What does "support the troops" mean to you?

[.Shane.]

To go back to the original question.... My level of "support" is no different than how I feel about teachers or many other types of public servants. I do struggle with what I perceive to be the over-the-top, strident, almost competitive, type of support that I see in a lot of American society.

 

[SuperJay]

I dont mind people speaking out in opposition to war...to me that level of free speech is not arguble.

Just dont try to tell me that such a person supports the troops. They dont.

In other words, I personally think the two are mutually exclusive. You cant oppose the war and desire its failure and also say you support the troops. To me its not possible.

I see. I think the crux of the difference, then, is that you equate "opposition" with "desiring to fail." Like Shane, I opposed the Iraq war, meaning I wanted it to end so those soldiers could come home. Even if we "lose" that "war," I was fine with that - because in that particular circumstance, what was the likely outcome of failure? Saddam's regime persists? Okay, that sucks but by all accounts, deposing him hasn't been all that great for Iraqis.

So for me, opposing that war meant that I didn't want it to go on and on and on for years and years with thousands of my countrymen dying along the way, which oddly enough is exactly what happened on the way to our "Mission Accomplished" photo-op.

 

[MobBoss]

I opposed the Iraq War, but once it was started, I didn't want it to fail. I also "support" the troops in the most general way noted her (pay taxes, want them to succeed, and come home alive and safe as possible).

What does that make me?

Then you are precisely the kind of troop supporter I want. Vocal opposition during the planning phase, but once the ship is launched, then lets win the damn thing and come home. I have no problems with that at all.

@Superjay. In your example, I think the reality of your outcome costs even more lives in the long run. If we hadnt taken Saddam out this time and just left per your desire, I gurantee you we would have fought a third war down the line sometime to remove him again. In fact, I will say that if we had done this right in the first Gulf War and killed/removed him then, we wouldnt have realized the current War in Iraq now with all its commensurate deaths.

 

[galdre]

so supporting the troops = keeping them in danger

not supporting the troops = bringing them home

that doesn't make any sense. I tell you what, if for some reason I ended up back in the military, please, all of you, do not support me

 

[MobBoss]

so supporting the troops = keeping them in danger

not supporting the troops = bringing them home

that doesn't make any sense.

Your right, it doesnt, because you taking the topic far out of its proper context. Purposefully I might add.

 

[IglooDame]

IG: absolutely. But whatever the reason, if the desire to see the mission fail for that reason exists, then how can one claim they support the troops fully knowing that the result of the mission failing will be more troops killed?

As a soldier, I am all for discussion on how to solve the problem in the planning phase. But there comes a point when a course of action is decided upon then the group needs to be united in achieving success in that course of action. To do less is to invite disaster. As leaders, you and I both know when we are trying to accomplish something and the detriment of having part of that team continually say 'this isnt going to work, this is awful, this sucks, etc. etc.' continually casting doubt on the mission at hand. It simply is not supportive of what the rest (i.e. the soldiers) are trying to do, and can cause the entire thing to fail.

Again, as a soldier, I dont see how such a person can claim to support the troops. At all.

As military leaders, we support and defend democracy and freedom of speech, but we do not practice it.

You can look at these figures and think: Okay, if the US population opposed involvement in VietNam more vociferously in 1960, willing to suffer double the number of casualties that year (a few hundred) in pulling out of there, it would have saved the lives of over fifty thousand US troops.

And more generally, I cannot in good conscience oppose a mission on the basis that it is not worth American blood to accomplish it, and then start supporting it on the basis that it will cost too much American blood in failing to accomplish it. I am not going to make a point of telling deployed troops and their friends and family that I think that their mission is a bad idea, but I would consider it my patriotic duty to tell the people that initiated the deployment that the mission is a bad idea.

 

[galdre]

Your right, it doesnt, because you taking the topic far out of its proper context. Purposefully I might add.

in your own words...

I dont mind people speaking out in opposition to war...to me that level of free speech is not arguble.

Just dont try to tell me that such a person supports the troops. They dont.

In other words, I personally think the two are mutually exclusive. You cant oppose the war and desire its failure and also say you support the troops. To me its not possible.

I don't see how I took that out of context.

 

[Formaldehyde]

so supporting the troops = keeping them in danger

not supporting the troops = bringing them home

that doesn't make any sense. I tell you what, if for some reason I ended up back in the military, please, all of you, do not support me

Just think about all those National Guardsmen and reservists who thought they would only be called up in the event of a real national emergency like Katrina, instead of yet another abject foreign policy failure.

 

[MobBoss]

Just think about all those National Guardsmen and reservists who thought they would only be called up in the event of a real national emergency, instead of yet another abject foreign policy failure.

Failure? Thats sounds like Harry Reid prior to the surge working. And National Guardsmen have been used in every significant military conflict this nation has been involved in...why would this be any different?

I don't see how I took that out of context.

You can't huh? Ok, guess we're done here then.

 

[galdre]

You can't huh? Ok, guess we're done here then.

ok, so if someone is against the war they aren't supporting the troops (your statement, not mine), so if someone wants to bring the troops home because they are against the war and don't want the troops in danger, they are not supporting the troops according to you, right?

Just because you don't like the your statements drawn to their logical conclusion doesn't mean you can accuse someone of taking them out of context

It is possible to support the troops and be against the war. In fact, I seriously question anyone's statement that they support the troops if they are in favor of them fighting a war they feel they shouldn't be fighting. Are you defining supporting the troops as supporting them in whatever they've been told to do, whether one believes it is right or wrong?

 

[MobBoss]

As military leaders, we support and defend democracy and freedom of speech, but we do not practice it.

You can look at these figures and think: Okay, if the US population opposed involvement in VietNam more vociferously in 1960, willing to suffer double the number of casualties that year (a few hundred) in pulling out of there, it would have saved the lives of over fifty thousand US troops.

And what negative consequences were to bad had for us not being involved in Vietnam? For not showing that we would indeed confront communism on a global scale? Are you able to contemplate any at all?

Or would pulling out of Vietnam that early encourage communist nations even more so, thus leading to other wars costing even more than 50k soldiers lives? What if our pulling out of Asia like that encouraged a renewal of the Korean War under the belief that we would cut and run there as well? Possible invasion of Japan or further as a result? How far does the rabbit hole go?

IG, you dont have a crystal ball to read, ergo, you can have free license to revise history in any way you want without any dire consequence to be had what-so-ever.

I am not going to make a point of telling deployed troops and their friends and family that I think that their mission is a bad idea, but I would consider it my patriotic duty to tell the people that initiated the deployment that the mission is a bad idea.

Isnt that the same thing? You are voicing your opinion, regardless of your audience, and we both know that troops hear that stuff overseas. There is no way to keep it from them these days once it goes public.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is possible to support the troops and be against the war. In fact, I seriously question anyone's statement that they support the troops if they are in favor of them fighting a war they feel they shouldn't be fighting.

Indeed.

I think we definitely need more gays in the military to teach the straights how to better deal with some mild criticism not even directed at them. That when people complain about completely absurd wars like Iraq, they aren't hoping that everybody in the US military dies a horrible death. That this is really just a red herring perpetuated by the warmongers to try to deflect criticism from their own ludicrous foreign policies.


Link to video.

 

[otago]

We're going to have to disagree there, on at least three points. Many countries which have liberal values today still practice compulsory national service - I can think of two just off the top of my head.

Your statement is also incorrect in it's implication that the state will simply back down from achieving it's political/strategic aims if it fails to raise sufficient troops through volunteerism alone. History has repeatedly shown this to not be the case - Britain in WW1, Australia in WW2, Australia again in Vietnam, the U.S.A. in Vietnam are three blatantly obvious examples (indeed in the latter, the U.S. Government never officially called out the Reserves, but did impose the Draft).

Finally, your statement rests on the demonstrably untenable notion that soldiers who can volunteer do so with financial inducements as their prime objective. This is practically incorrect in my case, I think practically in MobBoss' case, as well as being unable to be theoretically universally applicable as an absolute statement because the military is not "just for the poor" in all countries even if it is in the U.S. (indeed, in my case the last ADF Defence Census actually showed a vast majority of respondents hailing from Middle or Upper Class Australia, as Lower or Working Class Australians weren't able to meet the entry qualifications in the same numbers).... I think I just demonstrated this notion false using three different examples.

Sorry mate, you'll need to do better than that.

Upper class Australians ? care to state the definition of working,middle, and Upper class Australians ?
I'm middle class because I CHOOSE when I want to work but the income from my business keeps coming in regardless if I am at work or not.

I have five rellies in the Aus Army, only one would reach the so called middle class ranking in my eyes because he has a private income.

 

[otago]

And what negative consequences were to bad had for us not being involved in Vietnam? For not showing that we would indeed confront communism on a global scale? Are you able to contemplate any at all?

Or would pulling out of Vietnam that early encourage communist nations even more so, thus leading to other wars costing even more than 50k soldiers lives? What if our pulling out of Asia like that encouraged a renewal of the Korean War under the belief that we would cut and run there as well? Possible invasion of Japan or further as a result? How far does the rabbit hole go?

IG, you dont have a crystal ball to read, ergo, you can have free license to revise history in any way you want without any dire consequence to be had what-so-ever.



Isnt that the same thing? You are voicing your opinion, regardless of your audience, and we both know that troops hear that stuff overseas. There is no way to keep it from them these days once it goes public.

Oh spare it Mobby, some of us were around during those days, the argument that unless allied troops were in Vietnam Australia would be invaded wthin three months was a complete load of bollocks.

 

[MobBoss]

Oh spare it Mobby, some of us were around during those days, the argument that unless allied troops were in Vietnam Australia would be invaded wthin three months was a complete load of bollocks.

Otago, my point was no one knows the future, and history is what it is. And you will also know I didnt say a single thing about Australia did I?

 

[otago]

Otago, my point was no one knows the future, and history is what it is. And you will also know I didnt say a single thing about Australia did I?

Come on Mobby we heard it all before, invade Japan how, swim across from China or Vietnam with a knife between their teeth ?

The National Guard ? so why was the need for that project 100,000 ?

 

[Singularity]

Supporting the troops is a straight forward concept in my mind. The problem is when people extrapolate from that concept and lend people on either side additional opinions.

The real argument where people seem to differ the most on the expanded meaning seem to be; "Do you support the executive military policy." Which obviously has nothing to do with the serving men and women and everything to do with the political mandate behind their deployment.

And then you have the people who think they're clever and says that if you support the troops you also support the scandals where soldiers break the law and commit crimes of war while wearing their uniform.

It's a good example of people politicising a broad and simple term to suit their ideology or political conviction against any opponents. It's cheap and revealing in my mind.

The honest answers of a person not supporting the troops would be;

• No I don't. I am a pacifist.
• No I don't. I am an anarchist.
• I'm not supporting them out of religious beliefs(the great metaphysical hammer of doom).
• And lastly, no I don't I'm an active opponent of the regime who're in charge of my country and our army is my natural adversary in this struggle(often coined as a terrorist).

 

[MobBoss]

Come on Mobby we heard it all before, invade Japan how, swim across from China or Vietnam with a knife between their teeth ?

Errrr. Huh?

 

[Formaldehyde]

The honest answers of a person not supporting the troops would be;

• No I don't. I am a pacifist.
• No I don't. I am an anarchist.
• I'm not supporting them out of religious beliefs(the great metaphysical hammer of doom).
• And lastly, no I don't I'm an active opponent of the regime who're in charge of my country and our army is my natural adversary in this struggle(often coined as a terrorist).

You forgot at least one.

No, I'm not warmonger who feels the need to agree with obvious red herring from those with similar political ideologies.

I don't support anybody whose beliefs I feel are contrary to the basic tenets which this country was founded. I draw your attention in particular to the First Amendment. It is the right of any American to dissent to anything which he feels is unconstitutional, much less morally reprehensible. The supposed hurt feelings of ostensibly professional soldiers shouldn't even enter the discussion.

 

[Quackers]

It's code word for racist politicians to tell there constituants what they REALLY think /nudge nudge