Support the troops, oppose the war?

[Pastor Gary]

The war in Iraq is a very divisive issue in the American political landscape. There are those who say they support the war and support the troops. Others claim to oppose the war and also have little respect for anything military. A third group say they oppose the war but support the troops.

The poll is not about which category you personally fit in, but your belief about these.

[Pastor Gary]

I oppose the administration policy that led to war, and I support our troops and their current mission.

Duly noted.

[Pastor Gary]

You mean you just listened to that for the first time? Please tell me, Gary, it isn't so.

))))SIGH((((

Tim, I understand the words of your position -- I think we all do. It is just (to me) inherently condradictory. This is not an attempt to convince you, juat my explanation.

Let me rephrase it and see if you can understand why I think so:
It is the same (to me) as saying "I oppose the teachings of the Christian God that led to the spiritual battles that divide people, and I support our churches and their current mission."

One flows from the other; there exists a causal relationship, so how can anyone possibly support the consequence and reject the cause?

[EagerBeaver]

Which of these statements is the most correcty in your world?
One can support the troops while opposing the war. 17% (3 votes)
One can only support the troops by supporting the mission they believe in. 82% (14 votes)

Total Votes : 17

You mean to tell me Tim voted 14 times?

[dolfan]

I'll run the risk of allowing Centrist's statement to stand without critique, and allowing that it is possible to have that view and be consistent.

BUT, immediately after the war started, I had a "signature" on my AOL email account that said "If you don't support the mission, you don't support the troops."

I got some pretty nasty email from antiwar folks. Here's my thought on it, FWIW. I cannot, with any good conscience, no matter how I feel about the reasons for the war, look a man or woman in our uniform in the eye and say, "I hope you fail" or "I hope you don't succeed." I also can't define success as a cut and run. The only option is winning. Winning means achieving our stated goals, as stated by the folks who put our troops there in the first place. I simply refuse to reduce the moral support that our own defenders should enjoy as a matter of default by qualifying it. As long as an American is armed or is aimed at on foreign soil, I'm for them and against the other guy, no matter what. There are some things that, the right and wrong of which, God will simply have to sort out. I'm not God. I am an American, and until God gives me surpassing understanding and insight into things that should cause me to lay aside my nationality in favor of a higher cause (and I know such things exist, but I haven't yet seen it applied in this scenario to make superior any approach other than the one I've taken so far), then an American and anti-anti-American I will be. If that's an oversimplification, then I'm running the risk of being a simpleton. That's on me.

[Pastor Bill]

Part of democrasy is not always getting it your way. Tim you disagree with some of the choices made and the reasoning behind this war, it didn't go your way, sorry 'bout that, but the key to democrasy working is that everyone supports it. Even when you don't get your way, you still are obligated. No different than if it hadn't gone my way, I'd have still had to stink it up and get behind whatever we did do.

You want to disagree with the thinking, fine you did that, it's done, it's overwith, now let's move on to the issue at hand, we've committed ourselves, and any further complaining or dissonance ends up is misguided, misdirected, and detrimental to those who have put their lives on the line for this country.

Do all of them agree with the decision, probably not, but they will fulfill their duty of service, because they are honorable, and don't expect to have it always go their way. If they can make that kind of commitment while risking their lives for it, we can at least do the same sitting home playing on the internet.

[Pastor Gary]

How about this analogy:

Okay -- let's take YOUR analogy...

Tori comes to you tomorrow and says that she was raped last month. She is pregnant. You are devastated. But you rally and support her as she raises her child. You want the best for her and her child.

That's President Bush. He came to the American people and said an injustice had to be redressed.

But the guy who raped her: you might come to forgive him, but you will never say that what he did was right, and you will never trust him.

That's the intelligence agencies who provided the faulty intelligence that was believed by Bush, members of Congress and other foreign governments. They were the perps and Bush was the victim.

The war was the resultant child of the wrong done, and the child is not to be shunned or abandoned because of the nature of its conception and birth.