You don't support the troops

[Mathematician]

I thought this rational was dead with the Vietnam War, but apparently not so:

In both real life and on the Internet I've been told how I don't support the troops. To me this is one of the most offensive things you can say. I have friends serving right now in Iraq, friends who will soon serve, and friends who are thinking about serving. To equate my disapproval of what they're doing with disapproval of their safety is disgusting.

I don't agree with what prison executioners do, but I don't wish them harm.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I've been trying to figure this out, too. Perhaps it's the thought that someone cannot support the troops without supporting the reason that they're overseas? When people attempt to bring this up with me, I usually try to say that, yes, I support the troops' safety and that's why I'm concerned about the war. Sometimes this is accepted, sometimes it's not. I know some conservatives that also have to deal with this mentality, since a few that I know don't support the war. I'm wondering if, as the war continues, it will become less and less of a political thing (this is what my party believes) and more of a 'personal thing' (this is what I believe because I have friends and family over there, and they've told me...).

 

[Djamila]

This logic is especially comical coming from the "Support life: Kill an abortion doctor!" invalids.

It's just simple-mindedness, really. They're too stupid to realize not supporting the war and not supporting the troops are two different things, or they're purposely using it to better their positions with those who are that stupid - either way, they're not the type of people whose opinions you really need to let get to you.

 

[Valjean]

I don't see how one can support the troops without at least tacitly supporting the war. War is the function of a warrior. It's what they do. Supporting or approving of the troops has to imply approval of their function.

If I were to say I support the rapist but not the rape people would tell me I wasn't making sense.

Was it correct and proper for the Germans to support the troops during WWII? Wouldn't most people today express approval of German dissidents? Don't people today generally laud the White Rose Society and the French partisans? We know how they were dealt with at the time, once caught.

Well, this time we are the "bad guys." We are the ones waging an arguably illegal war and wreaking havoc on a society that posed no threat to us.
Even if such a statement is too brazen for you to accept but you still claim to condemn the war but support the troops, I can't understand how one can support the actor while condemning his actions.

I condemn both the action and the people carrying out the action. The two are intertwined. I suspect a century hence most schoolboys will be scratching their heads wondering how a society could support an action they claimed to disagre with.

 

[Djamila]

I don't see how one can support the troops without at least tacitly supporting the war. War is the function of a warrior. It's what they do. Supporting or approving of the troops has to imply approval of their function.

If I were to say I support the rapist but not the rape people would tell me I wasn't making sense.

Was it correct and proper for the Germans to support the troops during WWII? Wouldn't most people today express approval of German dissidents? Don't people today generally laud the White Rose Society and the French partisans? We know how they were dealt with at the time, once caught.

Well, this time we are the "bad guys." We are the ones waging an arguably illegal war and wreaking havoc on a society that posed no threat to us.
Even if such a statement is too brazen for you to accept but you still claim to condemn the war but support the troops, I can't understand how one can support the actor while condemning his actions.

I condemn both the action and the people carrying out the action.

But no one is implying support for the actions of the troops. I hope they fail miserable. I hope they're back in America tomorrow with their tail between their legs, while China becomes the new superpower. But I don't hope they die, I don't support the the government militias in Iraq.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't see how one can support the troops without at least tacitly supporting the war. War is the function of a warrior. It's what they do. Supporting or approving of the troops has to imply approval of their function.

If I were to say I support the rapist but not the rape people would tell me I wasn't making sense.

Was it correct and proper for the Germans to support the troops during WWII? Wouldn't most people today express approval of German dissidents? Don't people today generally laud the White Rose Society and the French partisans? We know how they were dealt with at the time, once caught.

Well, this time we are the "bad guys." We are the ones waging an arguably illegal war and wreaking havoc on a society that posed no threat to us.
Even if such a statement is too brazen for you to accept but you still claim to condemn the war but support the troops, I can't understand how one can support the actor while condemning his actions.

I condemn both the action and the people carrying out the action. The two are intertwined. I suspect a century hence most schoolboys will be scratching their heads wondering how a society could support an action they claimed to disagre with.

That is pretty speculative. In practice, it's not at all difficult to treat the troops with respect and compassion while working to end their involvement in Iraq. People do it all the time.

 

[Valjean]

I can sympathize with your sentiments here, Djamila, except for your first assertion. I think support for the action is implicit in support of the actor

In re the rest of your post: I think most Americans would interpret your statements as flagrantly anti-troop.
I don't hope they die either. I don't support the death penalty for murder. But they are doing wrong, and wrongdoers don't have my support.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I don't see how one can support the troops without at least tacitly supporting the war. War is the function of a warrior. It's what they do.

They are SUPPOSED to be peace keepers. But hey, feel free to twist things however you feel is appropriate.

In reality, this IS a war of aggression. Shrub & company have subverted a peace keeping force and have forced them to do their dirty work. It's not the soldiers' fault: they HAVE to obey Shrub even when they disagree. It's part and parcel of the subjugation of the military to our civil government and what really keeps us free.

If you want to question patriotism, then look no further than the war mongers in the White House. They are murdering our troops by proxy for a profit. Halibuton's war is an embarrassment.

 

[Valjean]

That is pretty speculative. In practice, it's not at all difficult to treat the troops with respect and compassion while working to end their involvement in Iraq. People do it all the time.

OK, with some reservation I can accept this.
I once worked as an RN in the Maryland prison system. I endeavored to treat the criminals with respect and compassion, though I condemned their actions.

I interpret support of our troops as more than ordinary compassion and support for their withdrawal.

 

[Valjean]

They are SUPPOSED to be peace keepers. But hey, feel free to twist things however you feel is appropriate.

In reality, this IS a war of aggression. Shrub & company have subverted a peace keeping force and have forced them to do their dirty work. It's not the soldiers' fault: they HAVE to obey Shrub even when they disagree. It's part and parcel of the subjugation of the military to our civil government and what really keeps us free.

If you want to question patriotism, then look no further than the war mongers in the White House. They are murdering our troops by proxy for a profit. Halibuton's war is an embarrassment.

You raise an interesting conundrum here, my friend. The traditional Anglo-Saxon disapproval of oath-breaking vs continuing immoral conduct. The soldiers "HAVE" to obey Shrub because they have taken an oath to do so.

One of the reasons I look upon today's soldiers with a jaundiced eye is that it seems to me anyone with any historical perspective should know that in joining the military there is a strong likelihood s/he will be used for illicit actions completely unrelated to freedom or national security.
The UN and most South or Central Americans back me up on this.

 

[Scuba Pete]

One of the reasons I look upon today's soldiers with a jaundiced eye is that it seems to me anyone with any historical perspective should know that in joining the military there is a strong likelihood s/he will be used for illicit actions completely unrelated to freedom or national security.

I fully disagree. Up until Haliburton's war, the conflicts we have engaged in since Vietnam have largely been in DEFENSE of others. The first Iraq war and the Bosnian conflict are prime examples of this. Also, most soldiers who signed up prior to 9/11 were assuming that they would see NO ACTION. This was a real issue early on in the war and many of these soldiers complained about it.

 

[Westy]

Well my Partner is in the army, (paratrooper) and he will be going to Afghanistan quite soon. I support him and all troops 100%, I understand that this is his job and he made the choice to join the Army!

BUT it doesnt mean that i support the reasons that he is over there! I completely disagree with what is happening right now, but will support our troops aslong as they are over there!

 

[opensoul7]

I don't see how one can support the troops without at least tacitly supporting the war. War is the function of a warrior. It's what they do. Supporting or approving of the troops has to imply approval of their function.

I was never in support of the war in Iraq from day one . Soldiers have a job to do , they do not choose the wars they have to go fight , politicians do . If they are told to go , they have to go , or risk imprisonment and the loss of benefits and the ability to support thier families.I support the troops because they are doing what they are told . I do not support the war or the politicians that chose to start a war that had nothing to do with AQ.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I believe that they way we treated the Vietnam Vets was DEAD WRONG. We didn't use good judgement as they came home from the war. For this, I am sincerely sorry.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I quite agree, NetDoc. From what little I've heard of the way that the returning soldiers were treated, it seems like they were insulted and looked down upon. Even if you disagree with the war and with the people fighting it, I don't think that's an excuse to be uncivil to another human being. It doesn't mean that you should attempt to hug them and offer to have their children, but general decency can't hurt.

 

[Bishka]

I support the troops. I do not support the war. This was an illegal and wrong war to start out with, but as these young men and women feel and urge to serve their country, I will support them. Like has been stated by many of the forums members, I support the troops, not the illegal war.

 

[xexon]

Everybody who voted for Bush, line up over here and bend over.

The other line forms behind me. :fight:



x

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I do know of a number of well-meaning people who voted for Bush.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

I thought this rational was dead with the Vietnam War, but apparently not so:

In both real life and on the Internet I've been told how I don't support the troops. To me this is one of the most offensive things you can say. I have friends serving right now in Iraq, friends who will soon serve, and friends who are thinking about serving. To equate my disapproval of what they're doing with disapproval of their safety is disgusting.

I don't agree with what prison executioners do, but I don't wish them harm.

The idea of people who don't support the war don't support our troops has been pounded into me since I was a third grader, which is when this whole thing started. In my household, people like you would be described as anti-American. I tend to disagree, but generally keep my mouth shut. This makes sense to me. *Beats head against wall* Oh no, I'm turning liberal!!! Whatever shall my parents say?

Well, I support the war and I support the troops. But I don't think that anyone who does not happen to support the war is anti-american or anti-american troops.

Of course, some far-left wing liberals are anti-american and anti-troop. I heard on the news that at some anti-war ralley, a soldier showed up in uniform, and some people were spitting on him and stuff. That is completely unacceptable to me. But as long as you're not THAT insane about it...

Everybody who voted for Bush, line up over here and bend over.

The other line forms behind me. :fight:



x

I'm not old enough to vote, so I'm safe.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Of course, some far-left wing liberals are anti-american and anti-troop.

The REAL anti Americans are Shrub and Company. They have abrogated our civil rights, put our sons and daughters in harms way for NO GOOD REASON and have broken our constitution.