What does Support the Troops mean?
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Friday, September 8, 2006 04:10
VIEWED: 14108
PAGE 3 of 6
Quote:
I have personally witnessed protesters at military funerals celebrating the death of American marines.
I was under the impression that the main people doing that were those wacky religious people that thought our soldier's dying was a message from god. Even if the people you saw weren't part of that group, it's safe to say that they aren't the norm, that they aren't representative of most anti-war people.
For me, it basically means I can hate on the government for sending them on a mission that I deem worthless, useless, unsuccessful, and unending (this is not up for debate right now). I can hate on the government for sending them out unprepared, without adequate equipment (ie body armor and COMPASSES for god's sake!). But at the same time, I'm not going to shit on the soldier when he comes back. I'm not opposed to trying to boost morale or make life more comfortable for them in whatever hellhole they're stationed at. He has to do what his superiors tell him to. It's not his fault he was sent there. Chances are he doesn't want to be there.
People who treat the armed forces as sub human when they come back make me sick. A lot of people in my family have been in the military though, so I'm sometimes slightly biased.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.
~Forsaken Forever
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Have you seen the movie "Sir, Yes Sir"? It was playing when I was in Hawaii, but I didn't get a chance to see it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.
~Forsaken Forever
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hereo- Mostly with you up to here....
Quote:I think one can support the troops AND protest the policy at the same time. Because what your reasoning does is provide incentive for our corrupt administration to simply keep war... ANY war... going in the interests of quashing dissent.
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.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fremdfirma -
I know where you are coming from, but you should consider where a lot of our service men and women are coming from. They are young and impressionable, often poor, and with poverty comes poor education as well. In order to make them effective soldiers the military does a number on them with its propaganda.
Many are disillusioned about this occupation, I'm sure of it, but like most Americans, they don't access to good information on the subject, and the people they have to look up to in the executive office are crooks and liars painting a constant race bating picture of our enemy, a constant appeal to a 'the means justify the ends' mentality. The current administration and everyone it props up have been horrible role-models. Soldiers are not being shown integrity and honorable service from the top.
It is a weighty decision these soldiers have to make. The issue has been greatly confused, muddied, bloodied, etc. Heck, the administration outright lied to us about Iraq's involvement in 911. at the time, most couldn't have known that it would be so dishonest about something like this. What kind of BS do you think still bombards the troops about Iraq from their 'betters' today?
And faced with an absolutely confusing and frightening issue, uncertain of where the higher moral choice lies, I think most soldiers have not rebelled or objected not out of fear, but out of a lack of certainty as to whether this war is illegal, or else, out of a steadfast certainty that it is legal, and that the cause they are fighting for is good.
For those who are uncertain though, the weight of the world is on their shoulders. Choose against country?(as it is framed). Choose to abandon the fellow soldiers you trained with and bonded with, to some horrible fate on the battlefield? In the absence of the information to make an absolute decision, they choose not to abandon their posts -they choose to risk their lives for their fellow soldiers on the ground.
War crimes are war crimes, and I do not excuse soldiers for their part in obvious illegal activity, but I blame the top more for their lapses. It's the top that is failing them, and it is the top that is not leading them as our soldiers should be led. With good leadership that touted a responsibility to truth and the rule of law, we would have soldiers with a stronger sense of what it meant to be a good American serviceman.
Instead, whistleblowing is called treason, the administration refuses to condemn torture of prisoners, and all prisoners are called terrorists, even if they get let out with no charges tomorrow. Our president says 'bring em on' like this is not a battle for hearts and minds, but a grudge match, and finally we have a working example of trickle down theory.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
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.
Whoa. Does anyone have a reference/documentation for this? Somehow I can't see something of this nature happening without getting major headlines accross the nation. If nothing else, the Bush administration would certainly have siezed upon it as a PR weapon to discredit the anti-war movement. Heck, I couldn't even blame 'em. It'd be a propaganda slam-dunk!
But--minus that documentation--I'm going to have to categorize this one with the tales of returning Vietnam veterans being spat upon by hippies at the airport, or the massive nationwide flag-burnings that apparently are wide-spread enough to affect local air quality reports.
In all seriousness, however--if there is documentation behind this incident, I'd like to see it. Anyone?
"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Righteous, you've essentially nailed the reason why I do not discuss the matter with those who have been deployed - whether I agree with their decision or not, ain't NO point discussin it in a situation where they'll need full focus to stay alive - I just send em what I can manage of their Reqs and wait for them to get back alive.
We can discuss it between us at that point.
I think also, that in quite reprehensible fashion, the army is DELIBERATELY playing on that ignorance and ambiguity within the troops, with propaganda and selective reporting of key information - they really always have, and it's exactly because of this that the situation is what it is.
I also fault our tactics, badly, but that's another whole discussion - just that it rooks me to see heavily 'indoctrinated' troops taught to despise "them dirty ay-rabs" sent into a 4GWar with the same civil-war era tactical doctrine taught in basic even to this day...
You tell me, when was the last time our troops had to dress left to firm up the musket-line, eh ?
Anyhows, the blame lies explicitly with Congress, for abdicating a power they have no legal ability TO abdicate, and with the Executive, for Usurpation of a power they do not legally have.
And my greatest respect goes to the rare few who understood that, and told em to piss off.
I don't believe that 'ignorance is no excuse' - a troop who does not KNOW this, who's been fed propaganda and misinformation and has no way TO know this - hell no, i'm not going to fault the guy, we can discuss THAT if and when he gets back, and in the meantime, I find him batteries for his gameboy, sure.
But there's no way I can support blind unthinking obediance of orders without question.... look where it's lead us.
I support them as people, but as soldiers, I consider it a bit of a dereliction (for those who DO know) when they're given an order that defies their Oath of service, and they obey it.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I tried googling Hero's story. Nothing turned up except this, and it is the exact opposite of what Hero suggests:
Quote:Perhaps he will come through with a link.
Plight of Specialist Sean Baker, member of Kentucky National Guard and military policeman in Guantanamo Bay who received traumatic brain injury during training exercise; contends that in Jan 2003, Baker was asked to play role of non-cooperative prisoner, but soldiers who were to extract him from detention cell were told that he was genuine detainee who had assaulted sergeant; holds that Baker was choked and his head slammed against floor; says military investigation concluded that there had been no misconduct involved in Baker's injury, and when he told his story to Kentucky reporter, military lied in disgraceful effort to undermine his credibility; notes that Baker finally received medical discharge, but still suffers from frequent seizures
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks, Signym. I'm going to think on that narrative a while before I post anything about it.
But I just realized that I never commented on the original question of this thread.
What does Support the Troops mean?
To me, it is something entirely different from supporting the war. As Hero aptly put it earlier on this thread supporting the troops is like maintaining your car; supporting the war means approving of where that car's being driven. Two entirely different propositions.
Part of "Supporting the Troops" to me means giving them what they need to complete their mission; sufficient supplies and support to give them a fighting chance to achieve their goals.
Incument to this is the responsibility of those in charge not to stretch our resources too far, unless circumstances absolutely demand it.
In my opinion, the current administration failed at these tasks the day they turned this into a two-front war, without a driving and immediate need to. And please, don't mention WMDs; even if Sadam had them, they posed less of a threat to American interests than the act of spliting our forces and focus.
"Supporting the Troops" includes picking your battles wisely, and admitting errors once they have been made. The generation of Chicken Hawks we laughingly call our leadership has shown very little skill or talent at either, so far.
But our troops, have, for the most part been incredible. Give 'em a lemon, they'll make lemonade. They have my support, in full.
"The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory." -- Sun Tzu
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, as a veteran I have my own thoughts on this issue, most of which the extreme liberals here will not want to hear.
Now that being said, I will assume that you have jumped to the conclusion that I am a conservative, and I am to a point. I don't like political groups, because too many people feel that to be a democrat or a republican means they have to agree with everything that party says. That's bullshit, we're all free thinkers. But if I had to classify myself, I'd say I'm Libertarian.
To me, having served in the military and lived a life most of you couldn't comprehend, 'Support the Troops' is a very literal saying. Supporting the troops means shutting your mouth the minute boots hit the ground. You have no idea what it did to me and my fellow soldiers when we would hear that 80% of the country supported the troops but only 20% supported the war. It was like getting punched in the gut every time we read about another protest. If you don't support the job the troops are doing, you do not support the troops. End of story.
Vietnam was a horrible time to be a soldier, but at least the people back then were honest. They didn't lie to the soldiers or lie to themselves by hiding behind a concept of 'support our troops'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME