"I don't support the war, but I do support the troops&q

[Simon of the Playa]

[thisisthatwhichis]

Yea, it's really like talking to a wall.......

Neon, you really need to get some education and back up your sparklepony flame with some facts.
If you're too subborn to do that, at least re-read some of the posts.

NO ONE LIKES FUCKING WAR.........

[neon tetra]

NO ONE LIKES FUCKING WAR.........

Bullshit. The global elite LOVE war.


And if I'm so stubborn, how about answering my original question, which no one has done thus far.

How can you support the troops, but not support their mission?

[ygmir]

almost makes me miss DVD, E2K, AZ......etc..........

[neon tetra]

Keep flaming me; keep ignoring my question.

It simply serves to prove my thesis.

[thisisthatwhichis]

NO ONE LIKES FUCKING WAR.........

Bullshit. The global elite LOVE war.


And if I'm so stubborn, how about answering my original question, which no one has done thus far.

How can you support the troops, but not support their mission?

Maybe that's part of the disconnect. What do YOU think their mission is? Please provide reputable sources in your response... no more Sparklepony flame....

[neon tetra]

What do YOU think their mission is?

To find the WMDs.
To liberate their women.
To bring them democracy.
To kill all the 'bad guys'.
To get them to stand up so we can stand down.
Actually, the Iraq "war" is technically over! (according to our president, at least)
He's the second president to declare 'mission accomplished'.


BTW, please give me one single example of 'sparklepony flame' on my part. Just one. Because, truth be told, I've been flamed by the mob ever since I joined this board. Basically by losers who have nothing better to do than sit in front of a computer all day & rack up post counts in the thousands & tens of thousands.

[neon tetra]

Back to the beginning, since not a single person has answered my question, but plenty have dished out unwarranted insults.

"I don't support the war, but I do support our troops."

What do people really mean by that?

(I'm not talking about financial support, of course. Every tax-paying citizen is supporting all of the government's wars whether they like it or not.)


IMO, saying "I don't support the war, but I do support the troops" is as illogical as saying "I don't support vandalism, but I do support the vandals".

It really makes zero sense, yet I hear it all the time, even on here.

[knowmad]

We the crew, after determining that the author of this thread has abused the good faith of the public in addition to being in possession of a highly compromised sense of compassion; do hereby announce this mutiny! All willing hearts and able minded souls are invited to ignore standing orders, and belligerent cries of opposition to return this ship to it's proper (dis)course. We shall, as is befitting our custom; gather in council to determine the truest course to Port Human Compassion, Isle of Soldiers in the Sea of War. Upon this course we must hold true, as the voyage ahead is fraught with perils of dastardly proportions. A Vigilant eye must be kept aloft for those that would waylay us and sink us into the very Sea that surrounds our goal. Now as a crew we must be on guard against malingering layabouts and those determined to break our Merry Band and honorable Trust. Having thus proclaimed our intent we shall now make haste with our first orders of business; "Sound ye off then Mates with a hearty -plonk-" And bring us navigational materials such as Chasing Ghosts so we might ready our ship to deliver our cargo of comfort to those poor souls' of yonder shore.


Now haul up our colors and ready the Pla(o)nk! So be this our Ship on our Mission!

[neon tetra]

a highly compromised sense of compassion

Riiiight. I'm the one with a highly compromised sense of compassion??







I think the ones with a highly compromised sense... no, make that a total lack of compassion are the ones who SUPPORT MASS KILLINGS OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS.

[thisisthatwhichis]

OK, now we might be getting somewhere.

You can't lump together the individual skirmishes in the fields and the true good going on by individual soldiers, with overall government policy and directives. These are two different things.

To have a civilized discussion, it's better to break it into it's parts. And by Flame, I meant:

I think the ones with a highly compromised sense... no, make that a total lack of compassion are the ones who SUPPORT MASS KILLINGS OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS.

Now from a policy discussion:

"I don't support the war, but I do support our troops."

What do people really mean by that?

(I'm not talking about financial support, of course. Every tax-paying citizen is supporting all of the government's wars whether they like it or not.)


IMO, saying "I don't support the war, but I do support the troops" is as illogical as saying "I don't support vandalism, but I do support the vandals".

It really makes zero sense, yet I hear it all the time, even on here.

Most people didn't want to go to war. We all knew what would be asked of the troops. You can't blame them on that level, you have to argue whether the policy was the correct choice. Like I said before, when you engage the military, their job is to go in and blow shit up and break things.



So, which discussion do you want to have? The incidences on the ground, or the policy?

[neon tetra]

They are one and the same.
Wasn't it agreed a few decades ago that "just following orders" was not a legitimate excuse?
If you kill a civilian, you are a killer.
It doesn't matter who told you to do it, or what oath you took, or what uniform you are wearing, or what weapon you used, or anything else.
These are just abstractions.
A killer is a killer. War is terror. And supporting the troops = supporting the war.

[thisisthatwhichis]

Wasn't it agreed a few decades ago that "just following orders" was not a legitimate excuse?
If you kill a civilian, you are a killer.

I'll bet you can't site an example of that order given to any of the troops, if so, they were charged and sent to prison.

So, try again......

Which discussion do you want to have?

[neon tetra]

When they are told to drop bombs on entire buildings/blocks, that is essentially an order to kill civilians.
Also, our 'drone' attacks on Pakistan kill about 10+ civilians for every supposed militant.


Would you like to see a video of them being told to kill civilians?

Here you go:

[youtube][/youtube]



So, try again......

[daratheresa]

...and?

...or are you just in it for the gore-porn?

[neon tetra]

...and?

And... (s)he was asking for an example, so I gave one.

Try to keep up.

[daratheresa]

i didn't think that was what they had asked for...

sorry then.

[thisisthatwhichis]

OK, so lets discuss the ground level military tactics instead of the policy....... geez it's hard to keep up.....


The targets are defined as containing armaments for the enemy and/or the ememy leaders. Many times there are civilians "guarding" the targets. Yes, sometimes they get it wrong, but not generally. They don't target it because it just has civilians in it. What the hell would be the point of that?

[neon tetra]

Yes, sometimes they get it wrong, but not generally.

I'm going to disagree with this, considering that the vast majority of deaths in these wars are civilians.

[neon tetra]

I think we can all agree that there IS a line that a soldier should not cross, even if ordered to do so. In other words, if they're told to walk into a hospital and cut the heads off of every baby, then they should obviously refuse, correct? I think we can all agree on that. (I hope..)
So then the only thing we really disagree on is where that line should be drawn.
So for all the insults I've had slung at me, the only difference between my opinion & yours is the location of said line.

In my opinion, killing 10+ civilians for each person that may be a militant is far too much. Bombing an entire block, just because there may be a few 'bad guys' there, is far too much. And arming one faction of corrupt warlords in hopes that they will kill off other factions of corrupt warlords is also far too much.

[thisisthatwhichis]

Yes, sometimes they get it wrong, but not generally.

I'm going to disagree with this, considering that the vast majority of deaths in these wars are civilians.

Please cite reputable reports, or it's just fluffy-speak.....

[neon tetra]

The Pentagon can't be bothered keeping tallies, but many studies on the ground in Iraq have shown this. The Johns Hopkins study is a notable one, but many door-to-door surveys have put the estimates even higher, a lot of them in the millions.

No one can know for certain, but how many civilians do YOU think have been killed as a direct result of our invasion? And how many would be too much?

Even the Iraq Body Count site, which is generally thought to be a low estimate (but with better confirmation), is in the hundreds of thousands. And that doesn't even count Afghanistan or Pakistan.

[thisisthatwhichis]

I think we can all agree that there IS a line that a soldier should not cross, even if ordered to do so. In other words, if they're told to walk into a hospital and cut the heads off of every baby, then they should obviously refuse, correct? I think we can all agree on that. (I hope..)
So then the only thing we really disagree on is where that line should be drawn.
So for all the insults I've had slung at me, the only difference between my opinion & yours is the location of said line.

In my opinion, killing 10+ civilians for each person that may be a militant is far too much. Bombing an entire block, just because there may be a few 'bad guys' there, is far too much. And arming one faction of corrupt warlords in hopes that they will kill off other factions of corrupt warlords is also far too much.

OK. I do agree. Every death as a result of this war (and what led to it) shouldn't have happened. It is what happens when our policy throws the military at it.

But who started it? It wasn't us. I read today, the Jihad and death to Americans will continue from the radical Islamics until the entire world is controled by Islamic law. What and where do you go with that?

[neon tetra]

But who started it?

The United States.

It wasn't us.

Yes, it was.

I read today, the Jihad and death to Americans will continue from the radical Islamics until the entire world is controled by Islamic law. What and where do you go with that?

Then you either kill every Muslim (and every member of other religions for that matter, because the Jewish & Christian holy texts also call for the killing of non-members*), or you find a non-military solution.





[* Islam is NOT a "religion of peace". It is a batshit-crazy, violent CULT.
That said, so are the major religions in America. And, historically, they have far more blood on their hands than Islam.
Here are just a few lines from the Holy Books of our batshit-crazy cults:


Leviticus 20:9 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.

Deuteronomy 22:20-1 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.

Exodus 35:2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

Deuteronomy 7:1-2 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

Ezekiel 20:25-26 I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; I let them become defiled through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.

Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men.
2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Leviticus 25:44-45 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.]



So, what's YOUR solution??

[daratheresa]

i love it when you can pinpoint the exact point in a conversation where it goes from "kind of interesting and hot-button, let's go watch the game" to *kaboom*...

[neon tetra]

Dara, you are much more coherent in PMs than on here, where you simply make snide comments.

Do you disagree with anything in particular in my post? Did the U.S. not start these wars? Did Iraq really provoke us? Are those not actual quotes from the Holy Books of America's most popular religions? Is jihad not batshit crazy?

Come on. I know you're no dummy. How about contributing then?

[thisisthatwhichis]

OK, I'm only going to bite one more time.... Then I'm out for the long weekend. Hopefully the discourse in this thread stays a little more civilized... unless we get killed by those civilian bombs.....

But who started it?

The United States.

How so? What was 9/11? although, I think I know your fluffy answer.....

I read today, the Jihad and death to Americans will continue from the radical Islamics until the entire world is controled by Islamic law. What and where do you go with that?

Then you either kill every Muslim (and every member of other religions for that matter, because the Jewish & Christian holy texts also call for the killing of non-members*), or you find a non-military solution.

I don't think the military involvement is about religion from our policy directives. It's about the radicals that want you to conform to Islamic Law or die.........

And I would love a non-military solution that works for the radicals. I don't think they are listening....

[neon tetra]

But who started it?

The United States.

How so? What was 9/11? although, I think I know your fluffy answer.....

Fluffy?
Is pointing out that Iraq had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 a "fluffy" answer?
Do you really think that Iraq was responsible for 9/11?
Or even Afghanistan, for that matter?

Weren't the supposed hijackers from UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt?
Did I miss the breaking news that Iraq was actually the country that attacked us on 9/11?

Please tell me why you consider truth to be "fluffy".

[daratheresa]

Dara, you are much more coherent in PMs than on here, where you simply make snide comments.

Do you disagree with anything in particular in my post? Did the U.S. not start these wars? Did Iraq really provoke us? Are those not actual quotes from the Holy Books of America's most popular religions? Is jihad not batshit crazy?

Come on. I know you're no dummy. How about contributing then?

i make snide comments here because this isn't a discussion.

not many people here are actually listening to what the others are saying.

you can't post in a conversation like this without getting emotionally involved. once people get emotionally involved they stop listening to other points of view. we can't help it, a different part of the brain takes over.

and now more religion has been brought in to it, which is like throwing gas on a fire.

i might be new to this place, but i am a message board veteran. this isn't a discussion. these things never are. person A has a rather extreme but PERFECTLY LOGICAL WHY CAN'T EVERYONE ELSE SEE THAT!? point of view, usually about some hot-button issue. person B totally opposes them. persons C, D, E, and F chime in. person G is vaguely sympathetic toward person A. at this point there are several PERFECTLY LOGICAL WHY CAN'T EVERYONE ELSE SEE THAT!? points of view bouncing around. it gets loud, people get mad, everyone takes their toys and goes home. then some random person revives the thread and it starts all over again.

what was the point of posting in the first place? knowing it's a hot button issue? the reaction of people? are you looking for people to agree with you? trying to make everyone agree with you? wanting to be convinced of something different? shaky in your own belief?

[neon tetra]

I don't think bringing up religion ends the debate. Religion & politics are essentially inseparable (unfortunately).

What does end a debate, or at least ends a persons credibility, is saying that Iraq is responsible for 9/11. It's that type of utter stupidity that prevents actual discussions of issues.


To my original question, it's something I had just heard for the zillionth time, and I wanted to know if there was any possible logic to it. I've yet to hear a single person prove that there is, yet "I don't support this war, but I do support the troops" is still a common phrase.

My conclusion is that it's just a rather comforting way to support mass killing.
Taking the focus off of those being killed, if you will. Being compassionate for those poor killers, rather than the victims.
It's quite pathological, in fact.