What does "support the troops" mean to you?

[Singularity]

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.

But the question wasn't whether you supported all the people who supports the troops or whether you're against a particular war. I my mind you're going far beyond the original and seemingly simple premise of supporting the troops.

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.

That's close to a revolutionary tenet of beliefs though. Ideally a military is the arm of whatever democratically elected government rules. And if you think there's a systematic fault somewhere that doesn't allow you to influence it any more you're opposing the very fabric of your government on all levels of executive policy. Which should fit to the last point on my list of opponents. One man's revolutionary is another man's terrorist.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I am doing nothing of the sort. I respect those who have earned my respect. The soldier who is even worried about this obvious red herring doesn't come close to qualifying. I suggest they find a job in a far less demanding occupation. The last thing we should have to worry about is coddling soldiers whose feelings are hurt because they likely signed up for all the wrong reasons.

And I know that many well-adjusted soldiers aren't bothered in the least by healthy criticism of the obvious foreign policy blunders made by this country. Witness their reaction when Colbert went to Iraq and poked fun at this particular issue. They know from personal experience how wrong the Bush administration was in that particular case, just as the majority of soldiers knew in Vietnam they shouldn't even be there.

 

[Xanikk999]

It's just a meaningless catch phrase to me and I beileve most people who actual do say it actually do nothing for the cause. Which makes me think they are blindly patriotic.

 

[Singularity]

I am doing nothing of the sort. I respect those who have earned my respect. The soldier who is even worried about this obvious red herring doesn't come close to qualifying. I suggest they find a job is a far less demanding occupation. The last thing we should have to worry about is coddling soldiers whose feelings are hurt because they likely signed up for all the wrong reasons.

And I know that many well-adjusted soldiers aren't bothered in the least by healthy criticism of the obvious foreign policy blunders made by this country. Witness their reaction when Colbert when to Iraq and poked fun at this particular issue. They know from personal experience how wrong the Bush administration was in that particular case, just as the majority of soldiers knew in Vietnam they shouldn't even be there.

Some good points there. But don't you think you can both support the troops and be critical of their conduct from case to case where they break moral, ethical and international law during an operation?

My most clear idea of how misguided the opposition of the troops is the way the Vietnam veterans where treated when they returned to the US. Isolated incidents of misconduct where extrapolated to a universal opposition and hatred against all serving men and women since they served in the same uniform as those criminals who broke all laws in war crimes against the civilian population. I think it's unfortunate and deeply wrong without starting an argument of whether it's unpatriotic.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Some good points there. But don't you think you can both support the troops and be critical of their conduct from case to case where they break moral, ethical and international law during an operation?

Case to case, sure. Not everybody thought that we should be in Vietnam. Many went quite reluctantly and frequently tried to get out of their military commitment as soon as they could. Many career servicemen resigned instead of going.

But I also strongly think that the military and police should be held to a much higher code of conduct, because they are ostensibly the only people who can legally kill others without even a trial. They must be held accountable for all of their acts because the ends never justify the means in a free and democratic society. These incidents have been occurring all-too-frequently, and outside of the typical scapegoats they go largely unaccountable.

My most clear idea of how misguided the opposition of the troops is the way the Vietnam veterans where treated when they returned to the US. Isolated incidents of misconduct where extrapolated to a universal opposition and hatred against all serving men and women since they served in the same uniform as those criminals who broke all laws in war crimes against the civilian population. I think it's unfortunate and deeply wrong without starting an argument of whether it's unpatriotic.

Most did not. They merely refused to idolize and venerate those who had served. That was what really pissed off so many of the vets. They were actually expecting to be treated like WWII vets who were all treated like heroes, no matter what role they played.

I think that was clearly a false expectation on their part which is completely out of line with the sentiment at the time, regardless of what propaganda the solders believed.

 

[Singularity]

Case to case, sure. Not everybody thought that we should be in Vietnam. Many went quite reluctantly and frequently tried to get out of their military commitment as soon as they could. Many career servicemen resigned instead of going.

But I also strongly think that the military and police should be held to a much higher code of conduct, because they are ostensibly the only people who can legally kill others without even a trial. They must be held accountable for all of their acts because the ends never justify the means in a free and democratic society. These incidents have been occurring all-too-frequently, and outside of the typical scapegoats they go largely unaccountable.

Most did not. They merely refused to idolize and venerate those who had served. That was what really pissed off so many of the vets. They were actually expecting to be treated like WWII vets who were all treated like heroes, no matter what role they played.

I think that was clearly a false expectation on their part which is completely out of line with the sentiment at the time, regardless of what propaganda the solders believed.

I support the troops. But I have not for a moment thought that they're perfect beings incapable of fallacy. This is probably close to the reactionary misconception of troop support. That they're somehow elevated above the low and are not subjects for possible legal persecution as a consequence of their actions. The US probably is among the weaker parts of western military forces in terms of recognizing international law and offering up their combatants to the local law where they committed the crime. Various oversea naval bases, training accidents and friendly fire are all examples of criminal acts where US law couldn't and wouldn't release the soldiers for a foreign jury to prosecute them. Accountability does not mean support though. And is a clear extrapolation of the original term of support.

I don't idolize or venerate my national military. I've just reached a pragmatical and to me logical conclusion that we need a military, and that I support them out of that necessity. Beyond that I will not tie yellow ribbons around trees, go to parades or ignore cases where they commit a crime during an operation. All the more reason to support them I think because there's so many false and twisted forms or opposing and supporting them beyond what should be common sense of supporting ones military forces. I won't stop supporting them just because people watch them as unblemished heroes or inherently flawed creatures of a wrong politic.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Do you believe that I am capable of supporting my nations troops while at the same time being able to criticize when they fail?

See my modified response above.

When that is said. I don't doubt there would be parades after such a conflict as we saw in world war 2. The stakes and sacrifices where unprecedented, and the sense of relief and celebration is hard to connect to a limited regional conflict or a war.

That is one of the primary reasons why I think it is so absurd to think they would have such a response in this day and age. If I see a soldier in uniform, I wonder if he thinks his benefits will outweigh all the negatives to being an American soldier in this day and age. I don't wonder what pivotal role he may have played saving us all in a war actually won by the Russians.

 

[DaveShack]

For me "support the troops" is a deeply personal thing. A lot of that is because I come from a family where we all volunteered for military service.

• When they're in uniform, greet them with eye contact, a handshake, and a hearty "thank you for serving our country".
• Attending school assemblies honoring the troops (my kids are in elementary school) where we have active duty guest speakers. I'm one of the volunteers who helps make the events happen.
• Sending them care packages. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts both have "troop to troop" sales in their respective fundraisers (popcorn & cookies). I buy a few boxes for the troops.
• Showing up at homecoming rallies at the airport. (*) Haven't actually had this work out yet, unfortunately.
  

I could go on, but this should be enough to get my point across.

 

[PeteAtoms]

Supporting the troops:

- I pay my taxes
- I exercise my freedoms
- I don't spit on them or call them babykillers
- I support them by not making them a spectacle
---> I don't feel the need to tell the world I support them or buy a yellow ribbon for my SUV
- I donate to a few military related charities for returning soldiers and soldiers overseas (not a lot, but still...)
- I treat those with honor honorably
- I recognize they don't get a lot of credit, and the credit they do get seems like unconditional worship. So I try to keep it real with any soldiers I meet, I'm not going to bend over backwards for them, but I will give them the respect their occupation carries. If a soldier feels like I should be on my knees, licking their boots, I'll probably avoid them.

 

[Singularity]

See my modified response above.

Yeah... I think we messed that exchange up a bit with our editing. You're quoting my deleted post, I bolloxed it up a bit as a reaction to the large edit of your post.

That is one of the primary reasons why I think it is so absurd to think they would have such a response in this day and age. If I see a soldier in uniform, I wonder if he thinks his benefits will outweigh all the negatives to being an American soldier in this day and age. I don't wonder what pivotal role he may have played saving us all in a war actually won by the Russians.

I still think you're going beyond the scope of the original question here though. But I can see your logic as being perhaps closer to "I am so critical of our troops that I wouldn't consider myself a supporter in what I perceive is the popular interpretation of "Supporting the troops" in the present discourse"(please correct me if my speculation is far off the mark here). We're just putting different things into the term, and I doubt this thread will make us join the other side of the interpretation.

 

[Berzerker]

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?

support the troops = support the war = support the Republican Prez even when he's screwing up = agree with me or you hate the country. Notice how the demands that people support the troops have quieted down now that Obama's in office?

thats the fascist mentality, hide a personal opinion behind nationalistic imagery

 

[Junius]

support the troops = support the war = support the Republican Prez even when he's screwing up = agree with me or you hate the country. Notice how the demands that people support the troops have quieted down now that Obama's in office?

thats the fascist mentality, hide a personal opinion behind nationalistic imagery

Can't we have one thread that doesn't involve someone calling someone else a fascist?

 

[Berzerker]

I didn't call anyone a fascist, I identified a tactic commonly used by people with a fascistic mentality. I do that with other ideologies too, like commies. And people are quite willing to tell me about the evils of libertarianism. But since this is a thread about a slogan used by certain ideologues I identify as fascistic and somebody asks me to explain what it means to me, I cant call it something else to spare you the incivility of my harsh truth...

You do understand the title of the thread?

 

[MobBoss]

The supposed hurt feelings of ostensibly professional soldiers shouldn't even enter the discussion.

Then you have very little knowledge of how troop morale works and how it can affect a soldiers readiness and performance. Even highly trained and professional soldiers are still humans, and still people just like anyone else. Now compound that by being in a dangerous job in which you can see some truly horrible things occur.

If you dont think that things that affect those same soldiers feelings and emotions matter, then your dead wrong. It does.

The soldier who is even worried about this obvious red herring doesn't come close to qualifying. I suggest they find a job in a far less demanding occupation. The last thing we should have to worry about is coddling soldiers whose feelings are hurt because they likely signed up for all the wrong reasons.

Of course you would think this since you are on the record in claiming that soldiers demand adoration...

because they are ostensibly the only people who can legally kill others without even a trial

Doesnt every citizen have the right to self-defense?

You do understand the title of the thread?

I understand its not about fascism.

 

[Berzerker]

Why is that, Mobby? Do you speak for everyone or does the thread title ask us to speak for ourselves? You obviously dont even understand that...

And you never did explain why an elderly couple are fascists for patting you on the back.

 

[onedreamer]

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.

AGAIN??? Mandatory military service has nothing to do with wars abroad. You aren't sent to the front during military service. Why? Pretty simple: because the wars currently fought by our countries, contrary to what it's being said, aren't the utmost priority in the defense of our countries, at all.

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

One that forbids draft?

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.

And in all these wars, US troopers were drafted people sent there, right?

 

[MobBoss]

Why is that, Mobby? Do you speak for everyone or does the thread title ask us to speak for ourselves? You obviously dont even understand that...

And you never did explain why an elderly couple are fascists for patting you on the back.

I wasnt the one that called them fascists for supporting the troops.

 

[Berzerker]

I didn't call them fascists or anything else for supporting the troops (where's the quote?), I didn't even mention them - you did that and then accused me of "implying" they were fascists. I asked you to explain your strawman and you didn't bother, and you still haven't... Brings to mind all those times I see you complaining about people allegedly putting words in your mouth.

So what does supporting the troops have to do with people using the slogan as an unethical (and fascistic) debate tactic to promote a war they want?

 

[Formaldehyde]

still think you're going beyond the scope of the original question here though. But I can see your logic as being perhaps closer to "I am so critical of our troops that I wouldn't consider myself a supporter in what I perceive is the popular interpretation of "Supporting the troops" in the present discourse"(please correct me if my speculation is far off the mark here). We're just putting different things into the term, and I doubt this thread will make us join the other side of the interpretation.

The only soldiers I'm really critical of are those who think they deserve adoration for being warmongers who naturally gravitated to the only profession that really suits them. The ones with such bad attitudes that they think any criticism of a war while it is occurring is somehow a slap in the face to all servicemen. I think those who actually believe this red herring deliberately extended to deflect just criticism of absurd US foreign policy decisions don't deserve my respect in the least. But it is widely held. Many servicemen can't stand any criticism at all by outsiders.

As I stated earlier, my utmost respect goes towards the likes of Karen Kwiatkowski. I respect the soldiers who see something wrong and have the courage to try to change it, or merely resign or retire if they can't. But I also respect those who joined merely to serve their country and don't expect any sort of reverence extended towards them for making that personal decision. The ones who realize that valid criticism of their government isn't a hope they will all perish. Of course, I would respect them even more if they deliberately left the service now that they have been given the opportunity to see what has been occurring of late. That they are now really just the pawns of rich people who want to use them to get even richer. That wars between two states have little or no chance of occurring again, and if they do it will be quite simple to enlist when actually needed for a just cause. That the Department of Defense really should have its name changed again, this time to the Department of Offense instead of back to the Department of War.

And I think the military would be far better off by intentionally trying to become much more like a modern police force. This is especially true now that so many soldiers are really nothing but international cops. They should have the same educational requirements and training that modern police officers do if they are going to perform the same tasks. And that also means that most of the vocal bigots and racists must be driven out of the military once and for all, as has finally occurred with most police departments since the civil rights movement.

 

[IglooDame]

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.

Then by your standard, I don't support the troops. *shrug*

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.

So if we're not allowed to judge the consequences of any particular "mission", then we're not allowed to judge any presumed successes, either. No crystal balls for anyone.

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.

So you're defending my freedom of speech, but simultaneously expecting me to not exercise it with respect to what you're doing?

Then you have very little knowledge of how troop morale works and how it can affect a soldiers readiness and performance. Even highly trained and professional soldiers are still humans, and still people just like anyone else. Now compound that by being in a dangerous job in which you can see some truly horrible things occur.

If you dont think that things that affect those same soldiers feelings and emotions matter, then your dead wrong. It does.

Should we also apply this to domestic police work? I mean, I ardently oppose the "War on Drugs" mission; but yet highly trained and professional DEA agents are risking their lives going after drug traffickers every day, to say nothing of your average policeman. I would not want to adversely affect their morale, and would say "I support our police", but since it is an existing policy should I keep my opinion about it to myself so as not to demoralize them? And goodness knows our teachers have a difficult enough job without me opposing their union and favoring things like charter schools, can I 'support our teachers' and still support school choice, vouchers, etc?