An Open Letter to My Current Roommate:
I know that you are a supporter of President Bush. I know that you are a die-hard Republican who has probably never actually questioned any decision made by your neoconservative leaders. I know that. I acknowledge that. As much as I would like you to be more open-minded, I know that it probably will not happen any time soon.
With that said, I must get something off my chest.
Despite what you believe and so vocally express, it is possible for someone both to oppose the war in Iraq and to support the troops that are fighting there. It is not only possible but, I would say, predominant in most "liberal" thinking.
For example, I absolutely support the US troops. They are simply doing their job. I have a good friend from home that is a marine. I am hoping for the best as far as they are concerned.
However, I do not support the reason that they are fighting. This does not mean I hope they have a hard time, that I hope many of them die in order to "invalidate" the war, or that I hope they are removed before they complete their job.
Therefore, I have to ask for you to stop your slanderous rhetoric. I am sick of hearing it, and it is starting to make me angry.
Thank you,
Your "liberal" roommate
PS: I really miss rooming with this guy.
Posted by Randy at February 27, 2005 10:25 PM | TrackBackAmen.
Posted by: Hookah at February 27, 2005 10:32 PMI'm with you.
We shouldn't have gone over there in the first place, but now we're over there we have to finish what we started. and we should fully support and pray for our troops.
There are many, many who support the troops and don't support the reasons they were sent over.
Posted by: anna at February 27, 2005 11:37 PMI think you are trying to have it both ways, I say so at my blog. It's just not possible to have it both ways.
Posted by: Ryan Scott at March 12, 2005 12:46 AMLet's chase this logic around a bit and see where it leads.
From your (Ryan Scott's) post:
How is this a misuse of the phrase "I Support Our Troops?" What does support mean? I looked up the meaning of support on Dictionary.com. There are nine different meanings for the word support, the most appropriate in this case would be 7a. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign.
You're being disingenuous. Actually, four of the first five definitions all work better than that one!
1. To bear the weight of, especially from below.Most opponents of war do all four of those when they can.2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping.
4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen: The letter supported him in his grief.
5. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities.
Besides, to define "supporting the troops" as agreeing with them, you have to assume that all of our military personnel agree with Bush's decision to go to war. I see no evidence that this is the case.
The alternative to hoping the troops will be successful is hoping that they will fail. This is the position of being against the war.
That is a straw man. I don't know any opponent of going to war who wants us to lose the war; in fact, some opposed the war because they didn't want us to lose the war (they thought it was unwinnable and didn't want our troops being sent into a losing fight like Vietnam). Whether or not the war is unwinnable, you cannot possibly characterize this position as "hoping that they will fail" without being maliciously obtuse.
Saying "I am against the war" means that I want our efforts to fail.
No, it means that I didn't want us to invade in the first place, and I am still critical of the decision to invade.
If we don't support the war efforts of our troops we support the killing of our troops.
Here's where you really start to annoy me. I have several friends in Iraq right now. Because I did not want them to be there in the first place, you accuse me of wanting them to die. Fantastic mental acrobatics, that.
Posted by: Wilson at March 14, 2005 12:01 PMAs long as we're beating the horse's corpse, I think I'll add two more cents.
As you so cleverly pointed out, Mr. Scott, Dictionary.com lists nine definitions for the transitive verb "support." Now, what I want to know is where you get off deciding which of these definitions other people are using. Definition 7a might be the one you choose to use in this context, but that doesn't mean that definition 7a is the "best" one for this context, or that definition 7a is the one that other people are using in this context (as Wilson's comment clearly demonstrates).
Let's go back to the idea of the straw man fallacy. First, and just so everyone's on the same page, let me define "straw man fallacy" as Wilson and I are using it: a "straw man" is an argument that one arguer sets up to be easily defeated. It is commonly a distortion or misrepresentation of the actual argument. In this case, you are asserting that everyone who opposed/opposes the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq wants the U.S. troops to die. As we have seen from comments above, that is simply ridiculous. In fact, you are not only committing the straw man fallacy, but also the fallacy of "false dilemma." You say there are only two possible viewpoints: (1) "this war is good and right" and (2) "this war is wrong and I want our troops to die." In fact, there are many other viewpoints (among them "I'm glad we went to war and I want our troops to die" and "I wish we hadn't gone to war but I don't want anyone else to die").
Now, about your "sample phrase:" "you wouldn't support a candidate in an election if you didn't want them to win would you?" Well, let's look at this assertion. Suppose you are a die-hard member of a certain political party; let's call it the Righteous Party. During the nomination process, you are in favor of nominating Frank Jones as the Righteous candidate, because you really don't like the other Righteous candidate, Geoff Burton. Much to your dismay, Burton wins the primaries. You are upset, but you don't want the Dunce Party to win the presidency, so you pay money to Burton's campaign and vote for him in November.
The point of that example is to show that it is possible to oppose an initial action and still support an action that results as a consequence of that initial action.
I don't know what "the left hates," but one thing I hate is when people make gross generalizations. I know several "right-wing" people who opposed the war in Iraq and a few "left-wing" people who were in favor of it! "Gasp! You mean people actually have complex viewpoints that can't be pigeonholed into broad general categories?!" I hear you cry. Yeah, that's pretty much what I mean.
Oh, and one more thing. In case you've forgotten, one of the primary things "that has made this country successful" and set it apart from other countries (at least in its early years) is the fact that its people can have differing opinions without being persecuted for it. Of course, that freedom not only "lets people thrive," it also opens the door for false generalizations and narrowmindedness.
Posted by: Martinez at March 14, 2005 12:47 PM