Sending troops to die rhetoric

[pirateship1982]

There is one line of rhetoric that is really infuriating me. It is a line I have heard many times from the anti-war crowd. It is the phrase "(Insert hated adversary here, ususally but not limited to Bush) is sending troops to die in Iraq to die for (Insert evil intention, usually but not limited to oil).

I shall shelve any debate of personal beliefs over why the war is being fought and whether or not they are just. There is one phrase alone I want to single out:

"sending troops to die"

There is one thing the anti-war crowd needs to get crystal clear: WE ARE NOT SENDING TROOPS TO DIE.

That is correct. They are not being sent to die. They are being sent to fight. That is why they have M-16s, tanks, and air support. It looks to me like they came to win. Death for troopers is a possibility. This is an unfortunate but unavoidable aspect of warfare and no degree of tactics or technology can prevent it. But it is not the intent.

There is one side, though, that sends it's soldiers to die: the Al-Qaida. Suicide bombers attack with orders to die.

U.S. troops attack with orders to win.

So stop the pointless rhetoric. There are plenty of LEGITIMATE beefs to be found with the war on terror. Go find some.

Note to moderate anti-war protestors: If you find this rhetoric as full of rubbish as I do than this message is not directed at you so don't take offense. This is not directed at the anti-war community in general, it is directed at those who feel such pointless ranting okay.

[Temujin]

Yeah it is a bit extreme.

I'll be happy with, 'Sending troops to fight and maybe die, then bring em home where many will suffer the rest of their days, as well as thier children and spouses.

Yeah sounds bout right, just need a big enough banner to put it on.

[Karri]

There is one side, though, that sends it's soldiers to die: the Al-Qaida. Suicide bombers attack with orders to die.

Not actually. Their orders are to kill enemies, they method just happens to be suicide bombing

[Cheetah772]

Yeah it is a bit extreme.

I'll be happy with, 'Sending troops to fight and maybe die, then bring em home where many will suffer the rest of their days, as well as thier children and spouses.

Yeah sounds bout right, just need a big enough banner to put it on.

Excuse me, but spouses knew when they married their military spouses that there is always a possibility that one day military spouses could die in combat or an accident. It's something that spouses have to live with, but it's a risk they knew when they married their loved ones.

As for children, they did not have any choice in selecting their parents, but life isn't always fair, it can be cruel and callous at any time. Death will catch anybody at any time, no matter how old or young, lazy or hard-working, fat or thin, leftist or conservative, nothing matters to Death, it is the great equalizer, and it's gonna do its job with the least discrimination.

If the soldiers still managed to survive combat and went home. They won't suffer, they will have a tough time adjusting to civilian life, but they will have families and children to support them. It's not Vietnam today. There will be no splitting on soldiers, no cry of "baby-killers!" or "murderers!" except maybe for liberals like you. Those soldiers aren't coming back to 1960s America, they're coming back to modern 21st century America, which is far better than 1960s.

Finally, soldiers understood the risks when they joined the armed forces. None of them was forced into armed forces, none of them were drafted. This is NOT 1960s. America is sending an all-volunteer army to Iraq and Afghanistan. Even National Guard troops are considered an all-volunteer army. The troops in National Guard knew what risks were when they signed up as weekend warriors, with a huge possibility of losing their civilian jobs and comfortable middle-class lives, just as their spouses also understood the risks.

It's sad that so many people like you have absolutely no respect for military, sad....really....

Dan

[Patrocles]

yawn...well you'll get plenty of sympathy from a pro-military, mostly paranoid (as far as us yanks go) right-wing forum!

You go, man!

[Karri]

It's sad that so many people like you have absolutely no respect for military, sad....really....

Dan

It has a lot to do with politics too. After WW2 finnish veterans had to deal with a lot of **** due to, well we being neighbourghs to Soviet Union, but fortunately the recent generations have nothing but respect to show.

[Chas Argent]

It's sad that so many people like you have absolutely no respect for military, sad....really....

Dan

I think you, like most people, confuse two things - that is, the choices made by a government to pursue a certain policy of war, and the duty of the military to carry out those policies; and which is actually coming under scrutiny.

I, as an example, completely respect and honor American military forces for their efforts and sacrifice, but, at the same time, utterly despise the course of action my government has chosen to pursue in Iraq vis a vis military action. A soldier, unless he or she knowingly violates existing rules of warfare, is in no way responsible for the policies of his government and is thus free of any guilt or complicity. I know enough about military history to recognize that isolated cases such as Abu Ghraib are bound to occur, but otherwise it is the government which is solely responsible for any wrongdoing.

So while you may think what people may not respect is the military, I would argue that, in reality, it is government policy that is under scrutiny. It is an unfortunate fact that it then becomes easy for many people to point the finger at the military, because their efforts are the most visible proof of disagreeable policy choices.

[JAMiAM]

Well said, Chas!

[Temujin]

Excuse me, but spouses knew when they married their military spouses that there is always a possibility that one day military spouses could die in combat or an accident. It's something that spouses have to live with, but it's a risk they knew when they married their loved ones.

They know they are performing a function, agreeing on certain policies of that function is different. People are ready to make sacrifices, not be used as pawns in any other way, thats the point of the protest.

As for children, they did not have any choice in selecting their parents, but life isn't always fair, it can be cruel and callous at any time. Death will catch anybody at any time, no matter how old or young, lazy or hard-working, fat or thin, leftist or conservative, nothing matters to Death, it is the great equalizer, and it's gonna do its job with the least discrimination.

Life aint fair alright, so why add the burden of crappy policies that make it less so.

If the soldiers still managed to survive combat and went home. They won't suffer, they will have a tough time adjusting to civilian life, but they will have families and children to support them. It's not Vietnam today. There will be no splitting on soldiers, no cry of "baby-killers!" or "murderers!" except maybe for liberals like you. Those soldiers aren't coming back to 1960s America, they're coming back to modern 21st century America, which is far better than 1960s.

Don't start judging me on this issue, no one gave you divine right to judge anyone, hard may it be for you to believe that.

Finally, soldiers understood the risks when they joined the armed forces. None of them was forced into armed forces, none of them were drafted. This is NOT 1960s. America is sending an all-volunteer army to Iraq and Afghanistan. Even National Guard troops are considered an all-volunteer army. The troops in National Guard knew what risks were when they signed up as weekend warriors, with a huge possibility of losing their civilian jobs and comfortable middle-class lives, just as their spouses also understood the risks.

Yes, they are the ones making the ultimate sacrifice, thats why when their sacrifice is made, it should be a worthy one, not justr the whim of interested parties other than the citizens of the nation. Thats what the protestors are saying.

It's sad that so many people like you have absolutely no respect for military, sad....really....

Dan

You really are ignorant, so a person makes a comment that doesnt fit your ideology and automatically they are disrespectful, in a way its nice to see you contradict your own religious beliefs, i know if your religion is true you'll most probably meet a fierry afterlife.

[Admiral]

Back to the topic at hand...

Thats what the protestors are saying.

What you said may be part of what they are saying, but this thread is about something else they are saying, as well.

"sending troops to die"

Which very much IS a lie.

To say that what you said is what they mean by it is a huge semantical leap.