The electorate is who needs to “know the damage they are doing.”
Absolutely. At this point I’ve given up trying to figure out what the hell “supporting the troops” means. Looks like it means giving perpetual lip-service to the people who are fighting a war regardless of whether you think they should be there or not. Fuck that. If the options pro-war people are giving are “either you favor the war or you’re against the troops,” the issue becomes meaningless and the accusation “you don’t support the troops” carries no actual weight. Hence, like rjung says, it’s just a cheap-shot attempt to stop people from dissenting. I don’t favor the war, so I’m obligated to shut up about it? That’s just a sad attempt at apologetics. You realize it’s impossible to oppose a war if that’s the rule, right? There will always be troops whose feelings are (apparently) more important than right and wrong and holding our government accountable.
Then again, maybe I don’t support the troops. If I’m opposed to a war I’m not going to stop protesting for fear it’ll hurt somebody’s feelings. That’s just stupid and I have bigger things to worry about. Democracy doesn’t work if you spend all your time worrying about sensitivity.
Support Our Troops is the modern equivalent of America- Love It Or Leave It. Just a mindless catch phrase. If you say “I Support Our Troops” how are they supposed to know it and exactly how does it help them? Personally, for the average foot soldier who has not committed atrocities, and that is the overwhelming majority, I bear no particular ill will but neither am I their vapid cheerleader. I do not support the war and I do not support the atrocities, but the blame for the troops being in this wasteful act of imperialism lies squarely with Bush and nobody else.
I’m defintely not speaking of calmly rational Op-Ed pieces. More like those holding “Bush Lied” and “Bush is killing babies” signs.
Anyway, I asked the question so I figure I should offer my take:
I DO believe that a general anti-war feeling at home decreases morale in our soldiers abroad. I think it could easily be a 10% decrease in “effectiveness” as opposed to if they believed they’d be coming home to a ticker tape parade. Having said that, I still don’t think its wrong to protest the war. Its just one of those unfortunate situations. But, I do think that people should realize the potential effects of unnecessarily vitriolic protesting.
I really, really doubt anybody feels his own protesting is unnecessarily vitriolic.
I was just thinking about the absurdity of the “you can’t support the troops without supporting the war” claim.
I wonder if folks like Loach and Hail Ants would agree with other links between policies and people:
If you don’t support Affirmative Action, you don’t support minorities.
You can’t claim to support doctors unless you support everything doctors do, including late-term abortions for children without parental consent.
If you’re against taxes, you’re against taxpayers.
Supporters of police officers have to support everything they do, so one cannot speak out against laws that one might think are unjust or unfair, because criticizing the laws that are passed by politicians might endanger the lives of police officers.
Surely not. That label is in the eye of the beholder.
The last poll I saw had well over 75% of the troops supporting the president and the war in Iraq. Thats what the troops stand for. Maybe I should say thats what we stand for if that will clear things up for you.
That’s just the petty dishonesty necessary for your advancement in the military. Here, we are much less tolerant of that indisciplined thinking. Smarten up!
Bullshit
Originally Posted by sevastopol
That’s just the petty dishonesty necessary for your advancement in the military. Here, we are much less tolerant of that indisciplined thinking. Smarten up!
Start on vocabulary.
Surely I can disagree with the political views of the troops without being labeled unpatriotic? Are you saying the troops are so fragile that my political opinion shatters their morale? If so, are they up to the job of making the wold safe for Democracy?
I never once said unpatriotic. I can easily see how you can come to the conclusion that the war is wrong. If you feel strongly about it there is no reason why you shouldn’t act on your beliefs. Nothing unpatriotic about that. Supporting the troops(of course that is a very vague notion) means supporting what they are doing. Most people (not you) who say I support the troops but not the war seem to have a bit of condescension in their voice. “I support them for they know not what they do.”
sevastopol you are right I should have ignored your idiotic statement instead of replying like I did, I apologize.
That is utterly ridiculous, and that is why this debate will go nowhere.
If you can’t support the troops without supporting the war because they are inexorably linked, it follows that you can’t love the sinner but hate the sin.
Therefore if you can’t see supporting the troops while being against the war, you can’t be a good Christian.
I never even claimed to be a bad christian.
Do you want to address the questions I posed on the first page, Loach? Do you think the Vietnam War was a good idea? Are you against the veterans who served in that war?
True and it makes me wonder just what it takes to awaken some people. A recent Los Angeles Times article said that about 1 in 6 returning Iraq war vet exhibited signs of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (formerly known as shell shock in WWI or battle fatigue in WWII). That is also the approximate number given in this cite fromThe News Hour with Jim Lehrer. The News Hour cite also mentions that many of the victims aren’t receiving adequate treatment. That is along the lines of “support our troops” by adequately funding the VA to treat their difficulties and injuries resulting from their service.
That seems to be a much larger percentage than in Korea or WWII and maybe about the same as with Vietnam vets. It is true that we are now more knowledgeable about such things but Korean and WWII vets returned and settled down without too much mental disturbance on their part. And, except for a few troglodytes like George Patton, there was considerable sensititivty to battle stress in Korea and WWII.
Our Iraq forces have been sent there and told that their deployment was for a certain length of time. Then that is extended, and extended. They are then, maybe, returned to the US to start retraining and reequipping for a return visit.
Yet they cling to political support for a Commander in Chief who has been devious and less than straightforward about their mission and the reason for their being there.
Go figure.
Since I was born in 1967 that would be a purely intellectual exercise which I do not wish to get into. There have been plenty of threads about the Viet Nam war and this is not one of them. As an adult I have known and served with many Viet Nam vets and I have a great respect for them. I have no idea how I would have reacted to the situation if I had been an adult living through that time and I am unwilling to guess in this forum.
Lets say I was 20 in 1967 and against the war. I would in no way be supporting the troops fighting that war. That is not to say I would wish them harm or think they didn’t have a right to a happy life after their service, but protesting and speaking out against the war is the opposite of supporting the troops. That doesn’t mean I would be “against” the vets but I would not be supporting them.
I understand this may sound a bit ambiguous. It makes perfect sense in my head. I swear I’m getting less articulate as I get older.
That is incorrect from top to bottom. PTSD knows no political ideology or historical context. You think someone serving at the Bulge was under less strain than someone in Hue? This is a myth due to several factors that should be its own thread. In the 40s they wanted to sweep things under the rug and say everything is fine. Ever see The Best Years of our Lives? There was a reason why it had such an impact at the time. In the years since Viet Nam it seems almost quaint but at the time it opened the eyes of many to the plight of returning veterans and the troubles they were having. The percentage of sufferers from WWII through Viet Nam is pretty much equal. Its just better understood now. The studies I have read were on paper, if I have the time I will try to find some links.