Decius wrote:

"I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition." (from article)

My problem with pacifists is that there are times when you have to fight. We didn't ask for 9/11, and the people who got involved in the military in its wake largely sought to defend America from aggressive foreign threats. There is an arguement that pre-emptive war is immoral, but this wasn't a choice those involved with the armed services at the time made, and today, I think, walking away from the situation after creating the security vacuum we've created there is also immoral.

Lately I have seen individuals defending the war shifting gears. Now that there is no evidence whatsoever that we should have entered Iraq in the first place (at least as a response to 9/11) people keep defending this idea of action vs. inaction. An action taken under false pretenses to solve a made up problem is better than no action taken at all. This is the message I get from Iraq, and from laws against gay marriage, and voter fraud and all the rest. Action is better than inaction- period. Of course this is ridiculous. There are times when fighting is necessary. And those are times when you have done the research, have the proof, and know who and what you're fighting. Blindly firing towards the middle east to solve problems that start and end in the US? Its foolish. And I would have preferred a lot of talk over that action any day.

RE: I don't support the troops