three questions for iraq war supporters

Social Forums Non-Philosophical Chat
1

3 simple questions.

  1. How does sending our troops to Iraq, separating
    them from their families and loved ones, putting them
    in harm’s way and keeping them there, equal,
    “supporting our troops”

  2. Why do those who claim to “honor their sacrifices”
    want them to continue sacrificing?

  3. Why don’t those who spew such rhetoric such as “supporting’
    and honoring” the troops, against an enemy they think
    threatens western civilization, actually put on combat boots
    and join them. If the war against the terrorist is so important,
    why aren’t you there fighting the terrorist with our brave
    soldiers?

I have found the loudest call for war is from those who have not
and will not ever serve their country in the same way.
It is easy to clamor for war, if it is not your but being shot at.
How easy is it to call for war. If you call for war, you should
serve also. It is like those who call for capital punishment,
but won’t ever pull the trigger themselves.
We have words for those type of people.
guess what they are.

Kropotkin

2

I dunno Peter, whatever were the real motivators behind the war, it was a choice of war, or a choice of allowing torture to continue on a scale greater than it does now. Bad/bad.

And it’s always the cowards who cheer with most fervence, they have to, don’t you see…?

It’s done, better to see it through till the end than leave it hanging like last time.

3

Tabula Rasa:
And it’s always the cowards who cheer with most fervence, they have to, don’t you see…?

K: you said it better then I did, thanks. War is really for last
resort, yet here it wasn’t. It is quite clear from the several
books written, that is was on the table from day one and actually
a question of when, not if. The bob Woodard book is quite clear
that Iraq was on the agenda from jan 20, 2001… and in fact,
the neo-cons approach Clinton in 1998 and told him they
would support him if he went to war with Iraq in 98.
It is suppose to be the last resort and thousands of Americans
are dead because it wasn’t.

Kropotkin

4

I agree Peter, but how many more Iraqis died in the interim, in the cells, small sad painful inglorious deaths…?

The regime had to go. What were/are the alternatives…? Because I’m damned if I could find them - and believe me, it’s a topic I’ve thought long and hard about.

5

Topple the government

then attack the population (and the hostile population)
with resources, loaves of loving breed, develops roads
of joy, and build a stronger infrastructure in the places
that need it.

This didn’t have to be prediacated on a WAR mentality at all.
But as per: the U.S. fights with EGO not skill!

6

Ego’s a given my friend, on all sides of all equations. If not, it is made so, sooner or later.

7

True, true…perhaps I am being too light with the issue…to idealistic…but surely a ‘humantarian’ ‘offensive’ would have been more ‘constructive’ in the long run??

War perpetuates War
and true wars are never won

8

If we’re going to win this war we need troops. Unfotunately that means that some people are going to die. The reason we keep people over there is that not enought people want to go.

If we back out now we won’t have acomplished anything.

Look Pete, maybe we didn’t need to get into this war in the first place. We can get oil from other places. But now that were in the desert we need to stay there and show the world that America is not complacent. We need to show them that we back down to no one. America needs to win this bitch and put the rest of the world in line.

Americans want to be on top and if we can’t be on top then goddammit we’re going to pretend we’re on top. This isn’t a war about oil, or freedom, this is a war about a message and that is no one should mess with us.

And I got through this whole post without saying the “f” word. Do you know how hard that is for me?

9

Wow, you’re growing up, and learning to put a few sentences together without swearing. So impressive.

Gonna tell me how big your cock is again?

10

Hello F(r)iends,

I find this question very odd. Why would the troops need our support outside the time of war? Shouldn’t they be off somewhere fighting a war in order to merit some type of support? I guess I don’t understand the question.

:? Isn’t there still need for sacrificing? Thus, we honor that they continue to make sacrifices.

So, is it your suggestion that the millions of adults that support the troops put on boots and go to Iraq?

What would these people come home to besides a utterly disrupted economy?

-Thirst

11

Peter Kropotkin: 1. How does sending our troops to Iraq, separating them from their families and loved ones, putting them in harm’s way and keeping them there, equal, “supporting our troops”

Thirst: I find this question very odd. Why would the troops need our support outside the time of war? Shouldn’t they be off somewhere fighting a war in order to merit some type of support? I guess I don’t understand the question.

K:It based on the idea that we must support our troops in this
conflict, yet our actions certainly doesn’t support the idea of
supporting the troops. Our words don’t match the actions.

Peter Kropotkin: 2. Why do those who claim to “honor their sacrifices” want them to continue sacrificing?"

Thirst:? Isn’t there still need for sacrificing? Thus, we honor that they continue to make sacrifices.

K: We have forced troops to to continue long after their tour is over.
and we have called in national guard for extended tours of duty.
We have made troops stay a lot longer then they should have, thus
we force them to continue to make sacrifices.

Peter Kropotkin: 3. Why don’t those who spew such rhetoric such as “supporting’ and honoring” the troops, against an enemy they think threatens western civilization, actually put on combat boots and join them. If the war against the terrorist is so important, why aren’t you there fighting the terrorist with our brave soldiers?"

Thirst: So, is it your suggestion that the millions of adults that support the troops put on boots and go to Iraq?
What would these people come home to besides a utterly disrupted economy?

K: if this war is as dangerous as some here has suggested then, yes
they should leave their family and fight the war on terror. I suggest
this war is not as important as they claim. If it was, they would be
out there fighting terrorism. It is easy to say, to make the claim
that this war is a dangerous as the second world war, and yet
the actions do not match the rhetoric. People are not sacrificing
as they did in WW 2. We are giving people tax cuts for gods sake,
money must play a role in war, just as much as people. Our actions
don’t support the claims that this war matches ww 2.

Kropotkin

12

PK,

As I told you back in the day I was informed about 6 months prior to the war (by a friend whose mother works high up in the BBC) that it would start in the middle of March 2003. Now if the major news organs knew about it prior to the making of the case for war (in this country that took place in Autumn 2002) then I’d suggest that the decision had been made at least 18 months prior to the actual invasion. This is of course grossly dishonest and undemocratic, particularly on the part of the British government (at least for a time a majority of the US population were in favour of the war, in Britain this was never the case). For military reasons if nothing else one has to plan such things in advance and merely assume that you’ll get away with it. As it is the respective governments have got away with it.

13

I have heard “Support the war” so many times and it still does not make sense. No one wants a war unless they are truly blood thirsty. The vast majority wish fighting would stop on both sides of any war. But, how do you stop fighting unless you either surrender or win? Families that have lost loved ones are caught between the rock and a hard place. They don’t wish to see anymore young folks die from either side but, niether can they sit back and allow those deaths to be for nothing.

Support is the wrong word in my book, it is putting the wrong title to feelings. I truly don’t think there can be one word to describe thoughts of and about war. Right or wrong the reasons for this war starting are moot at this point. It is, there for it must have an end. It is the end that counts now, not the beginning. The reasons for ending the war are the ones we must look to now. How best to serve the survivors. Will the US and her allies be better served if they surrender or if they press on and strive to create a democratic nation for survivors.

Our soldiers are ambassadors, I think addressing how they treat civilians is an important question, more important then any other question about this war, at this time.

14

The problem we’re facing now is that Iraq is a tribal nation. They don’t see themselves as one people but as Sunni, or Shiite, or what have you. So if one tribe wants a democratic country the others might not. In the end, they just don’t want our form of government and its not hard to see why. There’s hasn’t been a democratic government in that region for thousands of years.

I think America needs some reasonable goals for this mess. If not we should bring our people home and to hell with their little corner of the world.

15

I mostly agree, yet I can’t help but, think that should we surrender our position too soon or ever, things will get worse for the world. The middle east people from all the middle east countries are notoriusly proud and in many ways rightfully so. but, they do tend to create a lot of dangerous fanatics with dangerous visions of supremecy and they do have the money to purchase hideous weapons from unscrupulous dealers and gov’ts.

I would rather we face the insults and conflicts now, then something much worse for the world in the future.

16

–and there’s the rub. What we’re dealing with is not a country its select groups of extremists. We can’t fight this thing like a normal war, and the “War on Terror” thing is so cliche that it lost all meaning almost as soon as it was coined.

The one thing we can’t do is admit a surrender. America doesn’t need that kind of chink in its armor. We’re teetering on the edge of self-destruction anyway.

17

As I stated earlier, our soldiers are in fact ambassadors, How they treat the civilians would go a long way towards a more positive resolution. Educate our soldiers, reward them for outstanding behavour towards civilians, make them treat civilians with respect and honor. Have them all reach out with helping hands and give them incentive to do so, that seems to me one viable possible solution. It would help to clear up the US face that the world sees right now.

18

Right on to that. America could use a good face lift. It would be nice to stave off the greed at the top, but let’s take things one step at a time.