help your friends serve honorably, and help them come home safely.

as a United States Marine i must post my vote here. rather some of you may not agree with it at all. however i do agree with the statement that if you dont support the war you inadvertantly do not support our troops, and the reasoning behind this is rather simple. you see our troops over there believe in this war 100%, i've seen it with my own eyes. We believe what we are doing is honestly for the greater good, it goes FAR beyond just governments, it's about kids going to school, people getting fair treatment in hospitals, and people voting. it's about giving people a voice they've never had before. the government may and probably has a different oppinion but for the men and women over there, THAT is what it's about. we believe in this war, and if you dont support what WE believe in then you dont support us. comming home is NOT the answer YET. we must finish what we started no matter why we started it. we cant just leave these people helpless yet. our job is not finished, our mission has not yet been accomplished. so IF you say you support US, then support what we believe. Support this war regarless of government position. Support Helping other people live better lives.

umwolves. I do see where your coming from. But and there is a BUT from me. The war was based on false information that was supposedly a credible threat at the time which in turn turned out to be an utter lie. Niether Mr. Bush or are prime minster would admit to the fact they have lied to both countries and the voters within. If these two men could admit they got it wrong and say so it would make the case for the so called liberty much better.

We could have done this in 1991 but the UN refused to give the mandate to allow the coalltion the chance to do it properly. Yes the Iraqi people have suffered under Saddam's dictatorship I don't knock anyone wanting to get that man out of power. But at the same time the US has alienated itself a lot by killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq. It is any supprise that Arab world has little love for your country. And okay the UK does not have the best track record but do we shoot first and ask questions later? No normally the other way around and to be honest with you I think that the US has got to learn lessons as to how to how it handles people from the middle east. I know your country want's freedom all over the world but that does not give any nation the right to ram it's ideas down anyone's throat how ever noble the intentions maybe.

IS

.
The US military is a meat puppet of evil corporate oil interests and war profiteers.

Why Iraq was a major screw up:
No WMDs
No terrorist training grounds there [before the invasion]
9 billion dollars embezzled by unknown elements
Torturing people at Abu Graib

All at a cost of 1/5 of a TRILLION dollars (btw that is a LOT of money)
over 1800 American deaths,
Tens of thousands of maimed and injured Americans
Tens of thousands of dead Iraqis

There are NO productive acomplishments that have or appear will come from this conflict.

Instead there are many negatives resulting from this war and occupation.

Both tactically and strategically this war feeds terrorism.
More ungoverned territory for terrorist training bases in Iraq.
Unknown amounts of money falling into the hands of insurgents and terrorists.
Unguarded Ammo and weapons caches during invasion looted by unknown elements.
More ungoverned population that is free to become radicalized.
More killed and injured Arabs that can only blame the US for it.

The invasion of Iraq is just one more example of the arrogant west inserting itself unnecessarily in the middle east.
That plus Abu Graib and Gitmo all fuel Anti-American hatreds in a region where religious zealotism is rampant.

People who STILL support this war are people who obviously want to produce more terrorists, especially Anti-American terrorists.
They need terrorists to give them a focus in their lives.

Put on top of all the logical falacies of this war and its lack of planning or adaptation as circumstances merited, the fact that the Adminstration LIED about aluminum rocket tubes being used in centrifuges, and banning the DOE employees from telling the truth to reporters to sell this fiasco to a skeptical American public, and it shows what a cesspit Washington has now become.

Washington is run by evil corporate interests.
That is why the true patriots [minutemen] have to guard our southern border themselves,
While false patriotism is used to sell this Iraq fiasco.

Some people just wave the flag,
Other support the values it stands for and protect its homeland.

[edit on 9-8-2005 by slank]

Lets see, this is the dictionary definition of "partionism"

pa·tri·ot·ic
adj.
Feeling, expressing, or inspired by love for one's countr

I see patrionism as "wanting the best for your country"

How can supporting a WAR that was started under FALSE pretenses, in a country that was NEVER EVER a thread to the USA in teh first place be seen as "patriotic " ?

IMHO if you're patrionic, you want the best for your country, you don't want you president to spend billions of tax dollars (which could be used to do something about pverty, medical cures..)and thousands of young american lives on a country that has nothing to do with the USA.

Originally posted by CTID56092
'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel' - some bloke - true then, true now.

That'll be Samuel Johnson around the 1770's or something.

And, I support the troops 100% and will, if possible, drive them with my car from Iraq to their homes in the US!

The US govt invaded a sovereign nation half way across the world. They are sacrificing US citizens for a pointless and unfounded war.



[edit on 9-8-2005 by thematrix]

Its not often I find myself admiring the words of a marine or mason, but umwolves very clearly illustrated one facet of this war that is all too much forgotten. Well stated! While I am convinced many of our US soldiers have those good honest intentions. Im also convinced there are other, more secret shadow squads, who are fixated on death and destruction -no matter the morals.

The great majority are good people like Umwolves, but this just goes to show the fine line of decsent one must toe. If you are not for this war, let us not fall guilty of the same idiotic biases. I recognize the great sacrifice our soldiers are giving, however scewed the larger chess game may be. but i cannot bring myself to do this:

Support this war regarless of government position.

[edit on 9-8-2005 by lost]

Our leaders should value the lives of the servicemen more, and not send them into unjustifiable wars.

And, when the need arises and they are sent into a conflict, they should be provided with the best equipment and supplies that we can possibly provide them with, even if it means the rest of us have to sacrifice a little.....even the corporate and political elite.

And, while our servicemen and women are overseas, fighting this war, they should be confident that their families, and their country are secure back home....

And, they shouldn't be used as bargaining chips in the halls of congress, just so stupid laws that have no support can be crammed down our throats!!!

Which leads me to ask.....who isn't supporting our troops? Who lied about the reasons for the war. Who failed to delivers the needed equipment, while giving tax breaks to his friends and buddies? Who is it that diminishes our security by refusing to prevent the enemy from walking into our country and who's dividing our country with their "for us or against us" rhetoric and accusations of "unpatriotic" and "traitors".......
And who is it that inserts those stupid little laws that lack support into the bills that gives them the funds for their equipment and supplies.


There are thousands of groups and organizations that go around the world and build schools, provide medical treatment, install water systems, ect....

The US Armed Forces are our warriors, our guardians sworn to protect us.
For them to build the schools, or hospitals, ect is only a very small part of their job...if it should even be considered their job at all...

By the way, Iraq had schools, hospitals, and elections during Saddam's rule.

[edit on 9-8-2005 by dawnstar]

[edit on 9-8-2005 by dawnstar]

By the way, Iraq had schools, hospitals, and elections during Saddam's rule.

[edit on 9-8-2005 by dawnstar]

[edit on 9-8-2005 by dawnstar]

No offence love but when did he ever allow his country under his dictatorship allow democratic elections never I think and anyone who is under that illusion needs to wake and see the light. Saddam was never going to allow Iraq to be a democratic state it's almost laughable that you think he allowed any kind of elections and any that he did where rigged so he would always win them.

As for hospitals well he never invested in them at all he was only intrested in what he wanted for his country and not what his people did and he never needed to listen to the masses as they where too scared to speak up against him and his regime. And the schools at his time in power also preached anti west sentiment and made him out to be some kind of god.

IS

hey russia had elections, and a constitution also. I never said that their systems weren't being abuse grossly, just that they were there..

by the way, are you sure that Saddam HAD TO rig the elections? I mean, it's possible that enough of the citizens were just too danged afraid to vote for anyone else, and if they did have the nerve to, well, who would they vote for, they were basically a one party system, weren't they?

Yes I do know that and I am well aware that his citizens where not going to vote for anyone else.

However the way in which you said that last line it was not obvious to me that you where clear. Russia has changed an awful lot in the past decade of being a democratic state. That is good but it still has an awfully long way to go on such matters before it really can be classed as fully there.

However if you would like to dicuss this futher feel free to send me a pm. I don't want to derail the thread that is not a good thing to do when your only one day into your new membership

IS

I do not support the war. For reasons you've heard 1000 times.

I support the troops. Most of them, anyway. I appreciate the fact that in their hearts, they're doing what they think is the right thing. I appreciate their willingness to suffer and die for their country, however misguided these thoughts might be. I want them to have proper equipment and armor and most of all, I want them to come home whole and alive.

umwolves123 - I am grateful for your service and I must say that while you may believe in this war 100%, a large percentage of servicemen feel just the opposite. You really cannot speak for all military any more than I can speak for all the civilians.

umwolves123 - the fallacy in your argument is that for me to support someone, I have to agree with them. Your argument implies that if I don't agree with the soldiers, I cannot support them. That is not true.

Think of a mother and her grown daughter. The daughter wants to date a man the mother doesn't approve of. The mother disagrees with the daughter, but can still support her because she can see that this is what her grown daughter really wants; what might make her happy. This is true support. To care enough about someone to support them even though you disagree.

It's easy to support someone you agree with. But don't confuse agreement and support. It's much harder to support someone even though you hate what they're doing. It takes soul-searching, humility and yes, love.

I think the people who say, "If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops" are, in a twisted way, trying to make us wrong for not supporting the war. I think they want to get people to support the war, to be on their side. This is a natural behavior in humans. If you can make someone who disagrees with you 'wrong', then you can feel more 'right'.

The reality is, we're both right because supporting the war or the troops is a choice, and neither right or wrong.

welcome to ats then, hope you enjoy yourself here!!!

if you had a choice between a dictatorship run by mother teresa or a democracy run by attilla the hun and his crew, which would you prefer? to me, it seems that the form of government is only a portion of the mix, having leaders in charge that are working for the good of the nation is much more important, since well, the only thing having a vote does is enable you to get bad leaders out of office in a more peaceful manner.....

but, well, you are right, we are a little off topic.....

The US did not kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis

It is not obviously an oil war at $65 per barrel

The actions of a few at Abu Graib, should not reflect on the 360,000 other troops involved.

Blowing Abu Graib and Gitmo out of proportion, sure some inappropriate actions happened there, but if it was Saddam's henchmen these people would of experienced severe pain then death and most likely their families death.

GET OVER IT! Come up with some real issues instead of bringing up actions which happened over 3 years ago.