Support the troops but not the war?

[GuestFellow]

I have been thinking about this.

I have met people who do not support the war but support the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. These people argue that these soldiers are fighting for our freedom. This view is also reflected by the mainstream media and nearly all politicians.

Of course, I disagree with this view. To me it does not make sense. The government plans the war and the soldiers put the plan into practice. The government cannot fight a war without an army.

Moving on, there's this claim that the soldiers are fighting for our freedom? Again, I do not understand how these soldiers are fighting for our freedom. It is not as though we are imprisoned by a foreign nation and these soldiers are coming to the rescue.

I see the soldiers as aggressors (Iraq and Afghanistan war), however, I do think some soldiers have been misled to fight in the war and I think some regret it. Then again, my sympathy lies to the innocent civilians who were killed for no reason and the refugees.

I also believe that if a soldier gets killed by the other side, its their fault. They have no one to blame but themselves. I cannot deny the right for the other side to defend themselves from the troops, these people want to live without a foreign presence.

To make it clear I am talking about the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So share your views.

 

[IAmZamzam]

The lie, "They're fighting for our freedom," has been the excuse for every single war the American powers-that-be have instigated in at least the last century or so, even in contexts where it makes even less sense and has even less of a basis in fact than it does now. And by "wars instigated" I may as well say "wars fought" because it's hard for me off the top of my head to think of a single one other than World War II in which the American side did not attack first.

The idea behind the expression, "I support the troops but not the war," is that there is no better way possible to support the troops than to protest their inclusion in a war that needlessly puts their lives at stake. It was an expression we used back during the days of protest when the Iraqi War started.

 

[Perseveranze]

, I do think some soldiers have been misled to fight in the war and I think some regret it.

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Many of them do. Anyways, check this video out -

May Allah(swt) give His help to the innocent suffering. And I mean that for any war.

 

[GuestFellow]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Many of them do. Anyways, check this video out -

:wa:

I will have to watch the video later, but it is good to hear that some soldiers have regrets.

 

[Maryan0]

I think it's a bit contradictory to say you dont support the war but then on the other hand say the soldiers are fighting for your freedom.
I understand those who say they support their troops and want them brought back they cant exactly say they hate their troops and want them to die. If there was an Islamic kaliphate and they were fighting a war I saw as unjust I would still support the soldiers but I would be against the people who sent them there if that makes sense. Soldiers are soldiers after all. There are people above them that pull the strings not that that makes them blameless. :hmm:
Salam

 

[GuestFellow]

^ Salaam,

I think people oppose war because no one wants to see anyone die from both sides. They probably confuse this with support. As for an Islamic state, if a ruler does start a war which is not permissible in Islam, I would not support the troops. Allah comes first.

Not supporting the troops does not necessarily mean you want them dead...

 

[ICYUNVMe]

Not supporting the troops does not necessarily mean you want them dead...

To many people, it does. When you say that you're "against the war", that means that you're against the idea of the war and the people who put the plan into action. Being against the troops means you want them to fail, and in the context of war, that usually means death or imprisonment. And people who support the troops do not want to see that happen.

Based on that, I do think it is possible to support the troops but not the war. Any great military has a close-knit system and hierarchy. There is a trust between the fellow soldiers and their superior officers. And while joining the military is voluntary, not following through with orders once you join can be very damaging. They do the job that is asked of them, plain and simple. They are not the ones who orchestrate the plans.

And by "wars instigated" I may as well say "wars fought" because it's hard for me off the top of my head to think of a single one other than World War II in which the American side did not attack first.

And this is just silly. I'm not gonna run through the list, but you might want to go over your history, because this is factually inaccurate.

 

[Maryan0]

^ Salaam,

I think people oppose war because no one wants to see anyone die from both sides. They probably confuse this with support. As for an Islamic state, if a ruler does start a war which is not permissible in Islam, I would not support the troops. Allah comes first.

Not supporting the troops does not necessarily mean you want them dead...

Allah does come first of course...I dont know it's confusing. I believe I would support muslims soldiers even if they were fighting an unjust war that doesnt mean I would condone the unjust war or support the leaders that sent them there. I think the people who make the decisions at the top are more to blame. Not to say that makes the soldiers innocent, they do have a choice even if their choices arent the easiest ones. I just sympathize with those who are fighting to bring their troops home.
I agree with this saying
I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in. ~George McGovern
Salam

 

[GuestFellow]

When you say that you're "against the war", that means that you're against the idea of the war and the people who put the plan into action. Being against the troops means you want them to fail, and in the context of war, that usually means death or imprisonment. And people who support the troops do not want to see that happen.

I actually agree. It makes more sense. Not supporting the war does mean you want the troops to fail. Along what you said, failure could also include that you want the troops to lose the war.

 

[Trumble]

The whole thing depends just what you mean by 'support'. There is no contradiction in opposing a war while hoping that if it proceeds casualties are kept to a minimum, be they civilian or military. I don't think there's anything contradictory in wanting 'your' side to win a war you oppose as long as you are in it, although that would depend to a large extent on circumstances and the nature of the war (WW2 would be rather different from Afghanistan or Vietnam in that respect). Many people opposed to war have in fact voluntarily served in them as medics and such.

The contradiction arises when 'support' means not just concern for the troops welfare and safety, but support for violent actions they initiate in pursuing the war and support for the political decisions that ultimately resulted in such actions.

 

[ahsan28]

There is no contradiction in opposing a war while hoping that if it proceeds casualties are kept to a minimum, be they civilian or military.

Given the lethality of the current weapons and the designs of the recent wars in both countries in which air has been used at an unprecedented scale, how can we even think of minimizing casualties and exercising restraint from degradation of civil infrastructure?

 

[IAmZamzam]

This is just silly. I'm not gonna run through the list, but you might want to go over your history, because this is factually inaccurate.

It's entirely possible that I forgot a thing or two, but if I were you I wouldn't be so quick to believe what the government (and ultimately, by proxy, history books) claim. You'll notice the claims are always biased in our favor, as in any country.

 

[ICYUNVMe]

It's entirely possible that I forgot a thing or two, but if I were you I wouldn't be so quick to believe what the government (and ultimately, by proxy, history books) claim. You'll notice the claims are always biased in our favor, as in any country.

You can ignore the conflicts in which the details are hazy. But there are many, many conflicts in which one would have to be deliberately blind to ignore the facts. For example, the Korean War. Sure, the US took a side, but not until after the conflict between the UN-Supported Korea and the China-Supported Korea started fighting.

Vietnam was another situation in which the US involved themselves after the fact. (You can of course argue the wisdom of these moves in retrospect, but the fact of the matter is, the US didn't start these conflicts.

Also, the Gulf War in 1991. Iraq invaded Kuwait. That's how it started.

Not to mention all of the additional places in which the US deploys troops into situations where there is civil unrest, like Africa. The US didn't start those either.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Manage to (paraphrase) part of a talk that discusses this subject

The slogan "Support Our Troops"

The point of public relation slogans like 'support our troops' is that they dont mean anything, they mean as much as whether you support the people in Iowa.

Of course there was an issue 'do you support our policy?' but you dont want people to think about the issue, thats the whole point of good propoganda.

You want to create a slogan that nobodys going to be against, everybody will be for it because nobody knows what it means because it doesnt mean anything, but its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something, namely 'do you support our policy?' and thats the one your not allowed to talk about

So you have people arguing about 'do I support the troops?' you know of course I support them and so on, then you've won, thats like americanism and harmony, were all together, you know empty slogans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7DdWmWUa_8

Pick your favourite bad guy from history (eg. Hitler) as they were fighting their wars of conquest and domination they no doubt demanded that their own populations 'support our troops' regardless of the crimes they commit in their name.

You can ignore the conflicts in which the details are hazy. But there are many, many conflicts in which one would have to be deliberately blind to ignore the facts. For example, the Korean War. Sure, the US took a side, but not until after the conflict between the UN-Supported Korea and the China-Supported Korea started fighting.

Vietnam was another situation in which the US involved themselves after the fact. (You can of course argue the wisdom of these moves in retrospect, but the fact of the matter is, the US didn't start these conflicts.

Also, the Gulf War in 1991. Iraq invaded Kuwait. That's how it started.

Not to mention all of the additional places in which the US deploys troops into situations where there is civil unrest, like Africa. The US didn't start those either.

I have to disagree. For example the US was involved covertly in Vietnam in the 1950s then eventually invaded (south) Vietnam when it realised the Vietnamese population wouldnt support its favourte dictator.

CIA were inolved in propping up and destabilising countries like Angola and Zaire when it suited its interest.

And the main reason for the Gulf war was to maintain control of the energy resources of the Middle East.

A good book that summarises the US rather sordid record of interventions all over the world.

 

[Darth Ultor]

I support the war in Afghanistan or rather what our original mission was: to capture bin Laden and cripple al-Qaeda. I do not believe the 911wasaninsidejob.com crowd and anyone who does is either a tool or just looking for reasons to complain about the US.

 

[Ramadhan]

I support the war in Afghanistan or rather what our original mission was: to capture bin Laden and cripple al-Qaeda. I do not believe the 911wasaninsidejob.com crowd and anyone who does is either a tool or just looking for reasons to complain about the US.

I was like you at first.

But the longer US occupation of Afghan goes, the more I'm not convinced that the mission was only about capturing bin laden.
How many trillion dollars and miltary forces spent?
how many bin laden captured? 0

it is downright unreal.

Only the most naive believe afghan is only about bin laden.

 

[Darth Ultor]

I said ORIGINAL mission, not CURRENT. Now we're just dealing with the Taliban. The Taliban were never our enemy. They were a regime that made the Saudi Royals seem humane, but they were never a threat. We did what we had to do. We got the man who actually planned the attacks (Khalid Sheikh Muhammad) and he will be dealt with accordingly. We destroyed the al-Qaeda training camps. We should not linger there any longer than necessary. Afghanistan does not forgive foreign military presence.

 

[Woodrow]

It is probably very difficult for a non American to understand how it is possible to support the troops without supporting the war. To understand it may help to know who a typical American Ground Soldier is. Most likely he is a very young man fresh out of high school. Often from a small town far removed from the major American Cities and with little knowledge of the world outside his home town. He has been raised and taught that America has never been an aggressor and does not get involved in foreign wars except when asked to by an oppressed people who live in fear of a tyrant aggressor. He has been taught that America is a generous land, quick to come to the aid of those less fortunate. He sees the military as a liberating force much appreciated by the defenseless. He sees the goal of the military to be one of saving lives, not taking them.

Upon indoctrination into the military he is taught that the land he is being sent to is very backwards and the people are not educated. He is taught he will most likely be seen as being the aggressor and as an invader instead of as being the savior. He is taught this is because the people have been surpressed and do not understand we are there to help them.

The personal intent of an American soldier is usually good and full of compassion, however he is usually ignorant of the true purpose of being there and believes that all the negative things said about Americans are the result of the people being brain-washed.

So this is how it is possible to want to support the troops and not support the war. The support for the troops being that they remain safe and cause no damage to any innocent people. That they return home safely and live to learn the truth, so that they in turn can help change American policy towards other nations. They can become part of the solution and learn not to be pawns of the aggressor.

 

[جوري]

It is probably very difficult for a non American to understand how it is possible to support the troops without supporting the war.

Nationalism.. which Einstein summed best in his 'Nationalism is an infantile disease' one should gauge in a war out of necessity paying attention to proper ethics of warfare not to attain personal goals, not to subjugate other people not to steal the wealth of nations but to establish justice. I don't expect that any western nation really has any understanding of that, they're all driven by greed love of self and personal interests.. today I was marveling about a news clip I saw of this British journalist mocking the Taliban and their poppy fields.. how soon they forget a sovereign nation which they forced into opium trade?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Nationalism..

... is a form of Tribalism.


LOL