Here you go David . No percentages but illustrates that PTSD has nothing to do with how “good” a war is. Hell you can suffer PTSD from a car accident, a crime or an illness. Using supposed percentages from different conflicts in no way shows the validity of the conflict. If individuals are not getting proper care that is a different troubling issue. I do not know if it is true or not.
“A patriot supports his nation all the time, and supports his government when it is deserved.”
–Mark Twain
Do we all support these troops as well?
-
Then I take it you believe it is impossible to “love the sinner, and hate the sin”? I certainly believe that is possible. It is easy to distinguish between the people who have chosen to serve our country by enlisting in the military and the orders those people are duty-bound to carry out.
-
You misunderstand what the military “stands for.” The doctrine of the military is that they are the neutral enactors/enforcers of United States policy. I certainly can support that, and still strongly disagree with what the current policy is.
-
To not “mouth the words” does the military a disservice. As noted in Point 2, the military enacts United States policy. If the military is ordered, and therefore duty-bound, to enact an ill-considered or inept policy, the military cannot speak out against it, and indeed it would be an extremely bad precedent if the military were to speak out against it. Instead, that is our job - we are duty-bound to seek to influence the U.S. policy that the military is enacting. That’s how a democracy, with a properly depoliticized military, is supposed to work.
Sua
Nonsense. There might be some merit to that argument if the troops had just taken it into their heads to invade Iraq on their own initiative, but this is obviously not the case.
True, I can’t say I hate what you stand for and what you’re doing as an individual and still support you. But you as an individual had choices. The average soldier had no choice. Army said go, he went. I can certainly disagree with the choice that others made for this soldier and still support him. But my support is not to say that I value his life over anyone else’s or that I support the war crimes currently being committed by our troops.
Absolutely. If you feel that way you have the obligation to act according to your conscience. And in doing so you are no longer supporting the troops in the field. Today you may feel the need to pull your support. Tomorrow things may change. You may support the troops in Afganistan and not in Iraq. To you it may seem like semantics but from where I am sitting the distinction is very clear.
I have a very good understanding of what we stand for.
Love and support are not the same.
This is even more nonsensical than your first argument, and that’s saying something.
If I produce a poll that says 75% of the troops think that the top tax bracket should be raised to 50% in order to fund better pay and benefits for the military, would you agree that opposition to that policy constitutes being “against the troops”?
No. I have a right to my opinion, and at its most basic level, isn’t my right to voice it one of the thing that the military touts itself for defending and upholding? Our country is a great place because different opinions are tolerated, even defended. I would find it strange to hear someone say that everyone should just hush up about the war because some the talk was filtering back to soldiers.
Personally, of course, I think there’s a time and a place for everything. If I were someone who was spewing anti-war rhetoric in ways that I knew were definitely getting back to deployed soldiers in Iraq, maybe I’d rethink my avenues for expressing that opinion.
Loach said: "If you feel that way you have the obligation to act according to your conscience. And in doing so you are no longer supporting the troops in the field.
I know people who don’t like the war but are actively supporting soldiers through letters, care packages, cards, and family assistance. What do you make of that? What’s more meaningful to you when it comes to “supporting/not supporting the soldiers:” The effort they are making to make sure a soldier gets some mail every week, and worries less about the wife at home? Or the fact that they wrote a letter to the editor saying they think we shouldn’t be in Iraq?
Loach, I’m not trying to bust your chops or anything, but this is supposed to be a debate. I presented my opposition to you position by trying to explain why I believed your argument was invalid. Your response was conclusory; you presented no countervailing argument. That’s not how this is supposed to work.
Could you explain why you believe I am wrong? That way, we may be able to work towards mutual agreement, or at least mutual understanding.
Thanks,
Sua
It’s like asking me “why is an orange?” To me it is inherently unsupportive to the troops in the field to be actively working against what they are doing. It’s like telling a lion-tamer, " I support what you do, except that part with the lion." I know that probably sounds trite. What’s my proof? Nothing concrete. I don’t feel supported and neither does anyone I work with. Better than that I can’t give you.
Loach, the problem is this: according to you it’s wrong to oppose ANY war because that means you don’t support the troops. I think that means the troops’ feelings shouldn’t enter into this debate in the first place, but according to you it seems to mean we should never try to stop our government when we feel it’s doing the wrong thing, including protesting to save the lives of the troops whose state of mind seems such a paramount concern to you.
100% incorrect, that is not even close to what I said.
I said the exact opposite several times already. It is every citizens duty to voice their opinion to that which they feel strongly about.
In that case, the feelings of the troops aren’t even a consideration. Right?
Well, I think he’d say right, so long as you’re not claiming to support the troops. Loach has been consistent about that.
It’s boiling down to a difference in what the term ‘support our troops’ means.
Yes that is what I am saying.
So, this isn’t really a debate, so much as a poll to see who agrees with you on this creative definition of “support the troops”. You might want to ask the Mods to move this to IMHO, along with all the other undebatable polls.
I think it is unfortunate that you do not support the troops. You see, I have my own definition.
So riddle me this, Loach…
Mary in Nantucket is against the war. She believes that America should not be fighting this war at this time, and says so when the topic arises.
Her day job is as a political lobbyist, fighting to increase VA benefits. In her spare time, she raises money to help buy body armor to send to soldiers in Iraq, and runs a web site that hooks active duty soldiers up with school children penpals.
Does she support the troops? Yes or no?
I pose this to all against the war:
If and when the war is over, would you attend a parade for the soldiers? This begs the question – Would you attend a parade for a war you felt was justified?
That’s two different parades, son. I would always attend a parade honoring veterans, but it would be indecent to throw a parade to glorify a war.