Troop Support Question

Today at 11:45 AM Brimshack said this in Post #20

As for opposing the troops themselves, it might pay to remember that none of them is currently in a position to say 'No'. They must fight if they are ordered to do so, hence it won't do any good to try an introduce doubt into their minds. On the other hand, the notion that failure to support the war amounts to a betrayal of the troops is effectively a blank check to leaders who may misuse them in a variety of ways.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. In this case the question was whether you could pray for their safety and till not support them. To this I say that if you are praying for them, you are supporting them.

(Is that so abstract? I could swear it has happened before.) If your disagreement is with policy-makers, then your arguments should be directed at the actions of policy-makers, not the troops themselves. Those who protest should protest with dignity; they should refrain from hyperbole; they should refrain from wreckless descriptions of actions taken by the troops (as distinguished from stating concerns over any credible reports of human rights violations - should they occur), and they should certainly refrain from actually giving MATERIAL aid and comfort to the enemy (e.g. Jane Fonda).

Click to expand...

Or volunteering themselves as human shields to someone who cares nothing for the human shields' safety.

Many in the right would not be satisfied with such terms, but to suggest that we should refrain from disagreement over the most important event in current world history is to render the democratic process hollow at best, and potentially to destroy it outright. There is real danger that the public pressure to support this war combined with actual measures being taken to Congress (Patriot II) could compromise a number of American freedoms.

Click to expand...

What actions are you referring to?

The protests are not in themselves symbolic gestures of hatred toward the US or it's policy, however, when the protests and disagreements take on another form (i.e recent ELF actions) the outcome defeats the cause and becomes a stain to the movement's already shaky repoir with the government.

I think it is a beautiful thing to see people freely protesting the governments actions, and I also think that it is a beautiful thing to see people supporting the troops. But when the event is polarized to the point of becoming pro-US and anti-US both sides lose.

Point 1) Your position sounds reasonable.

Point 2) I actually had that in mind. To my original list, I would now add, not directing criticism directly to troops in the war zone (there were letter campaigns in Vietnam). Such actions can only serve to heighten anxieties of people who are NOT in a position to say no.

Point 3) Agreed and appreciated. As to the concerns, I would mention the prospect of revoking citizenship.

The scale of the data-base is potentially disturbing as well. Such things can be used for a variety of reasons other than security. Here's one link:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0

Today at 12:16 PM Brimshack said this in Post #22

Point 3) Agreed and appreciated. As to the concerns, I would mention the prospect of revoking citizenship.

Click to expand...

To those who were not in support of US policies? Maybe to the French?

I can't see that getting very far. I think system of policy making is actually a benefit in that situation due, in part, to the fact that a large group of elected officials don't seem particularly prone to knee jerk reactions at the congressional level.

Section 312, “Appropriate Remedies with Respect to Law Enforcement Surveillance Activities”: This section would terminate all state law enforcement consent decrees before Sept. 11, 2001, not related to racial profiling or other civil rights violations, that limit such agencies from gathering information about individuals and organizations. The authors of this statute claim that these consent orders, which were passed as a result of police spying abuses, could impede current terrorism investigations. It would also place substantial restrictions on future court injunctions.

Click to expand...

I find this particularly disturbing.

Another link:

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,57636,00.html

Well, theoretically such things would be applied to convicted terrorists. Such measures are unconstitutional, and so there is little likelihood that we could ensure they would be used as claimed.

I really can't make out your point in the last sentence. Could you restate it?

Yep. That's another cut into the Fourth Amendment right, one that is already heavily compromised.

Actually, I should have read the article before I made the post.

My point was that I don't think that congress will pass something that so blatantly opposes freedom of US citizens and those seeking asylum.

U.S. Troops are an extension of us as a nation, they are obliged to follow the orders of the policy makers we let into office regardless of whether we agree or disagree with those policies because we serve the American people and have sworn to obey the orders of the Presidant. If your a soldier who agrees with the war in Iraq, great. If your a soldier who disagrees with that policy you just need to suck it up and do your job. All Americans should support our troops because they are OUR troops, they are an extension of this country who for various reasons have chosen to give up many of our liberties so that Americans might always have thiers.
That's what it means to be a soldier, and that's why our soldiers deserve our support regardless of which side we stand on this issue.

On an aside, as disapointed as I am that we have chosen to act without UN support. I am grateful that the "Christian" world as a whole did not rise up together against a Muslim nation, as it would have only multiplied the level of hate and distrust in the region. I am grateful that Peace protesters still march and are not afraid to stand up for what they believe in. I am greatful that the loss of life thus far has been relatively low and I am grateful that our government talks of getting out of the region quickly. May the God of war, bless us with swift victory and may the Gods of peace quickly heal the wounds inflicted by this war.

It depends on what you mean by "supporting the troops".

If I opposed this war, I would not support their actions. However, I would support them in that I would want them all to come home safe and sound. I would certainly not want any harm to come to them.

If we get into this position where you either "support" or "oppose" our troops rather than "support" or "oppose" government policy then you can end up in the ridiculous situation of having to support - as an extreme example - a government which orders its military to murder civilians.

I mean, if you do not support that then you are not supporting the troops, are you?

As such, the debate should be held on the level of government policy and not on support or otherwise for our military.

If the government were ordering our troops to commit unethical acts then the only moral thing to do would be to support those troops who refused to obey illegal/immoral orders. Our troops are doing the right thing in following the orders given to them and are sacrificing alot for the American people. Feeling this way does not mean you have to agree with the policy makers who risk a world war for the security of a terrorist (Israel) state.
Already there is a risk of confrontation between US forces and Turkish military forces in Northern Iraq. Syria supporting Iraq as much as it can without becoming directly involved in the war. Humanitarian disasters in eastern Iraq could also motivate the Iranian military to become involved. Pro-American governments in the region are also under great stress because of our actions, revolution in Egypt, Jordan or Pakistan are real possibilities. We are the bull in the proverbial china shop, let us pray for a swift resolution before the situation gets worse.