I support our troops by...

I support our troops by wishing their leaders could be replaced.

I support our troops by encouraging them to open fire upon those who would do them harm, both foreign as well as DOMESTIC....

i think its still illegal to open fire on the White House.

Don't look now, but I think dys was making a joke....

Don't look now, but I think max is dissing anybody disagreeing with him.

Really?

Sorry you took it that way, I thought that it was pretty apparent that the yokel looking through the window was me, thereby making my previous post more self-deprecating than anything else....

I apologize for the confusion....

I guess we may proceed in supporting the troops......

Good to see you, edgar!

De nada, max. Keep on truckin'.

I would like to support the American troops (if this depended on me) by defending them from meddling of people that have no knowledge of the military tactics and strategy (but despite of this try to interfere), the people that consider enemy's civilians more valuable than their own soldiers.

Dys, good one. you made *me* laugh out loud (and nice gif!)

Steissd,
This is not an issue of military tactics and strategy (I would not presume to interfere in these things). It is an issue of morality, national identy and the future of our nation.

My knowledge of history entitles me to have a strong opinion on these matters. Any unbiased mind will see that our adventure in Iraq will very likely turn into a the fiasco that is already beginning.

If these soldiers were not occupying Iraq there would be no need for tactics or strategy or casualties or killing civilians or bombings. Don't tell me that it would not be much better for these soldiers if they were still in the US.

If we will not learn from our own history, we should look at the example of Israel. Using overwhelming military force to repress and occupied people costs too much.

I do not want to be in this position -- where we need to use increasingly brutal measures against a terrified civilian population becuase of militants who have justifiable grievances against our occupation.

I hope we don't have pay the human, moral and psychic costs for our sins that Israel is paying for theirs.

And steissd your last statement is extreme...

"the people that consider enemy's civilians more valuable than their own soldiers."

First civilians, by definition and by law, arent "enemies". They are civilians. They have special protection by law and by any stretch of morality. Soldiers are paid to kill and die. Civilians are not part of the fighting and a civilian death is tragic and unjust.

Second, in this conflict we say we are there to *liberate* these civilians. Killing of them is kind of the opposite of this, isn't it?

Third protecting civilians is the basis of much of our understanding of the ethics of war. Based on your argument, would you say that suicide attacks against civilian targets are moral? If not, what is your argument against them (if civilians can be sacraficed for the well being of soldiers.)

I supported our troops by working for eleven years helping build the most sophisticated technology for their use on the battlefield. From eyes in the sky to things that go "boom".

Unfortunately, that kind of work largely disappeared with the end of the cold war. Now I spend way too much time here.

Steissd,

First of all, the core of my argument is that there is an crucial ethical distinction between "civilians" and soliders. In war killing soldiers is considered "legitimate" as part of a conflict. A bomb attack against civilians is a war crime. A bomb attack against a military headquarters is "protected" as part of the conflict (i.e. under international law the soldiers who participated can not be prosecuted.

This is why suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism are so "evil". They are attacks against people who are not part of the conflict. Their only mistake is where they were born and where they live.

You say "any terrorist technically is a civilian". I don't think your definition of civilian is useful. It certainly doesn't help with the ethics of killing civilians.

But, what I think you *really* meant was

"any civilian is technically a terrorist".

If you believe this than you can justify the actions that are now being taken by both the U.S. and Israel. If this statement is true than you can bomb residential neighborhoods, fire into crowds of protesters, and march into refugee camps with apache's and bulldozers.

Look, soldiers have their job. They are paid to risk their lives to carry out the will of their countries. They should accept this risk, or get out. The civilians live there and have no choice. They are just trying to live lives in a difficult situation. Many of them have no desire to take any part of the conflict.

Soldier should just do their job without killing civilians. These battles are between militants and soldiers. The civilians should be left out. If the soldiers cant tell who the militants are, that is their problem.

Killing civilians to save their own butts is immoral.

Call me selfish, if self preservation at all cost, to come home or defend your home is immoral, then I must be the one of the most immoral of them all.

When my D.H. (dear husband) Was in Operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield, we were lucky he didn't have to shoot at anyone. However if his life depended on it, I would have gladly have him do what ever means necessary for him to come home.

Yes I wish we didn't have to go to war over there. But we did. And no about of protesting is going to help them come home sooner. In fact, civillians protesting around the globe is one of the most vicious weapons that the enemy can have.

My Father in law was in vietnam, and some companions in his squad was POW. Some were lucky, they died. Others came home to a life of hellish torture that resided in their minds. One of the things they did to them was lock them up in rooms after they had been beaten bloody, and then make them watch video of the protests of the war over and over. They had brain washed them that their people didn't want them to come home. That the civillians of the country they loved hated them. And then they came home to the hate and open hostillity that the massess displayed to them. Remember, they were drafted, and they had no choice but to serve. It wasn't their idea to enlist.

I supported our troops by joining Operation Military Support. I wrote to soldiers who had no family to write to them. I sent care packages to units out on the front lines. I gave them updates of what we are hearing here at home. I encouraged them to do what ever they needed to do to come home safely. I told them I and my little family of 4 supported them in all they did.

Just because I didn't agree with the leaders, did not mean for me to turn my back on the soldiers they lead.

Just remember, if there hadn't been a Pearl Harbor, there wouldn't have been a Heroshima.

Gen, you are not addressing my main points.

I am saying that soldiers have the responsibility to avoid taking the lives of civilians. I am not talking (here) about whether war is imorral. What I am saying is that when we are bombing residential neighborhoods, killing unarmed families in vans and firing into crowds of civilians there is a problem -- and the civilians are not at fault.

Here is the question I am poing:
Should a soldier should kill innocent men women and children
if it will make him safer?

This is the decision we made in Hiroshima (the thousands of children who suffered horrible deaths had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor.) This is the decision we are making in our present occupation. The fact is innocent civilians are dying at the hand of American soldiers.

That being said I must disagree with several of your points.

1) We did not "have to go to war over there". Iraq did not commit any agressive act. This decision was taken by the Bush crowd and opposed by most of the world and many Americans.

2) We brought the war to the Iraqi's. They did not ask us to come and "liberate" them. There was no Pearl Harbor here. Iraq posed no real threat to America. There was absolutely no link between 9/11 and Iraq.

3) Protesting the war represents the core of our democracy. Protesting is hardly a "vicious" weapon -- It is one of the most *powerful* weapons of democracy and justice. It is embedded in our history and protected by our Constitution.

4) The Vietnam era protesters were in no way responsible for the torture that POW's faced, nor the fact that the soldiers were over there in the first place.

I respect the commitment the soldiers have made. I understand that they are responsible to follow the orders of the government. I am also very glad that we have them to defend us against real threats and to fight just wars.

However, we have all been duped again. Iraq is not a threat. This is not a just war. With all due respect to those in uniform I must say the truth -- We should not be in Iraq!

I am furious at our government for putting American soldiers in harms way for such a dubious cause. I am furious at the tactics that we are resorting to which are immoral and result in the needless deaths of civilians.

It is an act of love for my country and concern for both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians that I will protest this war and the warped philosophy used to rationalize it as loudly as I can.

I realize that this war is over. However my hope is that with enough patriotic Americans raising their voices we can stop the next one.

The soldiers in Vietnam (or any other war) do not have to go simply because they are drafted. One of my brothers was drafted, failed to report for duty, and served three months in Leavenworth. He chose not to kill or be killed.