support our troops

People keep bringing this problem up because everyone like to polarize the positions of people that agree with them.

Bland conservatives say 'stop the war' stickers are proof liberals hate our precious children fighting the war, which isn't true in any sense. Bland liberals say "Support our troops" stickers are proof conservatives enjoy sending our precious children to needless war, without caring for the consequences, which also isn't true.

In a world where everyone is a pundit, there is no middle ground.

Ya those bumper stickers are fucking dumb~

Ah, come on on Ogrim -- please don't use the word "retarded" like that...please??

I agree with you giddyup, I see how the stickers can be misleading -- especially the "troops" one. My brother has been in Iraq for a year now, and my mom has "Support the Troops" stickers. Her use of the sticker is moreso because she's frustrated by the fact that her son has been over there for so long yet media coverage dwindled early and is so relatively minimal now --- I think a lot of people who have family members who actually are these "troops" in the stickers share those frustrations, and others. She just doesn't want people to forget that there's a war going on and people are dying, so to her, "Support The Troops" = "Please Don't Forget About the Troops"/"Please Don't Minimize The War" you know?  And that can co-exist beside a "Stop the War" sticker -- it's not really a political thing to her --- she wants the war stopped so that he and the others can come home, but at the same time, she wants us to support/remember them.  But that's just one person's take -- to each his/her own.  Everyone reads messages differently, so, my thoughts are jumbled just as yours are! :-) 

My bad, it's one of those words I've just used for so long that the meaning has transformed for me....just not for other people~

It would be great to see a car with both the "support the troops" bumper sticker and the "end the war" sticker side by side. This would make the most sense to me. There is no reason to polarize both sides so it looks like they are standing for something that they aren't.

Yep I was there(Fallujah) and am still a Marine

I can tell you that when you dont support the mission you DO NOT support the troops.

It is both impossible and immature to think that you can actually support the troops and not their missions.

Just like saying "I say support the teachers but, cut their salary in half school is getting too expensive."

Haha, wrong~

Yeah I love people like you.

Never having stepped out of your little Belligham bubble.  No worries people like me will go abroad and risk our lives to save the selfish like yourself.

It must be easy to never sacrifice your time or put your life in danger and make fun of those that do. 

What an easy life.

I seriously disagree with you on this.  My dad is currently in Iraq and he is against the war.  He is definitely not alone in this... One could look at the large number of overseas troops who donated to the Obama campaign (who is against the Iraq war) over the McCain campaign during the '08 election to see this. For me supporting the troops means wanting them to come home safe.

Exactly, fieldsa5.

"Support Our Troops" doesn't mean "support the war, or you're un-American." It just means, we wish for the safety, and safe return, of our men and women serving abroad.

The end.

Hold on their why does everyone think anyone who support the missions want troops to die.  That would include me. 

Mission success in Iraq is safety at home for everyone here and you cant deny that.  Since 9-11 there have been no other attacks on the USA (Thanks GW) thats why supporting the missions is just as if not more important.

Your dad can feel that way but know that he is in a minority of milatary personal.  You are wrong the majority of military supported McCain.

If your dad doesn't like going to Iraq why doesn't he get out?  Don't give me the phony answer its the only job he can get.

I am sure he doesn't mind the tax free paychecks.

What the hell?...

Oh, man. Someone stop this train-wreck of a post. Didn't Dick Cheney himself admit last week that they have found NO conclusive links between Iraq and 9-11? No means zero... thanks for nothing, "GW" (I think he prefers "W" anyway).

You're a complete jackass.

"You're a complete jackass."

You need to review the "Guidelines for Participation" you are too angry to control your own words and sound childish.

I love it when you guys get so angry and so mad over me just wanting to calmy and cooley express my opinion.  I thought that campus was a free thinking zone.  Not an insult zone.

Make no mistake about it GW has protected us so far and lets see how Obama does.

I say again.  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS AND NOT SUPPORT THE MISSION.

It is like telling cops to enforce the law but not be able to arrest people.

Think what you want but, you WERE NOT THERE and are NOT in the military now.

I am sorry sir or mam but you're completly wrong on all fronts.

hahahahaha, I don't even live in B ham other than for school, I travel a lot as well.
How are you saving me?  how did you going ot Iraq help me in any way?  Waste of fucking money chief~
There are a lot of ways to be a hero, a soldier is just one.  What about a teacher? economist? scientist~

First off thank you for recognizing that being a soldier is a way to still be a Hero.  Second I am not a soldier (thats Army) I am a Marine. (Marine Corps)

Let me ask you if everyone gave up the soldier bit to be some other type of non uniformed hero then who would protect this country?

We would have to assume that if any country completly abolished its military it could not carry out the military mission of defending a nation.

Thus we would have no nation.

Thank goodness our nations armed forces carry out military missions of defense.

Someone as well traveled as you confess to be would surely understand this. 

My bad, I've heard the Corps are more bad ass anyway.

Ya, if we abolished the military COMPLETELY we might have problems, but if we just didn't spend quite as much I doubt we'd be overrun by anybody.

Seems like our military carries out missions of offense more than defense.  I know you could say the best defense is a good offense but that seems like a "feel good statement," rather than undeniable truth.

On a sidenote I do respect military personel for their service, I honestly wouldn't want to be in the military and I'm thankful that other people do.
How hot was it when you were in Baghdad?  I can't imagine that heat with all the gear you must have been wearing~

The idea that we cannot support our troops without supporting the mission is dangerous. This logic implies either an infallible government, which I imagine everyone here would agree is not the case, or that if the government does make an ethical (or even tactical) mistake then we as Americans should associate individual soldiers with the mistakes of our leaders and devalue them accordingly, an idea that I hope we also reject. If we value democracy at all, we must have the right (and take the responsibility) to question our leaders but still value individuals. For the soldier in combat, it may be that an unquestioned chain of command is pragmatically necessary, but for the rest of us it's healthy to question violent foreign policy.

But what I really want to talk about is the draft. 

Every American should be required to give limited military service, say a couple of years between high school and college. If the responsibility for risking life was spread evenly throughout our society, this discussion would probably not be happening. For one, our leaders would make different decisions about where to send troops and what is necessary conflict if every single voter (and they themselves) had a loved one who might die. We also wouldn't get the "you don't have an opinion because you haven't been there arguement" because all of us would have some conception of what military life and the possibility of sacrifice means. Of course the privileged would probably still not be placed anywhere in danger, but those sort of inequalities are going to pop up as long as there are any social/economic inequalities, which is going to be a little while longer, I'd say.

I would argue you where you said you "doubt" anyone would overun us.  Listen to the president of Iran lately he wants nothing more than a total annhilation of Israel and the US.  Russia to recently said they have no problem restarting the cold war.  China bought our nuclear secrets from Clinton back in the 1990's.  I am sure North Korea would have problem nuking us if it felt it could get away with it.  I believe the major media does a great diservice to the American public by not keeping these things on the front page.

As far as a "Good offense is a good defense" its 100% true and works every single time it's tried.  No nation in world history has ever been able to survive with just a defensive plan.  Look at Israel when it bombed Irans nuke facility in 80's.  That was an offensive action that kept Iran from nukes for at least a while.

I was not in Baghdad exactly I was about 120miles to the west in Fallujah and deployed from there from Sept05-March06.  The heat wasn't that bad because I was there in the winter but I tell ya what Christmas night it got downright cold.  I remember standing in helicopter exhaust as long as I could to warm up.  In some parts of Iraq it does snow and it did when I was there.

Wearing the gear does suck 7lb gun, 8lbs water, 45lb flak jacket with bullet plates, 20-25lbs of ammo, and then helmet which may have night vision attached.  Nearly an 80lb base load not to mention other mission specific gear. 

Interesting point.  Props for bringing new thinking to the table.  I'll have to think on this cause I don't know what I think about it as of now~

First thanks for the mature opinion that you bring to the table.

Remeber that it was CONGRESS that GAVE PERMISSON to GW Bush to carry out what he needed as far as the war is concerned. We dont live in a democracy but a representative republic and the people we voted for and put in office by a majoirty vote gave the ok for the current war.

Thus you could make the argument that by not supporting the war you do not support your elected reps.  If we were to live in a governement whose leaders we elect but whose policy we can also control we have tied our elected leaders hands behind their backs and we would have to vote for everything.

I would say that you hit the nail on the head as far there needs to be a chain of command that is strictly obeyed or there would just be chaos.

A force draft I can say we already tried it in Vietnam and it did not go over very well.  Drug abuse went through the roof, intentional friendly fire sky rocketed, and overall military effectiveness just went down the crapper.  If I have to share a fighting hole with someone I would want someone with me who actaully wanted to be there.

The number one way to kill an Armys morale is give them a mission, then let those who are not there dictate the fight.

"udontknow"

Just wanted to say thank you for everything you've done in the Corps. My nextdoor neighbor ships to San Diego Recruit Depot for basic in October and I'm currently deciding whether I want to enlist (Army) now or go Guard for now and comission when I'm done with school.

I support war but I don't support the troops. Troops are disposable that more of them will join anyways and fill the empty slots. Why should we even care if they're dying; it's their job and they choose to do it and not forced to. just my 2cents

Spoken like a true neocon.

People join the military because they would rather risk dying than be stuck in a minimum wage, dead end job at *insert_least_favorite_employer_here*. Aside from the top echelon and the folks who go "AMERICA FUCK YEAH, LET'S GO KILL SOME BROWN PEOPLE", I doubt most people would have joined the military if they were given another option.

Why don't you see that educational opportunities exist for the poor to escape their cycle of poverty and afford their children the means to a better future, without having to become some warmonger's cannon fodder.

I didn't say anything about war against "brown" people did I? you racist. The kind of war im supporting is something similar to the ww2 and fighting the darfur genocide. Like many people I dont have the balls to go to war and die for some dude. But props to the people who do but dont expect any pity points from me.

And you also implied that poor folks signed up for millitary in order to escape poverty like it's their only option.. They have many other options such as going to school by using financial aid . Or  they could read some books from the library (free), get minimum wage job for a while and save that money to open business or maybe invest that money to name a few. Like i said they have options it's their choice to pick which one.

Nice ad hominem try. Did I say you're one of those people? If you had read what I wrote, and it's fairly obvious from this that you didn't, you'd have realized I was making an exception for a specific subset of people, regarding motivations to join the military. Nowhere did YOU figure into that analysis. If you disagree with what I've said, then say it. Don't cry wolf and call me a racist for disagreeing with you.

No, I did not imply. I stated. As for your various "other options":

1. Do you think everyone who needs financial aid will get it, and get enough of it?
2. Do you believe that "Oh, I read a bunch of books about mechanical engineering in a public library" will get you hired?
3. Do you believe that it is possible to stretch a minimum wage paycheck more than a hand-to-mouth existence, and even have anything left over?
4. Do you think people on minimum wage have enough savings to start a viable business?
5. Do you think banks are willing to loan capital to uneducated wannabe business owners?
6. Do you think the current federal funds rate make "investing" (ie. putting money into a savings account) a viable option?
7. Do you think that people are willing to put 10% of their income into a 20-year fixed-deposit savings account, when they're barely subsisting on the poverty line?
8. Do you think "investors" with no education will make any money in the stock market?
9. Do you think it's even prudent for people on minimum wage to do any sort of trading on the stock market?

If your answer to any of the above is "yes", then you need a harsh, harsh reality check.

At first, I was like, "Hey", but then, I was like, "Oh".

Knowingly risking your life for your country and demanding everyone to praise what you do... do I sense a lot of arrogance in these posts? Okay look, ending the war is what everybody wants in this country right? I can hardly see why they would want to continue fighting someone elses civil war while risking American lives. Also, war is really expensive, there are better things like health care, education, and infrastructure that we should be spending money on. I by no means want a weakened military, but picking an chosing whose conflicts we will intervene in in the world will not win any friends. If you don't want to end the war I'm not really sure what to say to you. I have to admit I am a pacifist. If my or my families life was directly threatened, yes I would defend myself. However, preemptive attacks against someone who "might" threaten me or my family would never get me anywhere in the U.S. court system. I mean what if I just went to someones house who suggested harm to me or my family and upright murdered him. I would go to prison and serve a very long time there. I don't think just because some other countries don't play by our rules of justice and equality that we should stoop to their level.

Well....not everybody, unfortunately :-(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_contractor
(sorry for the wikipedia article, but you get the point)

Ya, I read that and thought wouldn't that be nice~

Just a reminder to try to refrain from using insulting or belittling language.

That said, to me, saying you can't support troops without supporting their mission is like saying you can't support teachers without supporting "No Child Left Behind." My brother's in the Marines and went to Iraq (he also said "We're not soldiers, we're Marines," and I kinda rolled my eyes at him; it sounds like a rather pride-derived us-and-them mentality). I respect my brother, I love him, and I support him; that doesn't mean I have to agree with what his superiors make him do all the time. I'm sure he doesn't always agree with them, either, but I'm also sure he's been trained not to question his orders.

I haven't posted much on this message board since it was new, and I'm disappointed in how the quality of dialogue has descended into your average obscene messageboard with the use "retarded" or dismissing someone's post by calling her or him names.  While I'm anti-war (and work to create a world where we don't need militaries or nation states), I'm not OK with abusive treatment of individuals in the military, including the name calling of udontknow.  No wonder folks like him and others in the military don't feel supported by peace advocates.

You assume that everyone starts with equal opportunities and options in the United States, which is a myth that lets us blame those who were unsuccessful at escaping poverty for just "not trying" hard enough, as though the children of the poor have the same chances as children with trustfunds or university endowments started by a wealthy grandparent. 

My father enlisted when he graduated high school because he was from a working class family.  He wanted to go to college, but had no finacial or emotional support.  He joined the military because he did not have a lot of other options.

There are people from all backgrounds in the military who joined for all kinds of reasons. I have an education and have never had to work a "minimum wage, dead end job." The military appeals to me for totally different reasons.

I never said that's the ONLY reason. I made provisions for that in my original post. The point I'm making is that many people are in the military because there's no other way for them to get ahead aside from having to risk getting killed in a foreign country.

Your tone seems to suggest that you have already joined the military? In which case, did the fact that you were once in the military open up figurative doors that were previously closed? If so, my point still stands. If not, my point still stands since your experience, as one person, is not necessarily representative of the big overall picture.

I'm sorry, but I dont support your mission. I never asked you to go risk yourself for me. I do not believe you fighting in Fallujah has made me any safer, in fact I feel its only made the world a more dangerous place. I'm sure your a great person, I respect your bravery, but if I had the power I would make sure you never have to see combat again.

So, call me un-patriotic because I dont support your mission, but I feel Im a bigger patriot for standing up for what I believe. I 'support the troops' by actively campaigning against the current #1 killer of them.

This is a different topic, so you can handle this as you wish, but while I respect the rest of what you're saying, I think the idea of a stateless world is a pretty bad one.  Chomsky and the like are remnants of some misguided classist Marxian notion that once the state withers away, we'll all be happier.  We had a stateles world once.  It sucked ass.

Westphalian ftw.