It's time to clearly state that opposing Bush's illegal and dangerous war

[kentuck]

is not the same as opposing the "troops". We do not have to support the war in order to "support the troops". We refuse to be put into that little silly ass box. So don't bring any more of those type of illogical arguments before us. OK? We do not have to support your war built on lies and we don't have to accept your premise that if we don't support the war, then we don't support the troops. Get it??

[Goldmund]

1. Time was about 2 years ago.

[KnowerOfLogic]

9. Exactamundo. Our dems reps have legitimized the support the

troops = support the war for so long, it's going to be really hard to reverse it now. But *we* must call people on this bogus logic every time we hear it.

[tavalon]

15. And it was said then

and again, and again, and again.

[LiberalVoice]

2. Question.

If the job of our military is to protect our freedoms from those abroad or at home and the war in Iraq is obviously not that then why should I support them?

This is not flame bait. I'm serious...I understand that the military is a tough place to be especially in war time and there are alot of Vets and soldiers in Iraq right now who are against this war but I still dont understand why we are supposed to support them. It sounds to me alot like an average citizen seeing all the injustice our govt does and not doing or saying anything about it.

A serious question looking for serious responses. Anybody that wants to be rude or make fun of me can shove it.

[liveoaktx]

4. I support people I know individually that are in the service, and those

who have come back wounded and require health care. But I equate the *support the troops* patriotic warmongering lines with supporting an illegal and immoral war-the two simply do not exist as separate issues for the general public. The difference between those who are in the service now is that they have chosen, for whatever reason, to join, as opposed to being unwillingly drafted. Because, for right now, the *support the troops* is a propaganda technique used to justify the war, I can't be party to it, regardless of how I might feel about soldiers I know personally.

Adding that this does not make me a troll, not an idiot or any of the other perjorative terms bandied about on some other threads this morning-it makes me someone who sees the War of Advanture that takes the life and money of this country to conquer another while cutting back services as not only wrong, but immoral.

[LiberalVoice]

6. I support healthcare for troops unequivocaly.

But I still dont understand why i'm supposed to support them while they fight in Iraq. I understand that thugs like Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld are the ones that orchestrated the events. I just dont understand why we're supposed to support those that bow to their whim.

I'm sure someone is going to post "Would you refuse to fight?" or "Would you stop paying taxes?" it still doesnt change the fact that i'm supposed to support our troops when they are killing over there for no reason.

No disrespect to them if i'm misunderstanding everything but I just dont get it.

[wildflower]

13. I think we're just talking about different definitions of 'support' here.

For example, let's say my daughter wants to do something I disagree with, such as marrying a man I think is wrong for her. I can disagree with what she's doing and think she's making a mistake. But I'll stand by her and support her emotionally and physically. I'll support her right to make her own choice. I'll go to her wedding. I won't refuse to go; that would just make things worse for her.

'Supporting the troops' can mean supporting what the troops do in the war.

Or it can mean taking care of their physical and emotional needs; more literally supporting them.

I think the former is the case for conservatives, and the latter the case for liberals.

So to my mind, you do support the troops, as we do, because we believe in health care, etc. But you don't support the war. Would that be fair to say?

-wildflower

ON EDIT: In fact, for many of us, being against the war is the only way to support the troops, because it saves their lives: "Support the troops - bring them home."

[Jack Rabbit]

3. Where have you been, Kentuck?

Many of us have been saying that quite clearly for two years.

I realize some people didn't get the message.

[kentuck]

5. Just time to say it again , I guess....

:) I sympathize with the troops. I was in a similar situation when I was 19 and 20 and 21 years old. I remember that I was like most other troops at that time. We were malleable. Few of us were able to discern the right or wrong of the war at first. I grew to question the war - even while I was there. But I did not question it before I went. So it is my opinion that we have to cut our younger troops a lot of slack. Just my opinion.

[giant_robot]

7. Let's not forget that Republicans had no problem opposing

sending troops to Kosovo, while "supporting the troops". Nor was it called "emboldening the enemy" when it was a Republican criticizing Clinton's policies. Check out these quotes from Republicans:

"Just because President Clinton has made a decision and the troops are already landing, Mr. Lott said, "I'm not going to endorse a wrong decision after the fact." Trent Lott, 1999

Sen. HANK BROWN, (R-CO): We should not send young men and women to their death without being fully resolved that what they might die for is worth the price. I don't believe that the mission that's been outlined is worth that price. 1999

"After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons." – Dick Armey, 1998

"I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question." – Trent Lott, 1998

Attorney General (then-Senator) John Ashcroft
"A lackluster air campaign has given the Serb dictator Milosevic time to achieve most of his strategic goals in Kosovo."

House Majority Leader (then-Whip) Tom DeLay
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy... But before we get deeper embroiled into this Balkan quagmire, I think that an assessment has to be made of the Kosovo policy so far. President Clinton has never explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military in a civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian reasons, a new military/foreign policy precedent."

House Speaker Dennis Hastert
"Many may question the path that has taken us to this point. I have my own questions about the long term strategy of this campaign."

Senator Judd Gregg
"I don't believe that a ground war in Kosovo using American troops is going to be very successful."

Senator Richard Lugar
"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."

Senate Majority Leader Don Nickles
"I think he's gotten us into a mess. I don't think you can bomb a country into signing a peace treaty."

Senator Richard Shelby, 1999
"Obviously, we're not winning the war."

Rep. Tom Cambell, 1999
"We are presently at war, and it is an unconstitutional war."

Pat Buchanan, 1999
"I believe it is an unjust war."

Rep. Randy Cunningham, 1999
"This is the most inept foreign policy in the history of the United States.



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bush, in Austin, criticized President Clinton's administration for not doing enough to enunciate a goal for the Kosovo military action and indicated the bombing campaign might not be a tough enough response. 'Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is,' Bush said."


http://interactive.zogby.com/fuse/messageview.cfm?catid=21&threadid=4071

edit: link

[Mr_Spock]

12. Thanks - great quotes from these two-faced nut-jobs.

I remember all the bitching and moaning from these ass-holes like it was yesterday - what happened to their balls? Good-for-nothings.

[EVDebs]

8. We need to get the word out (Maps etc) of all the new bases going up

in the Middle East and Caspian Sea region that will have to be manned with troop and boots on the ground. Can our already strained military man those bases with current enlistments and enlistment rates ?

[bush_is_wacko]

10. Agreed and I will call him BUSHITLER until he is removed from office or

his agenda is a part of political history! In fact, if it is a part of history, I imagine EVERYONE will be calling him BUSHITLER so I retract my second statement! If it walks like a duck and all...

As for the troops, they are doing the job they were hired to do and the person that demanded they fight a war for oil and told them they would find WMD's and be greeted with flowers is the criminal NOT the soldiers!

[penpal7]

11. I asked my state senators a question

I told them I wanted them to oppose bush's budget, until he came clean as to the lies, and what happend to 9 billion gone missing in Iraq, I sent that message to all my state senators, and when I got replies they all said,"The president's request is important because it will provide our troops with the resources they need to continually fight and win the war on terror", they use the excuse of supporting the troops as to their reason to grant bush whatever he wants with just a token squeak of opposition, And not one senator has yet to tell me why bush has not included the cost of the Iraq was in the budget he sent. Personally I support the troops, but I sure do not suppor the mission they are on.

[Deja Q]

14. I had submitted this as a bumper sticker and they declined it:

"I support our troops. Why doesn't our president?"

:cry:

[mwb970]

16. It bothers me when they say the soldiers there are "defending America".

So many stories show the bereaved parents saying "he died defending our country". I feel for them, really I do, but exactly how is our country being "defended" from a non-existent threat? THERE WERE NO WMD. THERE WAS NO THREAT.

How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?

[mike_c]

17. let's stop playing at semantics, ok...?

I don't think it's possible to "support the troops" if you consider what they are doing a crime against humanity. I do not "support the troops" in Iraq or Afghanistan, or any number of other places in the world where U.S. "force projection" serves the interests of greedy bastards intent on keeping the WOGs under their boot heels. I will do whatever I can to see anyone "serving" as a thug for U.S. corporate foreign policy stand in the dock at The Hague, not that I can do a bloody thing to hasten that day, but history WILL judge us harshly for what "our troops" are doing around the world.

And let's make something else clear-- I do not need to hide behind the anonymity of an internet forum to call for an end to war crimes, or the prosecution of those who participate in an illegal war. My name is Michael Camann, I live in Blue Lake, California, and I piss down the throat of anyone who thinks it patriotic to kill innocents in the name of advancing imperialist U.S. foreign policy in Iraq or anywhere else. Hell, I'm getting too old for this-- the "troop supporters" can stomp me into the ground, but they cannot change history's judgement. I'll support the troops when they put down their weapons and serve the cause of justice rather than the cause of greed and U.S. global hegemony.

[kentuck]

18. And some of them will put down their weapons....

Just like some of young men did during the Vietnam era. I sympathize with them -

[mike_c]

23. so do I, brother, so do I....

And I wish them godspeed.

There is a resolution before the city council in Arcata, CA, where I work and just a few miles from where I live calling for a declaration that the city will serve as a refuge for military members who wish to refuse to serve an illegal cause, in particular the occupation of Iraq. THAT'S courage, IMO. Saying "No, I won't do it," and a community willing to say "We'll stand up for you if you refuse."

To be introduced and debated is a city resolution expressing support for U.S. military refuseniks, and military deserters.

The proposed resolution says, in part: "The City Council of the city of Arcata supports all troops, and demands that they be brought home now, as previously resolved by this Council (Resolution 045-10) on July 21, 2004."

"Be it further resolved that the City Council of the city of Arcata also supports those military personnel who refuse to participate in the Iraq war, or any other illegal war."

The resolution states that the City Council would demand "that those who refuse to participate in illegal wars not be prosecuted for desertion or related crimes."

It adds that the City Council "will consider what further actions it should take in order to protect from prosecution residents of Arcata who are military personnel, if they choose to disobey orders to participate in any illegal war."

Just let 'em camp out in the middle of downtown. There's a place where even military police would fear to tread.

[welshTerrier2]

20. separating intent from actions

interesting post, mike ...

i've been reading many of the posts on this subject that have been flying all over DU ...

here's my two cents ... yeah, i "support the troops" ... i support them if the phrase means that i wish them well ... i hope for their safety and i hope they have whatever they need to protect themselves ... and i know they and their families have suffered greatly ...

now, having said that, the policy being pursued by bush in Iraq is both illegal and immoral and has no hope of success ...

so where does that leave us in honoring the service of the troops ???

this brings us to the question of asking how we should perceive those who "follow orders" and those who may even BELIEVE that they are fighting for a noble cause ... let's accept that as a premise ... but what, then, is a reasonable conclusion to draw when we believe the ACTS they are asked to perform are both immoral and criminal? what, then, does it mean when one says "i support the troops"?? if the INTENT is noble, to serve the country, to promote democracy in Iraq, to protect America, does this obligate us to honor such service when in reality we believe the DEEDS done by American military personnel are ultimately nothing more than service to the PNAC agenda?

i'm sick and tired of bush wrapping himself in America's soldiers ... in the end, i am highly critical of the MISSION these soldiers are performing no matter how well INTENTIONED they may be ... i wish them a quick and safe return ... i can honor the BELIEFS of those troops who value protecting America and fighting against tyranny; i cannot, however, honor their ACTIONS which do neither ...

[No Exit]

19. Your post shows us the difference btw stupid people and more

intelligent people. You have drawn a sensible distinction.

More intelligent people will not reach illogical conclusions--such as the conclusion that a person who is against war must be against those who are forced to fight it. (In fact, the opposite is often true!)

Stupid people, OTOH, will be lazy thinkers and will be unable to recognize distinctions, exceptions, and other details.

That's why so many stupid people follow the neocons, blindly supporting a war which is so obviously detrimental to "the troops".

"The troops" is a group not unlike "the children". Who the heck would want something bad to happen to any child? Obviously all responsible people are in favor of helping "the children". But politicians will, for example, frame an issue as being either for or against "the children". Thus if one is not in favor of wasteful, ever-increasing spending on schools, one must be against "the children". Actually, someone who is against the spending might just be someone who thought of a better way to help "the children"--maybe giving them something more valuable than mere money.

"The troops" are used the same way. Who would say they wanted a bunch of American soldiers, young people just doing their duty, to be harmed? No one! But if one decides to help "the troops" in some other way besides sending them to the ME to get blown up, that person is said to be against "the troops". It's absurd, republicans KNOW it is absurd, yet they continue on with this false argument in favor of a fraudulent war.

[LynnTheDem]

21. republicans voted to not support the TROOPS during Clinton's presidency

Lead by rethug Tom DeLay.

The atrocities are America's fault.

"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started," Nickles said at a news conference after appearing on Meet the Press. "The administration's campaign has been a disaster. ... escalated a guerrilla warfare into a real war, and the real losers are the Kosovars and innocent civilians." On Fox News Sunday, DeLay blamed the ethnic cleansing on U.S. intervention. "Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode," DeLay charged in a House floor speech replayed on Late Edition.

The failure of diplomacy to avert the war is America's fault.

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning," "I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Trent Lott, Late Edition

Congress should not support the war.

When asked whether they would authorize Clinton "to use all necessary force to win this war, including ground troops," Lott and Nickles --who had voted a month ago, along with 70 percent of the Senate GOP, not to support the NATO air campaign--said they wouldn't.

http://slate.msn.com/id/27730/

More Toxic Tom DeLay, finding it easy to NOT support the war president when he has a (D):

“The Kosovo operation is different and oxymoronic. It is a ‘peace war’ waged by ‘peace hawks’ pursuing a dovish social agenda. Peace hawks are global idealists and former anti-war activists, including the youthful Bill Clinton.” Floor Statement, 4/15/99

“Doing good on a worldwide scale appeals to peace hawks, who are motivated by altruism, not patriotism.” Floor Statement, 4/15/99

“There's no national interest of the United States in Kosovo. It's flawed policy and it was flawed to go in. I think this president is one of the least effective presidents of my life time. He's hollowed out our forces while running round the world with these adventures.” The Guardian, 5/17/99

“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.” Floor Statement on Resolution on Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo, 3/11/99

“Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly. We must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy is formulated by the Unabomber.” Floor Statement on Resolution on Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo, 3/11/99

“Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my complete opposition to sending American troops to Kosovo. There is simply no vision to this mission. There is a six-year trend to send American troops anywhere for any reason, but there are no consistent goals that tie all of these missions together.” Floor Statement on Resolution on Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo, 3/11/99

"I rise today to state that no defense funds should be used for ground forces in Kosovo unless authorized by Congress.” Floor Statement, 4/15/99

“So what they are doing here is they are voting to continue an unplanned war by an administration that is incompetent of carrying it out. I hope my colleagues will vote against this resolution.” Floor Statement on S. Con. Res. 21, 4/15/99

“It is clear that any deployment to Kosovo will similarly drag on and go enormously over budget.” Floor Statement, 4/28/99

“When asked the question, ‘what if he does not come to the table,’ they said, ‘well, we will go to Phase 2, and Phase 2 is that we will bomb for a few more days. Then he will be going to the table, by crackie.’ And when we asked, ‘Then, what?’ then they said, ‘well, we will bomb for another week and that will force him to come to the table and this will be all over with.’ And then when we asked, ‘Then, what?’ there was silence. This administration started a war without a plan farther along than two weeks.” Floor Statement, 4/28/99

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today.” Floor Statement, 4/28/99

“Instead of sending in ground troops, we should pull out the forces we now have in the region. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should send ground troops to Kosovo and I do not think we should be bombing in the Balkans, and I do not think that NATO should be destroyed by changing its mission into a humanitarian invasion force.” Floor Statement, 4/28/99

“So what they are doing here is they are voting to continue an unplanned war by an administration that is incompetent of carrying it out. I hope my colleagues will vote against the resolution.” Floor Statement, 4/28/99

“It’s very simple. The president is not supported by the House, and the military is supported by the House.” As quoted in USA Today, regarding Floor votes on Kosovo, 4/30/99

Other hypocritical lying 2-faced rightwingnut bastards:

“Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this is the most inept foreign policy in the history of the United States. The Pentagon told the President not to bomb, that it would only exacerbate the problems. We have forced over 1 million refugees. 2,012 were killed in Kosovo prior to the bombing. NATO has killed more Albanians than the Serbs did in an entire year, and yet we have exacerbated those problems.” Rep. Cunningham, Floor statement, 4/28/99

“Mr. Speaker, this evening the House had an emotionally charged debate about our policy in Kosovo, and contrary to remarks made after the vote, this was not a vote against the troops. This was a vote against the policy of this administration. All of us support the troops and the young men and women who are doing their duty.” Rep. Ed Whitfield, Statement, 4/28/99


Yep, ONLY RETHUGS can be AGAINST the PRESIDENT yet SUPPORT THE TROOPS. Only DEMS can be AGAINST BOTH. No matter what Dems say.
IOIYAR

[understandinglife]

22. Support the troops = End the illegal war with Iraq. It's that simple. (nt)

"DO YOU ENJOY BEING A CITIZEN OF THE ROGUE SUPER_POWER?"

[paineinthearse]

24. On this morning's MEET THE PRESS, Biden and Santorum...

politely discussed plans to change social security. I expected Biden to bring up the fact that * has bankrupt the treasury. Not a peep.

It's time the dems need to throw *'s war as as a cause of the today's financial crisis.

[Toots]

25. Expand the GI Bill.. That should be our reply

Let's truly show support like the Democrats have always done. we created the GI Biull because we wanted to support the troops and we need to expand it. What have they ever done.....really?