Support the troops? Yeah! Right

Politics International Politics
1

I love it when the truth finally comes out…

From the [i]Washington Post:[/i]

I guess he wasn’t in Washington over the weekend…

[quote]So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?

But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform.[/quote]

blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywar … uppor.html

2

Hate the troops campaigns? Summer IS coming.

3

Yeah…great…another “summer of love”…

Ben there, done that, got the t-shirt.

4


“I hate hippies! I mean, the way they always talk about “protectin’ the earth” and then drive around in cars that get poor gas mileage and wear those stupid bracelets - I hate 'em! I wanna kick 'em in the nuts!”

5

It’s true, though. Here in the US, if you say anything against the war, you are immediately accused of “not supporting the troops”. Heck, many of the troops think the war is stupid and pointless and being managed in an incompetent way, but there it is. You don’t think they’d be just as happy to be doing their hitch back Stateside at some base? They’re hardly going to lose their jobs. And the reserves and Guardsmen WANT to lose their military jobs (full-time deployment) at this point.

6

Do you believe men join the infantry so they can sit around for 4 years at Ft Polk, Ft Riley or Ft Benning?

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

7

Better than getting their butts blasted off with a roadside bomb, isn’t it?

The “volunteer army” is in many cases composed of people for whom the Army, even with the wartime risk of getting said butt blown off, is the best option available – in some cases, the only option. Not all of them, mind, but enough.

8

[quote=“ironlady”]Better than getting their butts blasted off with a roadside bomb, isn’t it?

The “volunteer army” is in many cases composed of people for whom the Army, even with the wartime risk of getting said butt blown off, is the best option available – in some cases, the only option. Not all of them, mind, but enough.[/quote]

No doubt, but they are adults and we have to hold them responsible for their decisions. They knew upon enlisting/being granted a commission what they might be asked to do.

9

There’s the case of running into a burning building because there is a chance of rescuing someone, and then there’s the case of running into that same burning building where there’s no chance of rescuing anyone and you may be severely injured, just because someone who never sat through Fire Science 101 tells you to do so.

My husband’s cousin, who is a West Point grad, says he doesn’t mind going to Iraq. What bothers him is that there is not the slightest strategy in place for anything. And that’s the first idea drilled into their heads freshman year. You have to have a plan that’s feasible. And this guy is not one given to criticize the war, the President, or anything else. He just recognizes the fundamental stupidity of what they’re being ordered to do from a military science viewpoint.

10

You’ll get no argument from me on those points. I just get tired of the “oh they just joined for college mantra”. Not saying you are towing that line, only that it is annoying.

11

[quote=“ironlady”]
The “volunteer army” is in many cases composed of people for whom the Army, even with the wartime risk of getting said butt blown off, is the best option available – in some cases, the only option. Not all of them, mind, but enough.[/quote]

Oh…yeah. Right. Uneducated dopes, right? The same Leftist mantra I was hearing 35 years ago. Change the record, ok?

How nice of you to qualify your statement. I’m sure the troops will appreciate it.

And BTW, we could take your statement and apply it those expats who end up in the teaching and editing business here in Taiwan, could we not?

Not all of them, mind, but enough.

12

How nice…William Arkin has apologized for using the term “mercenary”…sweet. Another Leftist asshole whose mother should have availed herself of her right to an abortion.

[quote]I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today.

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.[/quote]

blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywar … nt_sp.html

13

Nam?

14

[quote=“Doctor Evil”]How nice…William Arkin has apologized for using the term “mercenary”…sweet. Another Leftist asshole whose mother should have availed herself of her right to an abortion.

[quote]I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today.

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.[/quote]

blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywar … nt_sp.html[/quote]

He made a mistake; he retracted it. Honorable thing to do no?

15

[quote=“Doctor Evil”]

How nice of you to qualify your statement. I’m sure the troops will appreciate it.

And BTW, we could take your statement and apply it those expats who end up in the teaching and editing business here in Taiwan, could we not?

Not all of them, mind, but enough.[/quote]

Give me a break. That’s not qualifying a statement. I am stating the facts, not wriggling around trying to spin something I said before. Do you think I’m supposed to be offended because you apply the same quantitative phrase to English teachers and editors in Taiwan? Afraid I’m not quite following your argument.

Too few people in the US today are able to call things as they see them, because you’re sure to be sinning against Something Important. Say that many soldiers are there for the free education and you’re Disrespecting the Troops. Say that Bush [insert whatever you like here] and you’re Disrespecting the Presidency. And so on and so on.

Take a look at some government statistics:

[quote=“A government person at dod.mil/prhome/poprep2004/su … mmary.html”]
Education Level. The Military Services value and support the education of their members. The emphasis on education was evident in the data for FY 2004. Practically all active duty and Selected Reserve enlisted accessions (99 percent) had a high school diploma or equivalent, well above civilian youth proportions (80 percent of 18-24 year-olds). More important, 92 percent of both NPS active duty and Selected Reserve enlisted recruits were high school diploma graduates.[/quote]

If they had anything to really talk about in terms of how many of the folks had a college degree, they’d be emphasizing it here. And these days in the States, a high school diploma will get you a job flipping burgers…if you’re lucky. Unless you go to trade school, which can be expensive, or maybe…into the Army? As for the percentage of high school diplomas in the Army being higher than the population in general, you don’t have to account for people who would not be accepted by the Army (special ed kids, handicapped, etc.).

And if you want to talk about English teachers and editors in Taiwan, all of them have college degrees, assuming they’re working legally. :smiley:

No one is saying the soldiers on duty are dumb, but the numbers are the numbers. And telling the truth about numbers should not be offensive to anyone.

16

[quote=“gao_bo_han”][quote=“Doctor Evil”]How nice…William Arkin has apologized for using the term “mercenary”…sweet. Another Leftist asshole whose mother should have availed herself of her right to an abortion.

[quote]I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today.

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.[/quote]

blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywar … nt_sp.html[/quote]

He made a mistake; he retracted it. Honorable thing to do no?[/quote]
Thats what qualifies now as a “retraction”?

I also thinks it stretching the term to the extreme to call that response “honorable”

He did exactly what he intended to do - Belittle those who chose to serve in the US Armed forces. He got caught and then he continued the belittlement.

IMO the guy is lower than whale poop in the Marianas Trench.

17

I don’t think that is what he is doing at all. He is rejecting the notion only the troops have a right to hold an opinion on the war in Iraq.

18

[quote=“ironlady”]
Too few people in the US today are able to call things as they see them, because you’re sure to be sinning against Something Important. Say that many soldiers are there for the free education and you’re Disrespecting the Troops. Say that Bush [insert whatever you like here] and you’re Disrespecting the Presidency. And so on and so on. [/quote]

“Disresepecting the Troops”? Pleeeese. Drop the ghetto jive.

[quote=“ironlady”]And if you want to talk about English teachers and editors in Taiwan, all of them have college degrees, assuming they’re working legally. :smiley:

No one is saying the soldiers on duty are dumb, but the numbers are the numbers. And telling the truth about numbers should not be offensive to anyone.[/quote]

And what [i]exactly[/i] gives a college educated English teacher/editor (with no military/combat experience) in Taiwan or anyplace else, a more informed opinion on what’s going on in the ground in Iraq than than the troops there?

19

Just about everyone seems to state without hesitation that they “support the troops.”

But in the heat of all the flag waving, people never seem to question what that means. What does it mean? Is it really correct that one should always “support the troops,” and it is wrong or immoral to not support them?

Take an extreme hypothetical. Assume the Commander in Chief decided to teach Iran a lesson by ordering US forces to invade the country and rape all women and children they encountered, the Generals followed orders, their subordinates followed orders, their subordinates followed orders, and a few thousand soldiers invaded the country, raping its citizens.

Would everyone jump to state that they support our troops in Iran? Of course not. In fact, even in less extreme circumstances, one often hears people say I support the troops but not their mission. But how reasonable is that? After all, the troops are carrying out the mission. Without them it wouldn’t be accomplished (or failed, in the case of Iraq).

To say I support the troops but not their mission, isn’t that comparable to saying I support street-level drug pushers, but I don’t support the kingpins? I support mules who transport drugs, but I don’t support those who hire them. I support prostitutes, but I don’t support pimps. I support low-level senders of spam emails, but I don’t support the spam kings that set up the lucrative business. I support the guys who stuff annoying crap in my mail box, but I don’t support the companies whose crap they are selling. I support the guys who drive loudspeaker trucks around Taiwan, but I don’t support the politicians they work for.

What’s the difference? The mission only exists because there are troops carrying it out. Is it really possible to oppose the mission and support the troops carrying it out? Is it really wrong to oppose the troops if one opposes the mission? Is it really dishonorable to say I respect the troops as human beings, but I do not support them in their mission.

If supporting the troops means hoping they don’t get blown up and make it back home alive as quickly as possible without contributing further to a screwed up, counter-productive mission, then perhaps that might make sense. But that’s not what it means, is it? Doesn’t supporting the troops connote a certain level of support for their mission?

I’m not saying I do or don’t support the troops. I’d just like for someone to explain to me what it means before I commit one way or the other. Thanks.

:salute: :America:

20

No I think that is what it means. That is what I take it to mean anyways.