What does "support the troops" mean to you?

[aimeeandbeatles]

I think it means, even if you disagree with what the politicians are doing, to, um, to not give them middle fingers or put up mean signs at their funerals or disrespect them. I'm not good with words.

 

[MobBoss]

In foreign military ventures, such as Iraq or Afghanistan, the troops do not "put themselves in danger" for the benefit of the entire country. Very few people benefit from such conflicts, and you can probably guess that none of those who do are manning the assembly lines or cashing welfare checks every month.

If you dont think what occurs in other nations affects or benefits you back here at home, perhaps you should check the current price of gasoline. Of course we can have interests overseas that affect the rest of the citizens back hom.

If we didnt go into Afghanistan, and dismantled the Taliban and AlQaeda, do you really think the last success they would ever have against our nation would be 9/11?

Really?

Anyway, for me since I actually am a career soldier, support the troops means a variety of things. This includes primarily:

1. You support us fiscally via your taxes.
2. You support us with a desire to see us safe.
3. You support us with a desire to see us complete our mission successfully.

Now, by far, number 3 is going to be the most controversial, but its also one of the most important. How can someone say they support the troops, if they want the mission the troops are on to fail?

And for those of you who think 'support the troops' is meaningless, its not. It does matter to soldiers what people back home think of what they are doing. Vietnam, and how our troops were treated coming home from that conflict still resonates in the military even today.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm not quite sure why we have what appears to be a duplicate thread with the one referenced in the OP where essentially the same discussion really occurred. But that said:

"Support the troops" means more than just what the words say (given that even that is contentious). It is a phrase almost inextricably bound up with agenda-based rhetoric. It has come to mean more than just general goodwill towards members of the armed forces. Its vague and unclear literal meaning lends itself to this, and I think divorcing it from that political baggage is a pretty hard task.

Indeed.

The whole issue is "supporting our troops" really first came up in the Vietnam War, although there different levels of support based on the region of the country. The blind adoration was much greater in the South than it was in the North. Based on that tendency along with warmer climate, most military bases were deliberately constructed there so that the local populace could venerate them, as most of the soldiers demanded.

But all that drastically changed during the Vietnam Era, even in the South to some extent. The notion of "supporting the troops" became a way of criticizing those who were opposed to that war. And anti-war sentiment did mean that many people started treating soldiers with at least greater indifference, if not outright hostility. They wanted the war to end, and the fastest way to do that was to try to discourage nearly everybody from enlisting while trying to talk those who had joined into quitting as soon as they could. That general attitude along with ever-increasing demand for more cannon fodder resulted in the draft. War had become extremely politicized in the US and elsewhere, and those in uniform were easily demarked targets for much of that sentiment. That negative sentiment wasn't entirely misplaced. Very few soldiers were actually opposed to the Vietnam War, and many had even volunteered for that explicit purpose.

This sentiment of being directly opposed to the enlistment of troops largely evaporated after the Vietnam War, even though most soldiers still demanded adoration as they did before.

Now we are entering into a period of unpopular wars again, so it comes as no surprise that the same rhetoric is being employed by those who support them. They are calling into question the "patriotism" of anybody who opposes these efforts. Those who do so are "anti-Americans" again. And once again, that sentiment is almost entirely echoed by those who are actually in the military.

Is is right or appropriate that everybody in the military is treated as a warmonger during highly unpopular wars? No, there are exceptions. As in the case of the Vietnam War, some are merely trapped by their previous obligations made prior to the Iraq War and 9/11. Not everybody wanted to invade Iraq, although 9/11 caused a huge increase in the number of people who volunteered to fight the so-called war on terrorism. And now, many of those same people have changed their minds, at least about Iraq. But they likely still demand adoration, even after realizing they made a huge mistake. And most of those who did feel trapped likely did not leave. They have their careers to think about.

But is it also right for soldiers to demand adoration, much like many cops do, especially when they are used to oppress certain groups of people against the desires of the world in general? Should we blindly adore someone merely because they decided to join a branch of the military, regardless of their beliefs or motivation? Do they equally venerate atheistic "socialists" who joined the military? Or do they do everything they can to make their lives miserable to intentionally get them to leave?

All this reminds me of a quote from the movie A Few Good Men:

Col. Jessep: You see Danny, I can deal with the bullets, and the bombs, and the blood. I don't want money, and I don't want medals. What I do want is for you to stand there in that **** white uniform and with your Harvard mouth extend me some ***** courtesy. You gotta ask me nicely.

 

[MobBoss]

Indeed.

The whole issue is "supporting our troops" really first came up in the Vietnam War, although there different levels of support based on the region of the country. The blind adoration was much greater in the South than it was in the North. Based on that tendency along with warmer climate, most military bases were deliberately constructed there so that the local populace could venerate them as most of the soldiers wished.

Now wait a second. You are alleging that 'most' military bases were deliberately constructed in the South just so the local populace could venerate the military?

Seriously?

First of all, I dont even think 'most' military bases are in the South, and that the majority actually are outside of what the borders of the 'South' are considered.

Secondly, do you have any source of legitmate support for your opinion on this? I really would want to read this one.

Third. If the plan were to get the populace to venerate the military, wouldnt it have made better sense to build the bases near larger population centers?

This sentiment of being directly opposed to the enlistment of troops largely evaporated after the Vietnam War, even though most soldiers still demanded adoration as they did before.

Soldiers 'demanded' adoration? What?

Where do you get this from? Does this have any basis in factual history during or just after the Vietnam war period?

But is it also right for soldiers to demand adoration, much like many cops do, especially when they are used to oppress people?

You know, I'm not sure where you get this idea that soldiers 'demand' adoration. In fact, i'll state that from my perspective as a career soldier, I've seen no basis for it at all in my entire career. The idea, for example, that soldiers could be seen stalking the aisles of a Safeway store telling people to adore them is just simply ridiculous...not to mention it would have the utterly opposite affect that was sought. Thats how people react to such arrogance....

Ahhh. Now I see. This ridiculous claim of 'adoration' simply comes from your own personal perception of the military being arrogant....not from any real or factual examples of soldiers demanding adoration. Now I get it.

Should we blindly adore someone merely because they decided to join a branch of the military, regardless of their beliefs or motivation? Would they adore atheistic "socialists" who joined the military? Or would they do everything they could to get them to leave?

Soldiers dont demand adoration, but I do think it quite evident that you utterly believe to your core that those in the military are arrogant, thus this accusation of yours.

All this reminds me of a quote from the movie A Few Brave Men:

Now wait a second (again)...your basing your premise that soldiers demand adoration from a line in a movie? Not to mention the fact that the COL Jessup character had very little in common with your average soldier...given that fact, it would seem to support your accusation as being very minimal, as he was the only character in that movie displaying that attitude...and even then, he isnt demanding 'adoration' from the civilian populace, he is demanding what he considers respect for his rank from a junior officer.

I also dont think anywhere in your entire post did you actually answer the thread question. What does 'support the troops' mean to you? Do you think accusing them of constantly seeking adoration as viable support for them?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Not from me. I learned my lesson. That is all one-sided now when I am the target.

 

[MobBoss]

Not from me. I learned my lesson. That is all one-sided now when I am the target.

You make myriad accusations in your post about soldiers, and there are so many I couldnt just make a general reference and call it good. Your're not the target, your accusations as regards to soldiers are.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

I'm not quite sure why we have what appears to be a duplicate thread with the one referenced in the OP where essentially the same discussion really occurred. But that said:

Indeed.

The whole issue is "supporting our troops" really first came up in the Vietnam War, although there different levels of support based on the region of the country. The blind adoration was much greater in the South than it was in the North. Based on that tendency along with warmer climate, most military bases were deliberately constructed there so that the local populace could venerate them, as most of the soldiers demanded.

But all that drastically changed during the Vietnam Era, even in the South to some extent. The notion of "supporting the troops" became a way of criticizing those who were opposed to that war. And anti-war sentiment did mean that many people started treating soldiers with at least greater indifference, if not outright hostility. They wanted the war to end, and the fastest way to do that was to try to discourage nearly everybody from enlisting while trying to talk those who had joined into quitting as soon as they could. That general attitude along with ever-increasing demand for more cannon fodder resulted in the draft. War had become extremely politicized in the US and elsewhere, and those in uniform were easily demarked targets for much of that sentiment. That negative sentiment wasn't entirely misplaced. Very few soldiers were actually opposed to the Vietnam War, and many had even volunteered for that explicit purpose.

This sentiment of being directly opposed to the enlistment of troops largely evaporated after the Vietnam War, even though most soldiers still demanded adoration as they did before.

Now we are entering into a period of unpopular wars again, so it comes as no surprise that the same rhetoric is being employed by those who support them. They are calling into question the "patriotism" of anybody who opposes these efforts. Those who do so are "anti-Americans" again. And once again, that sentiment is almost entirely echoed by those who are actually in the military.

Is is right or appropriate that everybody in the military is treated as a warmonger during highly unpopular wars? No, there are exceptions. As in the case of the Vietnam War, some are merely trapped by their previous obligations made prior to the Iraq War and 9/11. Not everybody wanted to invade Iraq, although 9/11 caused a huge increase in the number of people who volunteered to fight the so-called war on terrorism. And now, many of those same people have changed their minds, at least about Iraq. But they likely still demand adoration, even after realizing they made a huge mistake. And most of those who did feel trapped likely did not leave. They have their careers to think about.

But is it also right for soldiers to demand adoration, much like many cops do, especially when they are used to oppress certain groups of people against the desires of the world in general? Should we blindly adore someone merely because they decided to join a branch of the military, regardless of their beliefs or motivation? Do they equally venerate atheistic "socialists" who joined the military? Or do they do everything they can to make their lives miserable to intentionally get them to leave?

All this reminds me of a quote from the movie A Few Brave Men:

Are you spouting Zinn again? And more importantly it's a Few Good Men

 

[Formaldehyde]

If you had actually read his book, instead of peremptorily dismissing it because it disagrees with you own personal opinions, you would know I wasn't.

And thanks for catching the mis-attribution. Fixed.

 

[MobBoss]

If you had actually read his book, instead of peremptorily dismissing it because it disagrees with you own personal opinions, you would know I wasn't.

Whats worse....dismissing it because it disagrees with your own personal opinions, or endorsing it because it does?

 

[civver_764]

lol wut. Obviously the first one.

 

[JollyRoger]

For me, supporting the troops means voting for a Commander-in-Chief that will utilize them responsibly.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

If you had actually read his book, instead of peremptorily dismissing it because it disagrees with you own personal opinions, you would know I wasn't.

And thanks for catching the mis-attribution. Fixed.

Really? I could have sworn I heard that somewhere in Zinn, oh well, I get his kind confused with each other all the time.

Out of curiosity if that wasn't Zinn, was that original?

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

lol wut. Obviously the first one.

Really so it is worse not to except something because you don't agree regardless of it's factual integrity than to accept something automatically because you agree with it, also regardless of it's factual integrity.

I've read some Zinn and not only do I disagree with him I find him to be factually incorrect on many topics and he also deliberately omits things that don't fit the narrative, and I cannot stand people who hold the narrative over reality.

 

[MobBoss]

Whats worse....dismissing it because it disagrees with your own personal opinions, or endorsing it because it does?

lol wut. Obviously the first one.

I think the wise and smart thing would be to say they are both equally damning.

For me, supporting the troops means voting for a Commander-in-Chief that will utilize them responsibly.

And as a soldier, I have no problem with that kind of support at all. But it does beg the question; did you vote for Obama and has he utilized them responsibly?

 

[JollyRoger]

And as a soldier, I have no problem with that kind of support at all. But it does beg the question; did you vote for Obama and has he utilized them responsibly?

Yes and yes.

 

[illram]

It tells me a lot about someone if they ask that question. The phrase itself is pretty meaningless.

 

[squall78]

thank them for keeping our country safe, no matter if you agree or disagree with their methods. most people in the military probably don't agree with the way things are done, but do it out of duty and loyalty to their country.

 

[CaptainF]

It tells me a lot about someone if they ask that question. The phrase itself is pretty meaningless.

Yup.

5char

 

[MobBoss]

Yes and yes.

Really?

So you agree with Obama sending our military to bomb targets in Libya and consider that responsible use of our military?

Odd, I didnt think you would.

 

[JollyRoger]

Really?

So you agree with Obama sending our military to bomb targets in Libya and consider that responsible use of our military?

Odd, I didnt think you would.

So far, the use has been limited and responsible.