And if he doesn't do what his Commander-in-Chief orders him to do, he's a common criminal.

Last time I checked, there wasn't a draft. We're an all volunteer army. Supporting the troops means supporting them on the job they have to do.

Just wondering how much of your family served in the military?

You just don't get anything that I write, do you? I never got less than an A on any paper I wrote in college, so I'll go ahead and say that the problem must lie with you. Because you just don't get anything. Every response you have to anything I write is so full of Red Herrings my filet knife needs sharpening half way through.

I don't think you are stupid, far from it. But you are either so blinded by your bias you can't see what is plainly before you, or you are just being antagonistic. I hope it's the later.

Wow, an "A" on every paper. "Don't we just have a big old brain!" I admit, college wasn't for me. But I still think I turned out OK in the end. Of course, if education pedigrees are THAT important to you I'll be glad to bring out my stepfather Richard. I'll bet he beats the hell out of both of us intellectually (although I know for a fact he didn't get an "A" on every paper).

Dan, maybe you miss the point. If someone joins the army, they should realize that they might be ordered to do something they don't agree with. If they feel the order is in violation of the Geneva convention, they may decide to not follow the order. However, they also open themselves up to being brought in front of a court martial.

Supporting the troops means that we give them the support they need to finish the job. Whether that is emotional support, financial support, logistical support; in the end it is all support (obviously). Would you withdraw funds/logistics from these guys to show how much you DON'T support the war? Would you write to your brother who is stuck in the desert in a sand storm to tell him how illegal his actions are and give him a laundry list of the charges he should face once he comes back home?

You might have received an "A" on every paper, but I hate to burst your world view Dan, but all that means is that you can write technically correct (or at least you have a damn good spell/grammer checker).

Dan, let me ask you this question. Do you think anyone who disagrees with you is a "person who doesn't get anything"? Isn't THAT pretty damn arrogant?

Perhaps all that noisy wind out there in Indiana prevents you from focusing...

The point of my college performance (which was fairly average aside from papers) was that I have a history of writing things that were understandable. Therefore I am more willing to presume the cognitave difficulties are your own.

I can accept disagreement, when it is actual disagreement. But you don't respond directly to most of the points that are made. How can I accept your differing opinion if you aren't willing to address the issues I raise? How legitimate is your opposition? When it's based on the irrelevant arguments you present, not very.

I get your point. But it has nothing to do with my post. So it doesn't matter within the context of this discussion. It's called a "Red Herring". It's a commonly used, and generally effective, tool. When used by a skillful debater, it's intention is to divert attention from a weakly supported position. When used by a not so skillful one, it's an indication of a lack of understanding of the issues at hand.

Given the long list of logical failures on your part throughout our discussions here, at Dereks, and on your blog, I'm inclined to believe you belong to the second group.

Ummm, I'll chime in:

It was a Red Herring because "disobeying orders" was never mentioned in the original post at all. The issue was should WE support the troops, if we don't support the war itself, with the theory being that by "supporting the troops", you by implication, support what they're doing, instead of just (as many of us are) "supporting them 'as people', and hoping they come home alive from this reckless endeavor".

I gotta back Dan on this one. Your initial reply had NOTHING to do with the original post (maybe you were replying to another post or something? Dunno), and so made a pretty good impression of a red herring argument.

OK, I re-read everything again.

Dan - the reason Brian's argument isn't 100% as much of a red herring as it appears is because of your last paragraph. By equating the troops to the brothers, but then implying the brother is "doing something bad", you imply that the troops themselves should stop doing it, which is something they cannot do (although it's a weird double-standard that we tell groundpounders that they are obligated by international law to disobey illegal orders, but also tell them they're not allowed to decide which are legal and which aren't)

The analogy breaks down, because the real analogy should be comparing sr. officers as the brothers, with the groundpounders being like ... I dunno "hapless dupes" or something, because the gropos don't have any real say in their actions.

I disagree, Derek. The last paragraph sums up my point, and refers to the treatment many Vietnam Vets received. While they did kill babies, so will the troops in Iraq. But I'm not going to call them baby killers. I'm going to welcome them home with open arms. The point is that I'm not holding their choices against them, as I know they aren't choices in the same context as mine.

How they got to that fork in the road does not matter. If they choose a path I don't support, then I can't support them.

Granted, the word "support" is fairly ambigious, and given to braod interpretations. Which is exactly why it's a poor choice of words to describe my feeling. All I want, all most people want, is for the people we love to come back alive and well. Give me a slogan that speaks to that desire, and I'll put the bumper sticker on my car.

How about "I Don't Like My Government and I Don't Like This War but I want our troops to come home OK".

Hope you own an old Cadillac, that's probably the only thing it would fit on. :-)

The phrase is "Support our Troops" not "Support our War". It means just what it says. That no matter what you think of the war, our troops are in a bad situation and we are there to support them as they perform their duty. I know if I was on a battlefield with bullets flying around my head and grenades going off, that I would want to know that my American brothers and sisters were supporting me back home. If you have a problem with the war that put the various "No Iraq War" and "Don't Support Bush" bumper stickers on your vehicle.

Dan,
Im far from a rocket scientist and definately not an "A" student, but I did however spend almost 7 years in the army. You must not have any friends in the military if you did I'll bet you would not have the courage to call them a war criminal, if you did I would bet a million to one that you would not make it out of the room. In case you don,t remember history too well, it was "War Criminals" like me that give you the right to type that crap. If it was not for soldiers like those of us who went to Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan You would be in a country where you would be put to death for Treason for what you wrote.
SPC. Robert Watson
United States Army