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. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

This article has gotten the talk shows all riled up. Its inceditary. If you're really a pacifist and you think war is immoral, obviously you'd offer that those involved are immoral. 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. Eventually, you do get to a point where continuing to support the armed forces is a tacit approval of the things they are doing, but the U.S. is a long, long way away from that point today. If you buy the conspiracy theories about "blood for oil" I suppose I can see reaching this point, but I don't. The strategy in Iraq is hard to understand and there are questions that can be raised about its correctness, but it shouldn't properly be an invitation to fill in the blanks with worst case scenarios. If we just wanted the oil it would have been cheaper to buy it.

I don't support the troops