Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Military patriotism and dissidence

For quite some time now, I've wrestled mentally with the matter of speaking out against the war versus "supporting our troops." I've finally managed to see a clear distinction that I hope may be helpful to both supporting patriots and dissenting patriots. Free of charge, of course, here it is for any clarity that it may supply to your thinking and opinion (I assume that you think before you opine, of course!):

On the positive side -- Now that we're engaged in the war, vocal support (irrespective of supportive reasons for it) supplies vitality to the morale of the fellows over there doing the dirty work and living with the dirty conditions and memories. Therefore, expressions of support provide a positive effect on their morale without affecting the decision to wage war.

On the negative side -- Now that we're engaged in the war, expressions of opposition (irrespective of supportive reasons for it) sap the morale of the fellows over there doing the dirty work and living with the dirty conditions and memories. Therefore, negative opinion has a negative effect on their morale without affecting the decision to wage war.

Under the present circumstances -- the war as a fait accompli -- support for it doesn't decide whether we engage in war, but it does show, in ways that strengthen our troops personally, our appreciation for them.

OTOH, holding forth against it -- especially with allegations of despicable ulterior motives -- has no positive or beneficial effect that I can see, on either the war or our warriors. The only effects that I see are all favorable to the enemy and his warriors -- encouraging the other side, discouraging our guys. I can not see how that's patriotic, no matter how loudly the dissidents squall their claims to patriotism.

Having said all that, I must add that it's obvious to me that many dissidents start with opposition and then look around for "reasons." One of my good friends on the left coast is a very logical man when he's dealing with technical facts -- won't form or accept a conclusion until he knows all the data and sees how they fall into sense. But his opposition to the President and the Administration (not just the war) is the benchmark from which he looks all around for reasons to oppose and dissent. Good logic would have him base his dissent on reasons, not derive his "reasons" from his congenital hatred. I see his method of finding "reasons" very obvious in much of the dissidents' arguments against the war. As one addicted to logic, I find this an appalling abdication from applied thinking. It's also clearly why they can not be swayed by clear logic that leads to conclusions that don't match the opinions that for one reason or another they find politically tasty.

Yes, I agree that our God-given, constitutionally guaranteed right to speak freely includes dissidents' right to dissent in this matter as in any other. I see no way that the right to speak freely is relevant to this issue. What we face is a matter of using good judgement, not a matter of the right to speak. He who speaks is responsible for using his judgement. I'm for using it wisely, especially when it favors silence over decibels and heat.

Some of this, and us is/are over the edge. Look at what Y'all are writing and how it sounds. Threats and counter threats over something we, as citizens, no longer have any control over. The war is a runaway freight train that ain't gonna stop till it gets to the end of the line! Give it a rest and worry about the troops on the line, they are the ones that count at this point. I really hope they don't have to go through what my brothers, and yes, sisters went through, in and after Vietnam. It is not pretty and can have you near the edge far easier than you might think. Bless these people for doing their job for you and I. The politicians, well the hell with them, it's too late in the game to worry now. Just support those on the sharp end of the spear and pray for the safe return of as many as possible.

Then vote your true feelings in the next election! I don't care how you vote, just DO IT!

Ken,

I think that there is distinction between patriotism and anti-americanism and dissidence.


I am probably the most hawkish member on the board or else I am tied for that position.

However, there are those (mistakenly so) that oppose the war because of

1. I dont think we gave the U.N. enough time.
or
2. I just dont believe in war.
or
3. I dont think that the U.S. has legal justification for attackin Iraq.

I can even think of a few other incorrect but viable reasons for not supporting the concept of war with Iraq.

People that have true convictions of these opinions and speak of them are not un-patriotic or anti-american in my opinion. The do have a right to these opinions and are truly concerned about the U.S.

On the other hand there are those that have taken this conflict as an opportunity to say things such as ""'We're here, we're queer!' -- that's what makes my heart swell. Not the flag, but a gay naked man or woman burning the flag. I get choked up with pride."

-- Janeanne Garofalo"

Those are the things that I believe to be Anti-american and un-patriotic. Free speech is free speech and the constitution protects her right to say these things, but I just dont believe that statements such as these fall under the banner of good taste or what a true american would say.


Jim B.

I just didn't make my point clear enough, I guess, Jim.

When going to war was still a "jump ball," then was the appropriate time to voice reasoned dissent. I have no problem with that.

When the war has become fait accompli, there's absolutely no way that opposition to it can prevent it. I don't mean to say that those who opposed it when it was still a "jump ball" should turn around and support it -- all I'm saying is that the opposition that theoretically could've averted it, before, has become of no positive value to anyone except the enemy and his supporters -- of whom, regrettably, we have so many feeding fat on our grub at our home tables. They had their nay say, which didn't carry -- so there's no way now that their opposition to the war can win them anything that their opposition implicitly continues to propose. Arguing against war that has already begun and is vigorously under way can not possibly prevent it from becoming a reality. All it can do (and does) is encourage the enemy while it discourages our own warriors. The clear motive of demeaning and discrediting our leaders does no one on our side any good. The alternative to vitriolic personal attack and condemnation doesn't have to suddenly become approval -- a still tongue in a closed mouth is a pretty good alternative when nothing that tongue can say stands any chance of producing a positive or desirable effect.

There's a Hell of a difference between honest pacifists and those who simply hate the Americans who are dealing with the threats of war, despotism, and terrorism.

I dunno, Dr. Howell. I too have some reservations about this war. Serving in the USMC from 69-73, i felt lots of the vitriole first hand. However, i do wonder how much longer the"War" would have lasted if many of the good folks at home would have acquiesced.
I am truly afraid that we have opened the proverbial "can of worms."

I have to wonder if some"peoples" in certain parts of the world just can't handle freedom;much less anything that approaches a democracy. Seems that some might be happier when they are ruled with an iron fist or when constantly whipped into a Jihadic freenzy.

I don't think many of us can begin to understand the Arab mind. Their history-their religion....

We've had 30 years now to do something about our energy dependency. And haven't. This dependency has led us to sleep with some very unsavory fellows.And the sheets stink.

I support our troops 100%. But i think they are going to need our support for a very long time on this one. Regards......

Ken


Please understand that what I am about to say are MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS AND DO NOT IN ANY WAY, MANNER, OR FASHION imply that yours are wrong.


I am a believer in supporting the military in any and all ways. I believe in supporting the individual soldier or airman or marine or sailor or coast guardsman, or ........... in every way possible. I am dedicated to the concept that there is not a more noble or honorable position than to wear the Uniform of The United States of America. Period.


Now comes the fun part....


I supported the concept of going to war with Iraq before hostilities actually occured. I supported the concept before we ever went to the U.N. I believe in the purpose of the war.

However to hear the people that espouse

1. The war is unjust.
2. Give the U.N. more time.
3. It is unethical to kill Iraqis for the reasons given.
4. War is in any event a bad solution.

to

5. America is evil for killing Iraqis
6. I spit on the Flag.
7. I am glad that I could come here (Spain) for a breathe of fresh air because the air in America is stifling.
8. I am ashamed of my president.
9. My president is a racist.
10. I wish for the Iraqis to kill all of us americans.
11. I wish for a million mogadishu's.



turn to "I dont support the war but I do support the troops" is a tad hypocritical to me. Especially the ones that fall into categories 5 - 11.
To ME, it says. I believe that you are going over to do an unjust thing, no amount of arguement has changed my mind on the idea that it is the right thing to do. It is not the right thing to do but since public opinion would be so bad for me I will do a "I support the troops", lip service and still let the troops know that I dissaprove of the mission that they are going on. How can you look a PFC in southern Iraq with mud in his teeth and some dipstick shooting at him and say, "I dont approve of the mission you are on but please know that I "support the troops.""? If you cant support the mission then you cannot be supporting the lowly little grunt with the rifle in his hand. And these folks know it.


Besides, what does "I support the troops" mean.


Then next time you hear someone spew the that line, ask them this.

"How do you support the troops in general, and specifically, what exactly have you done in the last week to put action to your words. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO SUPPORT A SINGLE AND SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL SERVING IN OUR ARMED FORCES?"



"I support the troops" from a staunch anti-war or worse yet a staunch anti-american is the moral equivilant of my mother making me "apologize" to my brother for kicking him in the shin one afternoon. I said "I am sorry, Mike" but I did not mean it. I had no remorse for kicking him. He KNEW without a doubt that I did not mean it and furthermore he knew that the "apology" was coerced in that "If you dont apologize there will be hell to pay". While she was swinging the switch in her hand.


Sorry for getting on a soapbox and ranting. This is one of my hot buttons.

Jim B.

Ken, I'm starting to feel some of the most dissident people. Are our own millitary. Starting to see more and more getting on the news, telling why were not fighting this war properly. Some retired, some still active. Don't know if their jeolous, have feud's going with those in command posistions, or are just idiot's. Rank doesn't seem to have anything to do with it. CNN has a retired Colonel who just doesn't seem to think this administration has done anything properly. Kind of makes you wonder why he only made colonel. Kind of like "Paid Expert Wittneses" in a trial. You see Captains, Sargents, heck I'm waiting for an expert opinion from one of CNN's recently retired Private's.

Phil

You guys are starting to confuse me.

I had thought that all the dissidents causing the dissidence were dis' DENSE!

The whole point is that some of us had our say before it started, I for one now keep it to myself and send care pkgs and notes of appreciation. I have been in the position these people are in. I will not say one dispariging word to them or their family's nor do I dis my gov't. I do vote, and will vote my concience when election time rolls around. And that will be between me and the voting machine.

I support em, I have a nephew somewhere over there (only contact is re-routed email) and several aquaintiances are headed that way. Time for the BS is over and we need to let em know they are number one in our book and pray for a speedy and safe return. Nothing less will do now that we a committed!

Jim B,
I think you get a little confused in the messages out there. If I say that I think the diplomacy should have been given more of a chance, that doesn't mean I don't support our troops. I think all the ultra conservatives are as wrong about the war as are the ultra liberals. I know I will probably get alot of flak for saying it but it is true.

The lack of diplomacy by Bush and Chirac made this war a foregone conclusion. The blame lies at both of their feet. Could the war have been avoided through better diplomacy? I don't know. Probably not. But war should be the last alternative after every available option has been tried. Between Bush's insistence on going to war and Chirac's insistence on vetoing any provisions for severe consequences for Iraq, the chance for peace was lost. Now our troops are dying for it.

So if I believe that Bush has failings in his foreign policy, it means I don't support our troops? Then I guess everyone who bashes Clinton is more un-American (as determined by your own standards), alot more un-American, than me.

Well, in my case, it means that I respect their talent, ability, and professionalism, and that I pray for them to come home safely and soon. That's about as far as it can go.

But I cannot claim to support their mission, or to think that they're bending that talent, ability, and professionalism to the proper end.

How can I explain it? Let me try it this way.

We all know (hopefully) that it is the nature of governments to become bigger and more powerful and more oppressive as time goes on. Some become that way quickly, some take centuries; but no government willingly becomes smaller and less powerful and gives liberty back to its people.

Our government is one of the ones that has been becoming bigger and more oppressive for centuries (although mostly since 1912). Every week there's a new liberty it wants to take away. If we can't be shamed into giving up rights "for the chillllldren," then those rights are forcibly taken away on behalf of the War On Drugs. Even the War On Drugs has apparently pretty much served out its usefulness in that regard, so now we have the War On Terror, which gave us the USA PATRIOT Act and the Department of Fatherland Security. (Extra credit: under which branch of government does the Constitutional prescription for the security of a free state fall? Think about it.)

So far so good. The fly in the ointment is that an armed citizenry can be peacefully oppressed only so far as it is willing to allow itself to be oppressed. Eventually, the government is going to need lots more men with guns to oppress us than it has now--and bigger guns. Toward that end, Baby Bush has for some time now been trying to get the Posse Comitatus Act--which, as I hope most of you know already, prohibits the use of US military forces against American citizens on American soil--abolished. (There's already a chink in the PCA that allows use of military equipment in the War On Drugs--which is why the FBI had to claim the Branch Davidians had a meth lab in order to get armored vehicles from the Army. That's not enough for Baby Bush, though: he wants to eliminate the whole thing.)

When that happens, all that ability and talent and professionalism in the US military is going to be aimed at me. (If the War On Terror hasn't been superseded by something that's even more efficient at destroying American liberty by that point, I'm sure I'll long since have been defined as a terrorist by then, because I'll own militia weapons that I won't have surrendered.)

And at long last, we come around the mulberry tree to the reason my support of the troops must have its limits. If the people in the military can't see that its mission in Iraq is in direct contravention of the Constitution it swore to uphold and defend, then I can have no confidence that they will see anything wrong with similar orders to come get me and other Americans like me. And I think it's a little presumptuous of all and sundry to expect me to offer unquestioning support to the very people whom I fear may one day try to kill me and my family.

For my money, the time for dissidence is past. We are at war and American

youth are dieing. They are dieing because the politicians we elected are

responsible for them being there and being in the situations they find

themselves. Whether we believe in the reasons for being there is now

irrelevant. Many are the feeling and my beliefs concerning war. If one has

been on the receiving end of war instead of a platitude of beliefs they will not

ever want war for themselves or others.

But the most dispicable thing that this country has ever done was not support

our troops from the VN war. But the most dispicable thing beyond that was

our own lack of support was not making a bunch of professional politicians do

their duty to those willing to support our policies, right or wrong. I, for this

reason don't trust any politician for any reason. I'm sorry to say that I

don't trust our nation. As a politician's goal in life to to stay in Washington,

we could control this situation. God help us if we let them play this dispicable

game of monopoly or chess with the lives of our youth.

The southern difinition of trash describes (in my opinion) those who will not

support someone who is doing that which we ask of them.

Oh well, I've done it again. My wife would say that part of our culture is the

right to believe as we wish. She is right, so I have stated my beliefs.

However she would mean for me to keep my opinions to my self.

I'm not completely sure of all the details of what you mean, Eddie. I can't tell if the following addresses you or not; if it doesn't, just imagine me talking over your shoulder to the folks behind you.

I've never been in the standing military, only in the militia. Can somebody who has been in the standing military explain to me what the big deal is about supporting the troops? I mean, they're professionals with a job to do, right? I don't mean to offend anybody, but if they are professionals, should our support really matter to them?

For example: I'm a professional software developer. I'm paid to do a job too. (One difference is that I'm compensated with money that somebody willingly chose to pay me in exchange for the exercise of my talents, rather than with money that was forcibly extorted from people by a government agency whether or not those people advocated that particular use of the money; that may or may not be relevant here.) How many of you folks support me? Have any of you sent me care packages or mail expressing your hopes and encouragement that I'll be able to bear up under the stress of my job and overcome its obstacles?

Not as far as I know, and I kind of like it that way. If I got a care package in the mail, I'd be a little disturbed and suspicious. (Unless it contained a box of Padron 3000 Maduro or Partagas Black Label Clasico cigars, of course.) I'm a professional: I do the job that I'm paid to do, regardless of my morale. And anyway, my morale generally has nothing to do with current public opinion of software developers: it has more to do with my current state of health, my relationships with my wife and kids, whether I got to go shooting last weekend, whether I'll be flying later in the day--stuff like that.

So what is the essential difference between a professional soldier (paid by extortion) and a professional software developer (paid by choice) that makes it necessary to say nice things about the soldier and send him gifts lest he be unable to do his job, but the software developer (and, I suspect, the plumber, bus driver, executive, banker, electrician, scientist, etc.) is expected to do a professional job without compliments and gifts from the public at large?

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't say nice things about our soldiers or that we shouldn't send them gifts: those are good things to do. But I'm wondering why everyone so automatically agrees that it is not just a good thing but a necessary thing--not just a necessary thing, but a crucial thing--to make it possible for said soldiers to do the jobs they're given.

" ... MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS ... DO NOT IN ANY WAY, MANNER, OR FASHION imply that yours are wrong."

Your disclaimer, AFAIC, is unnecessary -- in part because I see nothing in your stated views that I disagree with.

Barak

You said

"For example: I'm a professional software developer. I'm paid to do a job too. (One difference is that I'm compensated with money that somebody willingly chose to pay me in exchange for the exercise of my talents, rather than with money that was forcibly extorted from people by a government agency whether or not those people advocated that particular use of the money; that may or may not be relevant here.) How many of you folks support me? Have any of you sent me care packages or mail expressing your hopes and encouragement that I'll be able to bear up under the stress of my job and overcome its obstacles?

I dont believe your analogy is correct about you being a software engineer and the support that you get or dont get.

You are supported ultimately by those people that buy the software package that you provide for them. They no buy, your boss no pay wages.


However there is a great difference to me and to my country for the service that the professional soldier renders and your service to our country for producing wonderful software. That soldier defends with his life the freedom that I enjoy. You sir do not. I am not making light of you or being cavalier in my comment but you do not occupy a place on my totem pole at the same height as any active duty member of the armed service of the United States.

To support the troops to me does not mean " I hope that you are not injured or killed and wish you a speedy return."

I will let Mr. Webster help me with my definition of support.

2. To give courage, faith, or confidence to; help or comfort.
3. To give approval to or be in favor of; subscribe to; uphold.
4. To maintain or provide for ( a person or institution, etc) with money, or subsistance.

SYN. - support, the broadest of these terms, suggests a favoring of someone or something. , either by giving active aid or merely by approving or sanctioning [to support a candidate for office]; uphold suggests that what is being supported is under attack. [to uphold civil rights for all]; sustain implies full active support so as to strengthen or keep from failing [sustained by his hope for the future];


To support a person or group of persons means much much more than a neutral "I hope something bad does not befall you." Support means a very active stance AND ACTION to benefit that group that you claim to support.


There are negative, neutral, and positive actions and words for use. To be supportive means TO DO.

TO DO means to act.


In my own personal world, I cannot say that "I support " anything without being able to defend that action or person.




Second point to argue.

You also said

" But I'm wondering why everyone so automatically agrees that it is not just a good thing but a necessary thing--not just a necessary thing, but a crucial thing--to make it possible for said soldiers to do the jobs they're given.
"

Any person in any profession in this country from ditchdigger to brain surgeon to astronaut to toilet cleaner should be given the best tool within reason to accomplish the task of that person.

Secondly, the soldier is not just a ditchdigger and not only a brain surgeon. He is a person that has put himself in harms way for me and for you. He deserves the best that I can provide for him.

Third, why would you want anyone to give a task/mission to a soldier or the armed forces as a whole with the prior concept of "I know that this mission is in jeapordy because I have information/equipment that I choose not to give to the military unit that would greatly enhance the units effectiveness?


Fourthly, how would you feel as a soldier if your unit was given the task of securing a small town and the list of equipment available and usefull to the accomplishment of your task included, but not limited to, 4 Bradly vehicles, one M1A1 Tank, 5 APC's, 300 troops, a communications link to other combat units and the powers that be sent back a note for your request for this equipment that said. "We will give you one Bradley, no tanks, 2 apc's, 75 troops, and no comm gear. The rest is too pretty and we dont want you to have it. Carry on. "

How would you feel if your personal superior asked you to write code and provided you with computer with a Z80 for a processor, a 10 MB hard disk, one 360 K floppy, and a 5 1/2 inch amber mono monitor? Would you ask for better tools? Would you expect to get better tools? Why?

These tools are not even crucial for your survival today. They are not crucial for your survival this exact moment.



Jim B.

Barak

I do not intend to get into a match of definitions. This is simply my belief and each of us is allowed their own.

A professional soldier should be able to know that there is a end of a conflict upon which he will be able to stand down and feel a sense of accomplishment.
This is necessary for the sense of worth in any endeavor.

As you stated, you are a professional computer programer. Let us suppose that you are to write a program that will provide the final definition of pi. I was taught that there was no end figure and it must be used for a practical usage of the purpose needed. This is normally for practical usage no more than 4 or 5 places.

(1) You have a choice. Quit or do the assigned task.
(2) If it is impossible, then you would not get paid until the task was completed (no pay) or quit. In either case you failed.
(3) In the event you tried until you failed, your ability to continue on other tasks would be impared to some extent by this sense of failure.
(4) A series of these impossible tasks would destroy the ability to perform well at any similar task. Programing.

In reality there are few professional soldiers compared to those numbers in the field. Most of them are there because of some circumstance requireing some change or temporary hold in their lives.

It may be possible for me to write some programs. I could never be a professional compared to yourself. What little I know of these things seems to require an abstract thought. The hardest definition I had in my math and physics degree was infinity. I always thought in finites and somthing endless defied my imagination.

Whatever our challenges, we can quit. A soldier cannot. I pray that our freedoms are not dependent upon the actions of those that could even consider cheating our troops of a victory. If so, we won't have them long.
I prefer to think that those of your thought are only trying to kill time in trying to agitate others for some mental gymnastic exercise. Otherwise I could only pity them.

Sorry if I stepped on any toes, but there was once a radio program entitled
"This I Believe". And This I believe.

I will say no more on this subject, now or later.

I may understand you, but if I do then I'm surprised that someone like you would make the point that you're apparently making. So let me clarify what I understand to make sure that's what you intended to say.

I think you're saying that it should be clear to me that I have whatever support I need because there are people who value my work highly enough to be willing to pay me for it of their own free will: that the simple fact that they're willing to pay me money they could just as easily have spent elsewhere demonstrates that I have their support.

The troops, on the other hand, are paid with money that was plundered involuntarily at (implied) gunpoint by the government from Americans who had no choice whether to pay it or not, so the simple fact that the money keeps flowing is no guarantee that their work is actually valued by anyone other than politicians. Therefore, people who do value their work must find ways other than the free market to express their support if the troops are to comprehend it.

Is that what you meant to say?


Here we partially disagree. No soldier in Iraq is defending your freedom with his life. He's advancing Bush foreign policy, and incidentally Iraqi freedom, with his life. The situation would be different if that soldier were here on American soil defending Washington DC from an Iraqi attack. No, wait--bad example. (If Saddam were to wipe DC off the map, there's a good chance we'd all be more free, not less.) The situation would be different if that soldier were here on American soil defending the town where you live from an Iraqi attack.

To be perfectly honest and politically incorrect, actually, it is really I (as a member of the citizen militia) who comes a lot closer to defending your freedom with my life than any soldier in the US military. Given that we have no foreseeable serious threat of invasion and occupation from any nation in the world, the most significant threat to your freedom at the moment is not foreign regimes, but our own government. If push comes to shove in that area, it's going to be the US military that will be fighting on the government's side to take away your freedoms, and the militia that will be fighting against it to preserve them.

(You could make the argument that the reason there is no serious threat of foreign invasion is because of the US military. Granting that, the fact remains that the US government is encroaching on our freedoms, and foreign nations are not.)

Interestingly enough, though, it doesn't matter one whit to me whether I have your support or not in that mission. Perhaps that's because I pay my bills with my own money, rather than with money that's been stolen from you.


Well, that's all I can conscientiously mean by it. I'm sorry if you're not satisfied.


I'm sorry: I didn't properly explain my point, and you (undoubtedly accidentally) took a sentence out of context, which made the situation more confusing.

Of course I believe that people should be given what they require to do their job, or else they shouldn't be given the job in the first place; that's obvious.

I was simply asking why it seems to be universally accepted that one of those required supplies is gifts and compliments from the general public for professionals who are soldiers, but not for professionals who are...well, pretty much anything else.

OK guys, my last on this before I end up in a rubber room.
The dreams are back, I wake up five-six times a night to weird dreams.
I do not want this generation to face the same things I once again am.

You got to realize something, wars are usually fought for
economic or religious reasons. We may be told it is for high moral
principle, I for one don't buy it for a minute. Many of us see this
and are fairly pragmatic about it. Some in particular, are pretty
strict Constitutionalist and believe in smaller government and
less involvement in others fights. Others think we should mind
our own business and get on with economic matters. They are no
less patriotic for their views IMHO.

I was opposed to this war from the beginning, I can see where
9/11/01 has nothing to do with Saddam, not that he isn't evil, just
that at this point he is an easy "feel good" target for Americans
to focus on. I still see no "Clear and Present Danger" from him to
cause so many Americans to be put in harms way over. Just like
the anti-gun people scream "For the Children", GW has been
screaming "WMD", "Look what he has done to his own people".
He may be a threat to the local area, he is not us. "Show me the
Money" and how he could use them on this country. I could not
give a big hairy rat's ass what he does to his people, they have
him, not us. Let them rise up against him, like we did the British
200+ years ago!

My loyalties lay with the men and women on the pointy end of
the stick, once engaged they deserve nothing less than our
unwavering support. They didn't start it, they are the
Governments tools, as my generation was, they have only control
over staying alive over there and returning to their families. That
is where I draw the line, I worry about them and will never
undermine their efforts as so many did when I was in RSVN. This
is why I quit my open negative remarks about it once they we
engaged. I too get a little upset when some continue now that it
is too late to stop it, but that is what makes us unique. We have
the God given right too!

I still think our Government is wrong in involving us in this mess,
as well as the UN being as much to blame as Saddam for lack of
action in the beginning. But, we should have stayed focused on
the terrorist's and their networks that did attack us, not find a
scape goat to divert attention. Hell most, if not all the 9/11
tango's, including Bin Laden were Saudi, why didn't we attack
them?

I have been to an unpopular war, and I know it's horrors on a
personal level while being in it and the aftermath once back in
the world. That will keep me supporting our troops, not any high
moral principle, real or imagined. I will not blindly back a
Government out of control of the people that are supposed to
control it according to it's Constitution. We need to take back
control of it, and quit being a nation of sheep that no longer think
or question what it is doing.

If you think that makes me less than patriotic, so be it. I want MY
country back, I am tired of the Socialist community it is
becoming! I can think for myself, I do Not need a benevolent
patron to take care of me. I need a Government that is
responsive to the principles it was founded upon and run "Of the
People, By the PEOPLE, For the People"! Not the Madison
Avenue, we will take care of you, don't worry, we know whats
best for you, even if you don't kind we have now.

Amen! If that's what they were doing, and calling for us to help them the way we called for the French to help us, I would be much more likely to support this war. Instead, we're going to give them their freedom for free, just like we give it to our own children for free in this country, and they're not going to appreciate it any more than our children do (or than we do, if we're younger than the WWII generation). In three shakes of a lamb's tail, once we move out, they're going to be right back where they were, trembling with fear under yet another oppressive dictatorship, with no idea what to do about it. Why? Because they're not ready for liberty yet. If they were, they'd rise up and take it, regardless of the cost.

We ought to be sending American TV, movies, radio, and commercialism into their country, not troops.

Let me point out here, just in case it's not already clear, that I don't accuse these Iraqis from a high plateau of moral superiority. I'm not worthy of liberty myself, when it comes right down to it, because I value my family, my life, and yes, my job and my possessions too much (so far, anyway) to throw a deer rifle in the back of the pickup truck, drive down to DC, and start potting politicians. I'm certainly no Patrick Henry. It's my lack of will to do that, and the same lack on the part of others like me, combined with the government's full knowledge of that lack of will, that keeps us from being truly free here in America today. We're frightened of the government, so we're slaves to an increasing extent. If the government were frightened of us, we'd be free men.


Then you're a perfect person to answer my question. Why is public support such a crucial ingredient to a professional soldier being able to do his job properly? I have even heard people recently postulating that anything less than the level of support they advocate is equivalent to treason, because it amounts to "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" in time of war. Huh?

Because we all need approval, feel needed and that we are worthy. Simple, some get it from a paycheck, others need it in leiu of one (the military). They believe they are serving their country the same as my group did way back when. Undermining it will only weaken us a a people and allow more .Gov incursions not the opposit. It is harder to go against your supporters than the detractors. Think about that one for a minute.

And any form of non-support does give aid and comfort to the adversary, it makes them bolder.

Now I promised myself I wouldn't do this any more, and I shall not.