What does "support the troops" mean to you?

[MobBoss]

So far, the use has been limited and responsible.

Rofl. Wow. I really didnt think you would bend that far Jolly to say something like that. On one hand we are being told 'we arent taking a side' in Libya, and yet we are bombing only one side and continue to do so. We killed Col Kaddafis son and grandkids and you call that limited and responsible? Why, you sound more like a Rumsfield, than a Jollyroger.

 

[JollyRoger]

Rofl. Wow. I really didnt think you would bend that far Jolly to say something like that. On one hand we are being told 'we arent taking a side' in Libya, and yet we are bombing only one side and continue to do so. We killed Col Kaddafis son and grandkids and you call that limited and responsible? Why, you sound more like a Rumsfield, than a Jollyroger.

Where am I bending? This certainly isn't an Iraq situation, yet. So long as it remains a limited bombing campaign, in my opinion it is a responsible use of our military. If you disagree, then perhaps we should seriously consider where we should start cutting our military budget.

 

[warpus]

I support the Canadian troops in Afghanistan, they seem like cool enough guys.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Simple. You support their safe return after they complete their mission, regardless of what that mission is.

 

[MobBoss]

Where am I bending? This certainly isn't an Iraq situation, yet. So long as it remains a limited bombing campaign, in my opinion it is a responsible use of our military. If you disagree, then perhaps we should seriously consider where we should start cutting our military budget.

I havent voiced my opinion, but am just saying I am surprised at yours to the point of disbelief as often as you have lamented previously about US military action, cost, etc.

So you were ok with Obama increasing troop strength in Afghanistan, and secretly ordering our troops on the ground in Pakistan and predator drone strikes into that nation as well? Or allowing Gitmo to stay open, or hold those remaining inmates indefinitely, or deciding to have military tribunals as opposed to civilian trials for same?

I dunno, Jolly. I get the impression you are simply arguing this for arguments sake and nothing more.

 

[JollyRoger]

I havent voiced my opinion, but am just saying I am surprised at yours to the point of disbelief as often as you have lamented previously about US military action, cost, etc.

So you were ok with Obama increasing troop strength in Afghanistan, and secretly ordering our troops on the ground in Pakistan and predator drone strikes into that nation as well? Or allowing Gitmo to stay open, or hold those remaining inmates indefinitely, or deciding to have military tribunals as opposed to civilian trials for same?

I dunno, Jolly. I get the impression you are simply arguing this for arguments sake and nothing more.

My opposition has been to the waste that was the Iraq war. I have always seen Afghanistan as necessary and it is good that the focus has shifted back to that front. As to Pakistan, I bumped a thread from 2007 0r 2008 that showed my support of candidate Obama for a common sense policy. I don't know if you have recognized the wisdom in that yet as you seemed opposed to Obama's stance at that time.

As for Gitmo, the population has not increased under Obama. Most of the detainees were let go under Bush, so what we have left are likely to be some of the worst of the worst. The Justice Department successfully got a life sentence in a civilian trial, but for the President to close down GITMO, he would have to create a Constitutional crisis by spending funds that have not been authorized by Congress. GITMO is a shared responisbility between Congress and the President - the President is doing a fair job with the hand he has been dealt by Congress on that front (no funds for closing it down or moving trials to civilian courts) and he has outlined a plan for military tribunals instead of the haphazard way of doing things we had under the previous administration. I do not 100% support every detail of his Gitmo policy (I do not agree with indefinite detention if you can't even get a military panel to convict), but it is a lot more responsible than the previous guy or the stated plans of the guy he was running against.

 

[GoodGame]

This thought came to be in this thread.

"Support the troops" is extremely vague. If I pay taxes, I "support the troops". I "support the troops" but I also "support the teachers" in that I respect and appreciate what they do and see their jobs as forms as service that are underpaid and very much needed.

So, what does that phrase mean to you? In the sense that it means something to you, how do you demonstrate that support? Do you support them in some way above and beyond how you support other public servants or professions that you hold in high esteem?

It's meant to be a moral support as a kind of verbal or non-verbal "thank you" to those who serve, beyond the monetary aspect. I'd say it means more than just paying your taxes on time.

As someone who is lower income, who tends to receive a full refund at the Fed level, I tend to view my tax-deductible contributions to recognized veterans/military charities as "supporting the troops".

 

[GhostWriter16]

I dunno, Jolly. I get the impression you are simply arguing this for arguments sake and nothing more.

That you only "Get the impression" rather than being totally certain is the reason that you fail

Moderator Action: Flaming
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Simple. You support their safe return after they complete their mission, regardless of what that mission is.

Here Here!

 

[civver_764]

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.

No not "also regardless of factual integrity", that was never in MobBoss's post. Nice try though. If you think Zinn is being factually incorrect feel free to point it out.

But yes, it is worse to refuse to be open minded than it is to advocate for a position you hold via persuasive literature. We should all be open minded and we should all try to persuade others to accept our worldview(well, as long as you're convinced yourself and have a reasonable amount of knowledge on the subject). Of course the second is better than the first.

Also, @MobBoss: You said that supporting the troops means supporting their missions. Why then, is supporting the troops a 'good thing'?

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

No not "also regardless of factual integrity", that was never in MobBoss's post. Nice try though. If you think Zinn is being factually incorrect feel free to point it out.

But yes, it is worse to refuse to be open minded than it is to advocate for a position you hold via persuasive literature. We should all be open minded and we should all try to persuade others to accept our worldview(well, as long as you're convinced yourself and have a reasonable amount of knowledge on the subject). Of course the second is better than the first.

Also, @MobBoss: You said that supporting the troops means supporting their missions. Why then, is supporting the troops a 'good thing'?

Zinn is so factually incorrect in so many places, it's not even funny.

I'd say that blindly believing in something just because you agree with it is just as bad as having a closed mind.

Because not everyone thinks that our brave men and women overseas are slaughtering and/or enslaving civilians. Most people will not tell you that what the US army is doing is evil.

 

[JollyRoger]

That you only "Get the impression" rather than being totally certain is the reason that you fail

Actually, I am fairly certain that Mobby is arguing for arguments sake. He is conflating narrow, targeted missions with Rumsfeldian quaqmire and reluctantly maintaining Gitmo with enthusiatically setting it up. As a man with a long military career, he obviously has some smarts, so I tend to think his conflations are an argumentative indulgence rather than fully engaged debate.

 

[civver_764]

Zinn is so factually incorrect in so many places, it's not even funny.

Really I guess I should take your word for it huh?

Give me an example. Specific.

I'd say that blindly believing in something just because you agree with it is just as bad as having a closed mind.

That is, again, not what MobBoss's post said.

Because not everyone thinks that our brave men and women overseas are slaughtering and/or enslaving civilians. Most people will not tell you that what the US army is doing is evil.

Most people aren't really educated on the subject so I don't see what point you're trying to make. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy you know.

 

[Arwon]

Rofl. Wow. I really didnt think you would bend that far Jolly to say something like that. On one hand we are being told 'we arent taking a side' in Libya, and yet we are bombing only one side and continue to do so. We killed Col Kaddafis son and grandkids and you call that limited and responsible? Why, you sound more like a Rumsfield, than a Jollyroger.

It's called nuance.

 

[.Shane.]

There's another thread for Zinn. Please go there. Thanks.

 

[Narz]

To me it means "pretend the troops are doing something worthy".

It annoys me.

I both admire & pity young men who join the military. Admire them because they're willing to become better men (at least physically), pity them because they're putting their lives in hands who ultimately will use them as darts in a game for money & power.

 

[Glassfan]

"We Support The Troops" was coined (I believe) during Dessert Shield, 1990. There were posters and signs everywhere, including our local McDonald's. The Persian Gulf War was the first major American military operation since Viet Nam, during which, the troops ("baby killers") were treated uncivilly upon their return. During Dessert Shield/Storm, we wanted our sons/daughters/brothers/sisters to know we supported them personally - without necessarily making a judgment over whether our government was doing the right thing by intervening in another questionable (oil?) war.

When the Commander in Chief says go, the Armed Forces go. If we as citizens disagree with the President, then we may exercise our freedom of speech and challenge him politically. There's no reason to take it out on the troops.

 

[kristopherb]

Glassfan that is interesting.
To me support our troops means to support the men on the front line and wishing them to come back safe, while questioning the reason why they are there.

 

[onedreamer]

"Support the troops" is extremely vague. If I pay taxes, I "support the troops".

This is exactly my thought. I support the troops by giving the state money so that useless wars abroad can be fought. Useless why? Because after the 3rd or 4th oil war I have yet to see a decrease in price of gasoline. Actually, it has increased in order to pay for those wars
Don't get me started about bringing peace and democracy with troops...

 

[Formaldehyde]

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

You seem to be confusing "kind" here. It is really only the far-right in this country that try to march to the same propaganda drum. Take the Republican loyalty oath, for instance.

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

You mean is that actually my opinion? Is this actually your opinion? Or are you echoing something you saw on Fox News?