It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Support for the war and for the troops.. The same thing?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
The only way to "support the troops" is to bring them home. Aside from that, you are merely paying tribute to them. Nothing you are doing is actually helping them get back to their families.


First off, thank you for your service.

I'm not sure why this is an all or nothing thing for you and why you are limiting your definition of 'support' to only actions that bring the troops home.

I have friends who have served in Afghanistan who have talked about how grateful they were to receive care packages from home. Simple things like anti-bacterial wipes or cookies meant a tremendous amount to them. Why would those efforts and others that are similar (such as letter writing campaigns and the like) not be construed as support?

I can understand your hope that people would put supporting efforts to bring the troops home as their highest priority, but why would other efforts not be considered 'support'?

Eric




posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Those things matter. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they are happy as hell to get them. When you are away from everyone, getting a letter is great. I use to read my letters over and over.

But it doesn't make up for them being there in the first place. Giving me something nice, or candy is great. But if I'm on a bus heading into a fire, I'd rather you get me off the bus. The ride might not be as bad with the gifts, but I'm still stuck on that bus.

I'm also more talking about the people who just say that stuff. As a way of feeling better about themselves, or as a way of looking more patriotic. I grow tired of the grandstanding, and when I see someone say "I support the troops" that is generally what it is. The political correctness of it.

And I get tired of watching people wave the flag on memorial day thinking they are honoring the dead. All the while giving up the very things those people died for. All the while talking about I'm supporting the troops, or honoring those who have died - no you aren't, you are just appearing like you are. It's those kinds of things that I really draw issue with, not gift baskets and such.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


With all due respect, not once have I said anything to make myself "feel" better and I do not appreciate the implication. I did not send anyone anywhere. I didn't even vote for any of the people who were elected in the last two elections, so I can't be blamed for who is in office either. Not once since I have been able to vote has a candidate I voted for, for any government office, been elected and our relations with other countries have gotten worse and worse. This in itself tells me that I was right not to vote for anyone who has been elected, and that I did not assist these people in sending anyone anywhere. I did my part and voted, I cannot control what those who ultimately won the elections do. I did not vote for them, and I am not standing over their shoulder's telling them to send people off to a foreign country to die. And had you read anything I have ever posted in any other thread, you would know that while I frequently disagree with what people are doing or saying (not just people here I'm speaking generally about our country) I have never supported taking any of their freedoms away. Please do not presume to know whether or not I support the ideals our service members have died for without taking the time to actually ask. Please show me where I allowed anything to happen to anyone.

Quite frankly it is beginning to sound to me like you think the only way to support the military is if I take a plane over there myself and personally load them all up and bring them home. Just a quick search of google for articles from the last year will bring up hundreds of thousands of articles on Iraq and the situation there. Reading through those articles is helpful to me in discerning that while things have gotten better, there are still horrid things happening. Iraqi's are killing Iraqi's essentially over religion, insurgents are still suicide bombing, innocent people are dieing for their sexual orientation, their government is still divided along religious lines. So what I am getting from your posts is to heck with all the innocent people over there. Who cares if they are dieing. We should just turn our backs on them, even though a big chunk of this mess is our fault, and let them all kill each other off.

I think it's clear enough what my thoughts are there.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   
the punishment for desertion is meaningless IMHO, the point is, there is a choice for people if they don't want to over to whatever crazy conflict they're being deployed to. war or a military prison, that's a choice. taking the easy route is not good enough. besides, like i say, they've no excuse for being ignorant to what they're signing up to do in the first place.

the war continues because the troops are there to allow a continuation, every soldier that chooses to go to iraq is helping to continue an illegal war. if you support the troops, you support their decision to continue the illegal war. if you support their decision to continue the illegal war, you support the war.

because there is no draft, support for troops is support for the war. if i am incorrect point to the flaw in my logic.

there's no point in hand wringing on this issue, there is no half measures, either, the war is right or it is wrong, one or the other. either the troops are facilitators of an illegal action or they are not. they are either the tools of oppression or they are not.

this is not WW2, it is not honorable to fight this war, this war is one of invasion and imposition. it is a dishonorable war and it is dishonorable to participate in it. the honorable thing to do is to object. the troops that choose prison or death before dishonor, those are the troops i'll support.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
the punishment for desertion is meaningless IMHO, the point is, there is a choice for people if they don't want to over to whatever crazy conflict they're being deployed to. war or a military prison, that's a choice. taking the easy route is not good enough. besides, like i say, they've no excuse for being ignorant to what they're signing up to do in the first place.


Maybe it's just me, but the punishment and dishonor that comes from desertion is not meaningless. And it's not much of a choice, there is no easy route. Did all the troops who were called back or prevented from obtaining their discharge choose it? I don't think they did.


the war continues because the troops are there to allow a continuation, every soldier that chooses to go to iraq is helping to continue an illegal war. if you support the troops, you support their decision to continue the illegal war. if you support their decision to continue the illegal war, you support the war.

because there is no draft, support for troops is support for the war. if i am incorrect point to the flaw in my logic.


That, to me anyway, makes as much sense as saying if I eat doughnuts, I support everyone eating doughnuts. If I support everyone eating doughnuts, I support their decision to be massively obese. If I support them being massively obese, I support obesity.

And again I say, they did not make a decision to go to war, legal or not. They decided to join the military, which in my mind is an honorable thing that deserves respect not derision. They chose to join and take a chance at being called up and sent to war. They didn't join for their health, they joined to protect our country. It is not their fault that the government uses that to send them off to fight a war.


there's no point in hand wringing on this issue, there is no half measures, either, the war is right or it is wrong, one or the other. either the troops are facilitators of an illegal action or they are not. they are either the tools of oppression or they are not.

this is not WW2, it is not honorable to fight this war, this war is one of invasion and imposition. it is a dishonorable war and it is dishonorable to participate in it. the honorable thing to do is to object. the troops that choose prison or death before dishonor, those are the troops i'll support.


As I said, there is no honor in running away. The war is wrong, we shouldn't be there. But we are and there is no honor in leaving innocent people in the hands of insurgents and crazies who will kill them for the slightest perceived wrong.

One thing I need you to explain to me though, is if the troops are merely a tool used by the government for oppression as you call it, why are you blaming the tools? Would you blame a gun for killing someone? Or would you blame the person who misused that tool? Would you blame a car for running someone over and leaving them to die? Or would you blame the driver (the person who misused the tool)? If they are tools, which I agree they are being used as tools by the government, then they have no choice in what use they are put to no more than a gun has a choice who or what it is pointing at when the trigger is pulled.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Maybe it's just me, but the punishment and dishonor that comes from desertion is not meaningless. And it's not much of a choice, there is no easy route. Did all the troops who were called back or prevented from obtaining their discharge choose it? I don't think they did.


if there is an alternative, they have a choice. i really can't make my point any simpler. what exactly do you not understand? they made a choice.




That, to me anyway, makes as much sense as saying if I eat doughnuts, I support everyone eating doughnuts. If I support everyone eating doughnuts, I support their decision to be massively obese. If I support them being massively obese, I support obesity.


then i suggest that you have misunderstood the remark. support for someone who chooses to kill is support for the killing. that is why there is a charge of accessory to murder.


And again I say, they did not make a decision to go to war, legal or not.
yes, they did.

They decided to join the military, which in my mind is an honorable thing that deserves respect not derision.
hitler joined the military, did that automatically mean he deserved support? what about those nazis turning the knobs in the gas chambers, did they deserve support? were they honorable by default? how about the guys in the ss? militery service is not honorable by default, honerable military service is honorable.

They chose to join and take a chance at being called up and sent to war. They didn't join for their health, they joined to protect our country.
in what way are they protecting the country? if what way can anyone joining the american military today expect to protect the country?

It is not their fault that the government uses that to send them off to fight a war.
it is their fault that they allow themselves to be used. we are each responcible for our own actions, "i was just following orders" doesn't wash with me.


As I said, there is no honor in running away. The war is wrong, we shouldn't be there. But we are and there is no honor in leaving innocent people in the hands of insurgents and crazies who will kill them for the slightest perceived wrong.
in what way is america stopping this from happening? the military freely admit that they don't have the numbers to act as a police force. the protection of iraqi civilians is not part of the mission. forget that rationale, its just not true.


One thing I need you to explain to me though, is if the troops are merely a tool used by the government for oppression as you call it, why are you blaming the tools?
unlike an inanimate gun, these soldiers each have a mind of their own.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by pieman]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Support the troops is nothing but a PR stunt to keep nay-sayers quiet. The government doesn't support the troops, if they did, they would have the right equipment to do the job, the right maps to know where they are and where they are going, and the right to disagree with the war and not face imprisonment for saying so. The government shows scant support for the troops, they don't even allow their returning deceased soldiers to be shown on TV, they pretend they don't exist, what kind of support is that?

The word "support" means to serve as a foundation for, or maintain, sustain, assist or advocate something. You can not, by definition, support the troops but be against the war because the troops are conducting the war, and therefore support for the troops serves as the foundation for war, maintains the war, sustains the war, advocates the war, and assists the war. If there were no troops there would be no war. That is why the government and pro-war people castigate anyone and promote this idea of at least supporting the troops, because without there would be no war.

Can we admire the troops? Not really, I can't admire someone for helping to maintain a war that should not have happened, sense of duty or not. If a soldier was ordered to jump in front of a bus should he do it? He's been ordered to, so therefore he must right? A soldier must follow orders? No, we all have freewill and sense of right or wrong and can express it anytime we want, soldier or not.

If you don't want the war, don't support the troops, you'll get them home far quicker that way.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
if there is an alternative, they have a choice. i really can't make my point any simpler. what exactly do you not understand? they made a choice.


If the choices are potentially being shot or blown up and killed if they go, or potentially getting the death sentence if they desert how is that a choice? Like I said, rock and a hard place. That is merely picking who they want to have the chance to kill them. If the max penalty for deserting wasn't death you would have a point here, but it is.


then i suggest that you have misunderstood the remark. support for someone who chooses to kill is support for the killing. that is why there is a charge of accessory to murder.


And supporting someone's choice to gorge themselves on doughnuts and overeat is support for the resulting obesity. That is why all the fast-food restaurants have been catching heck for people deciding that two or three big macs, a super-size fry, and a super-size diet coke is a healthy meal choice.



And again I say, they did not make a decision to go to war, legal or not.
yes, they did.


No, they decided to join the military. Slight difference there.


hitler joined the military, did that automatically mean he deserved support? what about those nazis turning the knobs in the gas chambers, did they deserve support? were they honorable by default? how about the guys in the ss? militery service is not honorable by default, honerable military service is honorable.


I didn't say they deserved support for joining, I said they deserve respect. It takes a special kind of person to join the military, risk their lives, and willingly subject themselves to the derision and demeaning comments of those who cannot separate the decisions of the few from those who bare the burdens of those decisions. They deserve much more respect than they get. These are people who have families, friends, go to work, go to church (most anyway), and live side by side with the rest of us. They are not mindless robots, and while they can refuse an unlawful order, it doesn't happen often because they aren't often given unlawful orders. They practically have to be shot before they can even attempt to do anything.

And Hitler is hardly a fair comparison to the average person who joins the military. If you want to use a comparison how about someone who wasn't a psychopath?


in what way are they protecting the country? if what way can anyone joining the american military today expect to protect the country?


That is what a military is supposed to be for. It is supposed to be used to defend the rest of us and I don't recall anyone complaining about them being sent after Bin Laden when we were attacked. It was only after the government decided to broaden their definition of who was responsible that the complaints started. The military and the government are two separate entities. It is the government who decides what the military will be doing, not just the military going off wherever the wind blows them to shoot at people. Your anger and frustration is misplaced. Take it up with the government instead of blaming it on the military when they didn't make this decision.


it is their fault that they allow themselves to be used. we are each responcible for our own actions, "i was just following orders" doesn't wash with me.


And if they are told to do something unlawful, they typically don't do it. Yes there are the few who will do whatever they are told, but the vast majority will not do something just because they were told to. These people that you look down on are doing what they think is right given the situation they have been placed in.


in what way is america stopping this from happening? the military freely admit that they don't have the numbers to act as a police force. the protection of iraqi civilians is not part of the mission. forget that rationale, its just not true.


We are there fighting alongside Iraqis to stop the insurgents from killing everyone. How is that not helping the situation? They aren't supposed to be the police, but they certainly aren't supposed to stand idly by while people around them are being shot and blown up.


unlike an inanimate gun, these soldiers each have a mind of their own.


Perhaps they shouldn't be compared to tools then. They do have a mind of their own, and as I said I'm sure every one of them would much rather be home than being shot at. Part of their job is to defend the defenseless. Would you rather they not?


Edit to fix my quote tags. I missed one.




[edit on 10-10-2008 by Jenna]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alethia
Support the troops is nothing but a PR stunt to keep nay-sayers quiet. The government doesn't support the troops, if they did, they would have the right equipment to do the job, the right maps to know where they are and where they are going, and the right to disagree with the war and not face imprisonment for saying so. The government shows scant support for the troops, they don't even allow their returning deceased soldiers to be shown on TV, they pretend they don't exist, what kind of support is that?


I agree that they should be given proper equipment. No argument from me there. But the problem here is I am one of the nay-sayers about the war, and there is no way anyone can claim that I am quiet. I talk to much!


Why do the deceased soldiers need to be shown on TV for the rest of us to stare at? Why can they not be brought home and laid to rest by their loved ones without the interference of news cameras? What purpose could that possibly serve? If your loved one was killed would you want them splashed all over the TV? Would you want a news camera in your face while you are trying to grieve? I for one believe that everyone who has over lost a loved one deserves privacy for their grief. That doesn't need to be splashed around on TV's and the internet for idiots to speak badly of the deceased. It would be no better than the Westboro Baptist Church showing up to picket the funeral.


The word "support" means to serve as a foundation for, or maintain, sustain, assist or advocate something. You can not, by definition, support the troops but be against the war because the troops are conducting the war, and therefore support for the troops serves as the foundation for war, maintains the war, sustains the war, advocates the war, and assists the war. If there were no troops there would be no war. That is why the government and pro-war people castigate anyone and promote this idea of at least supporting the troops, because without there would be no war.


And if there were no troops, most of us would have been blown up by now. Personally I enjoy not living in fear of every child and vehicle that passes me wondering if this is when I die from a suicide bomber.

Support also means to bear the weight of, to hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking or slipping, and to endure. They are bearing the weight of this war, they are holding their position so as to keep the new Iraq government from falling, and they are enduring the barrage of negativity directed at them for simply being in the military, let alone being in a war. For these three things alone they deserve more respect than they get. They do their job so we can sit here and complain about them.


Can we admire the troops? Not really, I can't admire someone for helping to maintain a war that should not have happened, sense of duty or not. If a soldier was ordered to jump in front of a bus should he do it? He's been ordered to, so therefore he must right? A soldier must follow orders? No, we all have freewill and sense of right or wrong and can express it anytime we want, soldier or not.

If you don't want the war, don't support the troops, you'll get them home far quicker that way.


They wouldn't be ordered to jump in front of a bus, and if they were that would most likely be considered an unlawful order (damage to government property and suicide all in one) and thus no they wouldn't do it.

Yes, don't support the troops, better yet pretend we have no use for them. After all, they aren't good for anything anyway. Everyone knows that it's the press that gave us free speech, it's the protester who gave us the right to assemble, it's the church who gave us freedom of (and from) religion. The military has never done anything good since the beginning. Even though they have minds of their own, as has been stated several times in this thread by posters other than me, they are mindless robots who do exactly what they are told and don't think twice.


Seems to me that not supporting them in any way, shape or form isn't doing much good. The majority of this country lumps them in with the government and if they aren't happy with one, they aren't happy with the other. Yet strangely enough, the same people keep getting elected to continue screwing up our country while the military take all the flak for it. They haven't been receiving much support at all, during any war not just this one, and it always brings them right back home immediately.

Perhaps this massive non-support is part of the reason why our people are over there with inadequate equipment. Perhaps if the anger was directed at those we vote into office, and by that I mean stop voting the same idiots into office who got us in this mess to begin with, things might be different. Perhaps if we have a change of people in office we might get our military home a lot sooner. This whole democrat/republican thing doesn't seem to be working too well to me. How much deeper does the hole have to get before we toss them out on their butts and put someone in office who might actually do something good for the country for a change instead of deciding all our problems are the military's fault? You don't like how things are going? Quit voting for the same people for congress. Pick a party other than democrats and republicans if that's what it takes. Do something about it instead of picking the biggest target and blaming it all on them.



I'm sure this post will upset someone, and I am saying now that I apologize for any perceived offense. When I say you, I don't mean you specifically Alethia, I mean the general you. I really need a permanent disclaimer in my signature I think..



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Of course, support for the war is different from support for the troops.
I don't understand the need for much elaboration on that, though.
You are always personally responsible for your own actions...I could never relinquish full control of myself under threat of punishment for insubordination.
I do believe in respect, but that is a different thing to me.
The purpose of being a soldier and going to war are clear to; but not for me.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
If the choices are potentially being shot or blown up and killed if they go, or potentially getting the death sentence if they desert how is that a choice?


the only difference is that if they desert, they won't participate in an illegal war and possibly kill someone else. i didn't say they had two good choice's, if they have already signed up, they have two #ty choices, but there are still two choices.


And supporting someone's choice to gorge themselves on doughnuts and overeat is support for the resulting obesity.


what? yes supporting somebody in their overeating does contribute to their obesity. of course it does. undoubtedly, mcdonalds is contributing to the obesity problem to some extent. but mcdonalds doesn't say, "hey, you can eat 5 mcdonalds meals a day and stay fit and healthy" either.


No, they decided to join the military. Slight difference there.
so slight as to be a non issue. joining the military while it is engaged in two illegal wars pretty much ensures you are going to participate in one of them.


I didn't say they deserved support for joining, I said they deserve respect.
fine, replace support with respect every time i said it, my point is still valid.


They are not mindless robots, and while they can refuse an unlawful order, it doesn't happen often because they aren't often given unlawful orders. They practically have to be shot before they can even attempt to do anything.


the whole freaking war is unlawful, everything else after tat is just toppings, the wars themselves are in contravention of international law. both are preemptive. preemptive war is unlawful, any order given in a preemptive war is an unlawful order. and no, domestic law does not count because it didn't count for the nazi's. in the theater of war, international law applies.


And Hitler is hardly a fair comparison to the average person who joins the military.
probably not, which is why i also used the guy turning the taps on a gas chamber or a guy in the ss, those are both fair comparisons. they both carried out domestically lawful orders that were morally wrong. i do not respect them for doing so. they did not deserve support.


Your anger and frustration is misplaced. Take it up with the government instead of blaming it on the military when they didn't make this decision.

all i said was supporting the troops is the same as supporting the war, the government and the troops are all part of the same machine. the troops are supporting the government by choosing to go to war.


These people that you look down on are doing what they think is right given the situation they have been placed in.


if they are doing what they think is right, i disagree with them, i don't look down on them.

i do look down on the people who have deluded themselves into thinking they can support the troops but not the war. they are promoting their own ignorance in my opinion. i look down on the troops if they don't think they are doing the right thing and are there anyway.


We are there fighting alongside Iraqis to stop the insurgents from killing everyone. How is that not helping the situation?
the insurgents as you refer to them don't go around killing everyone in the areas they control. the insurgents are mostly iraqis. have you been living under a rock with a tv permanently tuned to fox or what?


They aren't supposed to be the police, but they certainly aren't supposed to stand idly by while people around them are being shot and blown up.
what's your point? the troops aren't in iraq to protect civilians, this is a job they don't do. if somebody gets shot or blown up in iraq, the troops don't give a damn as long as it isn't them being shot or blown up. please, inform me of my mistake, tell me the troops go running to the rescue of the local iraqi population each time they hear gunfire in the distance.


Perhaps they shouldn't be compared to tools then. They do have a mind of their own, and as I said I'm sure every one of them would much rather be home than being shot at. Part of their job is to defend the defenseless. Would you rather they not?


they are tools, tools of oppression, willing puppets of a corrupt administration. they don't defend the defenseless, they defend american interests in iraq, they help to impose the will of the american government in iraq and they defend themselves, that is all they are capable of doing and that is all they desire to do. they do not control the entire country, they do not police the country, they do not stop the training and recruitment of the insurgents. if i am wrong, show me i am wrong. show me a map of the country the troops control, show me the stories of the infrastructure they have built, show me the images of the troops defending the defenseless, show me the proof that the war in iraq or afghanistan is as you have portrayed it. your living in a freaking dreamworld jenna.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

Why do the deceased soldiers need to be shown on TV for the rest of us to stare at? Why can they not be brought home and laid to rest by their loved ones without the interference of news cameras?


I don't take offence to anything you say, you have your right to your opinion as I have a right to mine. However, do you honestly think the soldiers aren't shown out of respect for the families? Do you really believe the government did not block the media from showing such images for fear it would dissuade the public from supporting the war (or troops for that matter). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know it has to do with government veto and nothing else. No moral high ground is being played by the media here.

Evidence that the MSM have no respect for the family of friends of loved ones can be found in every single news broadcast of the war, where they'll happily show Pentagon videos of bombs blowing up buildings with people in, or footage of helicopters mowing down people with their guns. Hell, they even showed pictures of dead people being carried out of the Virgina Tech shootings, or CCTV footage of some local murder or dead body, hell on 9/11 we were subjected to constant replays of people jumping out of the WTC buildings. You can't have that, and then say the reason pictures of coffins returning back from the war in Iraq or Afghanistan is out of respect for the dead. That is delusional.


And if there were no troops, most of us would have been blown up by now. Personally I enjoy not living in fear of every child and vehicle that passes me wondering if this is when I die from a suicide bomber.


There is nothing to fear but fear itself. I'm sorry the Republicans and Bush have got you right where they want you, but I hope I can help to actually open up and not fear your neighbor.

First off, who fears kids? WTF?

Secondly, Al-Queda does not have the ability to take over the US, and nor did Iraq ever threaten to invade the US, so no most of us did not and do not live under a threat of being blown up and never have, troops or no troops to defend us.

Thirdly, on 9/11 when 4 planes were hijacked and flown into buildings, on US soil, we had troops. Hell, we even had NATO the most powerful airforce in the world with the most sophisticated air defence system in the world and guess what, they still got through. There is as much chance now as there was then you could be blown up.

Finally, if you walk around in fear, then the terrorists have already won. That is the point of terrorism, to get you to change your ways and we have, we've upped our defences, invaded countries and stopped being the free democracy they hate so much. By the very efforts of invading Afghansitan and Iraq, the terrorists won, because they struck terror into people like you, who then voted for and supported unjust wars. If we wanted to defeat terrorism, we would have told them that they can bomb us all we like, we will not give up our democracy, we will not close our borders, we will not snoop on our own ciitizens without judicial process, and we will not send our sons and daughters to war.



They wouldn't be ordered to jump in front of a bus, and if they were that would most likely be considered an unlawful order (damage to government property and suicide all in one) and thus no they wouldn't do it.


I don't know if you know it or not, but considering Iraq never funded Al-queda, or had WMDs, or threatened to invade the US in any way, then the order given to the troops to invade Iraq is and was unlawful, and I believe not only in this country, but others also, that the government is being challenged in the courts on this fact. It is an unlawful war and therefore an unlawful order.

I'm not saying we don't need the military, I'm saying we don't need the military in Iraq. They should have never been there in the first place, they shouldn't have been there for the past 5 years, and we shouldn't plan on having them there for the next 5 or more either. Bring them home, bring them home now.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Both of my grandfathers served in WWII. One uncle served in the first Gulf War. And, I work at a military installation and work with Marines every day.

There is a difference between supporting the troops and supporting the war. I support the Marines every day, by doing my job. I give them respect daily because it does take a special kind of person to sign up and volunteer for military service, knowing that there is a good chance they may have to go into a battle, an armed conflict, or a war during their time in the service.

Can one honestly support the troops without supporting their mission? Some say yes, some say no. Without arguing the little semantics of every aspect of military duty, I can say that where I might not completely support this war (which is not their entire mission), I completely support the men and women who are anywhere in the world, wearing a uniform of the US military.

And, I respect the hell out of them. Because, they volunteered for service and had to face the "worst case scenario". No one told them they had to join, but they did anyway.

[edit on 10/10/2008 by skeptic1]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I have family members in the military, some of them even being in the military do not support this war. So would you say they do not support themselves or their buddies?

I support the men and women in the military, every single one of them deserve respect for what they are doing. I do not support this war.

It is possible to feel compassion and to support our men and women in the military and still not support a war they are having to fight.

Saying that you cannot do both is like saying humans do not have the capacity for more than one emotion and or thought at a time.

IMO



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
the only difference is that if they desert, they won't participate in an illegal war and possibly kill someone else. i didn't say they had two good choice's, if they have already signed up, they have two #ty choices, but there are still two choices.


Which didn't really answer my question. Did the troops who were called back or were refused discharges at the end of their service time make that choice? And when your choice is between two potential deaths how is that a choice?


what? yes supporting somebody in their overeating does contribute to their obesity. of course it does. undoubtedly, mcdonalds is contributing to the obesity problem to some extent. but mcdonalds doesn't say, "hey, you can eat 5 mcdonalds meals a day and stay fit and healthy" either.


The military doesn't say "hey, you can join, get paid, and decide if and when you go to war!" It doesn't work that way. They don't decide where they go, when they go, or what they do once they get there. And supporting the government (i.e. voting the same people back into office) contributes to our problems both at home and overseas.


so slight as to be a non issue. joining the military while it is engaged in two illegal wars pretty much ensures you are going to participate in one of them.


H.J.Res.14 may not be a formal declaration of war, but it is an authorization from Congress for an extended military operation which basically amounts to the same thing. And S.J.Res.23 covers the war in Afghanistan. It would appear that they are not illegal after all. They were both approved by Congress and signed into law by Bush.


fine, replace support with respect every time i said it, my point is still valid.


As is mine.


the whole freaking war is unlawful, everything else after tat is just toppings, the wars themselves are in contravention of international law. both are preemptive. preemptive war is unlawful, any order given in a preemptive war is an unlawful order. and no, domestic law does not count because it didn't count for the nazi's. in the theater of war, international law applies.


As shown above, it is not unlawful either here or through international law or the UN would have pitched a fit. As it stands they didn't. We were attacked, we fought back. That is not preemptive. Congress authorized extended military action in both Afghanistan and Iraq. As for international law, here you go:

Resolution 1386 (2001)
Resolution 1378 (2001)
Resolution 1368
Resolution 1422 (2002)
Resolution 1403 (2002)

There are more, but I won't waste the space adding links. Basically, the UN, who maintains international law, condemned the attacks here and made no fuss about military action being taken in return against the guilty.


probably not, which is why i also used the guy turning the taps on a gas chamber or a guy in the ss, those are both fair comparisons. they both carried out domestically lawful orders that were morally wrong. i do not respect them for doing so. they did not deserve support.


They are fair comparisons as long as you ignore the fact that they had literally been brainwashed by a psychopath into believing that only people just like them deserved to live and everyone else should be tortured to death or just killed outright.


all i said was supporting the troops is the same as supporting the war, the government and the troops are all part of the same machine. the troops are supporting the government by choosing to go to war.


They are different entities. Not one and the same. If they were the military would be telling the government what to do but they don't because they can't. Once again, they had no choice and no one said a word until they decided that the definition had been broadened too much. Which by the way I agree it was.



if they are doing what they think is right, i disagree with them, i don't look down on them.

i do look down on the people who have deluded themselves into thinking they can support the troops but not the war. they are promoting their own ignorance in my opinion. i look down on the troops if they don't think they are doing the right thing and are there anyway.


Dangerously close to a personal attack there aren't we? Let's not start down that road, I don't like to play that way and will not stoop to personal attacks. Tackle my opinions and the facts I present, not what you think my state of mind is. Much more effective arguments that way.


the insurgents as you refer to them don't go around killing everyone in the areas they control. the insurgents are mostly iraqis. have you been living under a rock with a tv permanently tuned to fox or what?


Yes, which is why I said "Iraqis killing Iraqis". And once again, debate my words not my character. And for the record, I don't watch fox nor do I really watch much TV. Have more important things to do then be a zombie all day watching mind-numbing drivel.


what's your point? the troops aren't in iraq to protect civilians, this is a job they don't do. if somebody gets shot or blown up in iraq, the troops don't give a damn as long as it isn't them being shot or blown up. please, inform me of my mistake, tell me the troops go running to the rescue of the local iraqi population each time they hear gunfire in the distance.


It may not be in their job description, but I would be surprised if they stood there and watched a civilian get shot and not do anything. And how exactly are they suppose to run to the rescue for gunfire in the distance when that would be abandoning their post, disobeying an order, etc. etc. If it happens right there next to them then they can help, but they can't just take off running. I never said they could or did.


they are tools, tools of oppression, willing puppets of a corrupt administration. they don't defend the defenseless, they defend american interests in iraq, they help to impose the will of the american government in iraq and they defend themselves, that is all they are capable of doing and that is all they desire to do. they do not control the entire country, they do not police the country, they do not stop the training and recruitment of the insurgents. if i am wrong, show me i am wrong...................your living in a freaking dreamworld jenna.


I didn't say they control the country, police the country, stop training/recruitment of insurgents, etc. Once again, blame the user of the tool, not the tool itself for the problem. I know many people who were not willing to go to war. They didn't want to leave their families and friends to go get shot at and shoot back. They didn't want to go and risk their lives. But you know what? They did. Why? Because it was the right thing to do for them. Because if they didn't go, someone would get sent in their place and they didn't want to be responsible for someone else dieing in their place. I could go on but I am dangerously close to running out of room to type.

Go ahead and say I live in a dream world. Doesn't bother me a bit. Much better than living in a cynical nightmare of my own construction where I blame people who didn't make these decisions while letting the ones who did run free to make more bad decisions for the rest of us.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Seriously, you are in dreamland. The UN did and was pitching a fit, they were desperate for a diplomatic solution, and Bush was foaming at the mouth for war and stated himself, he'll go to war with or without UN support. And no, Bush signing something into law doesn't make it lawful, it proves how much Bush is willing to circumvent decency to get his ill gotten gains, of course the guy is going to pass laws that benefit him.

Please, do some proper research, and read the threads here on this matter, your argument is almost childish in it's naivety.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alethia
I don't take offence to anything you say, you have your right to your opinion as I have a right to mine. However, do you honestly think the soldiers aren't shown out of respect for the families? Do you really believe the government did not block the media from showing such images for fear it would dissuade the public from supporting the war (or troops for that matter). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know it has to do with government veto and nothing else. No moral high ground is being played by the media here.


No, I said they shouldn't be shown out of respect. Shouldn't and aren't are two different things. I don't know what the reasons are, nor does it particularly matter to me. They shouldn't show images of dead soldiers, or anyone else for that matter, out of respect for them and their grieving families.


Evidence that the MSM have no respect for the family of friends of loved ones can be found in every single news broadcast of the war, where they'll happily show Pentagon videos of bombs blowing up buildings with people in, or footage of helicopters mowing down people with their guns. Hell, they even showed pictures of dead people being carried out of the Virgina Tech shootings, or CCTV footage of some local murder or dead body, hell on 9/11 we were subjected to constant replays of people jumping out of the WTC buildings. You can't have that, and then say the reason pictures of coffins returning back from the war in Iraq or Afghanistan is out of respect for the dead. That is delusional.


Which are all things I disagree with. If they cannot report tragedies such as the ones you have mentioned without doing instant replays of the most horrific scenes, perhaps they should let someone else do the reporting. Such images are used for nothing more than to incite fear in the viewer, which to me is a disgusting practice. If they can't make a point without showing an image of someone's final moments, or their body, they don't have much of a point to begin with. Once again, I didn't say they aren't shown out of respect, I said they shouldn't be shown out of respect. Please do not twist my words.


There is nothing to fear but fear itself. I'm sorry the Republicans and Bush have got you right where they want you, but I hope I can help to actually open up and not fear your neighbor.


Unfortunately, neither Bush nor the Republicans have me anywhere. Though I am sure they would like to. It is perfectly reasonable to experience fear, it is hysteria caused by fear that should be avoided. It is only by experiencing fear and learning that we can overcome whatever it is we fear that we become confident in our own abilities.

"You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You must do the thing which you think you cannot do." - Eleanore Roosevelt


First off, who fears kids? WTF?


School trains suicide bombers
Taliban Rebuild Children's Suicide Camp
Girl suicide bomber, 13, hands herself over to Iraqi police

It is not that uncommon to have children as suicide bombers. I'm surprised you had not heard about it.


Secondly, Al-Queda does not have the ability to take over the US, and nor did Iraq ever threaten to invade the US, so no most of us did not and do not live under a threat of being blown up and never have, troops or no troops to defend us.


I did not say that al-Qaeda had the ability to take us over, though they sure know how to bring us down if they really wanted to, nor did I say that Iraq threatened to invade us. However, if we had allowed the attacks to happen and had done nothing to defend ourselves in any way, shape or form, you can bet someone would have tried to invade us. Are you willing to bet your life and the life of everyone you know that if we didn't have troops to defend us no one would ever invade or blow this country to kingdom come? I sure wouldn't.


Thirdly, on 9/11 when 4 planes were hijacked and flown into buildings, on US soil, we had troops. Hell, we even had NATO the most powerful airforce in the world with the most sophisticated air defence system in the world and guess what, they still got through. There is as much chance now as there was then you could be blown up.


Yeah, that kinda happens when they hijack passenger planes and no one realizes it's an attack and not an accident until it's too late. Kinda hard to tell that a plane going down is caused by terrorists and not an equipment malfunction until the second one goes down and word gets out. Before 9-11 no one ever dreamed that anything even remotely close to that would happen here. We weren't looking for it to happen. So yeah, they got through. And were we supposed to shoot down our own planes to stop them once we realized what was going on?


Finally, if you walk around in fear, then the terrorists have already won. That is the point of terrorism, to get you to change your ways and we have, we've upped our defences, invaded countries and stopped being the free democracy they hate so much. By the very efforts of invading Afghansitan and Iraq, the terrorists won, because they struck terror into people like you, who then voted for and supported unjust wars. If we wanted to defeat terrorism, we would have told them that they can bomb us all we like, we will not give up our democracy, we will not close our borders, we will not snoop on our own ciitizens without judicial process, and we will not send our sons and daughters to war.


I don't walk around in fear. I live pretty much the way I always have. And I feel safe knowing that we do have a military to defend us and we won't be caught off guard if they try again. I feel no terror. Please do not presume to know my thoughts or feelings.

So... To beat them we should have rolled over and let them just kill us off one by one if they wanted to... Yeah, great game plan there. I'm sure they would have just got bored and left us alone after that.


I don't know if you know it or not, but considering Iraq never funded Al-queda, or had WMDs, or threatened to invade the US in any way, then the order given to the troops to invade Iraq is and was unlawful, and I believe not only in this country, but others also, that the government is being challenged in the courts on this fact. It is an unlawful war and therefore an unlawful order.


It's technically not a war, it's an extended military action and legal. Please see the links I provided in my previous post. Running out of room again and don't have the space to repost them all.


I'm not saying we don't need the military, I'm saying we don't need the military in Iraq. They should have never been there in the first place, they shouldn't have been there for the past 5 years, and we shouldn't plan on having them there for the next 5 or more either. Bring them home, bring them home now.


No we shouldn't be. Shouldn't have gone there to begin with. That is something I have been saying throughout this thread and others. But no one reads my words, they just assume that I must live my life cowering in fear and believe everything I am told by the government if I dare to say that I can support the people who chose to join the military without approving of the governments decisions on where the military goes or what they do.

Now if everyone can stop debating my state of mind, that would be great.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Alethia
 


Seriously, dangerously close to starting personal attacks. I have read the threads and I read through the resolutions passed by the UN on the subject. Please show me the resolution I missed, cause it is possible I missed one I won't deny that, that shows them telling Bush or the US to cease and desist.

Can we not have a conversation without someone commenting on my mental state? What does that have to do with anything? I am not delusional. I do not live in a dream world. And I do not live in fear. Now can we please talk about the actual topic instead of what you think you know about me? That would be great.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Saying one supports (or not) "the troops" is like saying one supports, for example, vegetarians.

Hitler and Ghandi were both vegetarians. Somebody might support one or the other, but it is not likey they support both.

Likewise with "the troops". The members of the military that are involved in war crimes such as rape and torture do not deserve support, period. So I at least do not support those individuals at all.

What I (speaking for myself only) do support is the concept behind the existence of the military, which is very well summarized by badmedia:


Originally posted by badmedia
ensuring they aren't sent into anything other than defense, now that is support.


The US military is supposed to exist for the purpose of defending the United States. And the military has been grossly abused in recent decades. The military is not being used to defend the US, rather, they are being used to further US imperialistic designs or US based multinational corporations.

And that, I do not support.

Now, if the question is one of supporting individual US military personnel who behave with honor and courage - the vast, huge majority - without regard to the fact they are being mis-used and abused, then yes, I personally do.

I do not support especially the Iraq war. That is clearly, to me, an unwarranted act of aggression and does not deserve support.

However, active duty military do not exactly get unbiased information. So it is entirely possible that many such personnel truly believe they are in Iraq for legitimate reasons. Those people deserve and have my unwavering support.

So, to bring this babble to an end and address the original question, yes, it is absolutely possible to support the troops and not the war, and it is also possible to support some troops and not others, at an individual level.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

Before 9-11 no one ever dreamed that anything even remotely close to that would happen here. We weren't looking for it to happen. So yeah, they got through. And were we supposed to shoot down our own planes to stop them once we realized what was going on?


Do you hear that? That's a collective sigh of disbelief from truthers and debunkers alike here on ATS. It's astounding that you're trying to push such a statement on this board, and in this day and age.

Truthers, debunkers, MSM, and anyone with half a dose of knowledge of this subject knows full well that the US government did know of a plan by Al-Queda to attack the US. NORAD themselves, prior to 9/11 and on 9/11 itself, were running training drills specifically testing their response to hijacked planes in US airspace, the very same day it happened. This is all documented fact. There is government documentation outlining scenarios for this very activity, all produced prior to 9/11. They did envisage such a scenario and there was a procedure to handle it that for some reason was not followed on 9/11 itself. Please go to the 9/11 section of ATS and do your research PROPERLY. Don't just read it, take it on board and assess it, understand it and what it means.

We've all got our heads in our hands right now at your naivety. It would be laughable if it wasn't so depressing.

[edit on 11-10-2008 by Alethia]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join