So who the hell DOESN'T support the troops...

I was recently dumped on by a friend about not supporting troops and that people who don’t are horrible people and don’t understand the sacrifices they make. They explained to me how hard their lives are and how much they have to go through just to keep our right to hate them. But it got me thinking, I’ve never heard, EVER of anyone not “supporting the troops” in my lifetime. NEVER. Not a single American, ever. I’ve heard people criticize the government or our foreign diplomatic (or lack there of) policy or perhaps our involvement in nation building but not a single dissenting statement against the troops.
So I have to ask, who the hell doesn’t support the troops and exactly how are they not supporting them??

Have you been reading this board often? Ever?
There are pleanty of people–even Americans–who do not support the troops. There are also some who wish every American soldier would die and those who wish the insurgents win. Yup, even Americans think that.

Have you?

Oh, come on. Der Trihs is only one person.

There are 300 million people in this country. It would be naive indeed to assert that Der Trihs is the only US citizen to hold that opinion.

There are people that, by any definition, even the most vague, do not “support the troops”.

In any event, the phrase itself is meaningless if you think about it. How does one go about “supporting the troops”?

Evidently neither of you have met some posters here who are totally against the war, to such an extent that they wish death upon those in uniform over there. I would call them out/ link to BBQ threads, but I’d rather not plow up another snake or six. Suffice it to say that, in real life, just as here on the message board, some folks look at our troops as … um… invaders who deserve what they get.

Personally, I’m against the war but I have a son over there in Fallujiah. My purpose is to get him home with ten fingers and ten toes and hopefully help his wife in the mean-time so that he has a marriage to come back to. I don’t have a lot of time to consider blow-hards who take out their frustrations of the administration on the backs of our men and women over there. That’s what the ballot box is for.

P.S. Bear: he’s supposed to be back in January! w00t!

ETA: this was written between Sturmhawke and Airmans’ posts sorry for confusion

I donated a jock strap to the war effort.

What did you do (out of curiosity) to make people think you didn’t support the troops?

I agree, it’s hard to fathom anyone wishing ultimate failure on youngsters in uniform.

Me, of course. The right wing in general, especially the Bush Administration if for different reasons than I do. And no, sending people to risk their lives for your own ego with inadequate numbers and equipment, over and over again, and then screwing them on things like medical care when they come back doesn’t qualify as “supporting the troops”.

Frankly, quite a few people don’t support the troops. Many people will make melodramatic speeches about how great they are, shout down anyone who criticizes them; but actual support ? No.

Surbey, many (not all) far-right republicans, especially those in elected office or the media, use the charge of ‘not supporting the troops’, repeating it ad-nauseum, to cast anyone who criticizes the Bush administratration and its policies, or simply expresses reservations or concerns with Bush’s decisions with regard to the Iraq war, as not patriotic, and potentially traitorous. It actually has more to do with framing than whether or not the person being labeled holds any animus for those serving in the military, from my perspective.

The republicans know their core constituency, and what affects them in a visceral way, very well. Many of these folks are not heavy lifters, intellectually, and it seems to me that the best, most effective way to reach them is to strip away as much of the nuance surrounding an issue as possible and state the position in a clear, straightforward manner, with as few words as possible and with constant reinforcement, like a mantra, which, to an extent, explains conservative republicans’ reliance on talking points when debated or questioned.

A possible reason phrases such as ‘cut and run’, ‘stay the course’, ‘support the troops’ and even ‘family values’ were and are so successful for the republicans, other than that they were probably focus-grouped, and even words like ‘patriotism’ and ‘justice’, is because on the one hand they’re very simple to understand, seeming to convey an unambiguous and positive ideal, while on the other hand they’re almost totally nebulous and so without calories that they’re ripe for interpretative abuse. ‘Support the troops’ means anything the republicans want it to mean. However, this fluidity of definition is not meant for the ears of the administration’s supporters, but its detractors, rendering publicly expressed positions difficult to pin down for its opponents.

For years this administration used the mantra ‘stay the course’. Bush himself expressed it many times publicly. This, I believe, was a message to his base that he was not going to back down from his objectives and will follow-through, without waver, and without regard to any expressed dissent from others, until victory was achieved, but because ‘stay the course’ was never actually defined, Bush could respond to reporters’ questions about the Iraq war without actually answering the question asked by simply saying “we’re gonna stay the course,” and not have it challenged. Of course, when things started to go not so well ‘stay the course’ evolved to include making adjustments to plans as necessary and accepting input from others, until ultimately things became so bad that not only did Bush realize he had to chuck ‘stay the course’, but suddenly the administration had “never been stay the course, George.” You’d think these adjustments would frustrate the conservative base, but I saw no evidence that it did.

The bottom line is ‘support the troops’, or any of other catch phrases the republicans employ publicly, means support GW Bush and his administration if it means anything at all.

Almost there! He’ll be home before you know it.

Me? I’ve still got over a year left. Got IEDed just last week. I didn’t die, though!

God help me, I will agree with you (see, we can still disagree on the first three words of my post). The Bush administration has a history of selling bad bad things wrapped in patriotic names.

Supporting the Troops is not a good name for shafting maimed soldiers when they return home from fighting a lost cause.

The phrase has been corrupted beyond all recognition, it no longer has any meaning seperate from its burden of innuendo.

Gigi just posted a couple days ago that she does not support the troops. There are probably more in the “red shirt Fridays” thread in IMHO.

Everyone supports the troops with their tax dollars. I guess.

Tell me what “supporting the troops” means, and I’ll happily tell you whether I do it or not.

It’s code to get war critics to shut up. But I’m guessing you already knew that. :slight_smile:

If you want to support the troops, don’t squander their lives and limbs in needless foreign adventures. Save them for necessary wars.

Can you cite any poll numbers telling us just how many Americans share this view? I’m sure there are a lot more Americans who wish that a lot more Americans would express hostility toward the troops so they’d have more fodder to use against their political opponents. And are you sure that most anti-troop Americans wouldn’t rather that the US hadn’t invaded Iraq in the first place? Meaning no dead US troops in Iraq and no insurgency there. Wouldn’t want that.

Of course, the STT meme was originally intended to invoke parallels to Vietnam-era war protesters, who–urban legend has it–spat upon returning troops. Anyone who would oppose US involvement in any war (and they were making this implication well before the decision to invade Iraq was made) is exactly the same kind of person. Ergo, there can never be any legitimate opposition to US military intervention. Unless the president is a Democrat.

Man, I remember the first time my brother got IEDed… but after the bazillionth time it lost it’s luster… :wink:

Hang in there, Bear. Need anything?

Why should I need to? All I said was “some”. Do you really think Der Trish’s opinions are that unique? If so, you give him more credit than I do. All he needs is a couple of drinkin buddies who agree with him, and there’s your “some”. No cites needed.
Want some fuzzy math? Figure he’s 1 in 30,000 members on this board, roughly. 300 million people in the country… cross multiply… errr numbers… I’d say at least a couple thousand Americans share is twisted radical opinions.

Actually… some soccer balls and other things for this neighborhood kids and families would be neat. I’ve been thinking about asking TPTB for permission to do a donation thread where people could send stuff like that for me to hand deliver to the kids and personally hand over to neighborhood families.
They are actually way more receptive and welcoming than people here would expect. Granted, I have a machinegun, and I didn’t ask for permission to enter their house. . . but their smiles and hospitality are most always genuine. Mostly. Think anyone would be interested? Sort of a “Support the Iraqis” thread?