Just to clarify, by this do you mean that the instant the troops cease to be involved in a defensive your country and instead become involved in military aggression, at that point they are deserving of scorn and derision? Not to say death?
Well, I have finally decided how I will answer the question of “supporting the troops.”
I “supporting the troops” requires that I have to support this foolish war then the troops are going to have to struggle along without my support.
I wish them good luck individually and hope they don’t get hurt, but that’s the end of it.
Well, it seems to me Loach, that you are using your own definition of “support” that is only a small subset of the many possible ways support can be given.
And then you criticize people who don’t use the same definition as you do.
I worry that you have chosen to misrepresent the meaning of the word “support” in an attempt to manipulate peoples’ attitudes and reactions to the war. And as a result, you do a great disservice to those who really do support the troops in a vast myriad of ways, but oppose this war.
No, because they are following orders. When they volunteered, they committed to follow the orders of their superiors, in good faith that those orders would be part of the large goal of defending our country.
Whether military actions are active aggression or defense are open to debate, but it’s not for the soldier to worry about.
[quote]
Loach: You are spinning your wheels in debate when you admit that you have your own definition for support and that your own opinion of what others think and feel is just a general impression.
I would like for the Department of Defense to list not only those troops killed or wounded in combat, but also those injured in Iraq in other accidents. Some 10,000 have been injured but are not listed.
No service personnel should be in Iraq without full protective gear or asked to drive in an unprotected vehicle – not with all of the waste in the Defense Department.)
I would like for at least the wives or mothers of service personnel who have been returned stateside but who are too ill to return home, to be flown to their bedsides for at least a few days.
No one should have to stay in Iraq longer than a year.
No one should have to return to Iraq involuntarily.
No spouse and children of someone serving in Iraq should go without shelter, food, and electricity.
That’s just a start on what I see as “supporting the troops.” Could you go a little more into detail on what you see as “supporting the troops” other than keeping our mouths shut if we are against the war?
Also, what does it mean to “support what they are doing”? (That may not be an exact quote.)
By the way, I would take David Simmons word on the effects of World War II. He was there.
Check out www.troopsribbon.com. It’s a great way to support our troops!
This may be just late-night mind blur, but I think I kinda see where Loach is coming from on this. Consider this comment:
That seems to say that Loach sees the troops as identifying with the mission of the war. In other words, in order to do their jobs effectively, they have to adopt the stated goals of the war as their own. Put their hearts into it, as it were.
They have to feel convinced that the things that they’re doing (killing terrorists and insurgents, rebuilding schools, breaking a siege, whatever) are worth the risks they’re taking and are going to be effective. If we don’t agree with that conviction, then we’re not really “supporting” them in the sense of “being supportive”. We may be providing them support in other ways, with the lawn mowing and the care packages and all, but we’re not being supportive.
I’m not sure I agree with this definition, but it does make some logical sense. In any case, though, as Loach noted, the crucial thing is to advocate what you honestly feel is right. After all, if we don’t support a war but we pretend that we do in order not to demoralize the soldiers, and the war does turn out to be a hopeless mistake that we might have ended earlier and thereby saved a lot of soldiers’ lives, then our superficial “supportiveness” was actually great cruelty.
Yeah, well there does seem to be a strong sense among the troops and their families (and especially families of those who have died) of needing to believe in the war being the right thing. Otherwise, it does make it more difficult (and, in the case of death, raises the specter that the family member didn’t die preserving freedom or protecting our nation but really for no such meaningful reason). I have heard on NPR families of slain servicepeople or servicepeople currently serving there essentially saying as much.
This is an unfortunate bind for the servicepeople and their families. And, it is yet another reason why war must only be a last resort and why violating this principle can really tear a nation apart.
In Summary: Protective Rationalisation.
Briefer Still: Dishonesty.
I had a briefer reply, it was only seven letters, but I decided against it. Of course if someone doesn’t agree with you, it’s because they are being dishonest to themselves. Believe it or not, most of the troops believe in what they are doing.
8 letters.
I win.
It was a joke. You know, like I can name that tune in 7 notes? Get over it.
So, I would say it really is Bush who is not supporting the troops, by sending them to war in a situation where he had clearly not exhausted diplomatic efforts and where the stated reasons for the war were based on deception, lies, half-truths, poor intelligence, and an unwillingness to look at any facts (such as those being uncovered by the inspectors) that contradicted that intelligence.
Yeah, those Iraqi WMDs are bound to turn up any day now. :rolleyes:
“There were some [Iraqi] farmers who didn’t even know there was a Desert Storm or OIF. This was when I realized that this war was initiated by the few who would profit from it and not for its people. We, as the Coalition Forces, did not liberate these people; we drove them even deeper into poverty. I don’t forsee any economic relief coming soon to these people by the way Bush has already diverted its oil revenues to make sure there will be enough oil for our SUVs.”
–Kyle Waldman, Iraqi serviceman, 2/27/2004
loach,
Who, in your definition of supporting the troops, is allowed to question the execution of a war during the war? Is it only the people in the Pentagon? Are legislators allowed to voice an opinion while still “supporting the troops”? Are these folks who wrote this not supportive of our troops? I truly do not mean for this to sound snarky, and really want to know who is capable of disagreeing with military decisions without being seen as unsupportive.
Also, can someone cure some ignorance on my part. As far as I know, no member of the military is made to swear fealty to the President. This is true, is it not (a bit frightening if not)? I ask only because loach made the common combination in a prior post of supporting “our president and the war in Iraq” (paraphrase), and I just don’t understand why those two get combined so often. There seems to be a frightening deification, or at least coronation, of the office of the president which I think is by definition unamerican. The holder of the office of president is our public servant and as such is open to any and all criticism (and praise) that we wish to dole out. loach uses as an example of a beyond the pale protest a sign that says “Bush Lied”. This is not only demonstrably a true statement, but also an attack on the president. Not the war. Not the troops. The President. If our troops are not understanding something so basic to our democracy that the “l’etat ne c’est moi” in re the president, then we are going in a dangerous direction.
We’ve been through this. Loach says anyone can question the war, just stop claiming you’re supporting the troops the instant you do, by definition.
There’s not much to debate.
OK, so no one can question the execution of a war plan without simultaneously losing the right to say that they “support the troops”? I will wait for **loach to confirm this. I think it is still a reasonable question. Everything to this point has been examining who cannot speak against the war while still supporting the troops. My question is very specifically regarding who can perform this magical feat, as I suspect that this list is much more manageable. But perhaps, as you suggest, the list simply does not exist.
I don’t know what you mean by “fealty”. I know you picked that loaded word for a reason, but we do swear an oath. In the oath we swear to
This is not a feudal country, so no we are not vassels but the military is held to a different standard than civilians.