Bookman

Without taking sides, it does seem to me that there could make an argument that our actions here in support of or in opposition to this war do have a tangible effect.

The troops overseas do get news from home after all; it seems quite reasonable to conclude that the state of mind of the American public has an impact on troop morale.

Bookman

kwigibo

Fortunately for him, our rules of engagement permit a conscience, and he was actually following procedure.

The Cromwell Institute

Perhaps, Bookman - but I doubt it would have a truly significant effect.

Maybe we should make a distinction between giving our troops active "support" [lobbying for withdrawal, entitlements etc.] and simply "being in favor of the the troops" i.e. hoping they don't die.

Bookman

Perhaps that's a question that we could put to veterans of the Vietnam war. They certainly faced such a circumstance.

Bookman

King's Indian

Hello,
I'm not sure what "supporting the troops" means either: they don't have any position to support: their job is to carry out orders from the chain of command as efficiently (and I hope, humanely*) as possible. They're not really supposed to let personal opinions come into it, and this also applies to some extent to the Chiefs of Staff (some of whom seem concerned by the possibility of being sucked into a long conflict, and even longer occupation). This goes double for those poor sods conscripted by Saddam, who would quite gladly run him through themselves.
With regard to moral support, I'm sure it does comfort our troops, and helps focus their minds on the job in hand. On the other hand, you don't give moral support to people in everyday life whose actions you suspect will have terrible consequences, for themselves as well as others. [Added for clarity: so I don't think you can be "against the war, but for the troops"]
Now that it's kicked off, I'm rather hoping that the USG are on the level, and there won't be any unnecessary killing, for both sides. The worst case for recall would be if the US/UK's losses become so great that it is political expediency to bring the soldiers home. It would be intolerable if, five years after the front-page stories describing the people of Basra throwing rose-petals in welcoming Our Boys, we are faced with in-depth articles with titles like, "Iraq: What Went Wrong?".
KI
*I mean, no army is totally comprised of Lt. Calleys.

The Cromwell Institute

David M. Payne - would you care to shed some light on this issue?

Any other vietnam vets are welcome to do so too, D M. P is just the only vietnam vet I know of on the boards.

Jacey

I've been in the Marines for 6+ years, and I'll say, yes you should support the "troops" (I've always hated that word).

Not blindly however. Hope that they get home safe, although it's a little late for that. Support the veterans, and those who are ill/sick/disabled from past conflicts.

I don't support those guilty of war crimes obviously. And you don't have to like their cause, I don't right now, but I want everyone home safe.

MortalWombat

Or when they are sick and disabled and in need of health care in their older years.

Ut

I think Martin Buber too is.

paul30

I would like to see the military abolished, the way slavery was abolished.

Many will scream that that would leave us defenseless; but I think the opposite is more nearly true.

The major job of the US military has not been "defense" for a long time. Since WWII it has been used as an offensive force, to interdict communism and secure materials and markets abroad. Both these goals were pursued by preventing democracy abroad, for example in Vietnam and in Iran and Indonesia and Central America and even in South Korea.

What the US military primarily defends is its own budget. For this purpose it must create wars and enemies, such as Saddam Hussein, who was given his weapons of mass destruction by the US.

It certainly is not a defense force now, either. Which nation is likely to attack us?

Neither can it prevent terrorism. In fact, our military provokes terrorism. It intrudes into other people's countries and helps prop up unjust oppressive regimes. Osama bin Laden says he ordered the 9/11 attacks because of the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. We were there to prop us the despotic rule of the Saudis and Kuwaitis because they give our oil companies a break.

Likewise, our military (and tax-money) supports Israel to the hilt in its oppressive policies against the Palestinians. The Israelis have violated more UN resolutions than Saddam Hussein, and with worse results: they have not only NOT pulled back to their pre-1967 borders, they have established permanent settlements on occupied territories.

The US has military bases around the world.

How do you think US citizens would feel if our country had to host airbases and naval bases and military installations from Russia or Germany or any other country? I imagine we would get tired of them and want them out.

So I say: pull them out, reduce our military by 95% to 100% and the US would be instantly safer and vastly more prosperous, because we could have former soldiers and sailors doing useful work for a change--needed work like teaching and nursing and daycare and repairing roads and bridges and working on alternative energy and building housing for the homeless, and so on.