Oppose the War, Support the Troops
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Oppose the War, Support the Troops
Written by a Vietnam Vet:
Opposing the war and supporting the troops.
Consider the reasoning:
I oppose the war, but I support the troops.
I oppose the victory of America over Iraq, but I support the troops in their effort to achieve victory over Iraq.
I oppose the efforts of President George W. Bush to remove Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party from power in Iraq, but I support the troops who are carrying out the orders of President George W. Bush.
I oppose the use of arms and equipment to defeat Iraq, but I support the troops who are using those arms and equipment to defeat Iraq.
I oppose putting out fires, but I support firefighters.
I oppose arresting criminals, but I support police officers.
I oppose flying around in airplanes, but I support pilots.
I oppose what you do and how you do it, but I support you.
I oppose what the troops are doing and how they are doing it, but I support the troops who are doing it.
I oppose the war, but I support the troops.
What does that mean? If the troops you support win the war you oppose, will you be happy or sad?
Pure nonsense. This is the babbling of cowards. If you oppose the war, you can't possibly support the troops whose only business in Iraq is to make the war you oppose. If you support the troops, you can't possibly oppose the victory they are fighting and dying to achieve.
People say they oppose the war but support the troops because they are cowards. They know how contemptible it would be to spit on the troops today the way the cowardly anti-war movement did during America's war in Viet Nam, and as much as they want to re-live the glory days of the 60's, they just don't have the guts.
How are the troops you support today different from the troops who were slandered and cursed during America's war in Viet Nam? There is a tie that binds the troops of today and the troops of all previous wars. It is that we all took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. We fought to defend the freedom of cowardly anti-war fanatics, too. And we have never failed to do so. The fact that there are still cowardly anti-war fanatics proves it.
Face it; you just don't have the guts to spit on us anymore, do you?
Guy Evans
Aurora, Colorado
101st Airborne Division
Phu Bai, Viet Nam, 1971
This is taking things *way* out of context.
Wow! So, if I don't agree with the war that I had no choice about, I am a cowardly anti-war fanatic and, if I claim to support my troops, I am a liar and, if I didn't support the troops, I would be sad when we defeat Bin Laden and terrorism. I guess I am a terrible person and all because I don't think we should be at war.
Robin- Could you expand on your opinion?
I understand that this former serviceman is simply revealing his feelings regarding the anti-war protestors who said last year when we went into Iraq that they support the troops but not their orders. This letter makes sense to me. I would like to hear more.
Cori I am just as horrible. I guess my uncle who is a vet of Dessert Storm is horrible too. My cousin who fought in this war is horrible as well.
I oppose this war. I opposed it before it started. I spent hours and hours and hours demonstrating and protesting against this war before it started - in the cold bitter rain and wind and snow. And I would do it again.
I support our troops. They have no choice, they are doing their job, and doing it well. I have no gripe at all with the military personnel in Iraq (and elsewhere) following orders.
And I can support our troops while still opposing this damnable, ill conceived, ill planned, poorly supported, badly strategized war - which has no end in sight. I am sickened by the lack of material support provided for our troops (just two examples: 4 of the trucks which were to be in the convoy where the soldier/reservists refused to go out on the mission were "deadlined" - that is, they were mechanically unsafe to travel; soldiers and their families have bought body armor on E-bay because it wasn't provided for them). I think if you are going to put people in a situation where they are at risk you have an obligation to provide them with the kind of support and material that will minimize the risk, and I do not believe this has been done any where near adequately or appropriately.
The hardships our troops are experiencing, the difficulties being faced by reservists who are being put on active duty not just for one tour but two and maybe even three - the "stop loss" orders which don't allow people to resign from the reserves if there is a chance that their unit will be activated - the "back door draft" of calling up people who thought they had resigned - and now, covert plans (according to my morning paper) being laid to draft (yes, draft) medical personnel because there are simply not enough medical personnel presently on active duty to adequately care for our troops - all of these things are appalling and I oppose them. And yes, I support our troops - and am angry and terribly sad at the growing evidence that our government is not adequately supporting our troops.
Actually, our troops did win the war. They did an outstanding job. But, because of the blindly inadequate plans for what happens next, there doesn't seem to be a way of winning the peace. Many of us who were out there protesting before the troops were sent to Iraq saw that and that was one of the reasons we were protesting. It is, actually, relatively easy to win a war when you put the power and might, technology and know-how and commitment of the U.S. military up against an army like that of Iraq. It's what you do after you "win" that is, imo, the more important part of the picture. (Remember - we have had more military personnel killed since we won the war than were killed in the pre-victory part of the war. The death toll for U. S. military personnel has now passed 1,000.)
Some of my friends and co-protestors are presently in federal prison, having chosen to commit civil disobedience by not moving away from the doors of the federal courthouse in Philadelphia at one of the demonstrations and refusing to pay the $250 fine imposed on them. One of them is a elderly woman in a wheelchair; another, a member of my church, went to prison on the day of the birth of her first grandchild. Granted, they are only imprisoned for 6 or 7 days, but they have chosen to pay the price of their civil disobedience.
What upsets - no, angers me tremendously is the people who equate opposition to and criticism of this war with lack of patriotism and even treason. They seem to forgotten that one of the most important tenets of "the American way of life" is that we have the right, the freedom, to express our beliefs and feelings. Some have even gone so far as to equate not supporting George Bush with lack of patriotism and/or treason. I find this appalling and un-American.
As for the spitting on the troops who came back from Viet Nam (another terribly ill conceived war), that too was appalling. I was against such actions then and am against them now. Anyone who thinks that any soldier chooses whether or where s/he is stationed or whether to follow orders is totally out of touch with reality, and I will never criticize or fault a soldier who obeys a legitimate order.
Guy Evans is, I am sorry to say, sadly uneducated about the American values which he thinks he is defending in his letter. And he clearly does not understand that one can indeed oppose a war and at the same time feel nothing but support for and even pride in the U.S. military personnel who are stuck with fighting this war and are doing their very best (which is extraordinarly good) in the difficult situation in which they have been placed. As for his comments about firefighters and police, airplanes, etc. - that is just nonsense. He is really stretching in his efforts to support what is, in my opinion, an untenable position.
Ladies... I get that it is a very blunt (if not obnoxious) take on the stance of some Americans when it comes to the war. (We could use a little bit of water to douse the flames a bit here! lol)
Quote:"How are the troops you support today different from the troops who were slandered and cursed during America's war in Viet Nam?"(- Guy Evans)
The point he is making is that in the 70's the anti-war folks were consistent- they denounced the the troops as well as their actions.
Quote:"I support our troops. They have no choice, they are doing their job, and doing it well."
The point Mr. Evans is making is that it makes no sense to say that you support someone when they are doing something you totally believe is wrong.
I could say to my son, "Honey, I am so happy that you were just doing what you were told to do, even though you were told to do something I know in my heart was wrong, like when you robbed that bank and shot that innocent bystander and got away in that stolen car and eluded authorities. But, it's okay because I know you were only following orders and I am so proud of you."
My son would look at me in complete and total confusion. That is how our troops are looking at us when we denounce the war as a "damnable, ill conceived, ill planned, poorly supported, badly strategized war..." but we still say that we love them and are proud of them.
Quote:"I am sickened by the lack of material support provided for our troops...you have an obligation to provide them with the kind of support and material that will minimize the risk..."
I hate to sound like a broken record since President Bush has repeated this ad nauseum, but it says something about Mr. Kerry when, citing the argument you provided, he voted against the funding for the troops who were already in Iraq geting fired upon and were already in need of armour and supplies, etc. If he was protesting the war in Iraq by voting against the funding, the method of protest he chose would have placed the troops already over there in even greater danger yet.
Quote:"What upsets - no, angers me tremendously is the people who equate opposition to and criticism of this war with lack of patriotism and even treason."
This might be a part of the events that has transpired that I might agree with you on- if we weren't already in a war. Because the war protestors are so loud and vocal, the terrorists have also heard, they know that we are a country divided on the war, and they are encouraged that we could be defeated. This is what is commonly referred to as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." Remember the old saying, "United we stand, divided we fall." If we don't stand up against terrorism with our hands together and our heads high, we appear weak to the enemy.
Quote:"As for his comments about firefighters and police, airplanes, etc. - that is just nonsense."
Okay, I give it up there. I don't get his comments there either and I don't see how they support what he had already written. He takes on a very bitter and obnoxious tone that, unfortunately, defeats the purpose of his letter.
I do feel that his main point is that, as a former soldier himself, he knows what it is like to be working his tail off in a strange country, risking his life and limb, defending freedom and democracy, and all the while knowing that many of his fellow Americans deplore the work that he is doing and are being very vocal about it. How can he feel confident about being there when his country is so divided on what his mission is?
This is why President Bush has been so vocal about supporting the war on terror as well as our troops- it's for THEIR sake we must support the war effort and set aside our own desire to be heard.
I do support the war on terror - but that is not the war we are fighting. We are fighting a war in Iraq, which is the war I oppose.
That there are now huge numbers of terrorists - many, many times more than there ever were - in Iraq is a reaction (a) to our invasion of Iraq, (b) the lack of trained Iraqi police and military who are able and/or willing to find and fight the terrorists, and (c) the current conditions in Iraq which cause (wrongly or rightly) many Iraqi citizens to either covertly (even overtly) support terrorists or be afraid to do anything to report or stop them because they believe they will not be protected.
There is no evidence linking Iraq or Hussein with 9-11 - even Cheney has finallly admitted that. There is little credible evidence linking Iraq or Hussein with Al Quaida. That a top Al Quaida person spent a short time in rural northern Iraq several years ago is hardly a link.
Given the nature of terrorists and terrorism, one does not fight a war on terrorism by invading a country. Even Israel, which has been fighting terrorists and terrorism for decades and with more success than most, knows that. Israel invaded Lebanon in an effort to combat the terrorists based there, with little success, and wound up occupying Lebanon for years and years with no particular success in stopping the bombings and other acts of terrorism.
I strongly disagree that we "must set aside our own desire to be heard". If we are to set aside our desire and right to be heard every time a President equates that right with not supporting our troops, that President has a very effective means of stifling dissent. It is precisely when we dissenters believe the President and/or government is taking our nation down the wrong path that we must dissent, or dissent will never be expressed.
Bush has said time and again that by Kerry saying he opposed the way Bush took us to war, Kerry is not supporting our troops and therefore unable to lead them. My opinion is that the troops in Iraq know what is going on, know how risky the situation is, and the false picture the President is giving of Iraq is more likely to undermine the morale of our troops just because they are there and they know things are not as peachy-keen as the Bush administration tries to imply. How can you "lead" our troops if you are telling the truth about what is happening to them and happening in the arena where they are stationed?
Bush, et al, also say that other nations would not join Kerry in efforts to better manage the war in Iraq because Kerry is opposed to what is happening there. Again, other nations' leaders know very well what is happening there and I believe that one of the many reasons they don't support the U.S. efforts there is because they also know the truth and won't support an administration which is so deliberately presenting a false image of the situation in order to bolster a political campaign.
And, by the way, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, which was clearly the area where the terrorists were then based. One of the things that makes me very unhappy is that by invading Iraq we are unable to focus our limited resources on the actual war on terror, which is still much more in Afghanistan than in Iraq.
Ginny, I do agree and I'll raise you one...
When Scott got called up from his inactive reserve status, we've never felt more devastated in our lives. Thousands of soldiers received the same orders and hundreds of them SAID "NO" and decided not to show up for duty. And, instead of going to jail, they were given a discharge. Not dishonorable, just discharged...
One of those men is a friend of Scott's and it angered me to no end because he doesn't have a wife or kids. Not that Scott's life is more important, but this guy's deployment would not have affected a family unit. He was afraid it would hurt his career, I believe. I wish we had that same choice. But, my man is a man of honor and although Bush and others made this decision to take him from us, I am proud of what he is doing over there. He's giving so much humanitarian aid and helping the Afghans to help themselves. He's teaching them "to fish", so to speak, in the middle of the desert. (By the way, he has a blog if you want to e mail me at heidi henkel at h o t m a i l..)
I am against ANY war as so many innocent people die at the hands of the uneducated religious fanatics and politicians with something to prove.
We should have never gotten involved in such a war that hasn't been resolved over thousands of years. It should have been handled better and thought out...they acted on fear and not knowledge.
Here's a quote for you too:
"We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us."
- Golda Meir
When they make their 11 year old daughters marry someone 4 times their age to pay off a debt, you have to know that those countries have some serious problems.
You can't win a war with people who are so fanatical and are leading the uneducated because they had no other options in life.
Ultimately, public education is the answer and I'm so proud of the Afghans and Iraqi's who are so proud of who they are and are willing to make changes in their own country. They've relied so heavily on the Taliban for money and jobs, so I'm proud of our efforts to help cease that need.
thread revived by spam
Woah. How did that happen? I didn't even notice a spam was posted before me. Sorry!
No problem, Heidi. We just didn't catch it before you saw it and posted. As you can see, there is almost two years between your post today and the last post (which happened to be mine). Nothing to be sorry for.
|
Members
