Some  people feel that we should support the troops in Iraq, even when not supporting the war.  Send them gifts, tell them that we are with them, that we support what they are doing, that what they are doing is good.

But what they are doing is not good and it should not be supported.

In spite of doing a lot of good usually,  doctor is sued when doing something considered wrong. The army should not be given a free pass.

They are not defending the country.  The American people do not support this war.  This war is the war of a bunch of people who have an agenda and have the power today to carry it out for their own purposes and pay no attention to the will of the people.

The troops should not be made to feel good about what they are doing.  They should question.  They should be weary.  Unless one thinks that they are mindless idiots just following orders  and exempt of all responsabilities for what they do.

There is a difference between defending one´s country and engaging in aggession overseas.  Even common laws recognize the difference .  One can kill an intruder invading  one,s home , but cannot follow  and kill him on the street.  That becomes aggression.

Aggression should not be supported.  Unless you are a chauvinist that doesn,t give a damn about right or wrong, when country is involved.

[QUOTE=arielg;131372]Some  people feel that we should support the troops in Iraq, even when not supporting the war.  Send them gifts, tell them that we are with them, that we support what they are doing, that what they are doing is good.

But what they are doing is not good and it should not be supported.
1. In spite of doing a lot of good usually,  doctor is sued when doing something considered wrong. The army should not be given a free pass.

2. They are not defending the country.  The American people do not support this war.  This war is the war of a bunch of people who have an agenda and have the power today to carry it out for their own purposes and pay no attention to the will of the people.

3. The troops should not be made to feel good about what they are doing.  They should question.  They should be weary.  Unless one thinks that they are mindless idiots just following orders  and exempt of all responsabilities for what they do.

4. There is a difference between defending one´s country and engaging in aggession overseas.  Even common laws recognize the difference .  One can kill an intruder invading  one,s home , but cannot follow  and kill him on the street.  That becomes aggression.

Aggression should not be supported.  Unless you are a chauvinist that doesn,t give a damn about right or wrong, when country is involved.[/QUOTE]


1. Doctors donot follow the orders of the President. They are not part of the Government. Only those doctors that serve in the armed forces are. And many of these doctors are on site, where ever a battle is being fought.
2. They are defending the Country, today, we are paying for the mistake of backing out of Korea, and Viet Nam, but they know better than to strike at us the way O'sammy did. If we donot defeat this enemy on his ground, sooner or later, we will have to do it here. If we wait for that we will definitely move the odds of our winning the fight into the negative.
3.If any soldier disobeys the orders of his superiors, he faces court martical and jail time. I would say you have never served your country, or you would know that.
4. Common law, and God say; Obey the magistrate. Do you know what or who the magistrate is?
And last, Agression should not be supported? What? Are you a Musslim Extremist? You sound like one.

drawkcab

[QUOTE=drawkcab;131735]

They are defending the Country, today[/QUOTE]

Considering the fact that no Iraqi attacked America, and the country of Iraq didn't attack America, it is hard ot see how the preemptive war of aggression agaisnt the already weakened country , with it's defanged dictator, is "defending the Country."

One might be able to make that argument with more credibility Afghanistan, where the mujahadeem morphed into the Taliban while we, "over here," were preoccupied with our president's private affairs, or against Pakistan where the Taliban is supported in the ungoverned territories, or Saudi Arabia, where the terrorists originated, but to make aggressive war on Iraq as "defending the Country." I just don't see it.


[QUOTE=drawkcab;131735]

we are paying for the mistake of backing out of Korea, and Viet Nam[/QUOTE]

How so?  Perhaps you could elaborate on this, drawkcab.   I don't understand what that means in terms of Bush's "War on Terror" or the situation of the world today.   Vietnam, as I understand, has good or improving relations with the US, despite of what we did to that country 30 years ago because of the "War on Communism"


[QUOTE=drawkcab;131735]

"If we donot defeat this enemy on his ground, sooner or later, we will have to do it here. If we wait for that we will definitely move the odds of our winning the fight into the negative."[/QUOTE]

A lot of Americans apparently believe that but I don't see that either.  Perhaps you could elaborate on this, drawkcab.  They are terrorists, not armies......they are fighting their own governments more than America.


[QUOTE=drawkcab;131735]

And last, Agression should not be supported? What? Are you a Musslim Extremist? You sound like one.

drawkcab[/QUOTE]

Was that necessary?

It's starting a walk on a slippery slope when soldiers are not held accountable for what they participate in.

But, that’s not what eadler was talking about.  He feels if a soldier does not “personally” support the war, they should refuse to serve and everyone should refuse to support those who choose to serve their country.  We’re not talking about cases of improper behavior, but serving in the military in Iraq.

I think all the cases mentioned are a matter of personal integrity, not one of keeping an oath or obeying rules.  An issue of the spirit, not of the letter.

Thank G-d that people like yourself don’t run governments.  I dread to think of the outcome when all active military make decisions on whether or not to fight based on personal feelings.  And by the way, the issue of serving in the military and going to war is not of the spirit, but of the letter of the law.

Considering the fact that no Iraqi attacked America, and the country of Iraq didn't attack America, it is hard ot see how the preemptive war of aggression agaisnt the already weakened country , with it's defanged dictator, is "defending the Country."

But you see, this is not your decision to make.  If you don’t like the policy of an elected leader or their reason for going to war, then when elections come around, vote them out.  It is amazing how you “armchair” quarterbacks can so easily dismiss all the high level decision-making that led to this war.  We all know little to nothing about all the reasons that led to this decision.

But, it is your right to protest the decision to go to war, but it is pitiful when you do not support those who choose to follow the orders of their Commander-in-chief.  In my opinion, that is despicable behavior.