The problem is that supporting the troops is not anaethema to the goals of the antiwar peace movement. You can support the troops by wanting them home and out of harm's way as soon as possible. This separation being made by so many Americans that you are either for war and for the troops, or against war and "against" our soldiers, needs to be addressed. It goes to the very heart of his argument that (as many have made on here), being in the peace movement means acting on the highest of democratic principles.

No wonder it gets we antiwar people up in flames!

For those who are antiwar and tired of having the flag coopted from you, there's apparantly a shift in strategy in the peace movement toward aiding and supporting the troops, now that the war is underway.

Here's one paragraph from an e-mail message I received: "As soon as the war begins, the Win Without War coalition, an umbrella group of more than 35 organizations, from the Sierra Club to the NAACP, plans to launch a fund-raising campaign, soliciting contributions for both Iraqi civilians and U.S. veterans. Arguing that the Bush administration is slashing medical benefits for veterans, the group hopes to raise money for families of reservists who have lost their paychecks and veterans returning from Iraq with disabilities."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-war-antiwar19mar19,1,3694480.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dnation