What does "support the troops" mean to you?

[Uncle Anton]

@ kristopherb - Simply, but well put. If you're angry at your country being at war and why, take it out on the politicians guys... they're the ones you vote into office, and they're the ones who make the decisions.

@ Narz - Mate, we're not all stupid. A good number of us know we're pawns. Some of us even do what we do in spite of that knowledge, or rather because if we don't volunteer for pawn duty, someone else (someone we care about) may have to instead. So while I appreciate your sentiments, I don't think soldiers need pity so much as reassurance that they won't be vilified. I've said it before and I'll say it again, common courtesy is all I ask for from anyone. Goodwill in the simple form of a presumption of intelligence, civility and decency are enough for me, and for most soldiers I've met both currently serving and retired.

In general, I'd say the truly sad thing is that a reason exists why some politically motivated leechers unfortunately get a pretext to thump their chests at all.

The fact that they're able to shout "Support the Troops" at the top of their lungs and beating their chests without actually knowing what that means is that there was a time not so long ago in western liberal societies (Australians copped it from Vietnam too) when that common courtesy, and presumption of civility and decency were shamefully absent due to the actions, inhumanity and stupidity of a minority.... Everyone got tarred with the same brush then, unfortunately it would seem that same disgusting mentality hasn't completely disappeared and people are still getting tarnished with that same brush now.

Funny how when you look at the wider context you find that disgraceful behaviour is not the sole purview of one group with a point of view relative to another, isn't it?

 

[Azale]

Hate the game, not the players.

 

[Narz]

@ Narz - Mate, we're not all stupid. A good number of us know we're pawns. Some of us even do what we do in spite of that knowledge, or rather because if we don't volunteer for pawn duty, someone else (someone we care about) may have to instead. So while I appreciate your sentiments, I don't think soldiers need pity so much as reassurance that they won't be vilified. I've said it before and I'll say it again, common courtesy is all I ask for from anyone. Goodwill in the simple form of a presumption of intelligence, civility and decency are enough for me, and for most soldiers I've met both currently serving and retired.

I certainly don't villify soliders or question their intelligence (I've taken lots of risks myself). My brother was a Marine (fortunately back in Desert Storm not in today's endless wars).

As with cops, some get into it for the wrong reasons, some for the right ones. That said I think it's kind of the easy road for some guys. Don't know what to do with your life? Join the military, let someone else tell you what to do, where to go, what to eat, when to sleep, who to kill. I wouldn't want to kill anyone unless I was damn sure it was justified. I know not all military personal are on the front lines doing the killing but I just wouldn't want to be part of that machine. Out of a million (give or take) Iraqis & Afghans how many deserved to die. Their soliders think they're doing the right thing too.

I can't believe that every "enemy" will killed was a "evildoer" just as some of our boys are good & some are bad.

I just don't believe in war unless it's a damn good cause & I don't think we had a good cause since stopping the Axis during WW II (and we still shouldn't have killed & maimed tens of thousands of civilians).

In general, I'd say the truly sad thing is that a reason exists why some politically motivated leechers unfortunately get a pretext to thump their chests at all.

The fact that they're able to shout "Support the Troops" at the top of their lungs and beating their chests without actually knowing what that means is that there was a time not so long ago in western liberal societies (Australians copped it from Vietnam too) when that common courtesy, and presumption of civility and decency were shamefully absent due to the actions, inhumanity and stupidity of a minority.... Everyone got tarred with the same brush then, unfortunately it would seem that same disgusting mentality hasn't completely disappeared and people are still getting tarnished with that same brush now.

Funny how when you look at the wider context you find that disgraceful behaviour is not the sole purview of one group with a point of view relative to another, isn't it?

I support & respect the humans beings who sign up for the military, I'd just prefer to see them not as troops, I'd prefer to see them as ex-troops or men (and women) who can perhaps help us domestically while still being ready for war if need be (I guess they'd still be considered troops though). The mentality behind the phrase just irks me. Implying that our men & women overseas are somehow "defending freedom" which is a joke.

 

[onedreamer]

@ kristopherb - Simply, but well put. If you're angry at your country being at war and why, take it out on the politicians guys... they're the ones you vote into office, and they're the ones who make the decisions.

Couldn't be more wrong. To my knowledge conscription isn't practiced anymore in liberal countries, consequently the decision to go kill people in a foreign country for money is taken by the volounteering troopers. Without volounteers politicians won't start any war since they are already payed well enough that they don't need to go far from home to risk their skin to raise some money.

 

[Uncle Anton]

Narz, there's not a single thing in your post that I disagree with, and I heartily wish more people, soldiers and civilian alike, thought the way you do. Except maybe the WW2 bit, Korea was probably pretty necessary in my view, but that's likely up for personal opinion and debate. I'll shut up now.

 

[Uncle Anton]

Originally Posted by onedreamer Couldn't be more wrong. To my knowledge conscription isn't practiced anymore in liberal countries, consequently the decision to go kill people in a foreign country for money is taken by the volounteering troopers. Without volounteers politicians won't start any war since they are already payed well enough that they don't need to go far from home to risk their skin to raise some money.

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.

 

[MobBoss]

Couldn't be more wrong. To my knowledge conscription isn't practiced anymore in liberal countries, consequently the decision to go kill people in a foreign country for money is taken by the volounteering troopers.

Define what you mean as a 'liberal' country, because several european countries still have some level of mandatory service for their military.

Without volounteers politicians won't start any war since they are already payed well enough that they don't need to go far from home to risk their skin to raise some money.

Wrong. Without volunteers, they would just draft people as needed.

Useless why? Because after the 3rd or 4th oil war I have yet to see a decrease in price of gasoline.

Thats largely because the propaganda of those wars being fought for oil was simply false.

 

[onedreamer]

Define what you mean as a 'liberal' country, because several european countries still have some level of mandatory service for their military.

Troops in foreign countries are volounteers.

Wrong. Without volunteers, they would just draft people as needed.

In liberal countries this couldn't happen TODAY and you know it very well.

Thats largely because the propaganda of those wars being fought for oil was simply false.

If they weren't fought for oil what for were they fought that I should pay for them?

 

[MobBoss]

Troops in foreign countries are volounteers.

I dont profess to really know if foreign nations that use some mandatory service do this or not so I cant really comment on it. I do know that many countries do indeed have mandatory military service, though, which still counters your 'volunteers are mercenaries' schtick.

In liberal countries this couldn't happen TODAY and you know it very well.

Again, whats a liberal country and are any of them involved in Libya right now?

If they weren't fought for oil what for were they fought that I should pay for them?

Well, Iraq was presumably fought for the reason listed by congress when they voted to approve the conflict. Afghanistan is being fought for 9/11. And I'm not exactly sure why we are bombing Libya.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

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

I don't watch news channels unless something BIG is happening (i.e. State of the Union, unusual late night announcements by the prez etc.) I prefer to get my news online, from primary sources if I can, I don't really trust any mainstream media source to give me the truth.

Also you are dodging the question.

 

[Incodcito]

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?

Notes:
*Don't be antagonistic. If you hate the military/troops in all forms, congrats, but this is not the thread for you.

I consider it an extremely vague piece of political propaganda.

After all, what person wouldn't support the troops?

 

[MobBoss]

I consider it an extremely vague piece of political propaganda.

After all, what person wouldn't support the troops?

One that wanted to see the mission they are doing fail because they think the mission is wrong/unlawful/arrogant/imperialistic/etc.

 

[IglooDame]

One that wanted to see the mission they are doing fail because they think the mission is wrong/unlawful/arrogant/imperialistic/etc.

.../misguided/ill-advised/counterproductive/detrimental-to-US-national-security-in-the-long-run/getting-us-into-a-tarpit/etc...

 

[MobBoss]

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.

 

[SuperJay]

But by that logic, Mobby, nobody can oppose any wars without simultaneously wishing to see their countrymen get killed. What's the priority? The lives of those in the military services or the freedom to speak out in opposition to a war that is getting those people killed in the first place?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I don't watch news channels unless something BIG is happening (i.e. State of the Union, unusual late night announcements by the prez etc.) I prefer to get my news online, from primary sources if I can, I don't really trust any mainstream media source to give me the truth.

What online news sources are so much better than news channels, other that Fox News of course. And how are they not "mainstream media"?

And what do you mean by "primary sources"? Do you frequently contact the President, Secretary of State, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff to keep apprised of US foreign policy decisions?

Also you are dodging the question.

I'm not "dodging" it. I am giving it exactly the amount of attention it deserves.

What makes you think my opinions aren't my own when you claim your opinions are your own?

 

[MobBoss]

But by that logic, Mobby, nobody can oppose any wars without simultaneously wishing to see their countrymen get killed. What's the priority? The lives of those in the military services or the freedom to speak out in opposition to a war that is getting those people killed in the first place?

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.

 

[.Shane.]

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 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?

 

[civver_764]

Well, Iraq was presumably fought for the reason listed by congress when they voted to approve the conflict. Afghanistan is being fought for 9/11. And I'm not exactly sure why we are bombing Libya.

You're so partisan it hurts.

Also you missed my question on the last page. I'd really like an answer to it.

 

[galdre]

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.

But if you are against the war, and are arguing that the troops should be brought home, and therefore taken out of danger, aren't you supporting the troops? It seems to me that wanting the troops to be put in danger when it is not absolutely necessary is very much against the troops.