Skip to main content



Everyone should be wearing one of these. I don't care if you don't agree with the war in Iraq. What matters is that there are men and women over there fighting for us. Dying for us. Giving their lives to protect the lives of others.

There is one wristband for every soldier in duty right now. Honor a soldier by wearing one of these. This signifies that you support that soldier and care for that soldier and hope that that soldier comes home safely. They are doing an incredible job, and need every ounce of support they can get.

You can order a free wristband by clicking this link, it should bring you to a site that has options to order or register your wristband:

http://www.virtualarmory.com/VAWS_R.../home/heroband/
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Unfortunately, that link doesn't work. Frown

That's an excellent idea ... mirrored after the same type of bracelets worn in honor of the MIA/POW soldiers of the Vietnam War.

Unfortunately, one difference is that instead of MIA or POW, many soldiers are flat out being killed. Thankfully, it's not as many as before.

Every man and woman who wears the uniform and has taken the oath to protect us has my undying support ... even though technically they are not fighting/dying in Iraq to protect our liberty, as it was never threatened by anyone/anything over there. But that's another sad story, isn't it? Roll Eyes
This thread brings to mind a question:

How can you "support the troops", and not support what they are doing?

It would seem to me that by supporting them, you are sanctioning their efforts - even though they're "just following orders".

IMHO, the troops are an extension of this nations wrong headed policy, which I cannot support.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?
There's seems to be a difference in the minds of people between supporting the war and supporting the troops, most of which, prior to 2001, had no idea that they would be called to participate in a war. Most people, particularly African Americans, join the military for its financial perks and benefits, not to kill people, and definitely not to further the imperialistic objectives of White America. Therefore, why should the troops be morally persecuted for fulfilling their duties in this organization? However, for some, this slogan means that if you don't protect the troops as well as the efforts of this country, you are an ungrateful and complaining citizen. Whether you agree with the war or not, we're in it now, so I suppose their saying, support those who are obligated to be in it so that you don't have to be.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Okay, I'm putting on my asbestos suit, because I fully expect to get flamed. But this support the troops things is an empty slogan put forth be liberals/progressives/Democrats, that want it both ways. They want to challenge the administration's policy without appearing to be "unpatrotic." That's all political B.S.

No flames (or disagreement) from me. When invoked by Democrats, I think that you are on the money in your characterization.
quote:
Originally posted by AudioGuy:
This thread brings to mind a question:

How can you "support the troops", and _not_ support what they are doing?

It would seem to me that by supporting them, you are sanctioning their efforts - even though they're "just following orders".

IMHO, the troops are an extension of this nations wrong headed policy, which I _cannot_ support.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?


We signed on to support the decisions of our leaders. If the wrong person gets elected, we still hve an obligation, and that is obviously being tested today. Now if my commanding officer was the one that said, "they have WMD's, the only good tyrant is a dead tyrant, or Iraq was behind 9/11" then your point would be pretty acurate. But I don't recall any military man with boots on the ground ordering any attacks.

No one hates war war more than the soldiers that have to fight it.

catch
quote:
Originally posted by ocatchings:
We signed on to _support_ the decisions of our leaders. If the wrong person gets elected, we still hve an obligation, and that is obviously being tested today. Now if my commanding officer was the one that said, "they have WMD's, the only good tyrant is a dead tyrant, or Iraq was behind 9/11" then your point would be pretty acurate. But I don't recall any military man with boots on the ground ordering any attacks.

_No one hates war war more than the soldiers that have to fight it._

catch


Catch, I hear bro, but Hitler's men said the same thing, yet they were and in fact still are being prosecuted. If Hitler had won, there would obviously be a different outlook on history. What would happen if you or some other soldiers were brought on charges by the Iraqi people in some world court and prosecuted at a later date? Would you use that same arguement or would you use something else?

I understand that you so what you have to or face a courts martial, but what would you do?
People often say that those who join the military do so of free will and understand the potential for warfare etc. I can understand that argument. On the other hand, I know that the military recruits heavily in economically depressed areas. Why? Because they know that the people there have very few (if any) opportunities. I would venture to guess that a large majority of people join the military because it is one of the few opportunities to make a little something for themselves and their families as opposed to because they want to see the world and live an exciting life. Hence, it is easy for me to distinguish between the folks who carry out the orders and those who give them. It's not the soldiers who are profiting from the Iraq War - quite the contrary. Personally, I think it is misguided to judge the soldiers in the same way that you judge the politicians behind them.

quote:
Originally posted by AudioGuy:

Catch, I hear bro, but Hitler's men said the same thing, yet they were and in fact still are being prosecuted.


I think there's an extraordinary difference betwen how we judge the enemy's soldiers and how we judge our sons and daughters.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by AudioGuy:

Catch, I hear bro, but Hitler's men said the same thing, yet they were and in fact still are being prosecuted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

War is a very bad situation no matter who wins. I remember the movie "Andersonville"and I remember thinking "the south had some cruel SOB's". Come to find out the prisons of the north holding southern POW's were much, much worse, but you never hear about them. The lesson I learned was "the winner makes the rules".


quote:
I understand that you so what you have to or face a courts martial, but what would you do?


As for your other point I was almost bought up on charges in DS1 for "doing exactly as I was trained". I honestly felt betrayed. One from the people that trained me, and two from the REMF's sitting in the AC dictating policy. I have no clear answer to what I would do. I know of some "activities" that went on this last time but I didn't say a thing mainly out of loyalty.


catch
quote:
Originally posted by AudioGuy:
This thread brings to mind a question:

How can you "support the troops", and _not_ support what they are doing?


Here's how I accomplish that ...

My support in troops is that, having taken an oath to protect my life, security and liberty, I am behind them 100%. I cheer for them and pray for their success and their return, I try to support one thing or another when it comes to them when I can, and I appreciate the sacrifice that they make for me and this country.

In not supporting the farce of this "war" AND in the fact that they are not really doing their jobs (as per se the oath they took, because we were not threatened and so they are not really protecting the security of the United States in this instance!), I make the distinction between the soldier - the person and the soldier - the U.S. employee. There's lots of people that have do f*&%#d up jobs but that doesn't make them that kind of person. (Ex. People who work in law offices, or for credit card companies, or courthouses or repo companies, etc.)

The soldiers job is the worst because they have to put their lives on the line and therefore, when they clock in, there is the possibility of being killed or (maybe worse) having to kill somebody else. I cannot ... make that I will not, blame them for doing their jobs ...

But the stupid, ignorant cock-eyed, Gomer-looking fool that would have them report to a duty that is a fraud ... the power-hungry, butt-kissing Administration that supported this false, illegal, oil-induced, life-endangering situation for our soldiers that find themselves in in Iraq gets 0% support from me!! For ANYTHING his boot-scottin' ass does from here on out!! Mad He can kiss my ass. soapbox But I digress ...

There are many more ways in which to support our troops than I do. They need supplies and cards and letters and things to keep them, the person, whole and upbeat, and prayer is something I can't do enough of. My cousin is over there now, and we have another one probably going. I want all of the troops out of there, but I don't get a vote.
Many soldiers knew how their government was corrupt; if they really had any conscience they wouldn't have joined the military in the first place. For me the troops are the American government. I don't support the war, I don't support the American government, and I don't support your troops. They are all the same for me. And again we see how Americans are selfish why you should be concerned aboutyour troops only, why about the thousands and thousands Iraqi civilians dying because of the illegal US occupation? Wish safety for ALL people not just Americans. It's so selfish. And don't tell me the Iraqi civilians are all terrorists. I hope you are more intelligent than that to believe Bush & Co lame propagandas.
quote:
Originally posted by KISONGO:
Many soldiers knew how their government was corrupt; if they really had any conscience they wouldn't have joined the military in the first place.


This is Real Life...

Dalontay, a talented urban teenager who is the first in his family to graduate from a Highschool in Yonkers, NY, wants to pursue a college degree in Art History and Architecture. He has plans to build affordable housing in urban cities for the community's poorest families. He goes to his mother, a single mother, for the money so that he can take some local Community College courses. She tells Dalontay to forget about college, that she needs him to get a job and help around the house. Dalontay visits a military recruiting center in his local community which offers him an attractive package including paying most of his college tuition. In addition to the much needed help with college tuition, Dalontay thinks that joining the military will give him the necessary confidence and discpline that he never received at home. Do you think Dalontay is thinking about "Bush & Co lame propagandas" or his future???
I'm not sure I understand withholding support from our troops. To me that seems like blaming the janitor at Enron for what the executives did to the company, or like blaming your kids for something that you did. The troops are poor, largely minority kids just trying to stay off the streets and do something with their lives. They have nothing to do with American foreign policy.

I see absolutely no contradiction in vehemently opposing any war, while just as strongly supporting our sons and daughters who happen to be in the military. They are victims of the war too!
Wars have ben on-going steadily since 1941. Other than getting zillions of people killed in the most horrendous ways, I no of no purpose they serve other making so-called "elitists" wealthier monetarily. If the so-called "leaders" start these neverending suckas, the so-called "leaders" should fight 'em. I didn't give birth to have a nary baby of mine blown up in a GD war. Every day it's a challenge just trying to keep 'em alive, every day in this journey called LIFE. Wars cull populations. That's all they do.

Caucasians thing they're the only people on the planet who should enjoy life, while the rest of the world does their buck-dancing and dying for them. I remember Jim Jones and his followers. Different player; same damn game. I might be the only one on the whole planet, that's not following any mother's child, because I'm a mother's child too. Right now, I'm happy NOT to have been born in Iraq and feel sorry for the people that were/are. So be it!
quote:
Originally posted by Norland:
Caucasians thing they're the only people on the planet who should enjoy life, while the rest of the world does their buck-dancing and dying for them.


I agree with you and MBM on this issue completely. However, I also think that if our black youth, particularly the males, had families with fathers who instilled the kind of structure and discipline that every boy craves in his youth, many of them wouldn't flock to the military in the first place. They wouldn't turn to the military organization to fill this void. The U.S. government is ultimately benefiting from the chaos and the lack of structure in our communities. Therefore, can we blame our young men for wanting to find their way to order and leadership? Its not about doing their "buck-dancing," its about creating a life for yourself, a life that one cannot possibly create scraping on the streets of the ghettoes. Its very simple. If you don't want the military to raise your sons and provide for them, then you raise them and provide for them. They are your responsibility, not the government's responsibility. Stop making excuses and provide for your children.
Last edited {1}
When I was a little girl, it took a village to raise a child. Neighbors, family, friends, everyone. Whether one has a "father" or not (everyone has a father) is not the issue. We have to take care of OUR OWN, ALL OF US, not the WHITE MAN. That's the problem. We HAVE TO EMBRACE OUR OWN. We have to stop being so selfish, thinking we're so GD important and embrace all of Africa's children in AMERICA. PRONTO!!!!!!!!!!!!! When that doctor tells you you're pregnant, that's all he says. What he doesn't say, is THAT IT'S A LIFETIME JOB, with MUCHO HEADACHES, until the DAY YOU DIE.
quote:
Originally posted by KISONGO:
Many soldiers knew how their government was corrupt; if they really had any conscience they wouldn't have joined the military in the first place. For me the troops are the American government. I don't support the war, I don't support the American government, and I don't support your troops. They are all the same for me. And again we see how Americans are selfish why you should be concerned aboutyour troops only, why about the thousands and thousands Iraqi civilians dying because of the illegal US occupation? Wish safety for ALL people not just Americans. It's so selfish. And don't tell me the Iraqi civilians are all terrorists. I hope you are more intelligent than that to believe Bush & Co lame propagandas.


With all due respect to your position, no one is saying that the safety of anyone/everyone involved is not a consideration. It's just that, that's not what this thread was about, or what the question was at this particular time!

I can't say I blame you for seeing the troops and the government as one entity ... I'm sure that is true for most foreign countries and people who have to come in contact with our military. They are not a "welcoming committee" or ambassadors and rarely come in peace. So, although our positions on that are different, I do see your point.

However, I would ask that you not chastise us for a lack of compassion or a selfishness that simply does not exist. While it is true we are deeply concerned about our troops who are in harms way, we are not a people who enjoy the suffering of innocents under any circumstances. And if that is your opinion of us, I hope to be able to show you a more truthful picture based on your continued interactions with us! Smile

We are not heartless. And our government is not a mirror of its citizens. And actually, I would think that that is also true of the government and citizens of your own country, is it not?
Last edited {1}
MBM, I do not support the troops for the very same reasons I did not support them when we had this discussion back in March of 2003. My response to supporting the troops but not the war then was this;

I called this form of support a "distinction without a difference". I do not believe it to be possible to support the men and women waging the war without actually supporting the war. Opposing the war mean opposing those waging the war as well, the same was true in the Vietnam War. This government in an attempt to try to differentiate between the two got a head start on this "support the troops" garbage and it appears many have fallen for it, including many on this board. During the Vietnam War protesters not only did not support the war but they did not support the troops waging the war. The same could be done here but the propaganda machines in favor of this war have made many believes there is a difference in the two.

As far as the troops doing their job and not supporting them being like blaming the janitor at Enron, it is interesting to read your words today, being that they were the same almost two years ago and so is my response in relations to them.

Doing ones job does not change the reality of what their job is. I don't know all the men and women waging this war on behalf of America personally, so I have no personal connection with them. I do know well over 100 men and women that are over there personally and I don't support what they are doing as members of the U.S. military but I care for them as people and people I would like to see have successful and prosperous life. Too make it clear, I do not support the men and women who I know that are waging this war for America just as I don't support those whom I don't know that is waging this war on behalf of America. As I said; I make no distinction between supporting this war and supporting the troops; nor do I make a distinction between troops I know and troops I don't know, their jobs are all the same and their job is to wage war be it a legal or an illegal war on behalf of this government.

I can not have Compassion for men and women who job it is to wage war but that does not mean I want them to be harmed or killed, I just don't support them or this war. I understand that the military is their job but we all can choose and all choices we make come with consequences some greater than others. Having served in the military I can say without contradiction that half the men and women over there would rather be home than there fighting for things they do not necessarily agree with or stand for.

Ebony as far as the war in Afghanistan; I supported that war because I have never liked the Taliban. I was on the record calling for the destruction of the Taliban back in 1998. The Taliban with their cave mentality and their barbaric means of practicing Islam should have been destroyed long before they provided Bin Laden with a home. Bush was still inviting representatives of the Taliban to Texas when I was calling for their destruction. So I am glad the Taliban is out of power. The U.S went into Afghanistan for their reasons but the result was still one I could appreciate.

No support for the troops from me in IRAQ though!!
First, to clarify something. AudioGuy, the ordinary German troops in WWII I don't think were subject to any war crimes prosecution, unless individual troops actually did commit atrocities outside of the actual combat theater. It was the SS troops, however, who did. The SS was more than just the regular German army; they were the paramilitary arm of the Nazi party itself. Had the Nazis lost control of the government, but still existed, they would still have had an SS, and that SS probably would have fought the subsequent non-Nazi German government as part of a Nazi party attempt to regain power. They were card-carrying members of the party, who believed in the Nazi beliefs and wanted to carry them out in the name of the Nazi party, not merely out of obligation to ones country. It would be like if the neo-cons ever started a professional paramilitary group outside of the regular military.

As for the "support of troops" issue... For me there's a different issue now. I support the troops, and I probably would anyway, but right now, whether we like it or not, it is imperative that they do their job and do it effectively. What Bush did when he toppled Saddam was put this country and the world in a situation where if the troops fail to win the peace there, we will suffer and be in a much more dangerous situation than we ever were before we invaded. Bush has created a dangerous vaccuum of instability in a middle eastern country. He could not have done a stupider, more counterproductive thing in a time when we're supposed to be fighting Islamic terrorism, not giving it a whole new lease on life.

My opposition to the war in Iraq is limited to the actual starting of it. Now that it began, nothing but disaster will result if we can't get some stability there. And the Iraqis will never be able to do it themselves, one, because the insurgency is too determined, two, because Iraq is too fragmented, and three, because the USA has destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and ability to do for itself.

Aside from the moral responsibility to fix a nation after we destroyed it and made it so dangerous, we simply can't afford to let that place fester under the disaster that this jackass president of ours created. There is absolutely no possible sequence of events from this point forward that will undo the damage done, unless America succeeds at fixing Iraq (if we're even trying to). That's why I support the troops wholeheartedly.
EbonyRose, I'm responding to this thread based my position as a continental African of course, and based on the callous history of Washington which is of Imperialist, brutality, and terrorism. I feel no sympathy for the American troops as much I feel no sympathy for the Angolan armed forces that have been destroying my country for more than 20 years! I know first hand the agonies of wars, and the abuses of Imperialism. So I am strongly for 'peace' in all circumstances. Killing is never the solution. If we condemn invasion and murder we must condemn our military maintaining crises. Plus, the American government is the number 1 oppressor of the planet. It's illogic to support our armed forces if we are against our governments corruption, and the killing of people -the majority of causalities in those wars are innocent civilians. That's my opinion.

Faheem I totally agree with you!
Absolutely support the troops and not just because my son is one of them. These people sign up to do a job that most folks here weren't do even if it was a good reason to fight. You don't like the policies that lead to the war then vote the bastards out, but to hold the troops responsible for foreign policy is a cheap shot.

Yeah, I suppose we could all hold hands and sing "we are the world" but the truth is even if we didn't think we needed a military there are countries and people out there that make having one necessary. If people don't realize that then they surely have their head stuck somewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:

You don't like the policies that lead to the war then vote the bastards out, but to hold the troops responsible for foreign policy is a cheap shot.



Very well said.

Faheem, I'm confused now about your position. You do not support the troops, but yet you made the exact same decision that they did to join and serve. You seem to condemn them for something that you did.

I was thinking that your stand was based upon being against war in general, then you said that you support the war in Afghanistan - largely it seems because you have a personal issue with the Taliban. You, obviously, have every right to your positions, and I respect them, but it seems like your stance is one of convenience. It also seems rather arbitrary.

You are against the war in Iraq but support the war in Afghanistan. Since the soldiers have absolutely nothing to do with those decisions (Iraq vs. Afghanistan, for example) and since you obviously are not opposed to one choosing the military as a career choice - I'm not sure I understand your position against them.

Also - maybe its just semantics that stand between us on this. You say that you hope for the soldiers well-being. For most, that's probably what "support the troops" means. Can you clarify what you mean by you not supporting the troops?
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:
You don't like the policies that lead to the war then vote the bastards out, but to hold the troops responsible for foreign policy is a cheap shot.

quote:
Yeah, I suppose we could all hold hands and sing "we are the world" but the truth is even if we didn't think we needed a military there are countries and people out there that make having one necessary. If people don't realize that then they surely have their head stuck somewhere.

You should know that the army, the police, and the judiciary alike reflect the government. They are structures designed to protect the ruling elite of the government not the masses of people like you think, it's especially not the case in capitalist/imperialist countries. That's why I support any army, especially anything that is imperialist in nature. Everyday the US forces are looting and murdering Iraqis civilians. Your army is occupying Iraq for illegal reason. Yet like you too many in the U.S are pro-troops which to me is to be pro-war. In fact, I want to see the world without ethnic militias, (Iraqi) jihadists, or America terror armed forces. And if that makes me a naïve person then I am only endorsing the plights of the majority of civilians of poor countries who have been suffering the most because of unlawful, vicious, and barbaric wars - the US and its allies have played major roles in creating those wars, so I don't support American troops period.
MBM, there is nothing confusing about my position. I indeed joined the military and probably did so for the same reason most of the young men and women in Iraq did. This does not mean I have to support them or the war in Iraq. I have no idea why you would think I would be against war in general, that would be foolish especially living in a country where I believe a war may be necessary for Black men and women to get what is rightfully ours.
.
I believe it is hard for you to understand my position because you think if one support one war they must support all wars and that to me is ridiculous. My position is neither one of convenience or arbitrary. My position on not supporting the troops is simply me not supporting their mission or purpose in regards to them being in Iraq. This doesn't mean I want them to be killed any more than I want Iraqi men and women killed; it simply means I do not support them being there or what they are doing there. The arrogance of men and women in America to cry about 1300 plus troops being killed compared to tens of thousand of innocent Iraqi men and women killed. How can anyone support what these American Troops are doing, there is no separating them from their actions. You support the troops you must support their mission and what they are doing. At least Conservatives and other extremist support Israel and what the Israeli's are doing to the Palestinians where as some people fail to see the similarities in these two ongoing conflicts thus the Liberals and progressive men and women have been tricked into supporting the troops but allegedly not supporting the war. As I said above, when the troops were in Vietnam, the men and women in America did not support them or the war and that is my position on Iraq.
Okey dokey, Faheem! And I do understand your reasoning behind your position! thumbsup

In response to the general conversation here ...

This whole situation is so complex and has so many different issues involved here. One of them is that, despite being the sole catalyst for this fake "war" going on in Iraq, Bush is not the one doing the killing or being put in the position to be killed. Our troops, for the most part, are fighting for their lives because, as they are not there to defend us from imminent harm or danger and are obstensively there to "liberate" the people of Iraq and bear them good will, it is our troops who are being attacked and who's lives are in danger, more so than them being the one's doing the attacking ... at least as far as civilians and innocents are concerned. What Bush has created is a situation where at last 25 people a day, and mostly civilians, are being killed by their own countrymen ... who are targeting us, but content to get them instead if that's what they have to settle for! Eek

It is a sad state of affairs that nobody is counting and reporting on the number of dead ... total number of dead that has resulted in Bush's big plan! Our government, admittedly, has refused to make such a count. But, essentially, our soldiers are being sent on a mission, termed a "war" by Bush, where they are placed in a position of doing more defending themselves than attacking ... such as we would do with a real enemy ... and in a real war.

I agree with Vox, we absolutely cannot leave now ... as believe it or not, but even more people would hate us than even do now. And, by centralizing all the terrorists in Iraq to "come get us" since that's where they are, perhaps we will be able to get more of them there than trying to chase them all over the world.

Iraq is an unwinnable situation. We will not "defeat" those who are against us over there, because they are too many of them, and their numbers multiply every day. We don't have as many of us are there are of them, so, there will be no win. If the time ever comes were we can call Iraq "stabalized" then we will be able to bring our troops home from there. But, that's a really big IF. Roll Eyes

But, let me just say that, as one person who would not sign up for the military to put my life and limb on the line for this country, I have nothing but the deepest admiration for those who will/do. Somebody's gotta do it and, admittedly, it would not be mine. But I am glad everyone is not like me and there are those who are willing to do that job. And my hat, my heart and my support will always be with them for the oath and sacrifice they make and take on my behalf!!
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem:

My position on not supporting the troops is simply me not supporting their mission or purpose in regards to them being in Iraq.


I think all that is being asked is why you condemn the troops when they have nothing to do with the establishment of their mission and purpose. Furthermore, you seem to define "support" in ways that no one else is. There is no difference, as far as I can see, between your position and that of anyone who says that they are against the war but for the troops.

What do you see as the difference?

quote:
The arrogance of men and women in America to cry about 1300 plus troops being killed compared to tens of thousand of innocent Iraqi men and women killed.


Who is saying anything of the sort? In fact, particularly here, those who are against the war are against it because of the total human cost of Bush's economic venture. That said, is it somehow inappropriate to lament the loss of our sons and daughters and neighbors? That has nothing to do with Iraqi loss and does not necessarily minimize the impact of this whole folly to them.

quote:
How can anyone support what these American Troops are doing, there is no separating them from their actions.


Quite easily IMHO. They are merely the instruments of the administration. I think it's easy to distinguish between them "doing their job" and the people who are really "pulling the trigger".

quote:
You support the troops you must support their mission and what they are doing.


I disagree. Think of someone who is worried about the welfare of a loved one serving in Iraq. Do you really think they support the war or any mission that puts their loved one in harm's way?

quote:
As I said above, when the troops were in Vietnam, the men and women in America did not support them or the war and that is my position on Iraq.


And I think most people who felt that way are now embarrassed by their behavior. They see the clear distinction between someone giving and taking orders. IMO that's not a bad thing.
Condemn? Who is condemning the troops? I could ask you why are you condemning innocent Iraqi men and women to death with your support of the troops but I know you would say you are not doing such; you only are supporting the troops. If I am defining support in ways that no one else is defining it, I would be interested in hearing your definition of supporting the troops. Let me state mine. I do not support the troops I do not support their mission in Iraq, what they are doing in Iraq or anything they have done in Iraq. I do not believe they are fighting for my freedom nor do I believe they represent me in what they are doing. The military is the arm of the American government and I find it difficult to say you support the arm without supporting the head in regards to a particular action being undertaken by the arm on behalf of the head. To support the troops in Iraq is to support their mission, their goals and the men and women that constructed them. I do neither.

People can lament the lost of anyone they choose, but I am not a nationalist in the sense of being an American thus I do not see this as being supportive of country men and women first and worrying about what they are doing second. I see the whole damn fiasco as wrong and can not support it or the men and women engaged in it.

You know MBM, my brother was gunned down in front of our apartment in 1991; it was a hit sent down by big drug dealers. Should I take your position in this scenario, by saying the hitmen were only doing their job? Oh I know what you thinking now, it is illegal; it is not government sanctioned thus the hitmen and the man who ordered the hit should be locked up and you do not support the hitmen or the men that ordered the hit but I am sure the family of the hitmen support them much like you support the troops and they separate the actions of their family members from the person, much like you are doing in regards to the troops. Well, I don't support the hitmen or the men and women that ordered the hit in regards to the war in Iraq, and yes their hit is government sanctioned, paid for and they signed up to be killers, this still does not mean I have to support them being killers because their actions are sanctioned by the government.

I am not sure where you get the idea that most the men and women that felt the way they did during the Vietnam war are embarrassed by their actions, as far as I can tell most of those who opposed the war still does and are not ashamed of the position they took during that time. Maybe the revisionists are at work and are simply trying to rewrite history.
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem:

You know MBM, my brother was gunned down in front of our apartment in 1991; it was a hit sent down by big drug dealers. Should I take your position in this scenario, by saying the hitmen were only doing their job?


First, I'm really very sorry about your brother. I lost a brother in 1973, so I understand a bit of what you must have gone through.

To answer your question, I condemn both the hitmen and the drug dealers. I condemn the hitmen for committing the crime, but more importantly, I condemn the drug dealers more so for creating the "order" that the hitmen followed.

Listen, I agree that the Iraq War is wrong. I have been clear about that from before day one. You've said, essentially, that you wish harm on no one. I guess that's my position as well. If our soldiers have to be in harm's way, I merely wish them Godspeed. At the same time I pray for the Iraqi people as well. To me, I can support the troops without supporting their mission. I support them, perhaps, not even as soldiers, but more so as human beings.

In your example, I would imagine that the hitmen have a bit more latitude in their activities than do the soldiers as well. They are choosing a life of crime. The soldiers, although knowing of the potential for war, for the most part, just signed up for a job. I see them as innocent pawns. The hitmen are not.
It's a difficult situation indeed. MBM you say you support Mr. Joe Doe as a human being, but he is a soldier in the American Army. At the same time you certainly loath the brutalities of war, misery, and the imperialist interests of the US. But Mr. Joe Doe only carries the wills of the US ruling elite, hence the difference becomes bleak. Joe Doe chose his own fate!
quote:
Originally posted by KISONGO:
But Mr. Joe Doe only carries the wills of the US ruling elite, hence the difference becomes bleak. Joe Doe chose his own fate!


What the hell are you talking about? What fate?
The %age of us that view war as a glourious undertaking for the administration is very minute indeed. The majority could care less about certain presidents with the initials GW or his policies. Unless we get a slice of the pie (which we don't), my decisions have nothing to do with the administration or those that profit from it.



catch

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×