Since the start of Gulf II, the Ultra-Nationalist, politically correct, rallying cry of “Support Our Troops!” has permeated the American mindset. It seems like one can disagree with the war, but God help you if you don’t support the troops. This seems like obfuscation through propaganda to me. How can one support the sword if you believe the blow is unjust and immoral?
In light of recent atrocities, is it time to rethink the blind support of our troops?
Just thought I’d bold that part as I agree 100% but I have seen lots of posters get mighty pissed about these sort of threads.
Have a good one 
Support the troops, display the flag.
The biggest mistake Bush opponents can make is to reject patriotism and its symbols. Don’t allow others to define what supporting your country means.
Every protest march should be drenched in flags.
I hate the flag drenching this country has taken in the last few years. It means absolutely nothing in the big picture, and certainly is no gauge on a person’s degree of patriotism. It’s just more empty bullshit from a bunch of people who would rather see our citizens kicking ass in another country than do anything here in the U.S. to protect the civil liberties that are shrinking day by day under the Ashcroft/Bush regime.
And if we choose not to display the flag, what does that mean?
Supposedly the individual soldiers don’t go to Iraq because they really want to, but because they were sent there after a decision was taken by the American people or by democracy. You can oppose the decision, but by not supporting the troops you’re just opposing men who had no say in the matter – and further who put their lives in danger on behalf of your democracy.
What about folks who have enlisted since the inception of this God-awful war, and thus knew what they were getting into? Is it still wrong not to support them?
This is a pretty easy question. You can support the troops by bringing them home.
Making them stay where they’re likely to be killed in supposed furtherance of some non-existent or patently unachievable goals seems to me to be a pretty strange way to “support” them.
Well I don’t know. I’ve always had a respect for men who put their life in danger for something in which they believe in, and what they represent is the will of the people and democracy. Anyway, not something I feel terrible deeply about - you can do what the heck you want.
Blaming the troops for the “sins” of their masters went out of vogue about the time disco became popular.
If you recall, the flags came out around September 12, 2001. But going back even further, the veterans of the Gulf War of 1991 were well received except for those still stubbornly clinging to an alternate leftist reality. Blaming the troops for the “sins” of their masters went out of vogue about the time disco became popular.
The flags continued to fly five months later when the Taliban was routed. Many people were proud of the soldiers who risked their own lives to put a bullet between the eyes of people who would love to kill your children simply because they are Americans.
As for the above quote, it speaks for itself, but not necessarily in the voice the author would like. In the real world, a balance must be struck between security and an open society. But why not suspend all those ideologically offensive security measures? After all, they only exist to please the evil minions of the “Ashcroft/Bush regime”. They don’t really help catch any terrorists.
After this is done, perhaps the author would like to be with his family at Disneyland when a suicide bomber goes off next to them. Then they could all be remembered as martyrs to civil liberties.
It’s not the blind support of troops that’s the problem; it’s the blind acceptance of failed policies of a corrupt, amoral administration. The atrocitites in Abu Ghraib were committed because the soldiers had poor training and no managerial oversight.
A sound business tenet is that when employees fuck up, it’s usually the fault of management.
The problem is when “Supporting the Troops” becomes synonymous with “Supporting the War they are stuck in”. The wrong idea of being against the Iraq War means not “valuing” the sacrifice of young men, etc… etc… We saw this in the UK too. Support for the War went up once the troops were in the mess already.
What exactly then does "Support the Troops!" means then becomes a bit muddled for sure. The soldiers are not too be blamed for the sins of the political masters... the voters are. I would say "Support the Correct use of the Troops!" is more apt.It doesn’t “mean” anything, except that you’re relinquishing an effective tactic to win over supporters.
I’ve never understood why patriotism has to mean “I support the current Administration”.
There was a story during the Vietnam War era about a woman who flew the U.S. flag on certain holidays (Memorial Day, the 4th of July etc.). When the flag was displayed pro-war zealots would congratulate her, thinking she was gung-ho for the war (wrong). The more virulent and unthinking anti-war protestors in her neighborhood yelled at her for the same reason (still wrong).
History repeats itself.
Then you’re a bad, evil American and don’t deserve the freedoms for which so many men and women have died. You should leave right now.
This post brought to you by the National Academy of Sarcasm.
Troops don’t have a choice in where they go or who they fight. They are obeying orders from politicians and generals. I see no reason to fault them, even during war crimes trials the soldier doing his duty and following the orders of his superiors is not punished.
The world is not black and white, during Vietnam the soldiers were spit upon and called murderers by the brainless fanatics of the day.
In World War II soldiers were treated exceptional well. They were actually defending our way of life against the likes of Hitler.
Now you might argue that a soldier could refuse to fight and face a court martail and jail time or even a firing squad. Would you do this?
You can do what you want but I will support the troops, I used to be one, and I know how much it means to them.
Love
Leroy
This one statement needs to be singled out as false (in the category of urban legend). I am not aware of a single documented case of this occurring in the U.S., much less as a general pattern of behavior among antiwar activists.
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, Demo, but saying they’re "likely to be killed is a more than acceptable hyperbolization.
Forgive my ignorance on this subject but could someone please explain what does
the phrase ‘Support our Troops’ actually mean.
What do you actually do when in support of the troops?
Do you write them little postcards with ‘Hey, we support you!’ do you knit scarfs or what?
I wasn’t around then, but I know some Vietnam vets who’ve told me that they were spit at, refused service in restaurants, shouted down, called names, and otherwise harrassed because they’d been in the military. I don’t know if these events were “documented,” but that doesn’t mean that they never happened.
The best debunking of these claims comes from Jerry Lembcke, a Vietnam Vet.
*"He was in the final stages of writing "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam’’ when he heard the two close-to-home accounts.
When he told the workman at his house what he was writing, Lembcke said, the worker said it "had happened to a lot of us.’’ Not to him, "but to guys I knew.’’ Not in Worcester, though, "but mostly in Boston.’’
"In the space of a minute,’’ Lembcke said, "the story goes from not "me’ to someone else, and from not "here’ to somewhere else.’’
His student told Lembcke he should talk to his roommate "because his dad had been spat at.’’ But it turned out it wasn’t the roommate’s father, but his uncle - and then not him, either, but someone he had heard about.
"It’s hard to prove something didn’t happen,’’ Lembcke said. But after extensive research, "I’m confident these things didn’t happen.’’
There were news reports of protesters being spat at during the unpopular Vietnam War, Lembcke said, "and while I don’t rule out the possibility that reporters did see protesters spitting at soldiers and veterans and didn’t report it, I think they would have seen it as too good a story not to report.’’*
The “spitting” claims are commonly cited to falsely smear the anti-Vietnam war movement. More from another group of Vietnam vets.