"Support the troops"
 

Friend of mine and myself had a discussion earlier about the war. "Support for the troops" slogan came up. I asked, what exactly does that mean? What do you need to do to become a supporter? Do you send money? Do you send food? Do you just need an "I support troops" bumper sticker? Do you need to show up at the airport when troops come home? Do you need to hang an American flag out in front of the house? Do you just need to shout USA USA USA as loud as possible? Exactly what qualifies you as a supporter? He never could answer me. So I'll ask the board.

Just look grizzled and drink lots of beer.

I think this has its main roots in Vietnam when the troops were villified for fighting a war that was considered by many to be immoral.

So supporting means not getting on a person's case for doing their job. Understanding that the troops live in a democratic society that has put them in a situation that they personally may not particularly like. Even if you do not support the overall purpose of the conflict, understand their position.

Others of course will say it is a Republican ploy to support our current conflicts in other lands. If you support the innocent doing their jobs (read troops in this case) in the conflict, then the conflict becomes more palatable. Support of troops = support of conflict. Not a very well thought out slogan imo if it is taken this way.

Explain: Where did SilverRP mention Bush?

By the way, I support the troops and hope to see them return home soon, with excellent care for the wounded and reunited families for all involved.

Reading this paragraph made me think of the movie "A Few Good Men". I don't know if any of u have seen it but in it, there are a couple of low ranking Marines that are charged with the murder of a fellow Marine. All along, they contend that they were ordered to commit the act which led to the Marine's death. In the end, it was proven that they were so ordered. Because they were ordered to do so, they avoided being charged with murder but still were dishonorably discharged from the service for conduct unbecoming of a soldier. At the end, one of the Marines said something that I thought was great. He said that as Marines, they were supposed to fight for the weak (which the soldier they killed was) instead of just following orders.

So the question becomes is there a point when u know your orders or your mission is wrong and u decide that it's one that u can't complete, for moral reasons? Or do u just automatically do what u are told to do with no questions asked? A lot of the troops are in very difficult positions, ones that I don't envy at all. I'm sure that a lot of them have been put in situations where they've had the conflict in their minds of whether or not they had to follow their moral beliefs or follow the orders they were given? In a way, it can be summed up as do u follow God or follow your commander? Are we as individuals supposed to support those that are doing things that we may think are wrong? Tough choices here.

a soldier can refuse an unlawful order. but he'd better make sure the thing IS unlawful before he refuses it.

Since King Glorious mentioned a movie, here's one that will be out soon called "War Made Easy".
Both Dems and Repubs are shown to be instigators.
It might be interesting to see reactions (and, since it hasn't been relaeased I haven't seen it).
Expect anything from an administration that put the FBI and other "domestic surveilance agencies" on to the pacifist Quakers (though I'm not one).
"War Made Easy":
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=217698

And, hey Danzig, do you think the perps at Abu Graib acted independently, or might there have been other factors involved, like disregarding Article 3 of the Geneva Accords ( thank Gonzo for that interpretation)?
Weren't some of those found guilty at Nuhremburg also "only following orders"?

I knew this comparison was coming. The Holocaust with Iraq. Absolutely awful comparison that is shameful to present. As Z said a soldier can refuse unlawful orders. In fact, how are some of these isolated acts even found? By soldiers who knew something was wrong.
Bait taken. And it is really sad that it was.

This from a recent article by Anthony Gregory..on Empire, and all the while, I was under the "delusion" that somehow, someway, defending "FREEDOM" was what this creation was about....
"When the Patriot Act was rammed through, conservatives gave us a very bizarre defense of it: It was absolutely necessary, and yet it didn’t give Bush any powers he didn’t already have.

We got the same runaround on Bush’s extrajudicial wiretaps. Bush had claimed in April 2004 that all his wiretaps were all being judicially approved, but this was a lie. He had the NSA wiretapping Americans even without FISA warrants, which have been notoriously easy for the administration to get, even retroactively. When he was caught in this fib in December of 2005, Bush remarkably said that “the fact that we’re discussing this program is helping the enemy.”

Alberto Gonzales defended this program in February of last year with some odd reasoning. Bush, he claimed, had this power inherently, since he was the commander in chief. The Constitution and Congress’s post-9/11 Authorization of the Use of Force granted Bush all the power he sought. Indeed, even George Washington conducted such electronic surveillance, Gonzales hysterically claimed.

But this simply defies reason. Why are they so quick to defend all these laws that empower the president if the president already has such powers? If the Patriot Act changed nothing, why was it so necessary?

In January of this year, Gonzales said the NSA spying is now being done with the approval of FISA. So either the warrantless spying wasn’t as necessary as they claimed, or perhaps the FISA oversight is even more of a rubberstamp than before. But is their attempt to work with FISA an admission they were before acting outside the law?

What they’re really doing is warming us up for totalitarianism. Thus do they refuse to outlaw torture completely, even though they claim they never practice it. Thus do they say the president has had these powers since the Washington administration, but they never relent in asking for more powers. Thus do they cross their fingers and tell us they’re doing things the old fashioned way, then say that everything changed on 9/11, we can’t do things the old-fashioned way anymore, and even discussing these matters is pro-terrorist. This is Orwellian nonsense to make us used to living in a world run by an absurdist total state.

And if this surveillance state isn’t absurd, what is? The FBI has issued over 140,000 national security letters, forcing people to reveal information to the feds and forbidding them from talking about it to anyone. The FBI admitted in August 2005 to secretly collecting thousands of files from such groups as the ACLU and the Catholic Worker Movement. They have no-fly lists and databases to keep track of such dangerous groups as antiwar Quakers in Florida."

Yeah right!!! Those Quakers are dangerous!!! Go get em Gonzo!

i said a soldier has a right to refuse unlawful orders--which is absolutely true. why i said it must BE unlawful, is a soldier can't refuse to deploy and say it's an illegal war for instance. however, if a soldier is given an older by someone higher up, that is unlawful, he can refuse--the movie was mentioned above, obviously it's an illegal order to kill a fellow soldier.

IF you pay taxes you support the troops. It ends there...that's all you have to do to support the troops. If you do that, the rest is frills. Those that choose to do more or donate more is up to the individual. For example, someone loudly protesting the war in the streets is supporting the troops just as much as someone putting a ribbon on their car. After all, that is why we have the troops in the first place to allow both to go on...both are just as supportive. Both want what's best.

Support does not just come in monetary form.

Pgardn,
You are certainly entitled to your comparison with Vietnam and Iraq. Some see the quagmire and continued wasted lives.
I see it a bit differently.
I note the pardons that were given to the Nazis (can we say Scooter?) or perhaps the complicity of the "main stream media" in the selling of a similar debacle? Hmmm...
Good soldiers are good to the end. Even Himmler had the decency to commit suicide rather than face the blame for his actions. Such is the way of the cowards.
Timeline:
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/himmler.html

scooter libby is comparable to a nazi? yet another level-headed post by dts on the ultimate evil, a republican.

I kind of knew you'd pick that up. Actually, Scooter wasn't pardoned, he was commuted.
And no, the repubs aren't ALL evil, plenty of dems are also.
Anyone that is complicit with fascists and their "secret" agenda remain so.
Those that justify slaughter, death, and war rather than healing, life, and peace fit the mold. And they do have every right to defy any orders that run counter to their inner conscience. It's their choice, as are the consequences for same.

well, i'll continue to remind myself not to hold my breath waiting for a 'dems are evil-here's an example' thread from you.:rolleyes:

Interesting way of looking at it.

???? Am I missing something here?

I like this perspective.

I'll do my best. :rolleyes:
Lately, I've been looking at the precedent that was set at Nurmemburg by one of Goebbel's henchmen.
So interesting...
Watch out Rupert Murdoch and Fox "News"!!!!! :D

altho i think the phrase 'support the troops' is a bunch of bs, and a part of commercialism (witness the endless parade of yello, camo ribbons, etc on peoples' cars--wouldn't it be nice if the proceeds went to those same troops-or better yet, the vets) i would have to think there must be more involved than just paying taxes.
but, hard to say. altho i guess it's better than the opposite that went on in vietnam, with returning soldiers and sailors having to deal with all kinds of insults, or worse.
perhaps you can also support the troops by voting for those who show their support, by funding worthwhile things such as care for vets, rather than more pork barrel bs.

Being retired from the Navy 3 years ago, to all those that support the troops my thanks and keep up the support. Its a shame we have a moron in office that sends the troops to Iraq without a valid reason. There were no WMD's found yet and was that not the reason the troops were sent there in the 1st place? Could the real reason be all of the oil in that region? The moron that sent the troops there is from Texas and we know Texas is famous for oil.

Same crew thinks it's a good idea to send $20 Billion in weapons to Saudi Arabia over the next 10 years. Israel is concerned, of course, so we're sending them $30 Billion.

I'm sure a fresh $50 Billion in weapons to the Middle East will help things plenty.

Odom...on "support the troops":
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index....groundid=00192

for me it means - send care packages and donate money to charities that help the families of the fallen.

I think we are beyond the point of WHY we went over there

the enemy is there and that is where we are fighting them

ps... I think Bush is too liberal.

Couldn't agree more.

Enemy?? Who is the enemy?? Serioulsy, we invaded a country and are now fighting insurgents, and to make it worse terrorists are now occupying the country. Weren't most of our "enemies" in SA and Afghanistan.?? This is quite a cluster we got on our hands now and it was not done by a liberal president. A liberal, progressive president would not have invaded a country with the mental capacity of a wild west, 1800's cowboy who wanted nothing but a war. Please, I'm a liberal who thinks totally opposite of this president who got us in this cluster ****.

This so called "liberal" president had the backing of almost every American right after 9/11. Myself included. We wanted to get those responsible and bring some kind of relief for those families and all Americans. What did he do with that backing? Invaded a country that was no threat to the US, while basically allowing OB to run free. And during this time play the American people with fear tactics which somehow has worked with some. WHAT A JOKE

if i remember, the battle for afghanistan (don't hear much about it now) was to find these terrorists and bring them to justice.
the iraqi invasion was based on misleading info (poor colin powell) and has become the quagmire that was expected.
iraq is an underdeveloped country sitting on massive oil reserves and is also a very strategic place for permanent u.s. bases that the saudis really want no part of.
why? because those in the middle east already fear u.s. imperialistic motives, hence the attacks on u.s. soil.
big catch 22 if you ask me.
but the current administration would rather press the 'fear' issue onto the american public, of which we eat with both hands.
i have friends in the military that were happy to go to iraq (that's what they train for), but they have recently begun to question the alterior motives of their employers.

true...
Starting pre-emptive wars for the purpose of attempting to create middle eastern american style democricies is hardly a classic conservative type move without question. And he is certainly not even remotely close to a fiscal conservative either. He has many outrageoiusly liberal tenedencies in all the wrong categories.

The enemy is/are the guys that are shooting at us. They are not Iraqis trying to fight the infidels. They are Al Qaeda, fighters backed by Iran and probably the DNC. There has been plenty of Murtha, Reid, Durbin and other idiots that seem to enjoy spewing the Al Jazeera talking points.

I think there are parallels between Bush and x-42. Both have done everything they could to insure that the minority party became the party with the majority. Regardless what you consider a liberal, Bush should never be considered a conservative.

i heard a disturbing story this morning, and went to washington post dot com to listen for myself....

clyburn, dem from south carolina, # 3 in the house, stated that a favorable report from petraus in september would be a 'problem for democrats'.

i wonder if that is his way of supporting the troops?


soooo.....success in iraq is bad for dems. wonderful. wouldn't success be good for all americans? aren't dems americans? don't they want us to succeed?
apparently not, as party is apparently above country, and an election win is more important than success in a war that was approved by our congress. not by the prez, altho dems in office at the time would like us to believe it was the case.

i am disgusted by his comments.

Oh come on Dan...you should be disgusted with at least 90% of all of "public servents."

Was there any context to the quote?

I'd certainly say that good progress in Iraq is a problem for Democrats, as far as the election is concerned. However, it doesn't mean I want it to go to hell in a handbasket [any further, that is]. Did he say that he hopes the report is bad, so that Dems benefit from it, or was it just a matter of fact statement of the absolute truth that progress in Iraq hurts the Dems electorally?

i think you should go to the post site, and listen to the video. i did when i got my home. there are two parts, and the quote is in the second part. telling you that in case you don't want to listen to the almost 8 minute long first half....
i just think there should be a larger picture, rather than just the election. isn't the more important question whether success would be good for america?

no doubt, good or bad, the dems will attempt (as will the republicans, and yes morty, most of them are not to my liking) to go with the wind--after all most of them voted to go to war, so they could always fall back on that!

I forgot how much I turned you on with my mere type.

Don't feel bad.

i don't!

ah well...back to early 1777...reading a GREAT book.

I think the context is that they can't be for the war against the war and for the war.

My favorite word to describe them used to be demChiComCrimocrat
dem Chinese Communist Communist Criminal rat
but I don't know how to make a word out of dem Terrorist Emboldening Treasonous dog.. Maybe I'll just call her Nancy

Oh.




I thought you were going to say it was a great year.