Reply
Sun 23 May, 2004 04:47 pm
If I "support the troops" does that mean that I wish them successful missions killing people? Does it mean that I merely wish for their safety? Does it mean that I support the war and occupation? If I support the troops, can it simply mean that I support them in the same way that I would support any human being in harm's way?
How should I react when I see a "Support Our Troops" bumper sticker? What should I say when someone asks me if I "support the troops"? Do I? Should I?
I have asked that question many times here when people begin to assert that one should not criticise the decision to go to war, for instance, because we must "support the troops".
Some seem to think it means turning off your brain.
I gather this is because it is said to demoralise them when they hear/read that the mission is being challenged - and this is judged more important than being a thinking person in a democracy.
I think this is an invitation to madness. As is attempting to suppress information about appalling behaviour - such as at the Iraqi prison.
Do people want the stupid jingoism of WW I, where an uncritical population supported their troops as millions of them met appalling deaths under incompetent commanders, who could not be challenged?
However, I also think that opposition to the war which includes gloating about troop deaths (which is often mentioned, but I have only seen one item of proof about it) or calling them stupid or crazed murderers and such is both unreasonable and hurtful - as is focussing only on the bad things where there is evidence of the good.
I guess I think it means being a reasonable, thinking, compassionate human being.
Or knitting balaclavas. Who knows?
I support them in the sense that I don't want them harmed, and I want them back home. I don't have to endorse the war to do this. I have yellow ribbons out for a neighborhood soldier just returned from there, and it's a person I have never even seen.
I would say that if you pay taxes, you can safely say you support the troops (and the president for that matter).
This phrase is as stupid and vague as the term "war on terrorism".
I can't speak for anyone else, but as for myself, "Support the troops" means that I hope they stay alive, not get hurt, and come home without serious emotional trauma from the experience of war.
Sadly, my support for the war itself has unraveled and deteriorated to the point where I'm thinking it might have been better had we not done this in the first place.
Since its the troops that are suffering the most from the decisions of a few, I'm hoping they suffer as little as possible. My heart goes out to them.
dlowan wrote:I have asked that question many times here when people begin to assert that one should not criticise the decision to go to war, for instance, because we must "support the troops".
Some seem to think it means turning off your brain.
I gather this is because it is said to demoralise them when they hear/read that the mission is being challenged - and this is judged more important than being a thinking person in a democracy.
I think this is an invitation to madness. As is attempting to suppress information about appalling behaviour - such as at the Iraqi prison.
Do people want the stupid jingoism of WW I, where an uncritical population supported their troops as millions of them met appalling deaths under incompetent commanders, who could not be challenged?
However, I also think that opposition to the war which includes gloating about troop deaths (which is often mentioned, but I have only seen one item of proof about it) or calling them stupid or crazed murderers and such is both unreasonable and hurtful - as is focussing only on the bad things where there is evidence of the good.
I guess I think it means being a reasonable, thinking, compassionate human being.
Or knitting balaclavas. Who knows?
Good post Dlowan-----yours is a very fair and realistic answer.
I hear this statement mostly from people who are against the war, but recognize that a soldier's personal politics have little to do with performing his duty, whatever that may be. A soldier signs up to defend his country, and for this, he or she is worthy of support. What's the problem?
OCCOM BILL wrote:I hear this statement mostly from people who are against the war, but recognize that a soldier's personal politics have little to do with performing his duty, whatever that may be. A soldier signs up to defend his country, and for this, he or she is worthy of support. What's the problem?
Thats exactly the point. If Donald Trump is going to build something, and I'm against it, am I going to be angry at the people contracted to do the contstruction? Of course not. I'd reserve the anger for the person responsible for the decisions.
I think it means insisting that the soldiers have the right equipment and configurations to get the job done as safely as possible and license to do what they must do quickly, expeditiously, and efficiently as possible.
I think it means keeping our rhetoric civil, at least giving the appearance of a unified front, being careful about not passing on useful information to the enemy, and letting the terrorists know that they can't shake our courage or our resolve.
And I think it means sending letters or emails of encouragement to the men and women in the field and telling them thank you when they come home.
Do these things and I believe we keep many more of our men and women in uniform out of harms way.
CerealKiller....very nice question.
Deb...I like that post a lot.
fox...nothing wrong with your post but for this paragraph...
Quote:I think it means keeping our rhetoric civil, at least giving the appearance of a unified front, being careful about not passing on useful information to the enemy, and letting the terrorists know that they can't shake our courage or our resolve.
Keeping up the appearance of a unified front is absolutely not the right thing to do when the citizens are not unified as to the prudence or the morality of the action or war. To support what you believe immoral is to be immoral.
I won't bend on that one, Blatham. Criticize the President all you want but make it clear that you are behind him as Commander in Chief. The time to openly protest the war was before we sent in the troops, not after they are already there.
Nor shall I fox. And where you discourage such, I shall encourage it.
Again, I ask, would this be an unbending moral principle of yours, Fox?
Ought German citizens have continued to object after Hitler invaded the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France? Or ought they have pulled nicely together?
Um, to the best of my knowledge the German people didn't object. They would have been in imminent danger of being shot had they done so.
And that is not a fair comparison. A more fair comparison would be the Allied forces headed into Germany to liberate the German people and the remaining Jews from a murderous dictator.
Dlowan
You had to go and spoil it didn't you-------I find your comparison offensive.
Actually, I think Dlowan just made the first Nazi example I agree with in a long time. I don't think she was suggesting we are behaving like Nazis... I think she was pointing out there are limits to how far you can support your commander in chief. I agree.
Bill
You are entitled to your interpretation-----I'll stick with mine----
I think the comparison was comparing apples to oranges. Our intention is not to conquer and subjugate--we already did that when we took out the Hussein regime. Our intention now is to liberate and rebuild. That puts the comparison squarely comparable to the Allied Forces in WWII and we in no way can be compared to the Nazis in WWII.
You are outnumbered perc.
ps...and I could have written fox's reply before she did. I actually considered doing that, but held off out of manners.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace