I was merely making the point, maybe badly, that the fact that the great majority of military personned voted for GW doesn’t prove anything one way or another about “supporting the troops.”
I also didn’t say anything about the “goodness” or “badness” of wars as they are always “bad.” It’s just that some are necessary and some are not.
And I didn’t say that PTSD didn’t exist in WWII. However, I simply don’t believe that the number was 1 in 6 and your cite doesn’t do anything to change that view.
Are you perhaps having trouble differentiating between the war and the soldiers?
Yes, I would always attend a parade for returning soldiers. They deserve our respect and thanks. That is what parades are for.
Wars don’t have parades.
I’d go to a parade supporting soldiers. I would, and I have. Like others, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around a parade thrown for a war.
I don’t see how parade attendance is a better “litmus test” (if we’re going to try to nail one down) than the sorts of activities I and MrFancyPants out forth.
I’d warrant it’s a lot more work to raise money for kevlar vests than it is to show up and wave a flag and cheer.
No. I’m trying to determine if others do. Some people would consider attending a parade as an implied, if subtle, acceptance of the war whether it was billed as “honoring the soldiers” or not.
Just my 2 cents… Vietnam vets were treated badly not only for “representing” a nasty and unwanted war… but a war that was lost. It might be that “loser” thing americans have.
Imagine if Iraq goes pretty nasty quick and Bushie Jr. gives up and withdraws troops and quick. Clearly it would be viewed as a “defeat”… certainly not a “victory”. Do you imagine a big parade being held here when they get back ? Naturally the troops themselves won’t be mistreated… but don’t expect their RETURN to get the “heroic” treatment. Winners get parades.
Okay, I am just a low life worker, not the sharpest knife in the drawer and extremely opiniated, but…
I am against the war, against any type of “sanctioned murder” even when we are in the right. I do however believe that the terrorists must pay for their actions, so as you can see, I am conflicted. If only I had a split personality, heck, maybe I do.
Anyway, I feel that it is possible to support our troops without supporting the war. We can support those that are sent to fight, mainly because it is not their choice to go, but rather the chiefs of staff. Our children are there not on their on decisions, so I can support them, pray for them and wish them safety.
I can not in good faith support a war that has gone over the boundries of where we should be. I know I will be flamed for being an idiot, but I don’t believe we belong in Iraq. If we were truly fighting the terrorists, then we should fight them where they are, not out looking for trouble.
I have lost a brother in a war and feel strongly that all war does is lead to death. Yes, it is important to fight for freedom, but at what cost? I hope my ignorance doesn’t show through too much. :dubious:
You have more wisdom than you give yourself credit for, SEASPINE97. Welcome to the Boards, I hope you post in GD more often.
I don’t have to “support” the troops. I am one.
Of course the real world is not so black and white but when things are typed onto a message board it seems that way. For one thing the example you give is exceedingly rare. Most people in my experience who say they support the troops while actively opposing the war are basically saying they feel sorry for and won’t spit on the troops. But the aside, using your example,I think that in one very important aspect Mary is not supporting the troops. In opposing the war Mary makes it more likely that the sacrifice of the soldier’s may be in vain. If Iraqi Freedom is ultimately unsuccessful then their sacrifices have been meaningless. If Mary thinks it is meaningless or wrong regardless of the outcome she should speak out and act on her beliefs, but that is not support.
I have not tried to look any further into this on the web but I have read about it before. My cite does state how PTSD or battle fatigue has always been vastly under reported in WWII veterans. Many have been suffering for 50 years without treatment. What I have read indicates that a certain percentage of people will suffer some form of PTSD after living through a traumatic event. This could be combat, an accident, natural disaster or anything else traumatic. There is a (god I hate this word) meme about the psycho Viet Nam vet strung out and crazy due to his involvement in a “bad” war. This just isn’t the case Nam vets had the same percentage of sufferers as WWII Korea or the war of 1812 for that matter. It just wasn’t treated before.
which brings me back to a question I’m genuinely intereted in, and perhaps you missed on the last page:
Sorry, I completely missed that question. As long as they remain within the bounds of regulations, of course they can say or feel what they want. Any of my troops would get a talk about how reporters may not have their best interests at heart and to think about what they say beforehand but other than that it’s up to them. As you may have guessed by my ability to post on this board, I have not been sent where I am in any danger. Just luck of the draw. I will not be dishonest and say that my opinions would not change if my circumstances were different.
These seems very speculative to me. How do you know that situation is rare? Millions of people show their support for the troops, in dozens of ways. By paying deployed National Guardsmen above and beyond what the law calls for–by mowing the lawns of their home while they are away–by praying for them–by sending them phonecards–by mailing them books, and cookies, and baby wipes, and beef jerky. How can you or I know how many of them oppose the war or not? How can you or I know how many/few of them are like Mary?
How do you know the intimate thoughts of these people from your own experience who support the troops/oppose the war? You’re saying their regular modus operandi is to spit on troops who serve in wars they oppose, but that they are making a special dispenstation this go-round as their sole show of support. What a cynical thing; but more importantly, how could you know that?
I don’t know, exactly, how many people out there oppose the war but actively, meaningfully, and directly support the troops, but I see too much evidence of people who are doing that to believe they are rare.
Well, I’m not doing all those things the hypothetical Saint Mary did in the example, but I am against the war, and have written to my congressman about the need to keep our VA hospital open and well-funded, and voted for him largely on his accomplishments on two issues - that one and a little mercury problem we’re having with our water. That’s more, in my mind, than not spitting on you, and I don’t pity you.
And even though 75% of the troops are in favor of the war, 25% aren’t, but are doing their duty anyway. All of our soldiers deserve respect and thanks for committing to defending our country however the commander-in-chief sees fit, and being willing to risk their life in that commitment.
As I said before, you and I just have different definitions of “support the troops.” And thanks to people like you, both of us can go on claiming “support the troops” means exactly what each of us says it means.
Debates based on different definitions of the same term aren’t really debates at all. Call what I’m doing whatever the heck you want. But I’m going to keep on doing it, because I believe our soldiers in Iraq are being asked to make sacrifices they shouldn’t be asked to make.
And I hope you don’t get sent over.
I have a family member on duty in Ramadi right now, so don’t take that smug tone with me.
And I have seen the exact opposite, go figure.
Of course it is speculative. So is your assertion. No other way around it as far as I can see.
I am saying that many are going out of their way to show themselves as different than they or others were (or perceived to be) 30 years ago. The popular belief of how the Viet Nam vets were treated is commonly alluded to with the example of protestors spitting on returning soldiers. Due to my age I was likely to drool on soldiers but I am not young enough to remember things as they happened. That is how pop culture portrays Viet Nam vets being treated and everyone wants to distance themselves from that.
So, if President Bush makes the slightest error in judgment pertaining to the war (and thereby makes it more likely that the war will fail in its objective), he is not supporting the troops.
That’s where your rather idiosyncratic definition leads.
That makes no sense at all. The president is not supporting the troops. He is the commander. He can be a good commander or a bad commander and that will be judged by history. He is not a supporter any more than I am. Of course you can draw this out with ridiculous examples. I’m not sure you understand the word idiosyncratic either. If you mean it in the way I usually do (uncoventional, eccentric) then I suggest you talk to some soldiers. My position is in no way unconventional. It is the norm. Of course as in any large group of people their isn’t going to be uniformity (no pun intended). If you are going to ask me how do I know, well I don’t have a scientific survey. I only can tell you what I have heard from a large number of soldiers. For some reason I think my sample is larger than yours. Maybe I’m wrong.
This has been my contention all along. I’m glad we agree on something.
I’m sick of the party line that says if you support the troops, you have to support the president. I will support a president that:[ul]Exhausts diplomacy *before *putting our troops in harms way.
Captures or kills our sworn enemy or at least makes a concerted effort to do so.
Listens to experienced war planners that suggest overwhelming force is preferred, rather than spitefully dismissing there suggestions and listening to chicken hawks in his inner circle that have no war experience.
Will admit to a mistake when it becomes clear that he should have listened to the war planners, and then listen to them, rather than ignore them.
Will have the ability to recognize when to cave in to what experienced men of the service have been suggesting all along and provide enough manpower to finish the job.
Will make sure that every troop in the battle zone is afforded the best protection available, be it armored Humvees (not Band-Aid armor), Strykers, or bullet proof vests (complete with plates, front AND back!) Even if it means holding off on tax breaks.
Will make sure that our injured troops don’t languish in underfunded and understaffed VA hospitals.
Builds a coalition and shares the work, not builds a coalition than slowly scares it away.
Will make sure that all of the troops in the field have the opportunity to have their vote counted.
Will not avoid bombing the shit out of a terrorist camp in a region just because it’s existence makes a better argument for a war.
Will not put off quashing a regional insurgency for fear of losing political points.
Will not publicize a ramping up of an action to quash a regional insurgency to gain political points.[/ul] The list could go on and on. I support our troops. I also see a commander and chief who has ham handed and bumbled his way through the past three years.
Lincoln replaced McClellan when he proved ineffective. Patton was put under Bradley when he got out of hand. Military history is filled with ineffectual commanders getting replaced. Yet somehow pointing out this presidents glowing failures is somehow unpatriotic.
I don’t know of a single person in the military who would prefer to go into any country unprepared, undermanned, under protected, under supplied, and paid a hundred thousand dollars less than a civilian contractor that is doing the same damn job. Yet this is where we find ourselves. They’d much prefer to go in with overwhelming force, kick some ass, help the locals lead themselves, and get the hell out. Let’s admit it. Bush has screwed up at nearly every turn.
The problem is, we’re in it deep now. And we have no choice but to finish it. So I think the best way to support our troops out now is convince Bush to stop listening to Rummy and the other chicken hawks. Convince him to try some diplomacy. Convince him that the UN is not our enemy, and they might be able to help us. To convince him that alot could be done to garner help from the region if there was some evenhanded work done in Palestine. Convince him that admitting mistakes is not a sin.
Get done and get out. Then go to Afghanistan and finish a job that should have been completed 2 years ago. Then get out.
I support my troops. My president is an idiot.
I was reponding in kind to your post. Go back read the post I was responding to. If smug wasn’t what you were going for, please clarify.
Nice debating technique Dio. Please don’t edit my posts to change the context. If you were doing it as a joke, never mind.
So, when the UCMJ states that military personnel may not criticize certain government officials and elected leaders upon pain of prosecution, do you feel that that is an example of conduct that civilians should be encouraged (but not compelled) to follow, in order to maintain good order and morale among the members of the armed forces?
(Again, just trying to understand where you’re coming from.)