I think this question goes in this forum. What the hell does that phrase mean? To me, it begs the question, what would it mean to NOT support the troops? Sending them poisoned cookies? Hating them? Is it a proxy for “I think President Bush did the right thing by sending them in there”? Why do people put these slogans on their cars? Are these people trying to express support for administration policies? In the 70’s, when most of the public had turned against the policies of Washington, the term meant something, because one could clearly be against administration positions and still care for the boys being sent to Vietnam, and there were a lot of kids being sent there while the policies were being reviewed. I don’t feel that powerful anti-establishment sensation these days. Certainly not after this election. So- what do people mean when they put that on their cars? And who are they sending this message to? Is there some sense that there are people who do NOT support the troops?
My husband is currently serving in Afghanistan.
May take on it is that it’s a simple message to remind others that we have troops in harms way every day. It’s entirely too easy for the general public to forget that fact if it doesn’t personally touch their lives.
It means something different to everybody. In general, I think it’s come to mean “Support this war” to a lot of people. Certainly to some I could name on this board.
My personal belief is that it is a tool that supporters of the war use to quell dissent. If you speak out against the war, you aren’t supporting the troops, and what kind of America-hating monster are you anyway?
“Look at how patriotic I am!”
Except, of course, in situations like Ruby’s or a veterans’, where the reason’s much more obvious.
I see it as, we fucked up during Vietnam, treating our troops like shit. So “support our troops” means, hey, even if you don’t agree with the administration’s policies, at least have the decency to support the people who have to go over there and catch bullets. They didn’t decide to invade Iraq, their Commander-in-Chief did.
It means doing what our leaders say is important and not questioning their decisions, because they know what is best for out troops. If we question, clearly we are not supporting our troops.
I agree with MrFantsyPants. Most people who put the sign on the car mean to say “I support the war, and I think non-support of the war is somewhere between wishing harm on the soldiers themselves & treason against the regime.”
I’ve seen a counter-take on this, which serves in a way to confirm my thesis above: A sticker saying “Support our troops; bring them home.” Simply from the perspective of the interests of the troops as individuals, that’s clearly the best way to help or “support” them.
That that sentiment has to be expressed that way, and seems so different from the typical shorter exhortation “support the troops”, makes clear what they really mean.
I’m not sure that’s entirely correct. I remember receiving unsolicited ‘care’ packages from organizations back in the states. People that were protesting were protesting the war and the policies that kept us there (not the poor dumb bastards that were sent there), just like today. We had no parades when we came home, but neither did the guys in Korea. It was a different age, and a different type of war.
It’s not really about the truth but about our perception of the truth. People today perceive the Vietnam vets as being spat on by the people back home, whether or not that was reality for most.
True, but public perception is that we treated our troops poorly when it wasn’t really their fault. People now want to make it clear that they support our people, if not the policy.
Supporting our troops could mean buying a small car rather than the SUVs I see those magnetic ribbon decorations on. I bet they’d rather not be there at all - and if we didn’t depend on oil so much they probably wouldn’t be.
Or it could mean giving money to charities that take care of troops needs or help troops families, instead of giving it to whoever makes those magnetic ribbons. Several people I’ve asked say they assume the ribbon makers give money to support our troops, but the displays I’ve inspected in stores make no mention of it (which you’d think they would!.
It could also mean examining US foreign policy to understand how we have made some problems worse, and voting for politicians who say they will change these things.
I’m wondering if the fellow I know who’s going back in March (after already having served in Iraq and fulfilled his obligation) would like help buying armor.
Some of us try to remind people of this simple fact, but then we get shouted down by the Bush apologists who call us “traitors”. :rolleyes:
Speaking only for myself, this is exactly what it means to me. I cannot–would not–be so ignorantly arrogant as to guess what it means to others. Only they know.
Sir Rhosis
No, 99.9% of the stores selling the magnetic ribbons are NOT contributing any money (or anything else for that matter) to the troops. I am the Family Support Group Leader for my husband’s unit. We are in a constant state of trying to raise funds to send care boxes to our soldiers and preparing for their Welcome Home Celebration. We are selling the magnetic ribbons (and candles and pins) to raise money.
While I can’t take away the retailers right to sell the ribbons, I wish they would make it clear that none of the funds actually go to the troops.
I view the term ‘Support Our Troops’ as simply meaning that no matter how someone feels about the policy for which our troops are deployed and in harm’s way, the troops themselves do not deserve your scorn, anger or hatred.
I am aware that there are people using the phrase as a shorthand the same way that “America: Love it or Leave it” was used 30 years ago. That is not what I think Support Our Troops means to me. Nor does loving America mean that dissent is verbotten.
Frankly I’m just as happy to see a “Support Our Troops: Bring Them Home” as I am to see the ubiquitous yellow ribbons. As I said: my main concern with the phrase is to see that no vet gets spit upon when returning to the US.
Just a footnote to add that no vets were spat upon when they returned from Vietnam, either.
Cite?
To offer an opposing view, I’ll simply suggest you check here. Posts #44 and the next several seem to answer your assertation.
I think that “Support Our Troops” can be close in meaning to “Support Our Army” and that is close in meaning to “Support Our Army’s job in places such as Iraq”.
Maybe the motto could be something like “Help the troops and veterans who need help” (or something snappier)… I mean it covers the problems that Vietnam vets had, and it doesn’t imply that your should agree with the Army’s policies.
Those posts are opinion and clarify nothing. People who make the claim are almost invariably relating something they heard from someone else. Being spat on in airports is nonsense, as the flights were chartered and landed at places like San Bernadino AFB, not LAX. Institutions, such as campus ROTC buildings, took the brunt of the damage, and of course the demonstrations against the government are well documented. If incidents of spitting and flinging dogshit had actually happened, there would be news accounts concerning the death of the spitters by various Seals, Recon troops, and me.
so, here we are back at the beginning
I haven’t heard ONE person hating a single soldier for going, or expressing a scintilla’s worth of scorn for the troops in Iraq. This is different from Vietnam when it was clear that the policies were wrong, the war was going the wrong way, we were killing many civilians, and young draft age kids were making decisions to either fight the draft by resisting by one way or another, or by enlisting and participating in the dumb thing. At that point, some people thought that the soldiers who were fighting were no better than the policy makers. It hasn’t come to that yet in Iraq. Yet. Therefore, the sentiment appears to mean, for most people, “Don’t question our leaders.” For anyone who is even remotely aware of world affairs, it’s impossible to forget their situation. Ruby needn’t worry about that.