Opposing the war but supporting the troops

Its a new concept that we haven't had to face before. Imagine if the vietnam protests had been conducted on this premise. Its ridiculous.

I'm off sunbathing!

But when Dems say "now that the war's on, I support our troops," yes, it sounds funny

but what Saddam and his cronies are doing/have done is morally wrong too, thats the trick.

rather than supporting the troops as it were, a greater empthasis could be placed on supporting family and friends of the people out there (as said by - fanfar - William Hague on Question Time, now my favourite programme, last night).

now that it finally is 'hammertime' i just hope the objective is reached ASAP, Saddam out dead or alive, absolute minimum 'collateral damage', restore stability to the region an absolute priority as soon as Saddam is ousted - if thats even feasible which is still debatable...

It is perfectly reasonable to oppose the taking of an action, but once the action is in fact taken, to hope for the most efficient and painless outcome. In fact, it makes perfect sense in this case -- I (for one) opposed pre-emptive intervention in Iraq, but I am going to be quite happy if this war works out smoothly (i.e. Saddam Hussien is removed from power, military action is contained within the borders of Iraq, and the Kurds aren't sold out to the Turks). The only way for those objectives to be accomplished is through the swift and effective action of the U.S. and U.K. military, and the only way that's going to happen is if the troops perform their mission without reservations.

Of course, this position only makes sense if you're a bit conflicted in the first place -- I mean, obviously Hussein is an evil bastard who has caused much suffering to the Iraqi people (particularly but not exclusively the Kurds), but it is equally obvious that the Bush / Blair motivations for this war have virtually nothing to do with that.
If you're willing to put everthing to one side (no grey shades), than this is going to look silly to you. But the idea that there are no shades of grey looks pretty silly to me.

thanks for this, sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who thinks so

A lot of them are from lower-income families who don't have many other options to pay for education. So I'm not throwing stones at them, it's the government that should be the target of criticism.

To continue the sporting theme, it's like playing the man to impress the coach they're doing something when they can't get near the ball.

Well, 2 outta 3 ain't bad.

Actually, I should have added "very limited loss of life," obv.

The only thing i can think of as "support" is wishing/praying (that kind of positive imagining that is used in the blind studies that somehow benefits cancer patients, even if the praying person is an atheist (and i don't quite know whether this studies are valid. i'd just like to believe it)) that as few people get hurt and killed as possible.

The mission itself is nonsense though. There will be no democracy in Iraq. The majority of Iraqi people will only minimally benefit from the removal of this particular dictator. The Kurds seemed to be screwed once again at this point, to be steamrollered by Turkey. The Sunni versus Shi'ite tensions will not be eased by Tommy Franks. The world is going to be a much more dangerous place with the United States behaving like an imperial power.

This is a pessimistic view, but (unfortunately) you're probably right. I will say it may yet be possible to stop the Turks from crushing the Kurds (this is actually a stated objective of U.S., albiet not stated loudly), and it remains possible that the Iraqi people will benefit from Hussein's removal, depending on the resolve of Europe (I have no confidence whatsoever that the U.S. gov't will be useful in this respect). We can still hope.

-- Gatinha (rwillmse...), March 21st, 2003. (later)

this is the most fuck-off-able statement on ilx ever.

On the other, humans can make moral choices. In most other jobs though it is possible, if asked to do something you disapprove of, to say "Take this job and shove it." For very good reasons that isn't acceptable in the military in the middle of an operation. So it's dependent on how acceptable "obeying orders" is as a reason for absolution.

On yet another hand, one reason *some* people join the military is surely because it allows them the opportunity for combat.

Luckily it's possible to get round all this by saying "if there is war, I want as few lives to be lost as possible on any side." But that feels a bit glib.

Then be clearer.

My dad, as mentioned many a time before, served for thirty years plus in the Navy and at any time could have been asked to essentially kill somebody. He knew the risks, the dangers and indeed the moral contradictions of this position, all the more so because he is a strong (though thankfully not fundamentalist) Christian. Anyone who wants to write off the armed forces of this country or any country as simply 'hired killers' with no brain or ethics is as guilty of stereotyping as those who mindlessly blather on about 'sending in the troops' as if they were figures on a Risk board rather than human beings.

Nicole and Tom are quite right about this whole thing, as was Ally in another thread. You're talking about fellow humans, fellow citizens here, many of them indeed looking for a way out from a dumpy go-nowhere situation and who found an opportunity to do so. The price that had to be paid in terms of their own personal moral and ethical choices are more than many seem to understand -- I would strongly suggest a number of people here (and elsewhere in the world) start trying to comprehend that.

I support getting our troops out in one goddamn piece. Having made their stupid call, the government has some sort of obligation it had better well live up to -- but after how shabbily many veterans were treated after the Gulf War, I have my doubts.

I'm trying to remain optimistic that for once the Kurds might not get screwed, but it's really hard. Check out http://slate.msn.com/id/2080461/ for a reasonably decent (and equally skeptical) viewpoint on this issue.

War is often about old rich people killing young poor people.

I'd also argue that veterans of the United States military have never been treated all that well, no matter the conflict (or lack of it.) For example, the Veterans Hospital system was a nice idea but it's a typical morass of neglect and inept government workings.

My dad, who was nearly killed a dozen times in Vietnam, was heckled and harassed by his own family when he returned, including vile comments by his mother in law that I can remember hearing myself.

Obviously, the best solution, now that our governments have initiated hostilities and our troops have invaded, is that the Iraqi soldiers choose to use this opportunity to depose Saddam Hussein by engaging in mass surrenders. Obviously, for them to make this choice, they must believe that they are not betraying their country into the hands of bad people who will abuse the power they would be given through this action. One could forgive them for not believing in the essential good will of the USA toward Iraq, but let's hope they do, for the sake of a short war with few casualties.

If the Iraqis defend their nation from attack (as people are usually inclined to do), then "supporting the troops" becomes a much stickier business. It means hoping that our troops bring such overwhelming force to bear that the opposition is quickly annihilated or neutralized. In other words, it means hoping that many, many, many Iraqis die swiftly so that our own will survive. That's really shitty.
But what is the alternative? Hoping the Iraqis kill so many of our own troops that our governments give up and retreat? That's no less shitty.

It sure as hell happened in Australia. I have known four Vietnam vets all completely independently of each other and they all copped some kind of variously vicious crap from passers-by. One was my cousin's husband, and it turned her from a potential protestor to a Normie Rowe conservative.
Not owning up to your mistakes, not admitting error, or even its possibility, is one of the main arguments we have with the US. We shouldn't do the same.

A lot of people join the military not to invade other countries but because it's the best job open to them, and as was pointed out earlier, the only way they can go to college. It's a risk that you take when you join that you'll be sent to fight a war, but I don't think that many 18 year olds who joined really expected that to happen.

I think it's dumb that it happens to be the case that one of the best ways to be able to go to college, or get a stable job, is to join the military, and I think that it should be changed. But until it changes, that's the way that it is. I'm completely opposed to this war- I think it's illegal, stupid, a horrible waste, and should never have been allowed to happen. However, my thoughts are with the soldiers- they have to be there, and I hope that they all come home.

I think anyone who wants to tell me that I'm stupid for thinking this is sadly misinformed, naive, and clueless, and heartless. I'm really saddened by some of what I've read on this thread.

-- Gatinha (rwillmse...), March 22nd, 2003.

I'd like to wholeheartedly withdraw these remarks and apologise to all those who read them. It was insensitive provocative nonsense.

It can also be pointed out that attending one of the service academies/ROTC and becoming commissioned is one of the best ways for a young person to become upwardly mobile at an early age.

Somebody in my unit got spit on on Friday while at a gas station.

I cracked up at this-- Boy made me lug home a bottle of port from Australia; he would never be drinking it except for some of the CGA dinners, I'm positive.

On a sadder note, have people seen this? http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/22/sprj.irq.101.attack/index.html
I can't even come up with anything to say about it.

A base spokesman at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, where the 101st is based, said news of the incident upset families at the base was a blow to morale.