[pax]

A few days ago in another thread, Leatherneck said, But Pax's: "I didn't like the whole idea of going to war with Iraq. I think it was a stupid idea." makes me sigh deeply.

At some point, Pax, we have to suck it up and charge together. Don't we?
Thoughts?
Didn't answer then because I needed some time to think it through -- plus it was a bit of a veer in the thread where it was posted.

To answer the questions:

On the one hand, yeah. Our guys deserve support. They have a tough job to do, and I hope they do it well and come home safely. I sure don't want to see a repeat of the way our troops were treated during and immediately after the Vietnam war. They deserve our respect and gratitude for risking their lives to get the job done.

On the other hand, part of living in a democracy (democratic republic, natch) -- is making sure our leaders know where we stand on certain issues. I don't want those folks running the country to think that all us out here in voter-land are 100% rah rah siskoombah about this war, because I don't want them cheerfully rushing in to the next war (and the next, and the next). I want them to have lots of incentive to stay out of war, particularly aggressive wars like this one where we are playing offense rather than defense.

Reactions?

pax

To save your world, you asked this man to die,
Would this man, could he see you now, ask, “Why?” -- WH Auden

[HABU]

particularly aggressive wars like this one where we are playing offense rather than defense. The best defense is a good offense.:neener:

[DeltaElite]

I think we need to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iraq and North Korea.
The best Defense, is a good Offense.

I do want our leaders to hear dissent, it helps keep them in check and makes them less likely to run amock.
However, the dissent should be well thought out and not the anti war gibberish that some, not those here, have proposed.

[pax]

The best defense is a good offense.
Yes, I agree. And I should have known that was coming and chosen my words more carefully. My point was, though, that we are invading them -- not the other way around.

Please, let's not debate the merits/demerits of the war itself in this thread -- that's been done (and done and done and done and done) elsewhere. The reason I started the thread is because I'd like to discuss Leatherneck's notion that at some point we must all "suck it up and charge together."

Is he right?

Is there a place for criticism of the President's plans, even on the eve of our troops going into battle?

pax

They say that something as small as a butterfly beating its wings in China can cause a hurricane in America, so maybe we should go to China and kill all the butterflies, just to be safe. -- Ken Advent

[joeoim]

I can respect a man who I don't agree with, but I can't respect a man or women that won't support these young people going in harms way.
Joe

[DeltaElite]

Is there a place for criticism of the President's plans, even on the eve of our troops going into battle?

Absolutely.
Rational dissent is very important to our country.

We may disagree, but I do like to hear other opinions, it makes me think about my position.

[Zander]

My point was, though, that we are invading them - - not the other way around. -- paxCan't agree. We were invaded on September 11th. This whole faux argument hinges on the supposed lack of coordination of terrorists worldwide. I consider that not only naive but self-serving and hypocritical. The Iraqi regime is run by a sociopath whose history of brutal aggression is as profound as it is proven.

Saddam Hussein, a rabid dog, will be removed from power. The only question remaining for those who insist on a sole criterion [a particularly illogical insistence, IMO] is whether or not we will confirm that he has been enabling terrorism by giving aid and comfort to al-Qu'aida and like organizations. Given recent discoveries, I'd say that is virtually certain. In the interim, we are foolish to delay.

I don't want them cheerfully rushing in to the next war (and the next, and the next)."Cheerfully"?!? That's a particularly disgusting characterization of those who see the need to protect you and your family from further murderous attacks.

To reiterate, we are at war. Those who despise, hate and profess to destroy us and our way of life must be exterminated.

Brutal tyrants and totalitarians [i]vs. the free world. It's really that simple...

[Monkeyleg]

Returning to what I believe was Pax's original question: absolutely support our troops. Do NOT engage in protests that refer to them in any negative context, whatever your belief about the war itself.

In the late 1960's I was old enough to realize what the "baby killer" posters meant to my relatives and friends who had served or were serving. The effect lingers to this day.

Last Saturday, there was a rally for the troops here in MKE that drew about 1200 people (in Million Mom March numbers, that would be 1,200,000). The next day the newspaper called it a "pro-war" rally.

Yeah, everybody who was there loves war :rolleyes:

[DeltaElite]

I totally support our troops. I pray my friends and all of those I don't know over there come home safely.
I am fearful for the safety of all our armed forces personnel.

Protest the war if you must, but don't blame the warrior.

[Blackhawk]

pax wrote:Reactions?Yes. I have a reaction.

Well said.

But I've got a few comments too:

War? Been there, done that. And anybody else who has won't cheerfully or enthusiastically (or any other like characterization you want) champion getting in another one or putting others in one.

That said, sometimes war is the last acceptable choice.

There's a direct analogy to what we all talk about constantly right here on THR: the SD shooting situation. Who wants to shoot somebody else? Who WILL shoot somebody else should that be the last acceptable choice...?

[Matt249SAW]

Pax, I have read your reply's to many threads and have come to a conclusion that I would love to hear your reply to. I seem to take from your discussion points that you see these threads as a verbal chess game. You seem to test peoples stances and viewpoints with no "real" strong point of view. And I should have known that was coming and chosen my words more carefully I am new on this board and love a good debate, however, I am concerned with the motives behind your obvious confused arguements. As for the heading of this thread, I have spent 6 years in service of our country. I believe that in order to avoid a war you must be prepared for war. Now, I don't belive in starting a war just for the sake of conquest, however (i do love that word), If someone were to walk up and hit you square in the nose, pull out a knife and stick you in the leg what do you suppose you would do. well, I would first try to find out who this person was, if anyone else had seen the incident and who was tied in with it.

where did they get the knife?
who drove them there?
can I get any help from anyone else (ie cops, friends, etc)

I hope you get the point. Its not just New York anymore. Its my backyard and your front porch that this war is being faught on. We need to support the people who are defending the very freedom that some take for granted.

(to anyone who would give me a hard time for my misspellings::neener: )

[pax]

Matt,

Welcome to THR. :)

A chess game? No, not exactly -- though I'll admit that I do love a good, closely-reasoned argument that gets my brain going. That's not it, though...
I am new on this board and love a good debate, however, I am concerned with the motives behind your obvious confused arguements.
Honestly?

The truth is, I don't know where I stand with all this. I'm not so much trying to find out where everyone else stands, but trying to figure out where I stand and what I believe.

I know that I don't like the idea of war. I believe that Hussein is an evil, bad man who does bad things and I believe that Iraq has the weapons that Bush says they have. I don't believe that that, by itself, is reason enough to go to war. I don't believe that war with Iraq has much to do with Al Qaida (where'd the 9/11 guys come from? Saudi, mostly? Why aren't we attacking the Saudis? The royals there are our friends? I don't see how they are. The terrorists came from there and from Afghanistan. So we bomb Afghanistan and ... Iraq?) I don't like the fact that most the rest of the world is angry with America, angry enough to bomb us instead of the people we want them to help us bomb.

Anyway. Bottom line is, I don't like not knowing what I think about something as important as my country that I love being at war. So I post here trying to get people to tell me what I should think, and argue with them to find out if the reasons they give for thinking what they think will work for me too.

pax

A man should never be ashamed to own he has been wrong, which is but saying in other words, that he is wiser today than he was yesterday. -- Alexander Pope

[jmbg29]

Reactions?Just this. If the "me" generation and their children in the streets said "Leave Saddam! Or there sure as hell will be WAR!" He would leave.

Instead Saddam said right on "60 Minutes" that his survival strategy revolves around the protesters. He knew they would come unbidden to his aid. Lo and behold! The great Dan Blather appears on his doorstep to prevent the "Evil Bush" from portraying "Dear Unka Saddami" as a murderous butcher. He probably was able to predict the arrival of the first "human shields" to the day.

He believes that the protesters caused President Bush the elder to lose heart and quit the first time around. Leaving Saddam the winner.

That episode, along with the Somalia fiasco, and the non-response the terrorists recieved for the first Twin Towers bombing, the Khobar Towers, the African Embassy bombings, the U.S.S. Cole...ad infinitum, bolstered THEM and strengthened their resolve to kill us by a thousand cuts, if that is what it takes. Most if not all of the protesters know this, that is why they do it. Destroying this country is what they are about. If they ever had a job, destroying their country is what it would be.

When Dubya said "You are either with us, or against us." did you think he was talking only to fuzzy little furriners? Hah!

The good news is that (so far) some people will fight for our country no matter how many self-serving people shout in the streets. They don't need, or want the protesters support.

I thank God for that every day.

[ahadams]

Pax I don't think anybody who knows what war can REALLY do, can REALLY become in this day and age will ever 'cheerfully rush' from one war to the next, or to the first one for that matter. And even if GWB didn't connect his AFNG fighter pilot days with what war really is, I double dog guarantee you when he finished being inbriefed on his National Command Authority responsibilities he began to understand. Ever stood on the edge of a potential "WW III" scenario and looked over the edge into the abyss? I have, once, and that was more than enough. So has GWB every single day since 9/11/01. As they say, it goes with the job.

The old Sovs would have eliminated us if they could have done so with acceptable casualty rates, which is what MAD was all about. the NK's may at some point try and throw two or three nukes our way, but dollars to donuts they'll most likely irradiate a bunch of tundra (sorry Canada!) and a significant portion of the Pacific Ocean. OTOH there are large parts of the Arab world which will continue to seek to remove the US from having any influence in the world by every means at their disposal, until they are neutralized. MAD wont work with non-nation-state players...that's a problem that we don't have an easy solution for, other than to eliminate (Iraq, Afghanistan) or compromise (Syria, Lebanon, etc) the support for such nns groups.

It ain't pretty, and it sure ain't fun, but the alternatives are worse...I figure the Frogs and the dutchies will be trying to negotiate right up until they lose their first 20 or 30 thousand casualties to terrorist attacks. I don't think the US is that stupid, do you?

[trapshooter]

Pax,

I think most of the veterans here understand your quandary, maybe better than we should. I think Leatherneck's point was, once were in the fight, what should we do? I tend to think that, despite the logic for or against war at this particular time, no one disputes that it is better if Saddam Hussein, and people like him, do not have the ability to harm us, or people anywhere. This includes any ruler, of any country, anywhere, at least in my mind.

Having said that, different situations call for different strategies. (I'm thinking of North Korea, Iran, China, and others). For instance, the North Koreans talk a good game, but haven't invaded anyone for over fifty years.

Now, on an emotional level, ridding the planet of oxygen wasters like Hussein, Kim Jong-Il, the nitwits in charge in Iran, China, Syria, et al would be a good thing, IMNSHO. I kind of think a hard right turn after Bahgdad would not be an undesirable plan, if current reports of Iranian nuclear activity are correct. Thumping on the PDRK would be taking care of unfinished business, too. But, unless things change, that's probably asking too much.

Intellectually, I have to be a bit more pragmatic, and deal with the possible, not the fantasy.

In the end, though, once we commit forces, and shots are fired, we have to win, or any death and destruction is totally wasted and pointless, and we'll pay more dearly later. Whether or not I agree or disagree with the justification for going in, once there, get it over with as fast as possible. I think this is one of the more universal lessons of history. But then, I'm just a bloodthirsty warmongering veteran who's been on both sides of the argument, and has a stepson in the gulf as we type (in a 'relatively' safe place, I have to add, but you never know).

[Lennyjoe]

Protest the war if you must, but don't blame the warrior

I couldnt agree more.

[Leatherneck]

Pax,
Thanks for asking to cite me via PM; that was very "high-road" of you.

Matt: welcome to THR.

Blackhawk: insight that hadn't occurred to me There's a direct analogy to what we all talk about constantly right here on THR: the SD shooting situation. Who wants to shoot somebody else? Who WILL shoot somebody else should that be the last acceptable choice...?

I guess the legacy of a military career is that when options are being considered, you argue your best to convince the leader of what you believe is right. When the leader decides, you shut up and try your best to implement that decision effectively. It's called loyalty.

Am I trivializing the current situation too much? I just remember the godawful days of the late 60s when we were trying hard to win the war militarily and the truly shocking revelation upon returning home that there were Americans who truly hated us for that. I don't want today's warfighters to experience that. We may disagree whether the decision has actually been made or not, but my intuition tells me that it has been made and I now am a supporter of the decision, the President, and most of all, the troops; I don't believe you can legitimately claim to "support our troops" while protesting the war, however misguided you might fear it to be. Whew.

TC
TFL Survivor

[pax]

Leatherneck, :)

I guess the legacy of a military career is that when options are being considered, you argue your best to convince the leader of what you believe is right. When the leader decides, you shut up and try your best to implement that decision effectively. It's called loyalty.
Yes, I understand what you are saying. But I am not in the military; I am a civilian with a civilian's concerns. While the President is the President, he is also my employee in some senses. So I am not sure that this analogy holds up...

However.

Trapshooter said, In the end, though, once we commit forces, and shots are fired, we have to win, or any death and destruction is totally wasted and pointless, and we'll pay more dearly later. Whether or not I agree or disagree with the justification for going in, once there, get it over with as fast as possible. I think this is one of the more universal lessons of history.
This really resonated with me and might be the best argument I've heard so far. We've come too far to back down, so we must go in and win. As you point out, protests at this point will only sap our resolve and can do no good in this conflict. (Whether current protests might help leaders make different decisions down the road is another question entirely, isn't it?)

Yeah, that really does make sense...

pax

Opinions are made to be changed -- or how is truth to be got at? -- George Gordon Byron