What do you mean when you say you...

[Era Might]

If I disagreed with the war, I wouldn't say I "support" the troops, although I would respect them, seeing as different people can reasonably disagree.

There are obvious exceptions, of course. (For example, I wouldn't see Nazi soldiers the same way).

[Jaime]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Oct 4 2005, 07:37 AM']
It's ridiculous to think a President would go to war to make money.  There are so many other, less risky ways of making $$ as President with a lot less risk of getting caught, being hounded, etc.  That's why Micheal Moore is an idiot.  Halliburton is a huge company that negotiates contracts with the Government regularlly.  I work for a small company that negotiates no-bid contracts with government agencies all the time.  It's very common because there are certain types of work that has a very limited number of qualified contractors so it's more efficient to eliminate red-tape to negotiate.  It's very complicated and is almost always a fair deal for the government and the contractor.

While I realize most of the posters here are young, I certainly hope the Gulf War is widely known and the many pre-emptive wars that Iraq started with Iran and the cr8p Saddam was constantly stirring up.  The reasons were/are complex and multifacited.  When someone sticks a gun in your face, you can shoot him in self defense.  If you find out the gun was a fake, you still were probably justified in your actions.  Consider that when talking about the WMD.  Everybody, including other nations and the UN Weapon Inspectors, fully expected to find them.  We didn't.  I guess Sadaam should have done what he agreed to and cooperated with the UN.

Iraq did support the terrorists.  Iraq agreed with the hatred of the West and of Judaism.  Iraq supplied money, support, and areas for training.  They were a refuge for many who left Afgahnistan.  Though Iraq did not help Al-Quida with 9/11, they provided aid and comfort after the fact.


[right][snapback]745609[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yes Michael Moore is an idiot.

But what is also true is that Bush takes care of those who've supported him. That isn't such a bad thing sometimes. However (and this is a big however) The direct connection between Cheney and Haliburton should not be brushed off so easily. The people who supported Bush are reaping the benefits of us going to war.

Do I believe that Bush went to war to line the wallets of his cronies? I honestly don't know why he dragged us into war. I don't know why he would think about going to war with Iraq without consulting his father. I don't know why he would think about going to war with Iraq without having any semblance of an exit strategy. But I do not believe that he led us to war for the reason(s) he's given us. I don't believe that for a second.

This was the first test of the pre-emptive doctrine and it failed. Are we ethically bound to stick around and clean up after ourselves? Absolutely. That is why I can say I support the troops and not the war. I want them to be successful and come home safely. But we are in a worse place now because of Bush's decision.

We are less safe as a nation.

Edited October 4, 2005 by jaime

[crusader1234]

I agree with Paladin, that if you don't support a persons objectives, its poor wording to say you support the troops that were there. You can hope for their wellbeing, but thats not the same.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Oct 4 2005, 05:23 PM']If I disagreed with the war, I wouldn't say I "support" the troops, although I would respect them, seeing as different people can reasonably disagree.

There are obvious exceptions, of course. (For example, I wouldn't see Nazi soldiers the same way).
[right][snapback]746112[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Love the sinner, not the sin.

Support the troops, if not the cause for which they fulfill their duty in fighting. There is nothing wrong with use of the word "support" in this way.

Edited October 4, 2005 by hierochloe

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 4 2005, 06:39 PM']
This was the first test of the pre-emptive doctrine and it failed.  Are we ethically bound to stick around and clean up after ourselves?  Absolutely.  That is why I can say I support the troops and not the war.  I want them to be successful and come home safely.  But we are in a worse place now because of Bush's decision.

We are less safe as a nation.
[right][snapback]746118[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You are still thinking in terms of a few years, not decades.
To say the doctrine of preemptive war has failed after only 4 years is very short-sighted. We won't know whether it worked until we are older, perhaps 20 years from now.
As far as preemptive war is concerned, we kicked Saddam's behind. Now the difficulty is transitioning Iraq from dictatorship (which generally runs smooth, violence notwithstanding) to democracy (which is chaotic and potentially deadly at first, but pays off big in the long run). Preemptive war has resulted in a successful military campaign.
If we want to put on our blinders and focus on what is directly in front of us we can do that. However, the old saying about the Vatican working in centuries applies to the politics of today. Perhaps it works in terms of generations, not centuries, but it is not something we will see resolved within a Presidential term or two. Decisions regarding Vietnam spanned from Truman to Nixon. I would expect the war on terror to last for the rest of our lives.

If it makes you feel better, Americans have never been enthusiastic about long engagements. Historically we've never had a standing army except to keep our borders secure. Before the 1840s we mostly relied on militias...peculiarity of American thinking.

[dspen2005]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Oct 4 2005, 05:49 PM']There is not a single element of doubt, however miniscule, that supporting our men and women in service is EVER in contradiction with one's non-support of the war itself. To find a contradiction here is like  condemning all of Catholicism as a result of a minority of priests' peodphile ways.
[right][snapback]746079[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

your comparison is a false one --
first, you equate the priest's with the war in Iraq, and Catholicism with the troops themselves. A better analogy would have been to switch the premise "condemning all pedophile priests as a result of Catholocism." This is the true analogy in response to what I proposed. When looking at it, we see that the notion is absurd because it implies within that it is somehow inherently wrong to condemn pedophile priests. MOrally speaking, it is not wrong to condemn them -- technically, though, it would be more appropriate to condemn the action.

btw, I must state -- since I apparently neglected to do so.... I am speaking purely from a logical standpoint. In other words, the logical form of the notion of support the troops while not supporting the war is inherently contradictory. remember, i am speaking purely of logical form.

[Socrates]

This needn't be so complicated. One could oppose the war in saying that we would be better off not sending troops to Iraq, yet while they are there, we should support our troops rather than the Mohammedan butchers they are fighting.

[DancesforLove]

Supporting our troops but not the war is accepting the fact we are in this war whether you wanted to be or liked it. Even if you don't agree with it, you should give every effort you can to support the troops and give them a reason to stay alive and fight for our country because they are there and they just can't stop doing it now, not without a MUCH bigger cost than we are already playing.
Its not about politics anymore when there are our troops, human being, mothers fathers sons daughters brothers and sisters over there whether it was their choice or not, we have to give them hope that they will make it home and it will be over soon.

[Jaime]

[quote]ou are still thinking in terms of a few years, not decades.
To say the doctrine of preemptive war has failed after only 4 years is very short-sighted. We won't know whether it worked until we are older, perhaps 20 years from now.[/quote]

I'm saying that our first exercise in the new doctrine failed. It is now accepted that Iraq was not a direct threat to the US. Why would we have to wait another twenty years to admit that?

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 4 2005, 10:11 PM']I'm saying that our first exercise in the new doctrine failed.  It is now accepted that Iraq was not a direct threat to the US.  Why would we have to wait another twenty years to admit that?
[right][snapback]746324[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
our first exercise is not even concluded and we say it fails? Typical American impatience. Think outside the box.
Our new national security strategy does not say we should attack only those direct threats to the US. [i]Potential[/i] threats are potential targets. It's a new idea, a new system, and a new way of going about things that is meeting a lot of resistance from people who are unfamiliar with it. It's also encouraging heretofore unfriendly countries to be more friendly towards us...or at least to mind their manners when we're watching.

It will take that long to figure out if it was right. maybe longer. We are still digesting the end of the Cold War. Shoot, we're still digesting the beginning and trying to figure out how our policy developed over that span of years.

I have a paper on the NSS that I got an A- on. I could share it if you like. It's an undergrad course but the prof is pretty knowledgable.

[Jaime]

[quote]our first exercise is not even concluded and we say it fails? Typical American impatience. Think outside the box. [/quote]

THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! Therefore Iraq was not a direct threat to the US. So we were wrong. Its not that complicated.

Congrats on the paper btw.

[DancesforLove]

No, we didn't find them.
I think that flying two planes in to two of our tallest buildings and the pentagon, blowing up the planes and buildings and killing thousands of our people was a threat however. I'm sure you wouldn't want a plane blowing up your house now would you

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 4 2005, 10:45 PM']THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!  Therefore Iraq was not a direct threat to the US.  So we were wrong.  Its not that complicated. 

Congrats on the paper btw.
[right][snapback]746395[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
thank you, I was rather pleased with myself.

the fact remains that direct threats are no longer the only ones in danger of being attacked. International approval is nice and good, and is the only reason any effort was made towards proving Iraq had WMDs. However, the US doesn't need approval from the UN to act in its own best interests. Since the common man is no expert on what is in the best interests of the US as he is without the information available to policymakers, we should trust those in power to make policy decisions. Otherwise, we'll just be angry at them when they make policy anyway.

reading the NSS we see that the US can and will attack those who may present a threat, and those who may be allied with them. It's nasty. It might work though.

We haven't even touched on the fact that since 1992 people in the gov't have been advocating finishing the job on Saddam. WMDs were never that important...neither was international cooperation. There is a strong argument that this war is what should have happened 14 years ago.


Look, I think what we can take away from this is that you can't make a round condemnation of this action. From a moral standpoint, probably you can, but from a political standpoint it just might be genius.

[Snarf]

Morality should trump politics.

OOOOOOOOH, look at Seth, he's saying that doesn't ever have to happen and that we can all live in peace by letting dictators rule the world.

Nope. When others break the rules, it's our responsibility to punish them ACCORDING TO the rules. There are abstract moral arguments to be applied to when and when not we should go to war, but it's easier to go by the concrete rules of the Church: the doctrine of Jus Ad Bellum.

If the United States denegrates itself to Machiavellian pre-emptive war, then it's no better than the terrorists it seeks to squelch.

[Jaime]

[quote]We haven't even touched on the fact that since 1992 people in the gov't have been advocating finishing the job on Saddam. WMDs were never that important...neither was international cooperation. There is a strong argument that this war is what should have happened 14 years ago.
[/quote]

And why was that? Because Bush Sr acknowledged that there was no feasible plan to exit Baghdad. That's why.