Do you support the troops?

[Berzerker]

Well, you did say ""Support the troops" is fascist claptrap...."

No, this is what I said:

"Support the troops" is fascist claptrap thrown out by some people who get mad when you dont agree with their argument for war

Thats what you quoted, how did you miss the rest of the sentence?

I read it fine thank you, and that was what it implied to me, and I thank you for your clarification.

No, you didn't read it fine - you didn't even finish it. Now you aint even quoting the sentence, just the first few words. Btw, the part of the sentence you dropped from the quote now was the clarification. It makes it perfectly clear that an elderly couple aint fascists for patting you on the back.

 

[Formaldehyde]

How many people have said they don't "support the troops" under any circumstances?

As usual, the authoritarian conservatives wants to turn a lack of support for their own warmongering into some sort of moral issue with those who don't.

"Support the troops" is fascist claptrap thrown out by some people who get mad when you dont agree with their argument for war.

Indeed.

 

[downtown]

And if you think what they do has nothing to do with your freedom, do you think military action that concerns your freedom begins and ends at the nations borders?

Not necessarily, but I can think of other US military actions (Kosovo and Iraq come to mind) that didn't really have anything to do with my freedom. I think the idea of "fighting terrorists there so we don't fight them here" is silly...neither of those countries posed any significant threat.

They may be fighting for the freedom of Iraqis, or Kosovars, and that may be an admirable goal worth lauding..but I'm not going to say they did anything for *my* freedom.

 

[kochman]

Not necessarily, but I can think of other US military actions (Kosovo and Iraq come to mind) that didn't really have anything to do with my freedom. I think the idea of "fighting terrorists there so we don't fight them here" is silly...neither of those countries posed any significant threat.

They may be fighting for the freedom of Iraqis, or Kosovars, and that may be an admirable goal worth lauding..but I'm not going to say they did anything for *my* freedom.

Yes, there is a balance to be struck between national interest and outside of national interest.
Ok, Kosovo, we did that for the sake of our European allies, and I don't think we should have.
Iraq... don't even get me started... I will just say, both Iraq and Afghanistan, were I in charge, we wouldn't have done either. In fact, the Stan was worse... we invaded an entire nation to get one guy. Ridiculous.

BUT, you have to support the troops. It is their job, they made an oath, and because the world sees we have men/women willing to do things they may not support 100%, they know that we are a serious nation and think twice about messing with us.

Military service tends to better the people that have it. Not saying you aren't good without it, but those who do it, benefit (generally) from it. It gives a lot of people from poor areas with little opportunity a great chance at advancing.

I served, and I knew some kids who joined, pre-9/11, for the college money. They were poor. When the wars started, and they were in the military already, they served their stints. Many got out after serving that stint, many re-enlisted, either way, they deserve your support...

Moderator Action: Trolling deleted

 

[downtown]

BUT, you have to support the troops. It is their job, they made an oath, and because the world sees we have men/women willing to do things they may not support 100%, they know that we are a serious nation and think twice about messing with us.

Right, but what does that actually MEAN? Does it mean I have to support the political motives for sending folks into harms way? Does it mean giving you a fist bump, a beer and a thanks for serving when you get home? Does it mean making sure we give you the tools you need to be successful at your job? Does it mean I can't question the military during a war? Do I need to buy a yellow ribbon?

Seriously, I'm not trying to be a jerk here. What does it mean to "support" the troops?

 

[kochman]

Right, but what does that actually MEAN? Does it mean I have to support the political motives for sending folks into harms way? Does it mean giving you a fist bump, a beer and a thanks for serving when you get home? Does it mean making sure we give you the tools you need to be successful at your job? Does it mean I can't question the military during a war? Do I need to buy a yellow ribbon?

Seriously, I'm not trying to be a jerk here. What does it mean to "support" the troops?

It means, regardless of what causes the war (politicians), realize this person signed up to protect you, appreciate their sacrifice, let them know, pay your taxes.

Doesn't mean you have to say, hey, great job in Viet Nam... it means you should say, thanks for being there when your country called upon you to make the greatest sacrifice a man/woman can give.

I didn't support either war, and that was a huge part of me getting out, after having to go to both. A lot who didn't support the war gave me their appreciation, and I appreciated the sentiment...

 

[CYZ]

I'll support any troops, even if they're fighting each other. I won't support US government continuing to not oblige to international law, yet demanding and forcing other nations to their will. It's not how a first world country should behave.

 

[Camikaze]

I knew some kids who joined, pre-9/11, for the college money.

realize this person signed up to protect you

Was it for the college money, or to protect people?

I don't mean to be anal, but I think it highlights the issue. We're assuming people's motives for signing up. Should our support be based on an assumption or something more concrete?

 

[kochman]

Was it for the college money, or to protect people?

I don't mean to be anal, but I think it highlights the issue. We're assuming people's motives for signing up. Should our support be based on an assumption or something more concrete?

Both... and sometimes both at the same time.

There were definitely kids who signed up thinking we wouldn't go to war, and they said "I just wanted to money for school", but really they knew the potential was there... their primary motivation is really irrelevant though.

Your support should be based on the bottom line... these people stand between you and death... whether the politicians use this sacrifice wisely is not up to them, but they have said they are willing.

 

[onedreamer]

I don't think I support the ones that are carrying out missions I'm against. I realize that is a fairly unpopular viewpoint, but it's the way I feel. How can I support people who willingly join a military that does things I'm against? We invaded Iraq, and people willingly went and fought there. If people were already in the military, they could have refused duty, as some have done in the past. Besides Iraq, there are of course other examples of the American military doing horrible things in the past, but I am using a recent example. One older example I suppose, would be the troops who willingly carried out the Balangiga massacre in the Philippines. Anyways, I just don't see how I could say, or how anyone really can say, "I support the troops, but not their mission." Even though the troops are willingly carrying out that mission. The military expects obedience, and that is given by the vast majority of soldiers in the US military it would seem. As one article puts it, talking about the military (Note that this is just an excerpt from the article, as the entire thing is fairly long).

Volunteer soldiers, which are what compose modern armies, are mostly people who join the military and embark for missions in foreign continents where they are required to kill people for a consistent pack of money. If they are lucky, they won't have to kill or won't have to kill much, but this doesn't make a difference. They are at all effects mercenaries. The remaining part is composed by fanatics who really believe they are serving their country when they go kill people in foreign continents without knowing why and -worse- without questioning why.

Modern politics require that governments call these mercenaries and fanatics "soldiers, defenders of the homeland". But since WW2 none of our armies have been defending our countries, our armies are always abroad to defend someone else, regardless if it's been asked or not, but our politicians always claim they are defending our homeland, they are protecting us -in foreign continents. Should they not do so, the very existance of armies and the huge waste of money related would be questioned by the common person, the citizen who's asked to make sacrifices because of economical crisis.

Do I support people who kill for a living or that fanatically follow any order and justify everything in the name of something that doesn't even really exist? No, I don't.

 

[kochman]

Ah, yes, WW2, started by Italy and the Germans... where we had to send US, UK, etc troops to liberate Europe, including Italians & Germans.

There are times were combat outside of national borders is important... national interests. We could have nipped Hitler right in the beginning, but everyone wanted to appease the madman. 30+ million deaths later...

 

[IglooDame]

Now, see, this makes no sense to me. How can one 'support the troops' but not support the operation? Do you desire to see the operation fail? With the understanding that if the operation fails then soldiers pay the price? Ergo, if you dont support the mission you simply are not supporting the troops as well....

This is what Igloodude was referring to earlier in the thread. How can you wish failure upon what the soldiers are actually trying to accomplish and claim you are supporting the troops?

As a soldier, I cant justify that line of thinking logically.

I wasn't digging into this discussion much because in the past MobBoss and I have gone 'round and 'round without much mutual enlightment being found. So, in an effort to get out of the rut, I'm going to throw an analogy out there. It won't be a perfect analogy and I'm certain people are going to attack it as irrelevant and inapplicable, but what the hell, this is OT.

Congress and Obama recently passed (a watered-down version of) universal health care. A whole bunch of fiscal conservatives immediately and since have said that they not only expect it to fail, but that they hope it fails. I personally think it will fail, and I hope it fails as a national policy. This is absolutely distinct from wanting every sick and injured American to get good healthcare. I don't wish ill on any individual (well there's a few named ones, but we're speaking generally here) regarding their health, but I think there are factors involved beyond just X number of people getting healthcare/health insurance, including the $ amount to be paid, the principle of taxpayers underwriting everyone's healthcare, and "healthcare as a right".

Now liken that to Bush/Obama (with whatever legislative support is necessary depending on how the War Powers Act gets lip service paid to it) sending in troops to Berzerkistan. There are actually two different sentiments that can be felt here. #1 I expect their mission to fail, and so I favor bringing the troops back home as soon as possible so that fewer of them get killed. Or #2 I hope their mission does fail (considering its success will ultimately adversely impact US national security or world peace), and I regret that the troops are involved in the first place, but the fact that they were ordered in does not obligate me to cheer on a mission that I object to in the first place - I dearly hope our troops do not suffer harm, but harm they do suffer is only one factor to consider regarding US national security. The Commander-in-Chief has to balance the safety and morale of troops with other factors when pursuing national security goals, and so do I as a citizen.

 

[Rashiminos]

Anton, the Ft. Hood incidents, while irrational and also harmful, are nevertheless closer to the non-support I would describe as passing muster.

I want discharges, honorable, or otherwise.

Tried to quote direct, but getting Java Errors so...

That's interesting.

Sacrifice is usually something trounced out by someone trying to drum up support for political purposes. Guys, the reality of it is that sacrifice from military service takes many forms, be it sacrificing your time sitting out in a mud-filled gunpit while wet cold and hungry (your civvie mates are at the pub somewhere), sacrificing time with your wife or family who're constantly wondering if you're coming home in one piece, or sacrificing seeing your first child take their first steps or say their first word.

I agree, sacrificial activities are taking place.

Pawns are there to protect the agenda of the government of the day.

 

[onedreamer]

Ah, yes, WW2, started by Italy and the Germans...

If you ever studied history instead of just listening to your governments propaganda, you'd know by now that Italy didn't start WW2.

where we had to send US, UK, etc troops to liberate Europe, including Italians & Germans. There are times were combat outside of national borders is important... national interests. We could have nipped Hitler right in the beginning, but everyone wanted to appease the madman. 30+ million deaths later...

I'm sorry but I don't take your hollywood BS for granted. Again if you studied history instead of just accepting brainwash from morning to evening, you'd know how and where the nazis or fascists lost their war.

 

[duckstab]

Next time, maybe you guys should read more than the first sentence of my post. And no I am not going to explain it to you if you don't understand it.

I read your whole post and understood it completely. You're not 100% opposed to war but you generally regard it as a waste and claim that history shows it's more often than not unjustified. And you mostly don't support the troops. That's what I was responding to.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Volunteer soldiers, which are what compose modern armies, are mostly people who join the military and embark for missions in foreign continents where they are required to kill people for a consistent pack of money. If they are lucky, they won't have to kill or won't have to kill much, but this doesn't make a difference. They are at all effects mercenaries. The remaining part is composed by fanatics who really believe they are serving their country when they go kill people in foreign continents without knowing why and -worse- without questioning why.

Modern politics require that governments call these mercenaries and fanatics "soldiers, defenders of the homeland". But since WW2 none of our armies have been defending our countries, our armies are always abroad to defend someone else, regardless if it's been asked or not, but our politicians always claim they are defending our homeland, they are protecting us -in foreign continents. Should they not do so, the very existance of armies and the huge waste of money related would be questioned by the common person, the citizen who's asked to make sacrifices because of economical crisis.

Do I support people who kill for a living or that fanatically follow any order and justify everything in the name of something that doesn't even really exist? No, I don't.

I disagree with many of the opinions you have expressed in this forum. But on this particular issue, I am in 100% agreement.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, there really is no legitimate excuses any more to have such a large and completely dominant military which is so frequently used for completely absurd reasons. Those who directly support it by volunteering to be a part of these activities are mostly the victims of a massive propaganda campaign perpetuated primarily by authoritarian conservatives. They don't deserve our support but I guess they do deserve our sympathy, since they actually think they are patriots instead of the pawns of the rich and powerful.

That is the problem with countries with overly large militaries. They typically try to find excuses to use them to rationalize their huge cost. Take Iraq after the Iran-Iraq War, for example.

 

[MobBoss]

Thats what you quoted, how did you miss the rest of the sentence?

I did read it all (and its rather childish to allege I didnt) and it still implies to me what I said it did.

Not necessarily, but I can think of other US military actions (Kosovo and Iraq come to mind) that didn't really have anything to do with my freedom. I think the idea of "fighting terrorists there so we don't fight them here" is silly...neither of those countries posed any significant threat.

Well, part of that problem, DT is sometimes those insignificant threats build into more significant ones, often destabilzing entire regions which can indeed affect your freedoms. Also, fwiw, Kosovo wasnt a unilaterial USA action, but rather a UN/NATO type of operation - do you suggest we withdraw from those groups in order to avoid such conflicts? The premise of which those groups espouse is that miltary action done in their name promotes world peace and stability, which in turn does help protect your freedom. Maybe not in the direct manner you anticipate, but it still does help protect your freedom.

We live in a world today that is global, not regional in nature. As such, things done a world away have the potential to affect your freedoms to varying degrees. Its easy to say that 'Iraq didnt help my freedom' when one has no idea of the downside of allowing a dictator like Saddam who hated the USA, and did indeed desire to strike back at us in some fashion simply for revenge's sake.

They may be fighting for the freedom of Iraqis, or Kosovars, and that may be an admirable goal worth lauding..but I'm not going to say they did anything for *my* freedom.

If freedom is like a great big pond, all you are looking at is a single ripple of the rock thrown in. There is still a ripple effect to those actions which does indeed protect your personal freedoms here at home, you just dont see it. As a typical person does, all you are considering is the here and now and what is right before you. Not, for example, the 'might have beens' if Saddam had been allowed to stay in power.

Congress and Obama recently passed (a watered-down version of) universal health care. A whole bunch of fiscal conservatives immediately and since have said that they not only expect it to fail, but that they hope it fails. I personally think it will fail, and I hope it fails as a national policy. This is absolutely distinct from wanting every sick and injured American to get good healthcare. I don't wish ill on any individual (well there's a few named ones, but we're speaking generally here) regarding their health, but I think there are factors involved beyond just X number of people getting healthcare/health insurance, including the $ amount to be paid, the principle of taxpayers underwriting everyone's healthcare, and "healthcare as a right".

Not a bad comparison, but certainly a different metric to consider. I am not sure that the un-insured are comparable to soldiers in the sacrifice they make to the nation via their service, nor do I want to try and get into a measuring argument on whats worse, a war or conflict being considered a failure due to lack of support (i.e. Vietnam) or the formally un-insured still not getting (or being forced to get) insurance.

Now liken that to Bush/Obama (with whatever legislative support is necessary depending on how the War Powers Act gets lip service paid to it) sending in troops to Berzerkistan. There are actually two different sentiments that can be felt here. #1 I expect their mission to fail, and so I favor bringing the troops back home as soon as possible so that fewer of them get killed.

I think there is a slight flaw in your thinking I believe and its that a failed mission somehow results in fewer casualties. I think history proves to us that failed missions generally result in far more massive casualties among the soldiers participating in them. So I think your logic has a flaw in it if you think 'failed mission = come home quicker = fewer soldiers dead'.

Or #2 I hope their mission does fail (considering its success will ultimately adversely impact US national security or world peace), and I regret that the troops are involved in the first place, but the fact that they were ordered in does not obligate me to cheer on a mission that I object to in the first place - I dearly hope our troops do not suffer harm, but harm they do suffer is only one factor to consider regarding US national security. The Commander-in-Chief has to balance the safety and morale of troops with other factors when pursuing national security goals, and so do I as a citizen.

Successful military missions dont really have a history of adversely impacting the USA - but failed missions absolutely have.

 

[kochman]

If you ever studied history instead of just listening to your governments propaganda, you'd know by now that Italy didn't start WW2.

I'm sorry but I don't take your hollywood BS for granted. Again if you studied history instead of just accepting brainwash from morning to evening, you'd know how and where the nazis or fascists lost their war.

I know you fancy yourself a super genius, and anyone with another viewpoint must be stupid... but you are wrong. Please don't presume to know where I got my knowledge from, because you have no earthly idea.
Moderator Action: Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I have been a huge addict to WW2 history since I was a kid, thanks to my dad... Bottom line, fascists started WW2, in a nutshell. Italy was the fascist ally of Germany in Europe... the fact that Italy just wasn't very good at being Germany's ally, not withstanding, but the aggression of the Italians started with Ethiopia... they were basically the laughing stock of the Axis.

 

[Aleenik]

Volunteer soldiers, which are what compose modern armies, are mostly people who join the military and embark for missions in foreign continents where they are required to kill people for a consistent pack of money. If they are lucky, they won't have to kill or won't have to kill much, but this doesn't make a difference. They are at all effects mercenaries. The remaining part is composed by fanatics who really believe they are serving their country when they go kill people in foreign continents without knowing why and -worse- without questioning why.

Modern politics require that governments call these mercenaries and fanatics "soldiers, defenders of the homeland". But since WW2 none of our armies have been defending our countries, our armies are always abroad to defend someone else, regardless if it's been asked or not, but our politicians always claim they are defending our homeland, they are protecting us -in foreign continents. Should they not do so, the very existance of armies and the huge waste of money related would be questioned by the common person, the citizen who's asked to make sacrifices because of economical crisis.

Do I support people who kill for a living or that fanatically follow any order and justify everything in the name of something that doesn't even really exist? No, I don't.

Well, you bring up some great points. I agree.

 

[Communisto]

Ah, yes, WW2, started by Italy and the Germans... where we had to send US, UK, etc troops to liberate Europe, including Italians & Germans.

There are times were combat outside of national borders is important... national interests. We could have nipped Hitler right in the beginning, but everyone wanted to appease the madman. 30+ million deaths later...

There is so much wrong with this post that I am now hesitant to ever take anything you say about anything to do with any military as anything close to reality.

Moderator Action: This is troll bait. Stop.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889