Support the troops? Why?

The Daily Camera ^ | 2/12/03 | Clay Evans

[Ouachita]

This ZOT isn't aimed at you, drew.
It's for the goofball that wrote this tripe!

[AlabamaRebel]

The left doesn't oppose this war for any reason other than the fact that a GOP President is waging it. If Gore had been elected president and wanted a war with Iraq we would have been in Baghdad a year ago with not a peep from the Left or a protest bigger than a few hundred people.

I've been saying this one all along. But of course they deny it.

[Alf]

Gotta admit, it's a pretty reasonable, thoughtful response. Don't see what everyone is so upset about. Why so much hate ?

[Mudbug]

Why so much hate?

I don't think it's so much hate as rejection of the author's tone, stated premises, and failure to acknowledge the possibility that war could ever be justified.

The tone of the article, from its Nazi analogy to its protestation of a lack of intent to draw any such analogy, is offensive. The falsehood of some lingering media-complicity stemming from Reagan-Era warmongering seems designed to further offend. Then, the author argues that people support the war only because "In the '80s, the government figured out that it could play on our Vietnam guilt to squeeze public "consent" — more like emotional blackmail — for military action." (NIMBY!) Disclaimers aside, he fails to acknowledge that, in a "parallel military situation", support of war might be an appropriate response. What other reaction (besides hate) could this tripe command?

His e-mail response wasn't thoughtful. It was designed to further provoke. While he wouldn't "support the troops" in response to a pollster, he wouldn't wish them harm either. After all, it's just our government trying to cow the people into going along some nefarious hidden agenda...not that he'd compare them to anyone evil. Both the article and reply are intellectually dishonest, despite the author's stated convictions.

[Alf]

No, I disagree. The author's comments are well formulated. He was making the very important observation - and point - that supporting military action should never be "automatic". Leaders in a republic are responsible to answer to the public, to be accountable to the public, to prove their assertions, to prove to the public that their actions are legitimate. And the public must maintain a high degree of skepticism of its elected leaders - because leaders tend to LIE and become corrupt. It's a fact. Being a mindless lemming is the least patriotic thing you can do.

We all have to remember that we are loyal to the PRINCIPLES of the constitution, not to any one particular elected official. I think FAR too many people forget that basic fact.