"I am behind the troops, but.." = "I am not racist, but..."

[Ned]

Sandman, I can hardly imagine a democracy starting an unjust war. Britain and the United States were both behind the war on Saddam. That should settle the issue of whether the war was "just."

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by st_swithin


As I understand it, it involves wax and a bikini that reveals more of one's derriere than most people are willing to normally share.

you are correct

[st_swithin]

I'm sorry, what were we talking about just now?

[Berzerker]

Ned -

I say stop the debate after the war starts. Once it starts, we need to see that it comes to a swift and victorious solution.

That creates a paradox - a Catch-22 - at what point does it become okay to express opposition during a war if it's not won swiftly? It took several years before opposition to Vietnam grew enough to register with the politicians. This wouldn't be a problem in a legitimate war where we are attacked and our survival depends on waging war because there just won't be much if any opposition, but since most of our wars are not about survival, but protecting "our interests" abroad, we'll face this problem occasionally when we get bogged down in a guerilla war. Hell, we aren't going to win in Iraq swiftly or totally, we're already seeing Bush and his administration leaning toward dragging the UN into it because they know they screwed up. So what happens then? The UN is going to put down the guerillas? No way! So Saddam is still floating around somewhere and his loyalists will have new targets and the people of Iraq will still have reason to fear his return to power when we leave or barricade ourselves up behind walls to avoid these attacks. We need to get Saddam or we're screwed, maybe then the opposition will quiet down but I seriously doubt it. It looks like we diminished Al Qaeda's ability to work out of Afghanistan, but we created another, even better sanctuary for them to operate from.

There is a distinction between those who oppose a war before it starts and those who demonstrate against it after. I have a real problem with the latter and no problem at all with the former.

Then once we're in a war there's no turning back if it goes bad. I'm sure glad Eisenhower didn't share your view of patriotism or we'd still be fighting in Korea (and Vietnam). Here's an idea, if y'all don't want vocal critics of your wars, don't declare war on anyone unless we're attacked. You can't expect to wage wars without opposition when the reasons for the wars are trumped up BS and ~35-40% of the population is highly skeptical if not downright opposed to your ventures.

[Odin]

Ned, don't start the "silent majority BS. That is a cheap way of saying you have a majority when you really don't.

People didn't vocally oppose the Korean War because of McCarthyism, DUH!

[st_swithin]

No, it was because people who weren't raised on in it don't like kim chee.

[Berzerker]

Ned -

Sandman, I can hardly imagine a democracy starting an unjust war. Britain and the United States were both behind the war on Saddam. That should settle the issue of whether the war was "just."

Remember the Maine? How about the US invasion of Hawaii?
The US Civil War? The Mexican-American war? All those Indian wars? Or our various ventures into Latin America to protect the interests of the United Fruit Company et al? And the fact we can find another leader to commit troops to our cause against the will of his people is hardly convincing.

BTW, the vast majority of the American public supported the War on Saddam. Not 100%, to be sure. But well over 60%, IIRC.

Between 60 and 70 I believe, not what I'd call overwhelming for such a serious matter. I'd expect at least 95% if there was little doubt about the justness of a war, and according to polls, roughly 50% thought Saddam was behind 9/11 after all the lies and half truths, so 60-70% support is quite pathetic. We didn't go to war because of Saddam, we went because of terrorism and occupying Iraq seemed like a nice foothold to wage that war since it divides Iran and Syria.

Johnson had similar support behind him when Vietnam first began.

I doubt it (he had more support), and he wasn't even President, that began brewing under Eisenhower and escalated under Kennedy, then Johnson. We have the ****ing French to thank for Vietnam, they got their butts kicked and asked us to go in and save their colony.

His problem is that he listened too much to the anti-war types in Congress and did not trust in the confidence the American people place in him to win that war.

Oh c'mon! That isn't what happened!!! The opposition - USSR and China - had nukes so we couldn't commit to an all out war.

I have no idea why Truman went pacifist right in the middle of the Korean War. That war was winnable. But clearly he lost the confidence of the American people when he fired MacArthur. It is strange to have an anti-war type as president.

Eisenhower campaigned on getting us out of there.

As I said earlier, I reacted with disgust when I heard the same crap out of some Republicans concerning Clinton's wars. Bull****.

Not me, I agreed with them then and I agreed to a lesser extent with opponents of Gulf War II. The only reasons I supported WBush was relieving the Iraqi people of Saddam and because of what Bush 1 did to the Kurds and Shi'ites, but we can't just go around attacking every country with brutal dictators. I'll admit Clinton's venture into Bosnia and Kosovo worked out for the people being oppressed, but that's only because the Serbs weren't nearly as vicious as portrayed. But we saw how Clinton's attempt at nation building went in Somalia...

There is an old saying that sums up my attitude: Politics ends at the borders during the time of war. The enemy must know they face a united and determined American people.

I have seen the enemy, and it is us.

[Spiffor]

Ned:
I'm curious to know what is the "anti-American" side of your political spectrum. Surely those who oppose the war must hate America and and only crave to see her on her knees

Besides, I remember our favorit "I support the troops" prez (GW Bush) was the one who cut off benefits for veterans right during the war. Heck, even I support the American troops more than this guy

Berzerker:
Just a little quibble: you don't have France to thank for Vietnam, but only yourselves. The Vietnamese independance was agreed in 1954 and we were definitely out after that. You went in later when you saw the commies were making progress in newly independent Vietnam.

[Odin]

The Veitnam war was because Veitnam supported the Commies (under Ho Chi Min) and we were hyper-paranoid so we put in a bloody dictator (Diem) that butchered Buddists. It was just a super-sized version of the crap we pulled in Latin America and it came to bite us in the ass.

[GePap]

The true patriot stand for the value of the country, and does whatever he/she can to further them. If that means objecting to some government policy (and war is just that, POLICY) then the true patriot must stand against the policy. Demanding obidience to a particular policy in the name of patriotism is the way of dictators. By your definiton the men who tried to kill Hitler were traitors, since once the war begun every german should have been backing 100% the policies of the regime and the men carrying them out..no question asked, no voices raised, no arguement given... THAT IS NOT, SHALL NOT, AND WILL NEVER BE DEMOCRACY. You claim you stand for freedom: saying that debate must EVER stop is an affront to freedom of the worst kind.

[Egbert]

Originally posted by Ned
WWII was a success in large measure because we did not have anti-war types "supporting our troops." When a country is fully behind the war effort, it is more easily winnable, minimizing casualties, etc. Trying to defeat a war effort while the war is on is not "supporting our troops."

A country won't get right behind a war effort if the people can't see the point of the war. In WWII Americans could easily see the point (at least after Pearl Harbour) so they wholeheartedly supported the war effort. OTH Many Americans can't see the point of invading Iraq and some wonder if it was an oil grab. Their is a measure of cynicism and indifference so many think that Iraq is not worth spilling American blood.

People need to think there is a sufficiently good reason for war if they are to support it. The war has to be worth risking American lives.

[GePap]

Another thing:

as far as I can tell, only on president ever (Polk in 1844) was eelcted on a relatively belligerent policy. No other president in American history ever got into the WH by asking for, or campaining for war. Many have won promising to stay out of, or getting out of a war. But the people vote only every 2 years, every four years for the executive. We do not go to war on referendums, which means policy makers can and do) get the nation involved militarilly. By your words Ned, you seem to argue that support for a war must be unconditional once it begins..would you then cancel wartime elctions? isn;t supporting the troops the same as supporting the military, who's chief commander is the president? How dare anyone then challange the Commander in chief during a time of war?

But the fact is that in the US, rule of the people means being able to shift policy at any time: even in wartime, EVEN during a civil war. That is being true to America, to its values, NOT asking for debate to end once a particuar political administration has gotten the polity involved in a war, even a war for the very survival of the polity.

[Berzerker]

By your words Ned, you seem to argue that support for a war must be unconditional once it begins..would you then cancel wartime elctions? isn;t supporting the troops the same as supporting the military, who's chief commander is the president? How dare anyone then challange the Commander in chief during a time of war?

Very good point. Electing Eisenhower was unpatriotic.

[Odin]

Originally posted by GePap
The true patriot stand for the value of the country, and does whatever he/she can to further them. If that means objecting to some government policy (and war is just that, POLICY) then the true patriot must stand against the policy. Demanding obidience to a particular policy in the name of patriotism is the way of dictators. By your definiton the men who tried to kill Hitler were traitors, since once the war begun every german should have been backing 100% the policies of the regime and the men carrying them out..no question asked, no voices raised, no arguement given... THAT IS NOT, SHALL NOT, AND WILL NEVER BE DEMOCRACY. You claim you stand for freedom: saying that debate must EVER stop is an affront to freedom of the worst kind.

[Ned]

We turned against the Vietnam war when it became clear that Johnson was lying to us and had no strategy for victory. All he offered us is an endless, bloody stalemate. Certainly, if a commander in chief so screws up, we should replace him. We replaced Johnson and Truman essentially because the people formed the considered opinion that our commander in chiefs had failed.

The people who were against war because they were on the other side, such as Jane Fonda, were never in the majority. However, their protests enormously influenced the North to continue the fight rather than to seriously negotiate.

What could have happened in SV is Congress cutting back on financial support while Johnson wanted to continue to fight. This may have resulted in a disaster. So much for "supporting the troops" while opposing the war.

During our revolutionary war, many continued to want to stay with the Crown. However, to say the least, their attitude was less than helpful if not downright treasonous.

Ditto anyone who supported North Vietnam during that ugly war.

Spiffor, you have to admit that many if not the vast majority who marched in opposition to the war were overwhelmingly anti-American. They viewed the United States as the problem, not Iraq's Saddam Hussein. President Bush was cast as the ultimate evil, while cute and cuddly Saddam and his lovably sons became the hope of anti-American world for their valiant stand against Imperialism. (Am I that far off?)