What does Support the Troops mean?
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Friday, September 8, 2006 04:10
VIEWED: 14108
PAGE 4 of 6
Frem, as a veteran and having lived it, I can honestly say you have got your head so far up your ass your body is a hat. You can't just tell your commanders to 'piss off' when they send you to war. Going to Iraq and Afganistan are not 'illegal orders' regardless of what your Liberal Arts professor may have said. Your ignorance knows no bounds apparently, and I am glad that there aren't more people like you in any positions of power.
That being said, I also commend you. You're not afraid to say exactly what you mean, and that's a rare quality nowadays. And I'm not patronising you at all. I may not agree with you, and may think you're an ignorant ass, but at least you were honest, and I felt it was only fair to give you the same.
In response to:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
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 ?
We don't and we never do. Most of what you are taught at Basic (aside from weapons and first aid training) is to break you of bad habits and teach you discipline. No commander in his right mind would ever expect his troops to 'hold the line' in it's traditional sense.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for you response Babywiththepower -
I can understand how you felt. Do you think it is better to keep the populace inundated with unchecked propaganda then? Taking your model of good support of the troops to its extreme, couldn't it lead to horrible results?
where in your ideal, would there be a window to question whether a war should be waged? Please don't say after the war is over, because its doubful whether the war on terror will ever be over, it being waged against an emotion rather than a country. And if we did start doing things that actually were reminiscent of NAZI Germany, would that still not be an acceptable time to criticize the direction we are going?
The price of freedom is that we have a duty to keep ourselves educated with facts.If we are to defend the tenets of the Constitution, we don't have the luxury of being soothed by words that would make us feel better. We need to know the truth. Our troops need to know the truth. If that truth is hard to look at, so be it. Democracy does not come easy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FellowTraveler, You hit it right on the nail. The media will get 20 people behind the camrea and say that they all belive in one thing. Making it look like the whole area belives in that one thing, when in fact they don't. After 9/11 there was protesters on the streets of NY. How or why is far from my understanding. The truth is, not everyone belived in what the protesters were talking about. The media does take portions of things and twist the truth, even if they don't have to change the wording of someones sentences to do so. Take Iraq as an exsample. The Iraq people LOVE us there. The troops who are over there understand what their "job" is. May not agree on it, but some of them do. The media makes it look like we don't have a clue why we are over there, and when we try to tell them, they don't show it. I have a complete understanding why I was over there and what my job did for the area that I was in. I know when you put all of the I's together what is the main focus of why we are over there, our main goal. The media's job is to show the people what is going on. Like a fight in a high school, everyone runs to it because of the drama it brings, which brings ratings. They are NOT giving accurate information, only to keep the peoples TV on for their own ratings.
Everything you said was and is true. The whole support your troops thing is just another way of saying support our war. Support our war is something totally different from support our troops and the media along with other people are abusing that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero: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
Hero, I am relive that there are still people out there who think like you do. Thank you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
It means - Understand that the troops have a crappyass job to do. One that they did not create, one that they would rather not do, but one that they agreed to do. Appreciate that they get paid no money to do this job and that they leave their loved ones for months and years to go to a country where they are being targeted, where they live in substandard conditions and where they would rather not be.
Support the troops is not and should not be a politcal thing. And George should be ashamed of himself EVERYTIME he tries to politicize the American Soldier and the American military family.
Sorry Military and the quality of life for the Military member and their families is a particular hot button of mine.
----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FutureMrsFillion, its very sad...but your right.
When I joined, it was for many reasons. Not everyone can support a family with their income. Therefore, they can not hope to ever go to college because they are too busy making sure their family has something to eat. Which means they will never be able to help themselfs improve their means. The military gives you an Honorable condition after your service. It's supposed to mean something, but only to the law inforcement positions. If I spend four years and never have any problems in the military and I get out with a honorable condtion, would it have the same weight of someone who has a degree in the same MOS I have been doing for four years? No...
We can go to college while we are in the service but remember your job is more importain so if you have to go out for a training exercise at any moment your schooling will have to just "stand the fuck by". Doesn't matter if you have already informed them and bought your books.
You do get a little bit of money to go to college after your service. Meanwhile, you are "doing a crappyass job". If for say, you are a senior Lcpl of the United States Marines who has a family, a wife a son and lets just say...one on the way. How does your service compare to keeping your family fed? Well, you only get paid 850 biweekly. You live in Cailforina which is a little more on the expencive side. Yes you still have bills to pay.
Throw in that your deployed and you have to buy your own cleaning suppiles so that you can have "field day" (think about taking everything out of your house cleaning everything and then putting everything back in, stupid style).
Lets say that when you go to train you are given something called "Meal Ready To Eat" (MRE) and they are bad. Yes as in you can't eat them unless you want to get really sick. Furthermore, you can't always get to chow when you are not in the field, because your job is more importain then chow and "chow is a cruch". So when the chow hall if close, you don't eat.
No you don't get extra money incase all of this happens (and it does serveal times a week). Now you have to pay for not only your families food but for your own when you don't get fed by the military. Which means you don't get to buy phone cards to talk to your family for seven months, well because you can not afford it.
Theres a hell of a lot more then what I am trying to get across to you. Bottom line, we do a lot, we go without. We do it for two reasons: One to hope that we maybe able to take care of our familes. The other, to protect our familes and our friends. So when I go into Cingular to talk to them about my services (when I am not depoloyed) and I get told "We do not serve your kind" (I went in while in uniform because I was pressed for time). Let's just say, its not very nice.
When a women who is a total stranger comes up to you and gives your mother 20 dollars so that "she can take out her son". That is pretty nice. I am not
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Marine:
[BLets say that when you go to train you are given something called "Meal Ready To Eat" (MRE) and they are bad. Yes as in you can't eat them unless you want to get really sick. Furthermore, you can't always get to chow when you are not in the field, because your job is more importain then chow and "chow is a cruch". So when the chow hall if close, you don't eat.
Alot of what you say has heart, but I take issue with this paragraph. MREs weren't that bad and if you got sick, then you have a piss poor constitution. In the field we got three of them a day and not one of my soldiers got sick, and we were in the field once a month for at least a week at a time. In the military you are garunteed three meals a day, regardless of if the chow hall is open or not. The military will never deny you a meal. If you missed chow because of work, you could have requested an MRE or gotten food and submitted a request to be comped the meals value based on the allowed per diem of your paygrade. If you failed to do either of those things, it was a failure on your part, not your command's.
For those that don't know, a per diem is a daily allowence given to troops for clothing and supplies if they are deployed or on TDY. Breakfast, lunch and dinner all have different dollar values and can be requested if your job prevents you from getting a meal at the chow hall.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Baby, you apparently fail to realize you're not talking to some college student who's entire concept of the matter comes from too many movies.
Dude, you're talking to a former 76X10 Subsist.Supply/E3 PFC who *DID* in fact tell his CO to perform certain "anatomically improbable acts" over two rather infamous illegal orders - and who wound up trying to do an 11B10's job on a 76x10's training because the unit I was with was in really bad shape for personnel, equipment and morale, as well as being at the bottom of the feeder chain on supplies and personnel, which meant we made do with whatever we had.
Basic may have changed since my days, I sincerely hope to hell so, because they USED those dumbass tactics in every exercise we had, and that hey-diddle-diddle-straight-up-the-middle shit SHOULD have gone out with the advent of the machinegun back in the early 1900's, but too damn many former and current officers don't seem to realize that.
Most of what was learned in basic then was pretty useless in the field, still is, and overemphasis on physical ability at the EXPENSE of marksmanship training was a huge flaw.. yes, you do need fit troops, but unless you're swinging swords, if they can't even fekkin QUALIFY 23/30, it doesn't matter how tough they are.
And don't even get me started on the M16A1... I've heard the M4 is a helluva lot better and I hope to hell so, but many of the supply units sent out took those bastard A1/A2's with em, and I *know* they are unreliable.
The M60 wasn't much better, with the overheating barrel and fragile internal parts, but damn it was a nice weapon in the hands of someone disciplined enough to not overheat the bastard.. I carried that one myself.
So speaking of ignorance and head-up-ass, let's talk about that - didn't they teach you in Basic what ASS-U-ME means ?
You need to read your UCMJ mister, if you think an order to deploy to a country we are not (constitutionally) at war with is legal - if your CO ordered you to attack the state of Oregon, would you do that ?
I've shovelled my share of sand outta jackson too, guy - don't think for a minute I don't understand your annoyance, but if you're gonna be annoyed, be annoyed for better reasons than an assumption of who I might be.
Quote:
In the military you are garunteed three meals a day, regardless of if the chow hall is open or not. The military will never deny you a meal.
Truer words were never spoken, if you can reach a chow hall, they WILL feed you - and if you can't, we'll bring it to you any way we can, be it mermite cans or MREs... we will GET the food to you.
Part of my exercise training involved the best method of getting a deuce full of MREs through enemy territory without drawing attention or notice if at all possible, and although not specifically trained to fight as well as blue-stripe infantry, us Subsist.Supply folks were perfectly willing to do what it took to GET that food to you, any way it takes.
Anyhow, make no mistake about it, I do not believe that you're legally deployed, and I accept that you may disagree with me about it, but don't think for a minute that means the same thing as not supporting you, far far from it.
I want you to have a clearly defined mission, or at least a timetable to GTFO and I want it yester-fuckin-day, and that isn't up to us grunts - that one lies with the pissants cutting the orders, whom I think we're both kinda pissed at.
Just so ya know,
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I realized that I never answered this question. To me, it means sending a "care package" to a soldier- ANY solder: wet wipes, a Game Boy and batteries, beef jerky, and whatever else seems handy. Giving blood. Calling my Senators and Representative and the WH (not that they care) protesting every time they take away yet more $$$ from the VA, or stiff soldiers in the new bankruptcy laws, and arguing until I'm blue in the face against the Iraq war and against nascent war in Iran. I won't lie to "the troops" and tell them I support their mission. How could I? But I'll be glad when they come home.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Baby, when I said the MRE's are bad. I ment as in no good. As in don't eat them that they are ruined. For the last 4 monthes my unit has been getting MRE's that were bad for them. This is current mind you. The cheese looks like Peanutbutter. So when I said the MRE's are "bad" I ment that you can not eat them, unless you wanted to eat "ruined food" You were in the military so you understand, everyone else, think of canned goods that went "bad" and were no longer heathly for you to eat.
No you can not go to the chow hall, and no we do not get Per Diem. That would normally be the case if you were given comrats (which is money for you to buy your own food so that you did not have to go to the chow hall to eat every time, usally this is given to married marines, the rate by the way changes only sightly and is around 250 a month regardless of rank). We do not have MRE's on hand incase you are unable to go to chow for whatever reason. MRE's are ordered to fill the need for Marines who go to the field. Not to have on hand. Your right, until the last four months. I did not even think MRE's could go bad, they are expected to last up to ten years. The problem was (I am told) that the MRE's were sat out in the sun for over a week long, they are supposed to be stored. Then a half an hour of story telling you get the full picture. Thats the major point though.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
You were in the Army then?
If any personal can not effectivly fire a weapon, then your right they are usless in combat (omitting medics and corpsmen).
In basic training, we learn how to march, take orders and we do a little PT. Along with a the history of our branch if you are apart of the Marines.
M16A1, was and will always be a joke. M16A2 was a big improvement over the A1. However, M16A3 is better then both of them, a pound heavier, with the ablitity to attach more things to it, a slightly different barrel as well. Same functions though. Sounds like you would like the AK-47, less maintance needed to operate the weapon. Both could go into the water and still fire, but the 16 will start to jam much quicker if you don't clean the weapon. Remember the springfield? Everyone loved that one as I understand it. The M60 is outdated. We have better weapons now. Heavy weapons, now there isn't much better then the M240G and the .50 Cal. But you already know about the .50 Cal. The only changes to that weapon from WW2 is the handles are no longer wooden. I hope this informs you a little more about the weapons that we use now-a-days.
In war, your right, chow is provided and the logistic's side of the house will go through hell to make sure the troops are fed. When you are in deployment, you are not in war. When you are in the rear, you are not in war. Don't count on the 3 meals a day thing anylonger. A clear cut mission is given to us even when we are in Iraq. We and everyone else in the world may disagree with it, but we know what our mission is. Furthermore, we know when we are going to leave as well (unless someone else takes office or is able to pri us from Iraq some how). We also know why we went into Iraq in the first place, sorry the Media doesn't want to explain it. AGAIN not everyone will agree why we went their in the first place, or the actions we are doing now that our first mission there is completed. We have one more mission, when its done, we'll come home.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME