Hayes, you are being, no disrespect intended, all over the map here. "On this topic I think the antiwar crowd picks and chooses which factoids are most convienent to advance their position at whatever moment they address the topic." So here, the "anti-war crowd" is a mass of people with differing views "within the mass." (my words) "And the 'antiwar people' are not one monolithic mass you can lump together." So, they aren't a "monolithic mass." They are a "anti-war crowd," but not a "monolithic mass." Well, that's good to know. "The troops make the decision to participate in the action. There is no rational way to separate them out and remove their culpability. That's sentimental nonsense." So, those of us who don't blame the troops for an incredibly inept President sending them into a war without the numbers needed, the equipment needed, the post-war plans needed, the true coalition needed, and the international support needed to preserve any coalition and worldwide support the US had garnered wholesale from 9/11, not to mention the outright lies and fabrications used, before the American people and the world, to justify their voluntary war... we are not allowed to support the troops while vilifying the government which initiated this cockup of monumental proportions? OK. I disagree. Keep D&D Civil!!
Yeah, I agree. That's in part because the opinions in the original articles are not my own. They are, in fact, only consistent in that they all identify why a segment of those who say they 'support the troops' be it from the left, right, or middle are being hypocritical. Well, of those who are anti the war (so that's a general grouping - they are all anti the war) have different reasons to be anti-war (subsets not necessarily in agreement - some its illegal, some its immoral, some its cost/benefit etc.). The second statement is that you can't claim those against the war all are against it for the same reason. Sorry if I explained that poorly. That's cool. The argument is that those who feel the war is illegal or immoral, for example, should not 'support' those who are actually carrying out this illegal and immoral activity. That activity being what that segment of the anti war crowd is protesting to begin with. If you feel the President has not adequately pursued the war then you would fall outside that scope. If you criticize Bush for lying that is also outside the scope (ie its ok to do that it has nothing to do with 'supporting the troops.' Its not that you would stop criticizing Bush - its that you would also criticize those carrying out the policy (if you were in one of those groups).
I'm still not convinced. Since you are an army brat, you should know there are many reasons to join the military. The idealized notion of the patriot is not the only type of person in the military. From what I've read, when our troops are in battle, they aren't thinking about protecting America's freedom as much as they are thinking about protecting their buddies' backs. I see them as employees, as employees work for a company for a multitude of reasons. If the company does something wrong, some, but not everyone blames the employees, especially if the decision was an executive one. However, the employees still stay to work despite whether or not they approve with decisions of corporate. Take Enron, we blame the guys on top for their decisions, but we don't blame the employees that work there, and we don't assume the employees all agree with those at the top. Likewise, I don't think its hypocritical if people from other countries dislike our government, but like American people (like most do) despite that some Americans like the government and some don't. Since you are an army brat, you obviously have strong ties to supporting the group of people you are a part of and will defend them, that's fine and I respect that as much as I respect the opinions of a muslim defending his religion from attacks, and I think its fine that you want to defend your group. Im not trying to convince you to think otherwise, but I'm still not convinced despite how waterproof you think your argument is.
This is way past being "your war," or "our war." When it pertains to our fighting men and women, no matter what the reasons, or lack of them happen to be, they are in it up to their neck. It is indeed our war. The question is, what the hell are we going to do about it now? No offense to anyone, but I am way beyond figuring out who to blame for it. I know who is to blame for it, and they deserve every bit of blame and criticism anyone cares to heap on them. What is important, now, is what do we do from here? Something could have, and should have be done already... Bush should have been defeated in a landslide for gross incompetence as our President. The Democratic Party exhibited gross incompetence in picking it's candidate, which didn't help anything. Again, the real question is... what do we do now? If anyone thinks Bush should be impeached, and I think he should, they should look at the makeup of Congress. Let's get realistic. Unless the Democrats win control of the House and Senate in '06, not an impossiblity, it ain't going to happen. As a nation, we need to figure this out. What now? Keep D&D Civil!!
Agreed. What if the company dumped toxic waste in a school yard. Would we only hold the executives responsible or would those who actually did the dumping also be culpable? If they worked hauling toxic waste can we reasonably say they had no idea what they were doing? That's cool. I am mainly trying to explore or expose if you will the differences in the subsets of the anti-war crowd (so to speak) and possibly the inherent contradiction or maybe hypocrisy of some of the those subsets. Granted it might seem an odd way to do it as I don't believe its either an unjust or illegal war, but sometimes reversing the lens provides interesting insight. If in the end people either don't recognize or don't agree then they should still be better off having defined and defended their own perspectives. That is, I think, what the D&D is about. Can't disagree with that. Perot in 2008? Also, thanks Major for a lot of effort debating the premises and conclusions. Nice posts.
Sorry it took so long to respond. My Inet was spotty while evacuated in Dallas. HayesStreet, first off I don't consider this war immoral or illegal on its own merits. I beleive the manor in which we entered the war was immoral and illegal. In the end, this war MAY benefit Iraqi citizens by removing Sadam and therefore isn't inherently an unjust war. Therefore the behavior of the soldiers is irrelevant as long as they are acting like professional soldiers and following orders (ahem... Abu Graves ). Exceptions aside, the soldiers are doing a fine job and hopefully Iraqi's will be better off (that remains to be seen). My beef is how does the Iraqi war benefit American taxpayers considering SS, medicare, uninsured American's, the poverty level and NOW, the obvious lack of protection of American cities as illustrated by predictable hurricanes (predictable relative to terrorist attacks)? If all those things were in order, then perhaps I'd support saving the rest of the world. But I feel we need to save ourselves first. Now in response to our previous converstation. I'm not misunderstanding the comparison. Why is it that everytime somebody wants to make an evil comparison it always goes back to Nazi's? It gets old and trivializes how evil Nazi's really were. But for the record, there were many Nazi soldiers that were NOT evil ...they were following the orders in a patriotic and dutiful manor as our soldiers do. Now, the ones working at the concentration camps had a moral responsibility to quit their jobs but given the circumstances, I highly doubt it was simple matter of handing in a resignation letter and walking away. A KKK member that quit was accused of being a nig*$% lover, for example. It was the military leaders in power that should be held responsible. Sgt England In Abu Graves (sp?) prison = bad person. Joe Blow soldier in the field = patriot following orders. Vietnam vets that murdered babies were not high on my morality list. But if they were given orders to do so, then I hold the leaders responsible. I can support my son and not support his behavior. Those are two distinct things. If my 5 year old son throws ice cream on the floor, I'll be mad at him but I still love him. But that isn't even a relevant analogy. If my wife told my 5 year old to throw the ice cream on the floor, who should I be more mad at? Wife or child? I hold the president responsible ...not the soldiers. Why is this hard to understand? It isn't anything close to hypocrisy unless you are a republican idiologue who wants to paint the world with a black and white paint brush. I live in the real world were shades of grey exist. IE...I consider context before making widespread assertions. So one last time, I support our troops. Not our president. That is NOT hypocritical. What IS hypocritical are the SUV owners with the "I support our troops" stickers. If we reduced our energy consumption, we would eliminate our dependancy on middle eastern oil and we likely would not have entered this war in the 1st place. NOT going to war is the best way to support troops, IMO.
Which would make it immoral and illegal. Yeah, this fits more into Major's c/b segment and doesn't really fit the segment of the anti- crowd I was talking about. The reason the example is the Nazis is because the Nuremberg trials of the Nazi are the historically significant event where 'i was following orders' was disallowed as a defense for a soldier. Rather than trivializing Nazis it reenforces how important that standard is - without it look how far 'just following orders' can go. Again your statement that there were non-evil nazis is just out of the scope of my argument. I never argue all nazis were evil. In addition, whether or not there is a consequence for refusing an order - failing to refuse an order that is illegal equates to taking some of the blame for the action. That's the problem. Do you hold the leaders also responsible or do you remove all responsibility from the soldier. The established standard clearly does not remove guilt from a soldier and doing so it to forget the lessons of Nuremberg. Your analogy clearly points out the problem - soldiers are not five year olds. They are adults. If you feel the war itself is illegal - and in your first sentence you say it is, then it is hypocritical to criticize the administration and not the troops. They are engaging in illegal behavior by your standard so why would you fail to criticize them for it? Nothing has happened to make the war 'not illegal.' IYO it was illegal at the beginning and in the absence of something that changes that it is still an illegal action. I honestly don't think I've seen anyone articulate why you would fail to attach any responsibility on the soldier for participating in an illegal act that is valid. 'They are ordered to do so' does not hold water as established at Nuremberg. Even the military itself would not make such a proclamation as to say individual soldiers are released from reponsibility if their higher ups order them to do so. Major argues few are in the proper subset - and makes coherent arguments about it, but that is not the same as justifying the removal of an individual's culpability from a decision they chose to make. I agree.
No it doesn't. It is a good cause to save Iraqi citizens from Sadam. But Bush lied to us about the justifications for war. So again, the manor in which America justified the war to itself was immoral and illegal...not the war itself. So you are gonna pick and chose which "segment of the anti- crowd" to address and ignore others. Nice. Lets just all stop making comparison's to Nazi's. It is tiresome and tacky. It's all based on context and you are generalizing too brodly. Each soldier should be evaluated seperately. You can't just make one rule and say every soldier is guilty. I don't know details about Nuremberg but I'll take a stab and assume they didn't put each and every Nazi soldier in jail. The leaders need to take the bulk of the responsibility. After that, each soldier should be evaluated for their personal culpability. Dude, I'm just trying to point out I can love my son even if he is doing bad things. I can also support our troops even if I don't agree with what their stated mission. Please re-read my first sentence. You reinterpretated my first sentence to suit your argument. The soldiers are NOT engaging in illegal behavior. The initial immoral activity cannot be rationalized to mean every subsequent activity is also illegal. If I buy a used car from a dealer and received all legal paperwork (or so I thought) and the car turns out to be stolen, would you see me as a car theif? I may be arrested for possession but in court I'm sure I'd get off. (I'm not a lawyer so this might not be correct but you get my point) Under NO interpretation possible can any soldier be found guilty simply for participating in the Iraq war. Your argument is getting thin. Phew, at least we got something hammered out.
Sorry I didn't continue on - I was in an Astros watching mood and never got back around to being in a debating mood. I think it's an interesting topic, and I see where you're coming from. I think the Nazi example is a good one, but I feel the parallels are not quite the same. But when I have to try to express that, I'm not sure how to do it! Anyway, it definitely is an unique topic and something different from the usual Repubicans are Evil and Democrats are Evil that we normally have here. We need more of these kinds of topics...
OK, I see the confusion now. When I talk about the war being illegal I mean as in when someone says 'the war was illegal under international law.' You seem to be saying Bush lying to the american public is illegal, not the war. No problem. If you are not in the group that says the 'war is illegal' then you don't fit within the scope of what I'm writing about. Well, yes. My argument isn't that everyone who is now anti- the war is being hypocritical. My argument is that those who are anti- the war for these specific reasons (the war is: illegal by international law, merely imperialist expansion, only for resources, to beat down Muslims etc) are hypocritical if they do not also criticize those who are voluntarily pursuing that policy. I disagree. It is folly to never speak of Nuremberg or what happened in WWII. Nuremberg set in place standards that are by and large the most significant barrier to military misconduct. It is certainly not tacky as I am not comparing the atrocities that the Nazis (the evil ones) committed with what are troops are doing in Iraq. Well, yes and no. A soldier may not bear as much responsibility because the scope of what they do is not as large as a general who commands thousands of troops, for instance. But that does not mean they get a free pass either. IF the war is illegal (in the international law sense) then it follows that a soldier participating in that war is doing something illegal. Each soldier that does so is 'breaking the law' so to speak. For example, the German Admiral who ordered open season on all shipping (rather than on armed ships) Doenitz IIRC was convicted of war crimes at Nurmberg. But the Captain of a submarine that sunk such a ship was also doing something illegal. That he was ordered to do so does not get him off. He may not get the sentence that the Admiral did but the scope of what he did was not as large either. Of course the scope of punishment is outside the scope of my argument as well. I didn't say to hate the troops. But the same as you could be expected to criticize your son if he stole something even though, or maybe because you love him, so should you criticize a soldier if they are doing something wrong. You wouldn't give your son a free pass if he stole just because he's your son, presumably. No, I misinterpreted your sentence. As I say above I understand it correctly now. If you intitial act is illegal (hopefully you also understand in what sense I'm saying that now), then yes in subsequent time it continues to be illegal. If you break the law, then what you did will still be illegal tomorrow - and the next day unless something happens to make it 'not illegal.' Your analogy assumes more than what I know about the law so I can't apply it, but if you illegally took possession of a car, then tomorrow you would still illegally be in possession of a car - even if you used it to drive a hit and run victim to the hospital. That doesn't mean your taking that person to the hospital was illegal, but neither does your good deed make what was illegal - legal. Guilty of what? Of participating in an illegal war? Why yes, I can't imagine how you'd get around that. Sorry, but this is the strongest point of logic in the whole argument. IF the war IS illegal THEN logic dictates that they are doing something illegal. Of that there cannot be any other answer logically. In addition to logic the same is true in 'the real world' as exemplified by Nuremberg - if you are a soldier and you commit an illegal act then you bear responsibility for your actions. Saying I was ordered to do something illegal and so I did it is not an acceptable defense by any recognized standard. More than that now that I understand your premise!
No problem - the 'stros are more important than the D&D anyway! Yeah, I think the scope of what the Nazis did triggers that response because it was so horrendous that we shudder to compare anything to them even when its principle rather than scope that we're talking about. Thanks I'm obviously a hawk but sometimes it helps to argue the 'other' side's view to understand both its strength and weakness.
Other than extremist protesters or other attention grabbers, I've never heard anybody call this war illegal. Virtually every personal friend of mine is liberal and I've had dozens if not hundreds of conversations about this administration and this war. I can't recall a single instance of anybody I know saying this war was illegal. So if your point is narrowly premised on people that feel the war is illegal, you may be misdirecting your energy. The average liberal doesn't make a distinction about the legality of international law. The average liberal DOES beleive we side stepped the UN but by American standards, that isn't illegal. Now, if the Democrats ruled the house/senate, I beleive Bush would be facing impeachment proceedings! At least I'd like to think so. The author of the article you cited didn't reference Nuremberg IIRC. I give you credit for at least going a little deeper than making the usual simple and cheap comparisons at a whim. So you are suggesting each and every rank and file German soldier faced post-war jail time? All I'm simply saying is that I can support my son or our troops even if I don't agree with their behavior. How I respond to my son's or the troops behavior is where the analogy breaks down ...because its a 5 year old. Your analogy doesn't work. If I steal something, yes, it'll still be illegal tomorrow. But if you steal something and I unknowingly or unwillingly got possession of the item, does that make me a crook? Not automatically. If the president engages in an illegal war (by UN standards), then does that automatically make every soldier a criminal. I say it doesn't but it seems we disagree. If I take your position (and I don't) that the war is illegal, the simple act of participating in an illegal event does not render you a criminal. If I am a passenger in a car the runs down 10 people, am I a criminal even though I participated in the crime? To take that a step further, if the passenger were my son, you bet your rear I'd do everything I could to support my son after such an awful incident. I support our troops. They have performed with honor and I'm happy they are on my side. I just wish the Iraq war would not have happened. I have enjoyed our exchange. It has been an open and honest exchange of ideas. I get tired of the usual "conservatives" around here that resort to shallow insults and then disappear when faced challenging arguments.
Go back up in the thread - I actually copied some of the posters on this board who called it an illegal war. I won't try to deny your experience but its a fairly prominent issue. The subset of those anti- the war that my criteria applies to would include those who dissent because: they consider the war illegal (referring to intl law), they consider this a resource grab ('its for oil'), an imperialist expansion, an attempt to dominate Islamics, etc. Basically anyone who believes the war itself is immoral or illegal as opposed to too costly or likely to fail, or because Bush's lies are illegal (although I'm not sure if he's stupid or lied ). That is a specific criteria but one that still includes a substantial number of people. As I wrote above, I pasted comments from people with those opinions on this bbs and it took about 1 minute to find them. No. I'm not saying anything about punishment. Its completely begs the question, at least the question I'm asking. I'm saying that if you advocate that the war is illegal/immoral then you ought to be criticizing those who are engaging in that illegal/immoral activity. If you consider what I'm saying in the context of the 'Vietnam Syndrome' then I think you might see what I'm getting at. The pendulum has swung too far now - where even those who believe the troops are part of an illegal/immoral operation won't extend their criticism to the troops. Why? It cannot be because the troops are not responsible for their actions. That is a falsity. The do have a choice. The reason is that we don't want to. I can appreciate that stance but its somewhat like Col. Jessups speech in 'A Few Good Men.' We DO want soldiers on those walls, we DO recognize they are protecting us (generally). But that does not mean we can let them do anything. It does not mean they are not responsible for following illegal/immoral orders. It does not mean you do not criticize them when they do wrong. The main thing holding back that criticism is our reaction to the way veterans were treated coming home from Vietnam. Even those that believe this war is ALL of the subsets I named: an illegal, immoral, imperialist resource grab - won't criticize the troops because they understand we don't find that acceptable. BUT they should if they are going to be consistent with their beliefs. Hence if they don't they are hypocrites. Again you are using local law that neither of us are competant to argue about. There is nothing wrong with my analogy but to make this clearer instead of murkier lets just talk about the subject - Iraq. IF invading Iraq was illegal then the troops that invaded Iraq have done something illegal. That's pretty simple and undeniable. Only because you hesitate to be negative about the troops. That's ok and I understand. But if they did something illegal, and a 'criminal' is someone who commits an illegal act, then yes they would be criminals. Whether or not you believe the UN or international law standard is the 'right' one or not doesn't matter. IF someone believes it is - then they should not only criticize the administration for conducting an illegal or immoral war, but also the actors of that policy - the troops. Actually my position is not that the war is illegal/immoral. My position is that IF someone says it is illegal or immoral, it is hypocritical and self serving for them to leave out criticism of those enacting the policy (either the administration or the troops). Your analogy doesn't fit. These are NOT passengers we're talking about - these are drivers. Remember, I have already point out that some Israeli soldier refuse to operate in the West Bank because they believe it is illegal or immoral. So there is precedent for the idea of a soldier actually acting outside their orders in the recent past. Deal with the issue at hand: IF (I capitalize it to emphasize that word - 'IF') the US illegally/immorally invaded Iraq country then each soldier that is in Iraq is doing something illegal/immoral. They are participants in the illegal/immoral war. What they are doing CANNOT be legal/moral. I am not saying disown the troops if you believe they are acting immoral or illegally. But you would not let your son skate if he was the driver. I'm glad you do. The spectre of how veterans were treated returning from Vietnam is a horrible thing. But I want those who so gladly label the war as immoral/illegal to stop also hiding under the skirts of the rest of the anti- the war crowd and let themselves be known. Thank you and thanks for taking the time to articulate your own feelings about the issue! I think it shows the value the forum can have.
Here's another aspect to add: Using the term "illegal" doesn't seem right in the context because that would suggest that there is some type of law governing state actions, when there really isn't. I think people will talk about it from a moral context, which is more subjective and difficult to grasp if you do not agree with them. Anyway, if we are going to discuss "wrongness" in the western context, we have to look at it from the different types of wrongness. What people have been differentiating that I don't think Hayesstreet has been picking up is that there are two states to commit a wrong act, that is the actus rea, actually doing the act, and the mens rea, the mental intent of knowingly doing a wrong act. Hayesstreet is understandably saying that if you are against the war as an actus act, then you should be against the troops because they are actors in the war. I don't think we can deny that both the administration and the soldiers are acting to continue the war. However, others are differentiating that the soldiers lack the mens element in perpetuating the war, they didn't make the decisions to go to war, they don't make the orders, they follow them. Hayesstreet will argue that the mens element is fulfilled by their voluntary participation, but I think there is a significant difference between the level of mental participation between the CEO who decides to use low quality beef in their burgers and the minimum wage worker who grills the patties, despite that they are both participating in the act of serving low quality beef. Obviously the decision maker carries more blame than the worker despite that their actus is the same. Back to the Nazi example, we also have to understand that free will can also be easily manipulated. As much as I believe that we should live our own lives and not interfere with others', I know the danger of believing in free will and personal responsibility is that groups of people can be easily shaped to think and act a certain way, making free will limited. Anyone who knows anything about military training knows it's a very hierarchical structure and the chain of command creates a system where it is easy to follow orders without having to think about them, and that's usually something people don't want when they sign up for the military. Because of this, responsiblity comes from the top, which is why hold Hitler and the decision makers of that time in a higher level of culpability than the regular German soldier. Obviously, there is difference in opinion in recognizing the levels of blame and would just want to shine some light on this from a US legal perspective.
Partisan fingerpointing bull****. "You can support the troops but not the president." --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX) "Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years." --Joe Scarborough (R-FL) "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" --Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99 "[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." --Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) "American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy." --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX) "If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." --Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." --Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today" --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX) "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." --Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
