 |
|
spartak
|
|
Yawn. Another reactionry thready from Bodds.
How lame.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boddington's
If you're behind the troops, you'd support what theyw ere trying to achieve out there. |
Even though this blather should not be dignified with an intelligent response, I'll offer one:
Supporting the troop is not the same as supporting the policies of the politicians who have sent them to do their duty. Many of us are critical of the action in Iraq because it seems increasingly unjustified AND very, very ill-planned. Neither the justification nor the planning has anything to do with the troops; it's the work of politicians and, in the US anyway, many of the top-ranking military leaders actually objected to the White House's specific plans for the invasion. The White House underestimated the resistance to US/UK occupation; it consequently underestimated the number of troops needed for the job. Beyond that, it is not the practice of the US military to train troops in peacekeeping/policing functions, yet those are exactly the functions the White House would have them perform. Small wonder that more have died in the "peace" than in the war.
In short: the troops are the victims of arrogant, short-sighted politicians. I think your assertion needs to be turned on its head: if anything, it seems to me impossible to support the troops and the Iraq debacle at the same time. You could support the troops -- and urge their withdrawal. You could support the troops -- and urge that adequate additional troops, properly trained for the task, be dispatched immediately. But to support the troops AND support a situation in which they're being killed because politicians have planned ineptly and refuse to admit or correct their mistakes -- well, that's just sadistic.
Edit: BTW, It occurs to me that "I'm not racist, but..." is a sentiment I've heard you express on a wide variety of threads. So is this about getting us to support the war, or support your racism? Just wondering.
Last edited by Rufus T. Firefly on 31-08-2003 at 14:00
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
The battlecry of all good little drones
|
Its an idiotic argument. As Bezerker is saying, its possible to love your nation and dislike the actions of your government. I personally don't love my country, I am often critical of the actions of the government, but I don't want to see anybody getting killed out there, civilians or soldiers. I don't take preferences there because I see through the fallacy of perceived national superiority, thus all human loss in Iraq is equally tragic. On the other hand, British/US troops are away from their families, their homes etc, so one wishes them well and a speedy return. You could argue that this is renaged because they are invaders and aggressors, and while that is true, the aggression was committed by the donkeys that lead these lions.
Even if you were opposed to the war, you can be behind the troops, as am I! They're ordinary people, good men doing a job and following orders. I cant expect ordinary people to have the great fortitude it requires to mutiny, even if they agree with me, which they are free not to do so.
quote:
If you're behind the troops, you'd support what theyw ere trying to achieve out there.
|
Bull. I support the men out there, not the missions they are performing. Not the uniforms they are wearing and not the guns they are carrying, but the men inside.
quote:
Why support the troops if you oppose the war? They volonteered, despite knowing they might be sent to some place where they shouldn't be, didn't they?
|
When in the army, one is ordered.
Bodds does have a case to a point though, lets be fair. How many people who say "but I am behind the troops", say so for political correctness. They probably do, but it adds inconsistency to an article opposed to war, whereas one, if you include it for the soldiers sake, not your credibility, should specify it in a more consistent, in depth and concise way.
Supporting the troops out there is something that transcends whether or not you supported the war. Like I said, from my perspective, lions led by donkeys.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
I don't think that it's possible to love your country and hate your government. The nation is usually an explicit creation of the government, aimed at keeping power.
|
A nation is the combined history, culture and people of within your shores. The government are only the people who deal with the "pieces of paper" that a nation is. Of course, all of those definitions are meaningless to me, a nation quite simply is non-existent.
I agree with red_jons position, I don't want to see them die any more or less than civilians. They're all human, they're all deserving of equal consideration from me. Nonetheless, they were ordered, and these people are in the army because they can follow orders, not because they are renowned for their independent thought. Its not suprising that they are the people most susceptible to be told what to think, along with the uneducated and the plain ignorant (rant over).
I view conscription as a crime, so if that was the case, I would merely levee that as another charge against the donkeys.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
|
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by red_jon
Were the troops conscripts, yes I'd support them, as it is I don't. They're volunteers to participate in a war I oppose. That doesn't mean I want to see them die, any more than I want any civilians to die. |
Yes, the troops voluteered, but they had every reasonable expectation that, in case of war, they would at least be used sensibly and well. They haven't been.
This is a little like saying you have no sympathy for the thousands of workers who lost their pensions in the Enron scandal because, hey, they chose to work in the corporate private sector, didn't they?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
I don't think that it's possible to love your country and hate your government. The nation is usually an explicit creation of the government, aimed at keeping power.
Is it possible to hate your country and love your government? |
Good question, but the country is more than the government, alot more. The country is also me, my family, my friends, and those acquaintances I respect and care about in addition to the government and all that constitutes "society". But there are things about people who fit into the categories I've named that I don't like just as there are things I don't like about the government...the difference I guess is there are so few things I like about the government and so many I despise. If that were true for the people I love I might not love them...
I just wish these people who label political opponents as "America haters" would be more truthful, it isn't about hating America, it's about hating them and their immoral desires. It's terribly arrogant for these people to equate their political agenda with "America". These people are also hypocrites, I never heard any Republicans claim they hated America when they opposed the policies of Democrats and Clinton's little wars in distant lands... So why the double standard?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
0.1/10
I hope they don't die.
But I don't want them out there in the first place.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-08-2003 13:16
|