<p>“the government lied to us.”</p>
<p>Can you list them and tell me who was in on the lie?</p>
<p>“For Bush supporters, that’s no big deal. For those against Bush and those on the fence, the lying is a big deal.”</p>
<p>Eh - many of the Dems simply run around yacking about how we didn’t send enough troops.</p>
<p>My favorite whopper was Powell’s picture of the “chemical weapons depot”. But then Powell had a long history dating back to the “destroyed Scuds.” ;)</p>
<p>Well if you can get over the 20:20 and discuss a posture for the future…that would be useful here. When the Iraq Constitution is done…and US troops are fewer in number…what then? Will the Sunnis and Shiites have a civil war? How are the Kurds included in this? Will their own police/army step up then? How will our reduced forces affect the contiguous nations? These are worth discussing…an election will be happening in US and Bush is not going to be a part of that. Whom and what will we want to see come to power?</p>
<p>Mini, I was going to mention Powell. What an embarassment.</p>
<p>I have been doing some very serious thinking since mini answered my post much earlier in this thread, which originally asked if people were supporting the troops. I truly believe that “the unexamined life is not worth living” and so took this opportunity to examine my heart. </p>
<p>One of the things we all should ask ourselves when acting upon a belief is “What if I’m wrong?” What are the consequences to ourselves and others?</p>
<p>Unlike mini, I don’t have a partisan view on this war–more like Corinna, I am conflicted. It does not fit completely my political views, it does not fit my spiritual views. But in spite of this, I choose to “support the troops” in the most positive way I can, on a personal level.</p>
<p>What if I’m wrong? The worst I can think of is that I have been guilty of giving aid in support of air conditioning and some small succor to the wounded, both anonymously, and some little moral support to individual soldiers. I think I can live with that, and I hope these things have lifted the hearts of those they have touched. I doubt if my actions have enabled the war/action/whatever-you-want-to-call-it to continue longer than expected.</p>
<p>But what if mini and others like her are wrong? What happens then? “I don’t support the troops” she said. These are men and women who chose to serve their country. IMO, mini’s view is very disrespectful of those who have made that choice. </p>
<p>If one is called by belief to be a pacifist, that’s fine. But how difficult is it to be a pacifist in a country that de facto defends the entire world from large-scale multinational war? And what does it mean to actively oppose the individuals who do so? Mini advocates publicly against the war, she says. This only encourages public antipathy, which affects the morale of the troops in Iraq, and that leads to soldiers not doing their best in their jobs, which eventually leads to errors and possibly unintended injuries and deaths. It may lead to a Vietnam-like withdrawal, but at what cost?</p>
<p>Mini may think my small contributions to individuals involved in the war are not as important as her opposition, but they have come from my heart, and have required some personal involvement and sacrifice on my part, and for that I will never apologize.</p>
<p>Wyogal, while I appreciate your thoughtfulness, I think you have misunderstood what Mini said. He said–</p>
<p>“I DON’T support the troops. I support the AMERICANS - the PEOPLE who have been pressed to serve, and put themselves at great risk, both of dying and of killing.”</p>
<p>So, he does support the men and women who have been sent overseas to face grave risks, physical, emotional, moral. He doesn’t support them in their role as “troops”, in other words, as agents for a war many of us deem immoral and wrong-headed. He supports them as human beings stuck in an untenable situation.</p>
<p>I am hardpressed to believe that advocating against this war makes soldiers not do their jobs as well, and thus risk their lives. I have more respect for them than that. I think that the more we advocate against this terrible mistake, the earlier our government may realize that we are creating a worsening and worsening situation leading to more lives lost, both American and Iraqi, and will act to stem this tide of meaningless death.</p>
<p>Garland, do you think morale in the military is any different than morale in any other career or endeavor? Smart employers have long ago figured out that a workforce with high morale is a productive workforce. In the military productivity translates into safety.</p>
<p>But, even if you don’t buy the notion that it impacts the morale and productivity of our soldiers, certainly the anti-war protests impacts the morale and the productivity of the insurgents. They know their history. They saw how the anti-war movement in the US eventually resulted in the US getting out of Vietnam. Having televised images of anti-war protests and leaders in Congress railing against the war is a great gauge of their effectiveness and can only give them encouragement to lay down their lives as they kill US soldiers and their fellow countrymen. You may view this as acceptable if it ultimately leads to our withdrawal. I personally think it is repugnant.</p>
<p>That’s a theory with no evidence to back it up. Personally, I think the insurgents don’t need that encouragement; they’ve been doing what they’ve been doing with terrible enthusiasm from the beginning.</p>
<p>I think it’s more repugnant to stay when staying clearly is the catalyst for much of the killing.</p>
<p>Their certainly is evidence from Vietnam to back up the notion that war protests give encouragement to the enemy. I read an interview with a N. Vietnamese senior officer who said that after their devastating military losses during the Tet offensive that the only thing that gave them encouragement to keep going was the heightened anti-war movement in the US as a result of Tet.</p>
<p>Well, one officer’s remarks may or may not reflect the entire army’s mentality.</p>
<p>And more importantly, this isn’t an army; these are fanatics who are ideologically motivated to the point of death–they ain’t about to back down because we’re waving a bunch of flags and hiding the coffins of the soldiers.</p>
<p>What do you think their ideology is that motivates them to the point of death? And, how would you differentiate their ideology from the N. Vietnamese?</p>
<p>I don’t begin to understand them. I don’t think that the N.V. were on the whole willing to be suicide bombers, but OTOH, they did seem fairly fanatical (fighting for their idea of their homeland) which is why I really doubt they were about to give up. (But I’m not an expert on the V War). It does seem, though, since you bring it up, to be some parallels between the two situations, though I’d see different ones…</p>
<p>If you “don’t begin to understand them”, how can you presume that they are not impacted positively by the anti-war movement? Doesn’t this presumption take a certain level of understanding of their motivation?</p>
<p>Garland, would you believe Ho Chih Minh? In his autobiography he states absolutely clearly that after the Tet offensive he was ready to surrender, because they had lost. LOST. But watching the American media (thank you Dan Rather) portray the outcome as a failure for the US and SV, he decided that they could hold on and wait for the Americans to destroy our own effort.</p>
<p>If you are a pacifist, fine. But Mini and you are in error–we have an all volunteer military. No one has been drafted or “pressed into service.” These people have volunteered, and they think that what they do is important. It is you and Mini who lack respect for our soldiers’ motivations. You cannot “support the Americans” by constantly denigrating what they do. It’s as simple as that.</p>
<p>By the way, there is no such thing as a “moral” or “immoral” war. There is no such thing as an “illegal” war. There is only war.</p>
<p>Volunteering has gone down drastically since the war started.</p>
<p>FF: I can see the evidence of their fanaticism without understanding its motivation.</p>
<p>One could see evidence of fanatcism in the NVA and Viet Cong as well (far, far more of them put their lives on the line than the relatively small number of insurgents in Iraq). But yet, even with this fanatacism, they were on the brink of giving up except for the mixture of the anti-war movement and the media that bolstered the movement. </p>
<p>Today, the Vietnam War protestors claim a sense of pride in what they accomplished - getting the US out. But they never seem to want to own up to the devastating loss of lives to the South Vietnamese in the aftermath of our abandonment. The same thing will happen in Iraq if we were to pull out early. Nor do they own up to the fact that a lot of Americans died in a war that was unnecesarily prolonged by the anti-war movement.</p>
<p>Interesting article about Robert McNamara, Vietnam, and Iraq:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0125-01.htm[/url]”>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0125-01.htm</a></p>
<p>I wonder why McNamara doesn’t just blame the protesters; it would have been an easy out for him, wouldn’t it?</p>
<p>McNamara’s mea culpa focused more on getting us into the war as well as the military/administration conduct of the war in which he admits that mistakes were made. It would be seen as counterproductive to his thesis if he then started to blame others. However, it is fairly evident that the anti-war movement prolonged the war and the number of American and Vietnamese deaths.</p>
<p>Are the anti-war people prolonging the Iraqi war? </p>
<p>We have the military capacity to crush the opposition in Iraq. Should we do this to end the insurgency. Should we use more military might to impose our will in Iraq? Would this work?</p>
<p>“I DON’T support the troops. I support the AMERICANS - the PEOPLE who have been pressed to serve, and put themselves at great risk, both of dying and of killing.”</p>
<p>The Americans fighting and killing and dying in Iraq don’t need me to tell them they’ve been sold a false bill of goods. (Half the time their own former generals are telling them that.) And the best thing I can do for them is help bring them home absolutely as soon as possible.</p>
<p>Would folks prefer that I lie, too? 
</p>