The hypocrisy of supporting the soldiers but not the action

[UltraQuiet]

Something isn't hypocrisy just because you label it so. If you show consistency in your actions, it's not hypocritical. If in each case you make the decision that you believe will do the most for your cause, that's not hypocrisy.

If you are asking someone else to do something you are not willing to do then that is hypocrisy. If you are saying that soldiers should refuse to fight , to risk their freedom, their livelihood or quite possibly their lives and you are not willing to do the same then you are a hypocrite. All the rattionalizing in the world, the "I'd do it if I thought it would make a difference" arguments are irrelevant. Either put up or shut up.

 

[DoctorPizza]

If you are asking someone else to do something you are not willing to do then that is hypocrisy. If you are saying that soldiers should refuse to fight , to risk their freedom, their livelihood or quite possibly their lives and you are not willing to do the same then you are a hypocrite. All the rattionalizing in the world, the "I'd do it if I thought it would make a difference" arguments are irrelevant. Either put up or shut up.

I'm asking the soldiers to prevent fighting by laying down their arms.

There is obviously no way I can do the same, so where is the hypocrisy?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: DoctorPizza

If you are asking someone else to do something you are not willing to do then that is hypocrisy. If you are saying that soldiers should refuse to fight , to risk their freedom, their livelihood or quite possibly their lives and you are not willing to do the same then you are a hypocrite. All the rattionalizing in the world, the "I'd do it if I thought it would make a difference" arguments are irrelevant. Either put up or shut up.

I'm asking the soldiers to prevent fighting by laying down their arms.

There is obviously no way I can do the same, so where is the hypocrisy?

How do you know it won't do the samre thing? Do you think there's anything you can do to stop the fighting? Have you tried everything you can. No you haven't because you are not willing to sacrifice what you are asking the soldiers to sacrifice therefore you are a hypocrite.

 

[seawolf21]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: FallenHero
because the soldiers do not have much choice in the matter. If its between them going to war, or them protesting and getting thrown in jail and never being able to hold a job ever, I would go to war as well.

IDEALLY, what you are saying is true, if such leaders never had support, then nothing would happen. However, you must face reality now...we have troops over there, and now is the time to support those troops...get bush out of office if you want, disagree with him, but dont blaim the troops for something which they have no control over. If some protested, they would simply be replaced.

DoctorPizza has a good point. Thanks for getting me thinking.

The soldiers actually do have a choice in the matter. It has been established that "I was only following orders," is not a valid defense for acting immorally. This, of course, dates back to Hitler. The U.S. itself has told Iraq soldiers that if ordered to use WMD that they should not do it, or else they will face charges and consequences for doing so. Realistically, a soldier is under too much fear for his own life to refuse to follow an order, but it is still expected.

So if you don't support the war because you believe that it is immoral, then you would expect the soldiers to also recognize it's immorality and refuse to fight for this cause. If they are doing something that is obviously wrong, then you don't support them in those endeavors, and hope their attempt at evil fails.

There are a lot of people that don't support the war for other reasons than it simply being immoral. If you don't support the timing of the war, if you think we should have had U.N. approval, if you think that we have lied about our reasons for waging it, you can still actually be antiwar and pro-troops. In these cases, you may believe that removing Saddam is not wrong, but we haven't done the steps that are necessary to engage in an action this serious. You can be against how we wage the war, but still hope that your fellow countrymen aren't hurt and are ultimately successful.

I don't think DoctorPizza's comment on Nuremburg or Rummy's warning on using WMDs applies basically because history is written by the victors. If you are on the winning side, "I was following orders" will get you out of trouble.

Supporting the troops while not supporting the war applies because the individual solider does not really have a choice (unless they want a court martial and never see their families again). While I don't expect the solider to share my views, I do expect them uphold their Oath to protect the Constitution and that includes following the President's orders and I support them for doing so.

 

[seawolf21]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: zer0burn
actual Iraq screwed US over.

I dont mean resentment only in Iraq I mean throughout the whole arab community

The thing is bin laden and saddam hold a deep resentment towards eachother and the CIA was even quoted as saying they couldnt find a link.

I believe the terrorist reason isnt much of a threat to America. There's greater countries posing a greater threat to Americans then IRAQ

You don't think americans has a right to think terrorism IS a threat to ourselves? We have good reasons, WTC, 9/11.

The ties with Saddam and terrorism is clear and definite. So is his possesion of WMD.

Let's hope he did not get a tiny sample of that airborne strain of Ebola the Russians were working on, and handed it off to ANYONE wiling to release it on mainland US.......

There is NO GREATER threat to this country than that, there isn't another country that can hang with us militarily, even on theri own truf and no one is ever going to try and occupy the US.

please send a link to "The ties with Saddam and terrorism is clear and definite." There've been conflicting articles of whether there is a link. Thanks.

 

[calpha]

Originally posted by: flavio

The hypocrisy of supporting the soldiers but not the action

I think the war was a mistake but I don't blame the soldiers. It's the people telling them what to do that are the problem. I also don't want to see any of them get hurt.

Is that really so hard to figure out?

No, it's not.
I suport the war, and at this point, I could give a sh!t about the reasons for war. All I want is for our men and women over there to get home fast.

 

[DoctorPizza]

How do you know it won't do the samre thing?

How do you reckon it will? Give me a good enough argument and I'll go to prison.

Can't say fairer than that.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: DoctorPizza
In many recent threads people have voiced the opinion that they were opposed to the military action in Iraq, but nonetheless supported the soldiers taking part in that action. Further, I have seen people voice the opinion that even if one is opposed to the military action in Iraq, one should support the soldiers taking part in that action unquestioningly.

I suggest that this is absurd. The rhetoric spewed by W, Saddam, Poodle, or anyone else is not itself the problem.

The problem is the people who believe it to be their duty to turn those words into actions. These are the people who gassed and incinerated hundreds of thousands of Jews. These are the people who killed tens of thousands firebombing Dresden. These are the people working hundreds of thousands to death in prison camps. These are the people torturing and killing those who object to the regime under which they live.

These are the people who make repellent ideas concrete.

Without people to do their bidding, Kim Jong Il, Saddam, Stalin, Hitler, W, and all the rest are nothing more than hateful lunatics. Not particularly pleasant people, for sure -- but harmless.

As such, I question how one can state "I disagree with the war but I support those waging it". Without the people waging the war, there would be no war in the first place. It is those people who are responsible for the war; by supporting them you necessarily support the war.

How, then, can one with clear conscience support the soldiers but not the action?

I support them because they are fellow Americans in harm's way. If I disagree with the war, changing things from the top is the best way to change what is going on. Your point is interesting, but you missed one important fact. The actions of countries with "bad" policies was accomplished by changing the ruling class. I'd say it's pretty safe to say that the vast majority of people in North Korea would currently support Kim Jong Il, yet if we want to change what NK does, killing everyone there is probably not the best way to do it. Germany was turned around with the fall of Hitler, not the extermination of the German people. Same with Japan. We could have bombed them into oblivion, yet by forcing a change in their government we were able to completely change their country for the better. Not supporting the actions of a country but supporting the individual is easy. I certainly don't like Saddam, but I feel sorry for the individual Iraqi soldier, even the ones that keep on fighting. You support your government through taxes, how would you like being lumped into

I actually do support the war, but more than that, I support PFC Jessica Lynch. I support the individual men and women risking their lives and I hope they make it home alive. You don't have to support their actions to hope they are ok.

 

[specktre]

i don't care what you are, a democrat, republican, or just anti-bush, if you say I support the troops but not the war, you are a moron.

goddamn it ppl, eventhough bush is stupid doesn't make saddam any less evil. he used chemical weapons on ppl in his own country. he must be removed from office. and if we would have had support from the UN then it migh not have come to war, but the UN is a pussy-ass group of pussy-ass politicians. btw most of these protestors aren't going to be the ones hassled by the millitary to go and fight in the next war.

anti-war protests do nothing, but show how stupid you can be.

"I hate bush I hate the government, I support the troops but not the war." go f*ck yourself.

well how 'bout this "I hate the troops but support the war." F*ckin pussies

or this "i support the anti-war protestors by hitting them with my dodge."

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: seawolf21

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: zer0burn
actual Iraq screwed US over.

I dont mean resentment only in Iraq I mean throughout the whole arab community

The thing is bin laden and saddam hold a deep resentment towards eachother and the CIA was even quoted as saying they couldnt find a link.

I believe the terrorist reason isnt much of a threat to America. There's greater countries posing a greater threat to Americans then IRAQ

You don't think americans has a right to think terrorism IS a threat to ourselves? We have good reasons, WTC, 9/11.

The ties with Saddam and terrorism is clear and definite. So is his possesion of WMD.

Let's hope he did not get a tiny sample of that airborne strain of Ebola the Russians were working on, and handed it off to ANYONE wiling to release it on mainland US.......

There is NO GREATER threat to this country than that, there isn't another country that can hang with us militarily, even on theri own truf and no one is ever going to try and occupy the US.

please send a link to "The ties with Saddam and terrorism is clear and definite." There've been conflicting articles of whether there is a link. Thanks.

On a similar note, I would like a link stating that this is an illegal war.

 

[SpideyCU]

Without people to do their bidding, Kim Jong Il, Saddam, Stalin, Hitler, W, and all the rest are nothing more than hateful lunatics. Not particularly pleasant people, for sure -- but harmless.

I think this is where I stopped paying attention, along with most sentient readers. Heil Hitler! Heil Bush!

The very fact that you put our president, regardless of your opinion of his competence, on the same level as those folks just screams "narrow-minded" to the world. Try to be more sensible in future posts. Heads up - I'm Ukrainian, and remembering the fact that Stalin was responsible for a man-made famine that killed 7-10 million of his own people means that you, under NO circumstances, have ANY right to put these different leaders on equal footing with Bush. I do believe that everyone is aware of the number of the Holocaust, for that comparison.

Your incredibly shallow mind overshadows whatever legitimate argument you might've had. The very NOTION that you could FATHOM to compare these situations and people as being the same thing boggles my mind to no ends. There are so many ways to declare this an outright idiotic statement that one can't even wonder where to begin.

 

[Trezza]

Every Soldiger has the option when they Sign Up have the option of what branch of the military they want to join and what job within the military. If a soldier didn't want to kill but wanted to be in the military they have many different jobs that they can perform.

There is nothing illegal about this war and to compare what the soldiers are doing to that of Hitler's is just plan idiotic. I would like to see some stats they should US or UK gathering and slaughtering people.

The rationale about supporting the troops but not the action is link to the Vietnam War when soldiers returned from home and were unable to find jobs because people blamed the soldiers in the war and black balled them. Most of them were drafted, forced to go into that pit of hell and come back and be hated by the people they saw their friends die for.

Think about whatever job you do. Imagine if your friend who you worked with died on the job. Then you come back and people hate you because of the job you did and not on the actions or choices you made through out your life.

If you are against the war are you saying that you will have a bias against those whose job it was to participate in this war?