What does "I support the troops" actually mean ?

LOL! Ho hum. As I said Fox, I am attempting to establish whether your beliefs about this represent an absolute, or are only true when it is YOUR country.

Seems some here are not accustomed to logical debate about ethics.

I was neither comparing, nor contrasting, America to the Nazi regime - I was attempting to establish Fox's ethical stance on this issue by using an extreme example.

Really people, this is not accusing the US of being like Nazi Germany. It is rational debate about ethics.

Perhaps this is not possible with some of you?

No Fox - yourstated point was that one ought not to criticise a government when troops are deployed.

I ask you again - is this a fixed moral imperative of yours, or a conditional thing - eg it only obtains when you like the government, or it is an American one?

Adding insult to injury----nice goin Dlwoan

It is irrelevant whether they objected or not (as it happens a number did - and many died for it) - what I am asking you is whether you would similarly condemn them for it, as you do American citizens who voice objections now.

I have ranted/mentioned/discussed/posted/commented on this subject on enough threads to be reasonably certain I have NEVER said that the government/president/Congress/whomever should not be criticized. I am very precise about that.

There is a distinct difference between presenting a unified front when it comes to supporting the Commander in Chief and the troops and in agreeing with policy or conduct. I suspect some here cannot see the difference, however.

Actually, Perception, it is neither.

I consider Fox's position untenable. And I am arguing against it. I am not insulting anyone. If you take the challenging of a position as being insulting I am perplexed about what you think a debate forum is.

Blatham

Being outnumbered on this forum for me is a perpetual state-----but I like it that way. I don't need a support groupt like many here.

pardon me? What are you saying here? I read it as your saying we should not criticise a war once troops ar edeployed. Can you explain what you ARE saying, if you ar enot saying that?

Fox - I am NOT claiming you said the government should never be criticised! I am stating you claimed a war should not be criticised or protested once troops ar eengaged.

THIS is what I am arguing with you about.

Dlowan

And I consider your position untenable----constant comparisons with nazi Germany are intended to inflame----not debate.

Hohum

Then demonstrate the untenability of my position, Perc.

perc

Don't you go fibbin to me. You need hugs too.

Bloody tarty mounties....always wanting to hug folk...ewwwww.....where's his poor damn horse? Run away, I'll warrant - couldn't take it any more...you NEVER see it with him any more...

And yes Dlowan, I think we have to be very careful with our rhetoric once the troops are on the ground. I think it is fine to say you were against it from the get go, but once we're there, the troops need to know we are behind them and support them 100% and we will accept nothing short of a victory against the terrorists.

There is a world of difference between saying we don't have enough equipment or enough troops and more should be sent and saying we need to pull the troops out of there and bring them home.

There is a world of difference between blasting a few rogue soldiers for abusing prisoners and giving the impression that we think the entire effort is immoral and unjust.

There are always ways to express our opinions without putting our soldiers on the ground at great risk. The more the terrorists think they are accomplishing the goal of weakening American resolve, the more they are emboldened and encouraged to do more violence.

"Feckless" (out of "Fequs") is now happily out to stud.

Again Fox - is this a moral absolute of yours, in any situation when a country has troops deployed?

Whether it be Nazi Germany invading Poland, Stalin's troops going into Hungary, Americans and Ozns in Vietnam, French in Vietnam, French in Algeria, Brits putting down the Indian Mutiny -whatever.........?

A "Mountie" without a Mount -----that must surely strike terror in the crime element------oops you don't have any real crime in Canada except the lying white collar crime.

If we had invaded Iraq to get their oil, to colonize the country, to loot their museums or banks or whatever, or to obliterate them from the face of the earth, I would be leading the protest.

We invaded Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from using WDM that everybody but Santa Claus believed he had. Okay that didn't pan out. But we were already there so we took him out. Now we have a chance to leave a liberated people with control of their own destiny. If you can see any comparison between that and the conflicts you just listed, I'm sorry. Such comparisons escape me.

Ok Fox - I see that you do not get what I mean. I am attempting to have an abstract discussion about the whole notion of not criticising a war while it is being waged - I consider this untenable as a general principle, since so many wars have been quite wrong, as you acknowledge. I therefore hold to the principle that it is more important to the world for us to be to be able to challenge wars, than it is to support troops, since governments will always believe, or at least try to sell the idea, that wars are just and try to discorage opposition - thus there will NEVER be a war that the folk waging it hold it ok to oppose.

By your principle, as I understand it, we could therefore never oppose an active war being waged by our own country.


You consider this war different from the wrong wars, cos you think it right - and you keep arguing about this war. This is not what I am trying to get at.

But nemmind - I see this discussion is not possible.