Question for Protesters (Peaceful Discussion; no flames allowed! :-) ) - Page 2

texas*princess · #16 03-19-2003, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KillarneyRose
I think Texas*Princess is referring to the countries who are allied with us in this action specifically. Correct me if I'm wrong; T*P?

Yep Killarney, you're right! I guess I should have been more specific

xo_kathy · #17 03-19-2003, 12:41 PM

I know, I know. Just another anti-war girl trying to make the point that our usual "allies" still do not support this conflict. I'm a trouble maker, what can I say!?

However, I think with mine and ilovemyglo's post, we have inadvertantly hijacked the thread. We should get back on topic - why anti-war folks feel their lack of support for the war is not not hurting the moral of the troops themsleves etc....

Nikki_DZ · #18 03-19-2003, 01:01 PM

My opinion on this is slightly skewed, as I'm intentionally not as educated on this topic as I should be. I've been looking at this conflict as "ignore it, and it'll go away." Wishful thinking, yes, but as an extremely neurotic/paranoid person with a brother and several friends in the Mideast, it has kept me sane. I've been limiting my CNN time to about 10 minutes a day (normally I have it on the majority of the day as background) b/c thinking about this upsets me.

By human nature I am a pacifist. I believe that violence should be the very last resort to ANY conflict. I've heard the reasons as to why would should be doing what we're doing, and I agree that Hussein is a nutcase who is determental to his country and the world. He's not a man that's going to be reasoned with, and we all know this. However, I'm just thinking about all the innocent lives, Iraqui, Amercian, British, etc. that are going to be lost in this war. That's what really gets me. The powers that be claim they're going in there to get Hussein and then reset order in the country. Why do they think they can get him this time? They didn't in '91.

That being said (sorry about going off topic), I support our troops entirely. I say a prayer every night for a peaceful resolution. But I do NOT support a war of any kind, ever.

Love to you all. Stay strong.

fire1977 · #19 03-19-2003, 02:10 PM

I definitely don't support this "war". I believe there has been no real concrete evidence just some smoke and mirrors. For the past month or so I've been hearing people say, " to just blow all the people (over there) up, we don't need them" etc. and it really makes me angry.
I don't think it's necessary to attack countries where the majority of the population is economically depressed. To be honest I think this whole thing is to distract from our current economic state. We're going to go in, bomb the leader, set up a new government and let the country sink so that we can control it's resources.

I'm sure WE have weapons of mass destruction, but it's okay for us to have them but no one else. If the UN came in to the US they would encounter the same thing. In this day and age we should never have to resort to such measures and I don't think we have exhausted all of our diplomatic options.

With that said I really do feel for the families of the troops and I hope they all come back safely.
Just my 2 cents! I believe that everyone is entitiled to their opinion on the matter.

AlphaSigLana · #20 03-19-2003, 02:34 PM

I support the war. I support the soldiers. They are defending our rights! War has been here since the beginning of time. Yeah it is unfortunate, but we do not live in Utopia.
I heard someone on tv or the radio and they made a good point in regards to people worried about what we do to those terrorists that were caught in America(I can't remember the details), but people were worried how they were going to be treated and this person said," They are not American citizens, they do not have the same rights as us." Ok I'm sure I'm going to start an arugment now. But just so you all know the government wasn't doing any harm to these men, like reports suggested. But personally I don't see why we should treat terrorists niceley or with decency.

Honeykiss1974 · #21 03-19-2003, 03:20 PM

Currently on NPR (National Public Radio) they are discussing this very topic.

Check it out!

XOMichelle · #22 03-20-2003, 12:46 AM

I din't read everyone's responses, but dissent is important. Especially in a time of war when we have to look at our actions so closely. Moral justification is not decided by a majority.

In a way, I feel that those that oppose war "support the troops" more than those people who support it. How much more support can you give than, "your life and the lives of your friends in the military are more important than invading this country"? I know if it were my Dad, brother, or sister (a girl from my chapter is in the Navy) over there I would be pissed as hell if I didn't think EVERY diplomatic way had been tried such that no unecessary lives were lost. Shouldn't we be mad and voice our opinions if we think this is the case????

Btw, I think we have a decent reason to go in and take out those weapons, but I don't think we have a good way to stop this war from happening again in another 10 years. I don't think we should act unless we have a plan to repair our relations with the countries and people in teh Middle East. I think that because in the end, more violence will beget violent reactions, and that is against any goal we have. The only way to stop terrorism or countries from breaking UN laws is to think long term.
-M

XOMichelle · #23 03-20-2003, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AlphaSigLana
They are defending our rights!

this person said," They are not American citizens, they do not have the same rights as us." Ok I'm sure I'm going to start an arugment now. But just so you all know the government wasn't doing any harm to these men, like reports suggested. But personally I don't see why we should treat terrorists niceley or with decency.

he he, more commentary.

Wait a minute.. the troops are defending our rights to what? Demand that rulers of other countries step down? Are they defending our rights to invade other countries when they have weapons they can use against us? Are they defending our right to go after any country we think may be harbouring US terrorists? Should a country have these rights?I don't know about you, but I don't think it's a "right" to be able to invade a country.

Ok, you have heard of Human Rights right??? Things we believe we are entitled to because we are human? Breaching the "social contract" or law requires taking away some rights. And taking away your right to freedom is the biggest one of all, and the most humane at the same time. You don't have to like someone, but I can't see a good arguement for the morality of beating and torturing. Granted, it makes sense not to extend the right to bear arms to a conviceted felon or a prisoned terroris, and in that sense, they don't have exactly the same rights. However, we don't guarantee our rights in the Consitiution because we are citizens, we do it because we are human. Being from another country does not violate *why* we are guaranteed the rights not to have cruel and unusal punishment. -M

XOMichelle · #24 03-20-2003, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smiley21
dont hate me for saying this. i am not trying to start something. there is just one thing that i dont get.
i in no way shape or form support this war. i do like our president. i think he is a good man. i just wish i could understand why he thinks this is necessary.
i know the troops are americans just like us. i do have sympathy for their families. i just cannot say that i support them. they are doing something that i dont agree with. how can i support them? or stand behind them? really, those two are the same thing.
i am just disappointed with this whole situation.

Smiley brings up an interesting point. If you are morally opposed to an action, and believe that others should be opposed as well on moral grounds, how can you support others with the opposite opinion? Walk another step further, and one has to ask, if you don't support them on moral grounds, can't you accuse each person who decided on that course of action of choosing an immoral path?

I was going to try and make the question concrete, but I can't think of a good hypothetical.
-hit me with your philosophy.
-M

DeltAlum · #25 03-20-2003, 07:35 PM

Interesting delima isn't it. As a member of the military, you agree to obey all orders given you be competent authority -- whether you agree with them or not.

So, even if you think an order is immoral, you must, in theory, follow it.

But wait. Haven't a number of people tried to use that defense during war crimes trials?

So, how far "up" does that go. To the Commander-in-Chief? The Joint Chiefs? Secretary of Defense?

Bottom line for me is that it isn't fair to hold most service members in contempt -- or even the company and field grade officers.

I have a little more trouble when you get to flag officers and above.

That's my opinion, but it's worth no more than yours.

smiley21 · #26 03-20-2003, 09:56 PM

i was just talking to my mom. she is for the war. she was telling me about wars being in the bible and how i shouldnt make a judgement on something i dont know much about. (for those who believe what the bible says...for those who dont just bear with me) war is supposed to take place in the last days. my mom thinks bush is doing the right thing because saddam was already planning on attacks on the u.s. that may be justifiable but i just dont like the thought of killing people. that doesnt sit well with me. that is my opinion despite the fact my mother is trying to change it.

XOMichelle · #27 03-20-2003, 10:08 PM

DeltAlum-
Very true! I had never even thought of war crime tribunals. Personally, I think there must be a limit to what orders people wll follow, and that each person needs to think about where that threshold is for himself or herself. But I also understand it's hard not to follow orders. You can get put in jail, and you can get kicked out.

Have you heard of the Milgram psych experiment wehre they asked people to "punish" other people by shocking them? They had a person stand behind a window looking at another strapped to some electrical wires. An authority figure told the person to shock the other one in the chair because they were bad. The people in the other room were actually actors for the experiment and pretended to be shocked. Most of the people shocked the other person at the highest voltage when told to do so, even though the dial said it was deadly. Very few people said they would not do that. They reapeated the experiment with puppies and the same thing happened.

Crazy, eh?
-M

Optimist Prime · #28 03-21-2003, 12:19 AM

I like puppies. Can I have a puppy?

Anyway, I oppose this war because diplomacy was not exaughested. It seems to me like Bush doesn't hold human life, even those of his fellow Americans, in very high regard by sending them to fight in a war that was posibly avoidable.

XOMichelle · #29 03-22-2003, 02:03 PM

yeah, I want a puppy too. A golden retriver. ohhh, sooo cuuute!

sasharala · #30 03-22-2003, 09:15 PM

My opinion (being something that only I can control and earn and can be easily dismissed by others) is that I don't support the war or the soldiers. What I do support is the right to live. Soldiers are trained to fight and possibly kill. (That's why they carry the BIG guns) I cannot support that. But I do support the lives of those soldiers that are out there and hope that they can come back upright.

And for those who say that Saddam is killing his people, here's a thought.....Why don't his people revolt? Many countries (including the U.S.) has had revolutions and though it may take time, the evil leadership are usually dealt with.

Again, this is my opinion which I own and no one can take away from me so there is no use trying