I don’t want to go to war with Iraq. But I support all of the men and women in the military.
I’ve got friends that tell me I can’t do that. They say it’s impossible to be anti-war and pro-military at the same time.
Are my friends right ?
No.
A case in point are the numerous Vietnam Veterans who were against the Vietnam war but willing to die for their country anyway (my father included).
I don’t support the war either, but am 100% behind the military.
They aren’t making the decision whether to attack or not, they are simply doing their job.
I signed up at operationmilitarysupport.com for a penpal - I am looking forward to sending letters and careboxes to a service person. I think the treatment of Vietnam vets was shameful, and I don’t want that to happen again.
Yes, you can. My dad was a Naval officer in the Seventh Fleet. Their motto was “Ready Power for Peace”. Ideally, the military would prevent wars by being ready to fight one. I think a war against Iraq is ill-conceived. I know that other Dopers think it is not, and I don’t want to get into a debate about it. I think a stron military is important, and I support having one; but I don’t think they should be used to fight wars that are, IMO, “wrong”.
So I agree with mishaa. I don’t support starting a war against Iraq, but I have nothing but respect for the men and women who must fight in it.
Your friends are idiots.
I was IN the military, my husband is in the military, all my best friends are in the military, and I’m against the war. So are some of them. Not every war, just this incredibly stupid one.
Good for you for being more sensible than your nitwit, simplistic friends.
Ditto. The inability to understand that the military does what the government tells it to do is just sad. The inability to understand that you often need a military to avoid war is even sadder. Good for you for being smarter than they are.
I was just talking about this at work yesterday! All over town people have signs in their yard that read ‘Peace is Patriotic’. Now other yards have started to sport signs that say ‘Support our Troops’.
The two do not negate each other! I can ‘Support our Troops’ and still feel that ‘Peace is Patriotic’! The ‘troops’ don’t have any choice in the decision to go to war - if they refuse they go to jail! Ergh that makes me so mad!
You can be against the war, but if/when the decision to go is made, it would be best if our troops saw a lot of support (and not protests) back home.
I fail to see how not wanting Americans to get shot is unpatriotic.
Once again, in case the point has not been made clearly enough:
Your friends are idiots.
I get really sick of hearing, in response to anti-war arguments, that we should “support our troops.” Well, i support the idea of not having any of them killed, and the best way to avoid that is not to go to war.
And i disagree with Bob55. Protests back home - whether before, during, or after the war - are fine, so long as they draw a distinction between opposing the politicians who decide to go to war and opposing the members of the armed forces. Protesting against the war on the one hand, and supporting the members of the military on the other, are not mutually exclusive.
It’s important to realise that the protests are aimed at those who decide to go to war, not those who actually have to do the footwork. You essentially make the same mistake as dragongirl’s friends: you don’t have to be anti-military to be against a war.
I’m not a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination, and I think opposing ill-conceived wars does not mean I oppose the miltary, as a concept.
Great minds think alike, mhendo. 
Your friends are right. Here’s proof.
- If you are against the war, you are against Bush.
- If you are against Bush, you are against America.
- The troops are American, and thus part of America.
- You are against the troops.
QED
(I don’t need a smiley do I?)
I really fail to see how not wanting to put the members of our armed services at risk needlessly is anti-military. I’m imagining the conversation with your (as has been well established now) idiot friends on this subject:
** dragongirl: ** “I don’t think fighting this war is worth the cost of life to our military personal”
** dragongirl’s friends: ** “Traitor! Anyone who doesn’t want to needlessly throw away the lives of military personal MUST hate them!”
Anyone who truely supports the military will be willing to risk their lives only in the most extreme cases and for truely important reasons. You can support them by demanding their return home from a needless conflict. Protesting government actions you don’t agree with is by no means unpatriotic. Continuing to protest a war after we started is by no means anti-military either, IMO it shows that you value their lives enough to want them out of harms way ASAP.
Just my two inflation adjusted cents on the matter…
I agree that one simultaneously both be against the war and support the troops. But we are in for trouble because very large segments of present day American society - including some of our troops - don’t seem to accept nuanced arguments such as that. If it takes “great minds” to understand that opposing the war isn’t the same as not supporting the troops then we’d better strap ourselves in for a bumpy ride. Great minds are and always have been in short supply.
And it doesn’t help that the administration themselves are trying to cut out all possible nuances. “You’re either with us or against us”, and all that.
I’m going to voice a bit of a dissenting view here. While I am willing to concede that well-meaning and intelligent people do have arguments to make against the war, it is important for everyone to understand the full effects of public protests.
One of the most vital components to effective military action is morale. Napoleon, who wasn’t what you’d call a nice person but who was indisputably a military genius, said “The morale is to the physical as three is to one.”
One of the reasons our military was as it was in Vietnam was low morale, fueled partly by anti-war protests back home. You can say that you “support our troops but not the war”, but the message that is received is that “the people we serve think what we are doing is wrong”. That lowers morale, and folks, low morale costs lives.
A soldier with low morale is a less effective soldier, and a less effective soldier is less likely to come home, are all the other soldiers around him.
I’m not saying that if you oppose the war you are unpatriotic, or that many people who oppose the war are not totally sincere in supporting the military. But if you publicly espouse such a view, you should know that there are consequences other than attracting the interest of elected officials.
This is one of those fake arguments pro-war people try to use to recast the debate into something it isn’t. Disagreeing with a decision to go to war has nothing to do with supporting the men and women who would fight in such a war. Many people disagree with this war because of their concern for the lives of our troops.
Idiots like your friends are the same people who try to argue that political dissent and protest are un-American.
It’s exhausting having to constantly explain the obvious stupidity of these arguments, which I guess is the point – it’s easier for people like your friends to demonize your position without the burden of facts or reality. It’s sad that it’s such an effective tactic.
I appreciate that low morale can affect our military’s performance, but to suggest that we lost Vietnam because of the protests is a stretch too far, methinks.
One of my best friends went over in Gulf War I, and even though I wasn’t thrilled about him being there (and less so when it was revealed that the Kuwaitis had lied about the aspects of the invasion), I wrote to him regularly, send him letters, videotapes, and similar things to keep his spirits up, and otherwise supported him personally. Even he thought it was a stupid war (as if there’s any other kind), but he understood the job he had to do and he did it.
Our soldiers are professionals. It’s their job to follow the orders they’re given. It’s our jobs to make sure that the politicians giving the orders are doing so for the right reasons. If we don’t do ours, that would be a failure to support our troops.
Well, I’m sure it was “one of the reasons”. If I had to make an estimation, though, I’d give “low morale” about a 2% weight factor in the mix of Reasons why the US lost the Vietnam war. Wouldn’t you agree that “low morale” was pretty insignificant compared to “gross underestimation of the enemy”, “unfamiliarity with the country at hand”, and “reluctance to see the warning signs and back down”?