Support the troops? Yeah! Right

No I think that is what it means. That is what I take it to mean anyways.[/quote]

But as long as they follow orders – and of course they’ll follow orders, their soldiers, that’s what they do – if it’s a screwed up, counterproductive mission, then they are contributing to the screwed up results. They are supporting the mission. If you support the soldiers who are there solely to support the mission, then aren’t you supporting the mission?

Does it make any sense to say I support people who drive loudspeaker trucks but I don’t support the crap they are selling? How is this different? Just curious.

No I think that is what it means. That is what I take it to mean anyways.[/quote]

But as long as they follow orders – and of course they’ll follow orders, their soldiers, that’s what they do – if it’s a screwed up, counterproductive mission, then they are contributing to the screwed up results. They are supporting the mission. If you support the soldiers who are there solely to support the mission, then aren’t you supporting the mission?

Does it make any sense to say I support people who drive loudspeaker trucks but I don’t support the crap they are selling? How is this different? Just curious.[/quote]

Hmm…well honestly I can’t really think of a difference. I guess my “sense” of the phrase “support the troops” is not really linguistically correct.

[quote=“Doctor Evil”][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?[/quote]

I don’t recall saying that English teachers or anyone else had a more informed opinion than those on the ground. However, would you feel that those who are teachers with certificates and proper training had a better idea of what’s going on in a classroom than those who simply get off the plane and are told to “teach”, perhaps after a crash course of six or eight weeks’ training? Hmmm…

And as I believe I’ve said somewhere on these boards, we have a cousin in Iraq right now who is a West Pointer and an officer, who says he is not against doing his duty there as it is part of his job, but that the only thing he is against is the fact that there is no sensible strategy at all. THAT is the kind of person who is likely to be very well-informed about the situation, being possessed of both the training background and the time on the ground to say so.

Try responding to the content of what I’ve said, not the specific words I’ve chosen to convey a meaning you understand perfectly well. Having a little problem with that data from the Department of Defense, what?

Gotta love our troops! Really great bunch of guys! We’re gonna get them terrorists!

youtube.com/watch?v=7xFFbfQgsow&eurl=

Wow. That’s disgusting.

I saw a video clip online a while back of some American soldiers who have adopted a local dog in Iraq. They make sure she has plenty of food and water, the dog is plenty fat with a good healthy coat. The soldiers clearly adore her and give her lots of loving. The dog is obviously happy with the soldiers and follows them around on base. I was going to post a link to the clip but I can’t find it. Anybody know what I’m talking about and has a link?

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]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?

SNIP
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:[/quote]

:notworthy: :beer: :notworthy: Very well said.

6-8 weeks training. Maybe in Korea or Japan, but not in Taiwan. 6-8 minutes more like. :roflmao:

MaPoSquid used to spend quite a bit of his time to tell us all how there were no supply problems and that the armored humvee situation had been fixed already. Is it “supporting” the troops to deny the existence of their problems? I don’t think so.

For that matter, is it “supporting” the troops to use other false information to support policies that have only exposed the troops to danger with no security benefit for the United States?

[quote=“cfimages”][quote=“Mother Theresa”]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?

SNIP
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:[/quote]

:notworthy: :beer: :notworthy: Very well said.[/quote]
I may or may not have an opinion of what this post might or might not be saying.
Until I decide whether I do or do not have an opinion of what is or is not being said…this is all I will say.
:loco: