Lemme back up that BINGO with a “RIGHT ON”.
-C
I’m not comfortable with it, but in practical terms you are probably correct.
I guess my point was that there are plenty of people who are very eager for war, and the previous post seemed to indicate that the possibility was unthinkable. For instance, the other day I was getting my car’s smog certification and was waiting in the shop’s lobby. There were a number of people there talking about the war. They were very “gung ho” about shooting and killing and bombing, and I even heard one of them ask, “Why don’t we just drop a nuke in Bagdag?” Appalling! I would guess if you asked these guys, they would be very “pro-war.”
Thanks,
JOhn.
However, Mom’s not going to approve of that threat, even if it does work.
(That, and little brother will lie in wait. Someday, he’ll be as big as big brother, and he’ll be the “ass kicker” then!)
Yeah, the “War on Terror” shouldn’t be forgotten in all this. 
The only other pro-war slogan I’ve seen is “Liberate Iraq”. What else are they going to say? “SUV’s Need Cheap Gas”? “There Might Be WMD’s”? The pro-war people are suffering from the same thing the anti-war people are, really–Bush hasn’t really ever given a good, solid, convincing arguement for this war. Makes slogans difficult.
Doesn’t stop 'em from trying, though. I remember some pro-war TV ads that were playing a few weeks ago, using the phrase “Saddam must go.” in a very dramatic voice. Great sloganeering, that. :rolleyes:
insufficient syllables - it’s gotta have a rhythm. “Hey hey hey ho - Saddams’ gotta go”
See? it doesn’t work.
I’m not supporting the troops. Then again, I’m not un-supporting the troops either. I’m just, you know, doing what I always do. Frankly, I’m not sure what “supporting the troops” would even involve. What kind of support do they need? And why am I suddenly reminded of a bra commercial?
Just add his last name, to get one more accented syllable:
“Hey hey ho ho -
Saddam Hussein has gotta go”
It still sounds dumb, but at least it scans.
I have, up till now, avoided getting involved in the war debate. I thought, “hey, I’m just a college kid, I’m not that well informed, heck, I barely remember the first Gulf War. I don’t spend hours poring over the One True unbiased newsfeed. I don’t have access to the major newspapers. I’m well enough informed to figure out what I think, but probably not well enough to shoot down anyone trying to argue with me.”
Perusing most of these threads, I see that none of that stuff is really required. Apparently all you have to have is an opinion. I’ve got plenty.
Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator. He should not have power. He poses a threat to world peace now. He could eventually, if he doesn’t now, pose a threat to the safety of the people and territory of the United States. The United Nations has failed to do their duty in dealing with Saddam Hussein.
Why us? Why now? Why him? These are all valid questions.
I don’t have the answers to these. I have ideas, I have thoughts and opinions, but not answers. But I’ll tell you something: the answers don’t really matter.
The fact is that Saddam is a cruel dictator. The fact is that the main objective of this war is to eliminate him as a threat to world peace. The fact is that will mean that one less cruel dictator is in power. One less threat to world peace.
If we had decided to disarm North Korea instead, as I’ve heard many people wondering why not there, my feelings would be the same. One less threat to world peace.
Diplomacy failed. The choice was between appease or act. We chose to act.
“Yup, they’re developing a combat bra up here in Canada, your tax dollars at work… Why are we spending all that money? Has nobody ever seen a Leave it to Beaver rerun? June Cleaver! Her tits were so pointy, now that’s a combat bra! Woman drops her bayonet, she loses her rifle - you just embrace the enemy.”
- Maggie Cassella
Wjere are you getting this idea from? It’s sounds like more pro-war propaganda to me. Are they really sitting around Iraq watching the (non-existent) news coverage of the protests? Can they hear us shouting anti-war slogans from all the way over there? If they come back with a heavy conscience over what they’ve done, then that’s a healthy thing. But I don’t buy that the protests are having any effect on their ability to keep themselves alive.
Garfield, there are a million threads debating whether this war is justified. It would be nice if this thread didn’t become another one. Here we’re talking about “supporting the troops.” Thanks.
Good point. You’re right. Sorry. Like I said, it was the first war thread I’ve responded to and it was in the pit, and someone said that President Bush hadn’t given a reason, so I was responding to that.
But the main issue is supporting the troops, I understand. For the record, I understand how one could support the troops and not support the war. I think a lot of the anti-war crowd supports the troops.
Just my $0.02
I get my information from my brother who was and active duty Marine involved in the first Iraq dust-up. He came home safely, thank goodness, but some fellow Marines he knew did not. He and I have chatted about this, and yes, they did know about the protests back home, and yes it did have an effect. The protests are more world-wide this time, and it seems to me there are more people protesting. I make the logical conclusion that the fighting forces in Iraq today are as informed if not more so than those engaged in the previous conflict and further that they are just as aware of the world-wide protest regarding the actions they are being asked to take.
That’s my source. What’s yours?
JOhn.
That doesn’t make much sense to me, jkusters. I would think that they would have better things to do than watch the news. And if what they see is so disturbing that they lose the will to fight for their own lives, I would think the government would pull the plug on that information. Anyway, is it the fact that everyone is protesting the war that bothers them or the fact that everyone thinks the war is wrong? That latter cannot be changed. Are we actually supposed to go out and say we support the war all of a sudden?
I think the things you’ve done are wonderful, and I’ve already said that I believe many people are sincere in wanting to both oppose the war and support the troops.
But ask yourself this question: is it more or less likely to increase or decrease a soldier’s willingness to fight, if he believes the cause that he might take lives for, or give his own is not worthy? Is his willingness or unwillingness to fight likely to increase his efficiency, hastening the end of the war, and increasing his chance for survival? Hearing “I think you are great, but I think what you are doing is wrong.” is not a huge morale booster, no matter how many letters and cookies accompany that sentiment. (Note: I am not disparaging your efforts. Nor am I implying that you actually said this to any soldiers you or your daughters may have written to.)
And to jkusters: I am very happy to see that you understand that public protest affects military performance in a real way. Two of the people we know personally who are deployed are in command of troops, and they also say that soldiers are aware of public sentiment, and that it can make a real difference in troop performance. It can be a real challenge for a field commander to keep up morale and motivation in the face of other messages from sources that American soldiers have grown up trusting.
As for what you should do…well, I have never said that Americans should ignore their consciences. But I do believe that the only thing that public protest will accomplish is a prolonging of the war, resulting in more death on both sides. I say this not to make any kind of underhand threat, or to co-opt your belief, but to make you aware of why I, and the majority of military members, tend to feel there is a disconnect between “supporting the troops” and “protesting the war”.
One thing I know about military life, even in a battle zone, is that there are frequently periods where all you are doing is waiting. In wars of previous decades, soldiers would pass the time reading comic books or magazines. Nowadays, from what I see on the TV, many units have portable media centers where the soldiers can catch up on news, and possibly even send/receive email (you’d have to ask an active service person about the details). Not 100% of the time is engaged in active fighting or preparation.
I didn’t say they lost the will to fight, but I did say it is a distraction. Lucretia and others support that supposition. And distraction can be very hazardous, especially distractions that cause one to doubt the “rightness” of what the soldier is doing. What was the phrase used over and over again in the “gays in the military flap?” Oh, yes, lack of “unit cohesion.” While gay service people may or may not lead to a lessoning of unit cohesion, mistrust of military leaders certainly will.
Should military leaders censor what the troops see? Perhaps, but I would think this would lead to even greater mistrust of unit commanders. Any other opinions on this from the assembled military-knowledgeable folk?
And now you reach the crux of my, and many other people’s, dilema. We feel it is imperative to exercise our first amendment rights to declare we feel it is an unjust or ill-advised war, but do not want to cause any more pain and suffering amongst the troops than is absolutely necessary. I have no wish to have service people hurt or killed because of my actions, but I can’t remain silent regarding the actions of the leaders who got us into the war in the first place (Bush, Rumsfeld, et al.).
From reading ahead in the thread, looks like people who think any protests are bad have no answers either. 
JOhn.
It’s a fair question, and fairly phrased.
To me, this is getting down to which mindset I hold as a priority: the soldiers’ or my own. Since I cannot do much, in the end, to control or even regulate how the soldiers feel while in combat, I feel that it isn’t my responsibility to change my mind about the war or be less vocal about it. Mind you, I’m not particularly vocal about it in the first place.
I guess what I’m saying is that I feel that my beliefs and my right to express them are every bit as important as the soldier’s right to feel what they’re feeling about it. I can’t control their actions, or their reactions to what I’m feeling, whatever that may be. If they feel that my right to my beliefs are what they’re fighting for, then why should I change them? If they feel that my beliefs are a betrayal to everything they’re fighting for, then would my changing them change their minds about me? Make them feel better? Should I wave a flag and lie about my beliefs, on the off chance that it makes a soldier feel better?
No thanks. I’d rather be honest, with myself and with others, and go on supporting the troops in some other way. There are some things that are within my control and some things that aren’t, and how a soldier feels about my beliefs isn’t one of them. When it comes down to it, I value honesty too much to abdicate it like that. And frankly, a soldier shouldn’t be abdicating their beliefs or standards just because I and others disagree with the war effort in general.
I guess I believe that I am no more responsible for how a soldier feels about my feelings than he is responsible for how I feel about his… if that makes any sense. So I’ll go on supporting our troops in the best way that I know how, but if you expect me to change my beliefs or lie about them, then I’m afraid that that’s not going to happen.
Your thinking leads me to the conclusion that we must not only refrain from protesting but also lie about our opinions. Maybe this is why polls show so much support for the war.