What does Support the Troops mean?
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Friday, September 8, 2006 04:10
VIEWED: 14108
PAGE 1 of 6
I live in Utah, and G.W. Bush just came, and there were pro-war "Support the Troop" rallies coming out of my liberal ears.
What does that even mean, to support the troops? Blindy cheering whenever we go to war?
What does it mean to NOT support the troops? Does that automatically mean you want to spit on soldiers and treat them like dirt?
I fail to see what "Support the Troops" even means. Should I send them money? Cheer for them, no matter what? Is war a football game, as simple as rooting for the home team?
Please help me understand.
.
"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
For me, supporting the troops is not the same as supporting the war. I support the troops; I want them to come home safe and unharmed. I want them to stop dying and being traumatized or seriously injured. I want them to actually believe in what they're doing, and most of them don't even seem to know why they're over there.
I support the troops. I support having a defense system and respect those who are willing to be that defense.
But I do not support the war, because I think they are dying needlessly.
That probably didn't clear anything up, but it's my stance.
A family is a place where minds come in contact with one another. If these minds love one another the home will be as beautiful as a flower garden. But if these minds get out of harmony with one another it is like a storm that plays havoc with them. - Gautama Siddharta
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi PR, thanks for replying.
I want them to come home safe and unharmed - Check, unharmed is good.
I want them to stop dying and being traumatized or seriously injured. - Check, dying is bad.
I support having a defense system and respect those who are willing to be that defense - Check, defense is good, respect for doing it is good. (Although respect in and of itself isn't good enough, because I also respect my garbage man and mailman, and my boss at work. And my neighbors, my co-workers, and the stranger at the bus stop).
I want them to actually believe in what they're doing...But I do not support the war- Che--. Uh, wait. How does that work, exactly? If, hypothetically, soldiers are ordered to do bad, they should believe they are doing good? That's confusing to me.
"Supporting the Troops" means you don't want them to die? You respect them as human beings? Doesn't almost everyone feel that way? Then why do the media and the Bush administration keep talking about it?
There must be more to "Supporting the Troops" or it wouldn't be all over the news. What am I missing?
Is it the part about "soldiers believing they are doing good" which is the key? Are we pretending the war is okay and they are heros in order to make them feel better?
Or must you support this war in order to really support the troops?
"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The reason it's being pushed so hard is because this administration wants "Support the troops" to be the same in everyone's mind as "Support our foolish war". And it's working. But it's not the same.
I said I want them to believe in what they're doing, and they don't, it seems. They're being told they're protecting the country, and they believe that is right, as they should, but I don'ts ee how being why the hell overseas is doing us any good, and many of them don't really see it either fro what many have said. I think that's wrong.
Basically, I think they should come home. Maybe patrol the coastlines or something. That, everyone could believe was doing some good, right? Protecting the country rather than being away from it and dying? I think that would be good...
A family is a place where minds come in contact with one another. If these minds love one another the home will be as beautiful as a flower garden. But if these minds get out of harmony with one another it is like a storm that plays havoc with them. - Gautama Siddharta
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Media Control"
Noam Chomsky
Institute Professor Emeritus of linguistics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, March 17, 1991
"The U.S. pioneered the public relations industry. Its committment was to "control the public mind," as its leaders put it. They learned a lot from the successes of the Creel Commission and the success in creating the Red Scare and its aftermath. The public relations industry underwent a huge expansion at that time. It succeeded for some time in creating almost total subordination of the public to business rule through the 1920s....
Public relations is a huge industry. They're spending by now something on the order of a billion dollars a year. All along its committment was to controlling the public mind....
...The corporate executive and the guy who cleans the floor all have the same interests. We can all work together and work for Americanism in harmony, liking each other. That was essentially the message. A huge amount of effort was put into presenting it. This is, after all, the business community, so they control the media and have massive resources... Mobilizing community opinion in favor of vapid, empty concepts like Americanism. Who can be against that? Or, to bring it up to date, "Support our troops." Who can be against that? Or yellow ribbons. Who can be against that?... The point of public relations slogans like "Support our troops" is that they don't mean anything. They mean as much as whether you support the people in Iowa. Of course, there was an issue. The issue was, Do you support our policy? But you don't want people to think about the issue. That's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for, because nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything, but its crucial value is that it diverts your attention....
That's all very effective. It runs right up to today. And of course it is carefully thought out. The people in the public relations industry aren't there for the fun of it. They're doing work. They're trying to instill the right values. In fact, they have a conception of what democracy ought to be: It ought to be a system in which the specialized class is trained to work in the service of the masters, the people who own the society. The rest of the population ought to be deprived of any form of organization, because organization just causes trouble. They ought to be sitting alone in front of the TV and having drilled into their heads the message, which says, the only value in life is to have more commodities or live like that rich middle class family you're watching and to have nice values like harmony and Americanism. That's all there is in life. You may think in your own head that there's got to be something more in life than this, but since you're watching the tube alone you assume, I must be crazy, because that's all that's going on over there....
So that's the ideal. Great efforts are made in trying to achieve that ideal. Obviously, there is a certain conception behind it. The conception of democracy is the one that I mentioned. The bewildered herd is a problem. We've got to prevent their rage and trampling. We've got to distract them. They should be watching the Superbowl or sitcoms or violent movies. Every once in a while you call on them to chant meaningless slogans like "Support our troops." You've got to keep them pretty scared, because unless they're properly scared and frightened of all kinds of devils that are going to destroy them from outside or inside or somewhere, they may start to think, which is very dangerous, because they're not competent to think. Therefore it's important to distract them and marginalize them."
*Kinda' long, sorry. But the book "Media Control" is only about a 100 pages and worth a read, should you come across a copy...
-Edit- forgot link:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9103-media-control.html
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1583225366
-Edit- And what the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Support the Troops" is a yet another bit of Rovism from the right. It's called 'equivocation'.
It's also part of their facist 'for us or against us' bullshit. (false dichotomy)
It's also a distraction (framed argument) that seeks to suck anyone opposing the war into a discussion of their feelings toward the troops.
What's so frustrating is that most people, even most people in the press, don't recognize this game they're playing. It's smoke and mirrors to avoid real public discourse.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I was gonna post MY answer, but Sarge here said it all.
Lost thunder Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
What does that even mean, to support the troops? Blindy cheering whenever we go to war?
Since the troops are the folk who have volunteered to fight for us, I think they deserve our support regardless of our belief in the war. Its like your car. Would you refuse fuel, fluids, and maintenence to your car just because you don't support the direction its going? Of course not, because someday you might just need that car to get you were you need to be.
So specifically what does "support" mean. It means honoring their sacrifice by paying our respects to the returning veterans, the wounded, the dead, and their families. For me it means contributing to the families of the fallen, helping soldiers when I can, cutting them a bit more slack, making sure they are fairly treated, anything I can think of really and certainly no less then the contributions and volunteering I did for Katrina victims and other worthy causes.
I think one legacy of Vietnam was that we at least acknowledge the need to seperate the soldiers from the policy and accord them the respect as individuals that we all deserve. They are too often caught up in events out of their control and most often out of a true desire to make a life for themselves in honorable service to their nation.
Quote:
What does it mean to NOT support the troops? Does that automatically mean you want to spit on soldiers and treat them like dirt?
Unfortunately it does. I read a story out of Washington or Oregon that involved several persons accusing a uniformed National Guardsman of being a baby killer before beating him to death on the street in broad daylight.
I have personally witnessed protesters at military funerals celebrating the death of American marines.
I say hate Bush all you want, you will anyway, so enjoy it. But how can you hate Joe Private from Nowwhere Mississippi who joined the army to pay for college his parents can't afford cause Katrina destroyed their town and got killed in Iraq in service to his nation? Or Jill Private from South Central LA who joined to get out of the cycle of drugs, sex, and violence that destroyed her whole family an is now in college to get a teaching degree (the first member of her family ever to go) using the GI Bill? Or Antonio Private seeking a legal path to citizenship by volunteering service to the nation he so hopes to make his own? Or Sgt Dan a police officer and Marine reservist who has dedicated his entire adult life to service to his family and community only to die in Iraq?
Quote:
I fail to see what "Support the Troops" even means.
That is unfortunate.
Quote:
Is war a football game, as simple as rooting for the home team?
This is an entirely different issue and the answer is an absolute YES.
In war a person MUST root for the home team or at least keep silent. Like football, rooting against one team is the same as rooting in favor of the other...in war such is treason.
It is ok, however, to support the idea that the game should not be played, but that is an argument that should be tabled while the ball is in play. Just remember war, like football has two sides. If you convince your side not to show up, but the other side does show up...you and your side automatically lose.
Note for the record, I just got my season tickets to watch the Browns in Cleveland. While I will tolerate some non-Browns fans at the games, there better not be any of you liberal, tree-hugging, terrorist-loving, pansy Pittsburg Steeler fans cheering in my section. I'm just sayin...GO BROWNIES (yes its a blind faith one has at the start of the season)!
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero,
Well said.
Thank you.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good thread, Succatash! As a former servicemen (and veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq), "support the troops" means something different to me than to others, I suspect.
I think that "support our troops" maybe can be boiled down to "do what's best for the troops". I know that there's some division over what that "best" actually is (and I'll get to that in a moment). But let's look at what we can (hopefully) agree to. If they're being sent into a fight, give them the best training and equipment you can. If they're going to be made to stay in that fight, try and give their morale a boost (e.g. letters, comedy tours, visits back home, that sort of thing, DVDs to the troops, you get the point). When they come home from the fight thank them for their service--even if you disagree with the fight itself. These guys didn't choose to go to war--the politicos did. What we did was say, "I will serve the military of my country, at the risk of my own life, in the belief that the country needs a strong military capability"--and then we did go and risk our lives. Don't thank them for the war, thank them for their willingness to put country before self. We do not get the luxury of choosing which orders to obey (unless it's something like, "Machinegun those villagers", or "help me with this cover-up"). We have to trust that our leaders won't risk our lives unnecessarily.
So where do we divide? It seems to be on the question of whether the war is right. The people to the right of political center want to conflate "support the troops" with "support the war" and this is obviously ridiculous. But there are also some people who believe that "not-support-the-war" is the same as "not-support-the-troops", and that is equally ridiculous. Case in point, the US Army had a recuriting booth set up at the Iowa State Fair last weekend (which they have to do, if you want to keep the non-draft, all-volunteer military). My father, as the parent of a vet, went to thank them for their service, and they reported that they'd had people coming up to them all day shouting insults at them ("baby-killer", "robot", "war-monger" and the like). Ludicrous: as though these NCOs were the real architects of the war.
Seems to me that if you are on the far right and think that the war is a good thing, part of supporting the troops is drumming up support for their mission. If that's what you believe, go for it (but I may not agree with you). If you are on the left and think that the war is a bad thing, part of supporting the troops is demanding that they be brought home immediately. Again, if that's what you believe, do it (but I might not agree here, either). But whatever tack you take, don't take your anger over the war (which is the fault of the politicians) out on the soldiers (who are serving their country on your behalf).
Whew, that got long and all ramble-y. Hope it makes some sense.
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME