An unpopular post

I have no illusions that I will "convince" or even commiserate with any posters on this issue, but I feel compelled to spill my guts (for a change lol).

So much rhetoric spewed about "supporting our soldiers". It makes me ill.

The Germans waged illegal wars of aggression. Jurgen Non-Nazi Deutschlander supported HIS troops, right or wrong. Yet Heinz Abswehr might have been judged by Nuremburg for enacting illegal orders in an illegal war. "He vas chust followink orrrders" was the defense back then, one that fell on the deaf ears of judges that recognized the greater laws of humanity.

WHO are the troops that we are supposed to unquestioningly support? Why is it so patriotically important to support them, right or wrong - while Germans supporting the Nazi armies was the wrong thing to do?

A dose of reality - today's army is NOT the conscript army that fought WWI, WWII, or even Vietnam. THOSE wars, right or wrong, were fought by citizens at least purportedly for the safety of our polity. By all means our "conscript brothers" (an allusion to ancient Rome's "conscript fathers", just to show my measure of respect) deserve our respect and honour.

Yet today--- our army is frankly every bit as mercenary as Rome's army was during the imperial age. PATRIOTISM is not the driving force for inscription in our armed forces - economic factors rule. I'd wager that if 80% of those who currently wear the uniform had an opportunity equal to that offered by our armed services, 80% would rather take it than to go through the onus of military indoctrination and discipline. Patriotism is FAR from being the primary motivation for serving in today's armed forces - yet politically we act as if every soldier's motivation is altruistically patriotic.

If Nuremburg taught the world anything it was that "orders" don't justify crimes. Our current misadministration has broken an endless list of crimes to justify a series of wars and invasions and excesses and "extraditions" and such... and fall back on the tried and true patriotic call to support the troops.

I certainly don't hold Johnny GI responsible. Hell knows that he only joined because he couldn't find a decent job elsewhere... But I DO hold the brass responsible just as Nuremburg held the Nazi brass responsible for THAT regime's excesses. And above all I hold our purportedly elected officials that have placed our admittedly mercenary army in harm's way over a series of lies and manipulations responsible.... and am pissed that they use the "patriotism" card against those who see through their lies.

I will defend our military in its only justifiable role - the defense of our nation against attack. I will reserve judgement regarding the use of our military to enforce international law. I REFUSE to defend - or even support - the ABUSE of our military in order to commit crimes, and will rebel against any politician that tells me that I am unpatriotic for feeling this way.

Especially with a mercerary force, especially when its role is criminal. The ends don't EVER justify the means when the means are illicit...

Not all our soldiers are engaged in atrocities against civilians.

Some of those economic factors you mentioned are the classism and racism that prevents certain groups from getting good jobs or going to college.

It's not the military members' fault where they're sent. I'm sure many of them are against
the war, and were hoping if they were called to fight, it would be in defense of the country, not in an illegal war.

:patriot:

and recognize that the immense majority of our military have not committed crimes... at least on the personal level. The fact that they have acquiesced to participate in an illegal war is tantamount to the Nuremburg conundrum - it is illegal to enact illegal orders, even if military jurisprudence makes any act of indiscipline very hard to justify on any level (moral, legal, or whatnot).

I won't blame Johnny "Compton" GI or Juan "Lennox" Ramirez or Johann "Madison" Johanssen responsible for the admin's crimes, but I'd put my life on the line if they chose to disobey illegal orders.

Again - I don't hold the GI's responsible, but I certainly DO hold anyone with an ROTC or above level responsible. If they're "educated" and in a position of authority, they share SOME responsibility for carrying out illegal orders.

As for out "politicians", they should be in the Hague right now, facing criminal actions.

Yet... according to Nuremburg, even the SUPPORT of illegal aggression is a criminal offense. With the law in hand, every GOP voter could possibly he held accountable for illegal wars of aggression and crimes against he peace.

Food for thought, eh?

I find it unceasingly amusing that you can't find people you disagree with simply "wrong." Why am I, as a supporter of Bush doing what finally had to be done, inherently evil? By all accounts reading on this board, I'm somehow worse than Saddam, Assad, or--dare I say it--bin Laden.

I mean, what kind of F**king idiot can seriously equate Bush to Kim Jong Il? I mean, that's laughable. I'm not saying you actually did it, but I've seen it on these boards more than once. It's absurd.

.....I support this "illegal aggression." (a bit melodramatic, don't you think?) So tell me how I'm culpable?

For some reason many cons seem incapable of dealing with nuance.

Is Dubya worse than Kim Jong Il? Yes AND no.

If we are to measure the moral value of a democracy, a terrorist group or a dictatorship we cannot, MUST not, apply the same moral scale. A terrorist flies a plane into a building and a potus orders B52's to bomb a city. Which is "worse"?

I, for one, DEMAND that a government that represents ME to act on the highest moral plane. Unilaterally invading a nation is illegal - a criminal act - and our country is guilty as hell (I don't know where you get "doing what had to be done" from).

How are YOU culpable?

"Article 6.
The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to m Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; "

----------

Article 9.
At the trial of any individual member of any group or organization the Tribunal may declare (in connection with any act of which the individual may be convicted) that the group or organization of which the individual was a member was a criminal organization.

----------

Article 10.
In cases where a group or organization is declared criminal by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory shall have the right to bring individual to trial for membership therein before national, military or occupation courts. In any such case the criminal nature of the group or organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned.

----------

The fact that YOU support what is basically a crime against the peace is clear enough. The crime was the work of a group of organizations ranging from the GOP to PNAC to AEI, et al - which would therefore be considered "criminal organizations" under the Nuremburg Doctrine. Membership in any of these orgs would therefore be a valid cause for trial and condemnation. At the very least a war supporter would be morally culpable.

What has he accomplished, anytime in entire lifespan, that you find worthy your support?

Why are conservatives and Bush supporters the only ones for whom it seems acceptable to engage in hyperbole? Bush supporters, like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity publicly engage in vicious name calling of those that disagree with them and you get bent out of shape at some outrageous comparisons regarding Bush on an Internet message board?

Bush never finished "doing what finally had to be done" - getting bin Ladin. THe Iraq war has destabilized the region even more than it already was and cute sayings like "Cut and Run" don't change that fact. This misadventure in Iraq will go down in history as a military blunder comparable to Napoleon's invasion of Russia. It will bankrupt us.

Are you worse than Saddam, Assad, or bin Ladin? No. But the Bush Administration is so much more than just about the war(which is bad enough, IMHO) and anyone who supports Bush gets the whole package. In that sense, you are culpable.

Mz Pip
:dem:

"Not all our soldiers?" What kind of backhanded compliment is that? That's like saying "not all Germans were in favor of the gassing of Jews."

Your post is not popular with me.

Care to elaborate and defend your POV?

But I will go ahead and say a few things.

Your comments are grossly insulting to thousands of young men and women serving in the military. You are correct that they are not conscripts, but you are giving credit to people who did something only because they were forced to, and not giving credit to those who do it by choice. Your logic escapes me. I imagine that your response will be that what they are doing shouldn't be done in the first place, but that is a whole other argument. Besides, this country hardly supported those conscripts in Vietnam. To call them mercanaries and to even mentions Nazis in the same breath is disgusting.

My son is a Marine. He signed up post 9/11, pre-Iraq. I know many of his fellow Marines well, and I know many of their parents. None of them fit your description. They all come from good families, they all had other options in life. They are not blood-thirsty killers, nor are they rapists. They are good, decent young men who have volunteered to put themselves in danger for very little financial reward. Some of them have died in the process.

Your statements are repugnant, and they do the Democratic Party no good at all.

I'm sorry if you feel that my calling the US military "mercenary" is insulting. Yet mercenary it is by any standard. And what is worse, this mercenary force is more often used for non-defense purposes, the only raisson d'etre for a military in a democratic regime.

As for "conscripts", I certainly give them more credit. Were they "forced" or were they fulfilling the obligations of citizenship? Wouldn't that depend, once again, on the use made of their services?

As for your son and his friends, I'm glad that they are decent folks and that they opted for a military career for reasons that had nothing to do with money. Good for them. But you'll have to admit that this is not the norm in our armed forces - where economic reasons for joining is the norm.

Anyways, don't allow subjective connotations of the word "mercenary" colour your take on the post. It is not used as a derogatory term but as a distinction from a conscript force.

My statements are repugnant? Well, blindly "supporting" soldiers in a jingoistic manner is repugnant to me, especially when it is fomented in order to justify a crime. Our military should exist to defend our borders and, within the framework of the UN, to enforce international law.

I wish nothing but the best for our soldiers. Gawd knows that its not their fault that they're over there. But I will not fall for the bait-and-switch game, the "being against the war is unpatriotic" garbage.

If YOU want to see our better sentiments abused, more power to you.

"I'm sorry if you feel that my calling the US military "mercenary" is insulting. Yet mercenary it is by any standard."
-A mercenary, is, by definition, a soldier for hire to a nation other than his own. You seem like a bright person and I'm sure that you know that. I'm equally sure that you know that is a pejorative term, and that you meant it that way. Why don't you use 'volunteer' instead. It's not insulting to those of us who wake up and go to bed each day praying for the safety of our loved ones.

"And what is worse, this mercenary force is more often used for non-defense purposes, the only raisson d'etre for a military in a democratic regime."
-That's your opinion, it is not an undeniable truth. Another opinion is that it should be used to prevent the slaughter of innocents. Did you oppose our actions in Kosovo? And, even if your opinion is correct, it still depends on your definition of defense. Germany did not attack us in WWII, and no nation attacked us in WWI. Would you prefer that we had stayed out of Europe? Sure, Hitler declared war, but we could have ignored him.

"As for "conscripts", I certainly give them more credit. Were they "forced" or were they fulfilling the obligations of citizenship? Wouldn't that depend, once again, on the use made of their services?"
-Oh, for crying out loud. they were drafted. Of course they were forced. Were draftees in Vietnam fulfilling the obligations of citizenship? Did you support them? They weren't mercenaries.

"As for your son and his friends, I'm glad that they are decent folks and that they opted for a military career for reasons that had nothing to do with money. Good for them.
-I'm sure that you had a smirk on your face when you typed that.

But you'll have to admit that this is not the norm in our armed forces - where economic reasons for joining is the norm."
-I don't have to admit any such thing, and I don't believe it to be true, especially for enlisted personnel. Do you have any idea how little they make? My 16 year old son has a summer job that pays more than an E-5 in the military.

"Anyways, don't allow subjective connotations of the word "mercenary" colour your take on the post. It is not used as a derogatory term but as a distinction from a conscript force."
-It IS a derogatory term, whether you mean for it to be or not. And, as I've said, I'm confident that you mean for it to be just that.

"My statements are repugnant? Well, blindly "supporting" soldiers in a jingoistic manner is repugnant to me, especially when it is fomented in order to justify a crime. Our military should exist to defend our borders and, within the framework of the UN, to enforce international law."
-Nobody is suggesting that you blindly support anything, but just because you don't support them it doesn't been that you have to insult or vilify them, which you have done. You could say nothing, or post nothing.

"I wish nothing but the best for our soldiers. Gawd knows that its not their fault that they're over there. But I will not fall for the bait-and-switch game, the "being against the war is unpatriotic" garbage."
-Your original post was not anti-war, it was anti-military. If it had been anti-war, you would never have heard from me.

Mercenary...

SYLLABICATION: mer·ce·nar·y
PRONUNCIATION: mûrs-nr
ADJECTIVE: 1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain

Volunteer

SYLLABICATION: vol·un·teer
PRONUNCIATION: vln-tîr
NOUN: 1. A person who performs or offers to perform a service voluntarily: an information booth staffed by volunteers; hospital volunteers.

Nope. I was right.

""And what is worse, this mercenary force is more often used for non-defense purposes, the only raisson d'etre for a military in a democratic regime."
-That's your opinion, it is not an undeniable truth"

No, it's an undeniable truth with regards to international and American law (treaties, such as the UN Charter, once approved by the gubmint, are laws).

"-Oh, for crying out loud. they were drafted. Of course they were forced. Were draftees in Vietnam fulfilling the obligations of citizenship? Did you support them? They weren't mercenaries."

WWII. And I didn't attack our troops - just the leadership.

"-I don't have to admit any such thing, and I don't believe it to be true, especially for enlisted personnel. Do you have any idea how little they make? My 16 year old son has a summer job that pays more than an E-5 in the military."

http://www.myfuture.com/militaryopps/militarybenefits_all.html

"-Nobody is suggesting that you blindly support anything, but just because you don't support them it doesn't been that you have to insult or vilify them, which you have done. You could say nothing, or post nothing."

Vilify? Where and when have I done so? Don't be so thin skinned.

"-Your original post was not anti-war, it was anti-military. If it had been anti-war, you would never have heard from me."

No, I am against the bait-and-switch McCarthyesque "support our troops" meme.

You know how to use a dictionary-partially at least. There are several definitions and when it applies to the military it is as I said:

mer·ce·nar·y

Hired for service in a foreign army.

See, I can do it, too.

Nope, you were wrong.

You choose to use one interpretation of the word. I used it in the sense that I've defined.

So unless you want to put words in my mouth too, game over.

elephant in the room. I'll come right out and say it; I DO NOT SUPPORT THE TROOPS. How can you separate the troops from their actions? If you support our troops, then, in my mind you have implicently agreed that it is alright to murder innocent Iraqis, in the name of forcing "freedom and democracy," as unwanted as it may be down their throats.

Oh, but of course there will be "collateral damage," as there is in all wars, some defenders might say. Innocents will get hurt or killed. It is the unfortunate nature of war. To which I say it is a cop-out. The bottom line is that we do not belong there, and we only encourage the administration and it's war criminals to continue this illegal war by "supporting our troops."

To say that you may not support the administration, but yet you support our troops is, in my opinion the "GREAT DISCONNECT."

So, why did you point me to response #37? It has nothing to do with what I wrote.

I don't think your comparison between the German army and the US army is straightforward.

Nazi Germany had, in effect, two armies. The Wehrmacht Heer and the Waffen-SS.

The Wehrmacht Heer was pretty much the "regular army" and is closest to the US army. It contained a lot of draftees, and most of them were just fighting to defend their country and not get killed.

The Waffen-SS was completely different. It was both a political and a military organization. Imagine an army with Karl Rove as General, made up of all Republican volunteers, swearing undying loyalty to George Bush himself, and you are close to imagining the Waffen-SS. These were the guys who ran the concentration camps.

Comparing our Army to the Waffen-SS is ridiculous. Our Army is doing what it has always done, and is supposed to do, obeying the orders of our Civilian government. The Waffen-SS *were* the Nazis, the private Army of Hitler's political party.

" I don't think your comparison between the German army and the US army is straightforward."

I'll consider your use of "straightforward" in an alternative sense - it would initially seem that you are impugning my sincerity through your use of the word.

I am sincere in my comparison. And this is not with disrespect for the US military - GI Joe is pretty much the same Joe if he's working for the US, for the FDR, for Nazi Germany or for Zimbabwe. What makes a difference is the motivation.

I am not at all comfortable with the Nuremburg Doctrine. For starters, it places the onus of responsibility against those who, by definition, must follow orders or potentially be shot. This is unfair and unrealistic.

Nevertheless, todays US army is... mercenary, as mercenary as Caracalla's legions in every sense of the word. With few exceptions, today's GI joins the military for economic reasons, and "patriotism" is only a secondary consideration. Thus I hold today's US soldier somewhat MORE responsible than a conscript soldier of the 3rd Reich - who had absolutely no opportunity to dissent without recourse to virtual suicide.

Yes, this is a philosophical question, I know. But it has its place.

In your post you differentiate between the Wermacht and the SS. Well said and well done... yet this is really just an organizational differentiation, isn't it? Might not the Marines... or the ROTC... be considered tantamount to the SS with regards to the motivation for enlistment? (and no, I'm not equating them outside the motivational factor for enlistment).

"Comparing our Army to the Waffen-SS is ridiculous. Our Army is doing what it has always done, and is supposed to do, obeying the orders of our Civilian government. The Waffen-SS *were* the Nazis, the private Army of Hitler's political party."

Firstly, I didn't equate them - you did. Secondly, our army TODAY is far different from that of the 1960's, for example. In the past it has almost always had a professional core and a conscript coating. The excesses (which have been a constant since the Mexican-American War down through the Philippines and into Vietnam) have almost invariably been the result of actions by the professionals or under their orders.

I assure you I was not doubting your sincerity. My use of the word "straightforward" was meant to imply that I don't think the two situations make a good analogy.

You are correct that you didn't directly compare the US army to the Waffen-SS. But you did compare the US army to those judged at Nuremberg. Nuremberg found the SS guilty of war crimes, but it also found the Wehrmacht NOT guilty of war crimes. I see the US army as equivalent to the Wehrmacht here.

Nuremberg was a trial of 24 powerful people (including two Wehrmacht officers) in the Nazi organization. These people tried using "Befehl ist Befehl" (I was following orders) as a defense, but it was rejected.

But the Nuremberg doctrine does not mean that "I was following orders" is NEVER part of a defense, particularly for low ranking soldiers. It did establish it is not a defense if you are at the top of the pecking order. By analogy, Rumsfield could not defend himself by claiming he was just following Bush's orders. His position of power removes that alternative from him.

So in the end, I do not accept that the US army can be equated here with the Waffen-SS, which was found to be a criminal organization. I see the US army as equated with the Wehrmacht; the people at the top may be guilty, but the organization did it's duty.

Of course, if Stalin had gotten his way, fifty-thousand German officers would have been executed after the war....

Stalin had his way. Many more than 50,000 died.

As for the Wermacht - I agree that most did "their duty". Yet when asked to commit crimes, many conscripts did the easiest thing and committed them. Few "commisars" were ever taken prisoner, for example.

Franco might have easily won the Spanish Civil War within a month or two but made the conscious decision to turn the war into one of attrition. As his lines advanced he made sure that no "5th Column" remained in his rear- through the execution of prisoners, the raping of women and the terror tactics that he's learned in colonial warfare in Morocco. He relied primarily on the "African" troops based in Morocco, Moorish mercenaries... and ultimately on the conscripts that made up the bulk of his army. Only terror kept the conscripits under orders when fighting what were ultimately their social equals... so manipulation isn't exactly a novelty as far as the military is concerned. All you have to do is to read Smedley Smith's speeches to get an accurate picture.

But don't you see the biggest problem? Because of the use of the flag, the bloody shirt and the patriotism question we're asked to accept an illegal status quo. The whole question about "supporting our troops" is a bait-and-switch game which keeps us away from the biggest question - are we doing the right thing?

Since it is impossible to impunge the real question, approaching the more unpopular one (my thread) might be a productive exercise.

Don't you think?

Well, since we have been talking about the Nürnberg trials, I think a quote from Hermann Göring is in order:

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

That's as much as I can comfortably say in this forum.

Cheers!

Don't Mach me!

:blush:

Anyways, I hope that you detect that I see through the manipulation as opposed to being a perpetrator!

I agree, with you; Your heart is in the right place. I just don't want to stand on the firing line because I'm not sure your message will be completely understood.

:hide:

:rofl:

not a popular POV!

He lost to Pappy O'Daniel in 1941 because he got ahead of his constituency.

I am sickened by the support our troop statement. I have been since the first moment I heard it. To me it translates to, I agree with Bush. It has nothing to do with the troops. I believe it was started by Republicans as a way of justifying their agreement with Bush.

But when the president lied, he not only left Congress dangling, but the troops. That is not wholly true. I trusted Blix and Ritter.

I'll leave it at that. It's not simple. But it is disgusting. The whole thing is disgusting.

I do think that a lot of these volunteers feel they are invulnerable, and why not they are for the most part youngsters, who crave some sort of "coming of age" event such as combat and to earn ribbons for their chest. I don't excuse them, but after reading some of the blogs these kids who are volunteering they certainly think they are doing the right or "macho" thing. Soldiers should never be placed in situations where an officer can give an illegal order, unfortunately it happens in grunt units all the time, I have witnessed it myself.

War is a youngster's game. Who else is stupid enough to fight?

We put kids in incredibly dangerous and confusing situations. What can a kid from Iowa City or Spokane or Boston look to as a precedent when he finds himself in Baghdad with awesome firepower and a complaisant officers corps at his behest?

I'm nearly 43. At this stage in my life I'd only fight to defend my home - or to defend my beliefs if they run against crimes against humanity. If I was to be drafted to fight in Iraq, I'd fight against the US government first. But I'm not a 19 year-old looking for some sort of future in our lovely laissez faire system.

I reitirate - I don't hold the poor kids responsible. But I certainly won't let the supporters of the unjustifiable turn me into some sort of traitor because I won't support illegal acts by an unquestioning support of our "troops" just because they've been put in a hellhole situation.

They're not entirely innocent in that they're in it for the money and COULD know better if they wanted to. But they are mere accessories to the real crime - yet they're the only ones paying for it.

I am not willing to put these soldiers in front of a firing squad for obeying orders whether they were legal or not. Yes, someone should be accountable, but as it was in Nam very few will be, and I think that is how it should be.

Insofar as DU is concerned.

one considers the DLC supporters of course.

"Pointy Girl" England had in common:

"I certainly don't hold Johnny GI responsible. Hell knows that he only joined because he couldn't find a decent job elsewhere..."

That's what got them BOTH into Iraq. They joined the military because that was their only hope for a better life. In their cases, the lure was college. There was nothing but recession, no jobs, no hope, in their home communities. So they looked to the Army. And look what happened.

Pentagon's Fine Line: War Machine, P.R. Machine
by Martin Kaste

Morning Edition, July 13, 2006 · The U.S. military doesn't do all its public relations work overseas -- it's also investing in grass-roots efforts here at home.

The Pentagon's "America Supports You" program employs Pentagon staff and private PR contractors to coordinate activities that support the armed forces. "Freedom Walk" marches, letter-writing campaigns, even supplements in kids' Weekly Reader, are all paid for by the Pentagon itself.

One recent effort is a campaign to get people at major league baseball games to "text-message" their support to the troops on their cell phones... even though those messages aren't actually sent to the troops.

Plenty of people in the armed forces say they're grateful for the effort, but there are some at the Pentagon who have come to believe the effort verges on tax-payer-funded propaganda. The fear is that an appeal to support the troops could also be seen as a call to support the war in Iraq.

Much of the publicity work has been farmed out to a private firm, Susan Davis International. For the first year of America Supports You, the firm signed Pentagon contracts for at least $2.7 million.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5553746

I'm with you.

supporting the troops, as you pointed out, should not be viewed in a black and white way ... should anyone support the troops if they are committing war crimes ... but shouldn't we support them when, for economic reasons or otherwise, they put their lives on the line to protect the country ...

and if we want them to be available for us when we approve of the mission they are sent on, is it fair to hold them accountable, as individuals, when we don't approve of the mission?

my view is that we have to separate their conduct in a war (murder, rape, looting as bad examples) from the government's policies ... i applaud conscientious objectors who stand on principle and refuse to participate in illegitimate war ... but i don't see how we can demand this as a standard ... if all troops were to vote on which wars to fight and which wars to disagree with, national policy would not be directed by the will of the people (which it isn't now but should be!) but would be directed by the vote only of those in the military ... in essence, only soldiers could decide which wars were good wars and which wars were bad wars ... this seems both undemocratic and illogical ... as citizens, we should be able to decide whether a war should be fought and we should have a general expectation that those who volunteered to contract themselves to fight it would honor their agreements ... again, their should be tolerance for any individual choosing to opt out but we should not cast a negative shadow on those who follow through when we need them ...

the bottom line here is that i don't blame the troops for fighting an illegitimate war ... the shortcoming is not theirs but rather the failure of government to fight wars that are legitimate and the failure of the citizenry to retain control of their government ... the fault for illegitimate war lies with our ignorance as a people, our naive trust in leaders, our inattention to what is going on in the world, and our acceptance of corrupt, greedy government ...

so i find no hypocrisy in opposing the war and supporting most of the troops ... they are not the enemy ... when i say i support them, i mean that i wish them well ... i hope no harm comes to them ... i hope they and their families are properly cared for based on the needs that they have ... it does not mean that i support their use as pawns for an immoral, illegitimate war ...

It's divisive and counterproductive at this point.

When the GOP throws out the McCarthy tactics next time you can remember this one.

If we are to believe that we're only as strong as our weakest link, then the entire US military is responsible for the atrocities - from the ground up.

After her tour in Afghanistan, she came home pissed off at the army itself (not the point here)

What's interesting, and heartbreaking to me as her mother is although she knows the war in Iraq is wrong, illegal and indefensible, she still gets angry at those who protest the war. "What have they done? They sit on their ass and complain! They weren't over there" And once in a while she'll haul out the "I'm fighting for your freedom" It always seems to me she needed to give her deployment meaning. She came home proud of some of the accomplishments in Afghanistan, most which are going to shit right now.
Although widely touted as a "war" myth, she says some returning soldiers from her unit were spit on (shades of Vietnam)by protesters. She was furious.

She's a torn woman. After fighting to leave the army (long story, I've posted most of it elsewhere) She has survivors guilt, and guilt for NOT being in Iraq with the rest of her unit. She knows she did the right thing.
During her deployment she told me "Mama, those boys in Iraq just need to come home" That comment carries less weight when you can't hear the despairing tone in her voice.

When I had my grandson during her deployment, he picked up "Bush sucks" from me--I swear I didn't do it on purpose, but he somehow connected bush and his mothers absence. When she came home and took him back to her base, he didn't stop saying it. She used to tell me that she could get in trouble for it.

Anyway, he's up visiting now, bush came on the TV a day or so ago. I looked at him and said "bush still sucks" (I've never claimed to be mature) He looked at me dead in the eye and said, "I know, Mom explained why"