I don't support the troops - and neither do you.

OK, this is for those snide bastards Thomas and IRFranklyAnIdiot:

This is what Moore says himself:



Oh? What has Moore done, and with his holier than thou attitude, what does he suggest that you or i or anyone here can do to bring them home? What has he done, and what does he suggest that you or i can do to assure that they are treated well? What can he, or you or i, do to assure that young people are not recklessly sent into harm's way? (For this idiot's information, one does not enlist in a cause, one enlists for a specified number of years, and with a guarantee to be trained in a certain skill, if you're slick enough to insist on it, after which all bets are off.) What does he do, or propose that you or i do, for veterans? What does he do, or propose that you or i do, to protect active service women from sexual assault?

So, Thomas Genius, my point, which apparently neither you nor IRFreak was able to absorb, is that Moore is no different from those who wrap themselves in the flag, say "support our troops," and then propagandize for whatever administration is in power. Moore has simply wrapped himeslf in a different, cynical banner, but he is as surely exploiting active service members and veterans as is any rightwingnut. If i point that out when people on the right do it (and i frequently do), i'd be a hypocrite not to point it out when someone on the left does it. Moore doesn't give a rat's ass about active service members or veterans in my never humble opinion--they are just a pretext for his polemic.

Geniuses . . ..

Try reading the headline first, boss. It says -- quite clearly -- "I don't support the troops."

Ah, but Moore isn't sticking bumper stickers all over the place. You see, he gets the moral high ground, after all.

Try reading the passage from Moore's screed which i quoted, LA. Then, if you can, answer the questions i asked based on that.

I tell you what i see happening here. I see people who subscribe to many of Moore's points of view who therefore are alleging that this is a thoughtful and important piece of writing. I could not agree less. I suggest that people here are unwilling to see that Moore is offering no solutions, and is just cynically exploiting concern for GIs and veterans for his own polemical ends. I suggest that people here don't realize that that makes him just a big a scumbag as anyone who wraps themselves in the flag and exploits concern for GIs and veterans in order to call for support for any particular administration.

But he did offer a solution. Don't join. BTW .... Name calling is not becoming.

The article is Moore attempting to move the public to pressure changes in policies in ways I agree with totally. I don't expect universal agreement here, but I thought those who missed it ought to have the chance to mull it over.

I wonder what men and women in the armed services (particularly those stationed in combat zones) think about Moore's screed?

You can support our troops by donating money to any number of legitimate organizations that provide care and support for the wounded and their families or for college funds for the children of those that have given their lives.

You can support our troops by writing to your representatives in government and urging them to do whatever they can to improve the benefits of our service men and women.

You can support our troops by giving them some degree of preferential consideration in your hiring practices.

You can support our troops by giving one of them your first class plane seat, if you are so fortunate to have one.

You can support our troops by valuing their service in your heart and in the words you speak and write.

And you can support our troops by telling them "Thank you." whenever you see them. Moore may think this is a hollow gesture that infuriates members of the armed services, but my experience is that they appreciate it.

I'm sure there are more ways to show our support and appreciation and would never say I have done all I can, but Moore doesn't know what I have or haven't done. I'm fairly certain that he's rather proud of this screed as one of his big contribution to their support.

I also suspect that most of them are not particularly fond of being thought of as a bunch of chumps who have been played for suckers by their government.

No, he sidesteps this point, playing his rhetoric word game with the word "support."
Funding for 'the troops' comes from taxes. In a way, everyone who pay taxes do support the troops whether they want to not. That is financial support. Moore may disagree with his rhetoric word games, but so what?
Michael Moore has good points, I'll say that. The so-called "I support the troops" movement generally seems to only go so far as supporting the signs and car magnet makers, which he points out is a hypocrisy, which I agree. I also agree with his rambling part about stopping this mundane war and bringing the troops home.

In his general outlines, Moore is absolutely correct. When the US went to war in 1941, citizens supported the troops by paying the highest tax rates in the nation's history (and continued paying long after the war ended). In 1944-45, the top marginal federal tax rate was 94%. In contrast, with two wars going on, George W. Bush urged Americans to shop more.

Frankly, I don't know how we won WWII without all those yellow ribbons.

Americans pay a lot of money in taxes, and generally they rely upon their government to use their money judiciously and as needed. (What fools these Americans be!).

Now you seem to be suggesting that their support of our troops is wanting if they don't pay even more...notwithstanding the fact that any tax increase would never include an iron clad requirement for application to our armed forces.

It's not a question of paying more or paying less, it's a question of paying now or paying later. If you want wars, you have to pay for them. The bills come due, whether we're paying cash or using the credit card. Somehow, we were able to understand that simple fact back in the 1940s.

I think that the closest most people got to supporting the troops was holding them in their hearts as they sang "God Bless America" during a sporting event or as they lifted a glass at the bar. Stuff like making sure that there was good reason for the giving of lives to the nation, or demanding that our leaders follow the international laws so that our soldiers might be treated according to law also was entirely too much work.

Telling me that i've missed the point, as usual, which is the horseshit you were spreading, is not very becoming either.

By the way, Mr. Doesn't get it as usual--if no one joins, the Congress will return to conscription, which means that people will be subject to the same alleged abuses without the fig leaf of their signature on an enlistment document.

Or it's a case of cutting spending now or paying taxes now. Obviously the former is something that Washington is simply unable to fathom.

In any case it has nothing to do with supporting the troops.

I'm not a fan of it, but the money that was needed, that should have been made available by taxes and/ spending cuts was borrowed.

Putz!

Oh, wait. I agree with you.

On the contrary, it has everything to do with supporting the troops. They are expected to sacrifice for their country, while back home the average citizen is expected to go shopping. That's not right. In a democracy, war is a burden that should be borne equally by all citizens. If those on the homefront gave up even a tenth of what we expect our troops to sacrifice, maybe we'd have fewer wars.

Set, your attacks remind me of the school yard, and that was a long time ago. Give up.

What do your attacks remind you of? You make a snide, slighting remark, and that's OK, but no one is supposed to pay you back in your own coin?

For your information, Mr. Doesn't get it as usual, it appears to me that you're the one who doesn't get it. Moore is suggesting, for example, that people enlist for a cause. I seriously doubt that. The most likely reasons for people to enlist is to escape poverty and ignorance. The military gives them a job, and may give them a skill they can use after they get out. They can get financial assistance for an education, and can start an educational savings account while they're in. Yet your silly, pat answer is "don't join." Oh? Do you seriously think that the United States can dispense with a standing army? If no one joins, the Congress will conscript people again. However, given the good reasons that people have to enlist, i doubt that that will happen.

Moore has said absolutely nothing, with the practiced ease of the politician. He is just using this subject as a platform for his polemic, and he has not offered one concrete, reasonable solutions to the problems of which he complains.

Yet you have the gall to say that i don't get. Furthermore, you say i don't get it as usual, suggesting that i likely never "get it." To top it off, you're now whining because i've treated you just as you treated me.

Grow up.