Are our troops dying for the wrong war?

[capaylib]

I am on a roll now...thanks for responding to my first post.

Another thing that has been bugging me is Kerry's response to the question, "are you saying our troops are dying for a mistake" (not the exact question, but close). Of course Kerry had to say no, but isn't there a better response, one that could be distilled down to a 30 or 60 second response. A response that still allows Kerry to walk the fine line of "political correctness" and not affect (effect?) his "elect-ability".

How about:

Our troops service to their country, regardless of the realities of this war, is honorable (blah, blah..etc). Whether they died in vein is something only time can tell, but they won't die in vein on my watch. The situation in Iraq is tragic 10's of thousands of Iraqis have died and we are sure to suffer more loss of life, but my plan offers hope that this war was not fought in vein, that the Iraqi people will know a country free of the tyranny of Saddam (and the occupation forces...I know he'd never say that)and that we will bring our troops home!

[NYC Liberal]

1. Kerry's response should have been:

"Our troops aren't dying for a mistake; they're dying to fix a mistake."

[FlemingsGhost]

2. When is war ever "right?"

Our troops are dying for greed. Wars are fought for money and power.

[capaylib]

6. I Agree

but, I don't think Kerry could/would say that and still get elected. I can't tell you how badly I would like to be wrong about this, or how I long the hear Kerry just lay it on the line and for people (enough to beat Bush) to say YEAH!!! I just don't think it will happen.

[immoderate]

3. The better response is what you said...

To say "are you saying our troops are dying for a mistake" is a variation of a "beating your wife" question because the response is limited to talking about the troops, who are actually victims, but not to be denigrated.

It invites a "That's the wrong question!" type of response. Followed by "Who made the mistake?" That's the question.

--IMM

[SayitAintSo]

4. He did say he differentiated between the WAR and....

the WARRIOR.... always supporting the latter or something like that.... he did draw a distinction. I think the debate on this is being primed for a ramp up in the campaign rheotoric.

" how can you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake ....." We haven't REALLY gone there yet..I think it's coming.

[Tracer]

5. There has never been a moral justification for this war.

Oh yes, there have been any number of political justifications, national security justifications, emotional justifications.

But never has anyone Ñ not in the commentariat, the Congress, nor the Administration tried to justify this war on moral grounds.

I've just finished reading "Crusade'; Chronicles of an Unjust Way" by James Carroll and it struck me as the correct way to look at the Iraq catastrophe.

I recommend it highly.

[nostamj]

7. the transcripts | Kerry on "mistakes"

KERRY: I wasn't misleading when I said he was a threat. Nor was I misleading on the day that the president decided to go to war when I said that he had made a mistake in not building strong alliances and that I would have preferred that he did more diplomacy.

I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way.

<snip>

KERRY: Now, if you break it, you made a mistake. It's the wrong thing to do. But you own it. And then you've got to fix it and do something with it.

Now that's what we have to do. There's no inconsistency. Soldiers know over there that this isn't being done right yet. I'm going to get it right for those soldiers, because it's important to Israel, it's important to America, it's important to the world, it's important to the fight on terror.

But I have a plan to do it. He doesn't.


KERRY: Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was. Now, we can succeed. But I don't believe this president can. I think we need a president who has the credibility to bring the allies back to the table and to do what's necessary to make it so America isn't doing this alone.

Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was. Now, we can succeed. But I don't believe this president can. I think we need a president who has the credibility to bring the allies back to the table and to do what's necessary to make it so America isn't doing this alone.


KERRY: I wasn't misleading when I said he was a threat. Nor was I misleading on the day that the president decided to go to war when I said that he had made a mistake in not building strong alliances and that I would have preferred that he did more diplomacy.

I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way.

[welshTerrier2]

8. the question is bogus

welcome to DU, capaylib !!

implicit in the question is the implication that if you question the rightness of the war, you question the motives of the troops ... it's like asking "are you suggesting that these brave young Americans are not fighting to protect our freedoms and help spread democracy around the world?" ...

what's at issue here is not whether the troops are fighting, or dying, for a cause they believe in ... perhaps some are ... perhaps some are not ... the real issue is whether they should be fighting at all ...

we can honor their service without agreeing that the war is justified ... they signed on to protect the country ... frankly, once they've done this, they have very little choice to determine whether any given war is indeed "protecting the country" or putting the country at greater risk ... we can freely believe that their motives are honorable and we can honor them for their service ...

but none of this obligates us to support sending them to war ... should democracy end when war is declared? is that the implicit argument here? it's total bullshit ... wartime is the most important time for citizens to participate in their democracy ... to suggest that all should just go along because troops are dying is no more than wrapping yourself in the flag ... actually, it's worse ...

[capaylib]

9. Well said

I would love to hear something like that from the Kerry campaign. Rather than responding to all these bogus questions, call them out as bogus and then state the real issue....just have to distill it down to high impact, catchy 30 second phrases.

Any time I have had a question or issue about Kerry's campaign, whether he flip flopped, how he voted, etc. I can dig and find out about it and determine the facts...and usually can figure out where Kerry is coming from. The problem is a majority of our opposition in this election wouldn't take the time to do that.

We need to keep things straight in our own minds and at the same time try to hammer home some sound bites...hopefully soundbites regarding real, present day issues.