Odd, wasn’t that what happened at Kent State? Idiots threw rocks at people in uniforms who were holding loaded firearms? Or am I misremembering this incident? Are you telling me they were peaceful protestors shot down without any provocation whatsoever, just trying to put flowers in the hair of the troops?
I am not saying that the reaction of the troops at Kent State was justified. And frankly, whomever issued those troops with live ammo was an idiot. But, that’s at least one incident I think even you will have to agree is rather well-documented, not simply hearsay.
I had a long inflamed rant about my own experiences in Norfolk in the early and mid-nineties. Based on that, I believe the stories of people spitting on squids, when told to me by people I know. You can disbelieve, if you like, no skin off my nose. Of course, I’d also love to hear an alternate explaination for why the Navy changed it’s uniforms so drastically for the mid-to-late 70’s and early 80’s if not to give military personnel some opportunity for protective coloration in the civilian population.
FWIW, if memory serves, at least one of the students killed at Kent State literally was a passerby who was not engaged in protesting or rock throwing, etc. Other more knowledgeable posters will correct me or add to this. This is from my often-faulty memory.
Your memory matches mine. I wasn’t trying to say that the response of the troops was anything but indiscriminate. However, the trigger for the incident was that armed troops were attacked by some protestors with rocks. For no reason I’ve been able to fathom other than they were representatives of something the students didn’t care for.
Although we are straying way off-topic, I will add my own experiences, having served in the USMC from 1982-1991. Only once was I ever bothered by anyone and that was just a drunk yuppie trying to impress his girlfriend by asking me is I thought I was a badass. I rolled my eyes and moved on, case closed.
Most times when I was in public in uniform (usually Class C), I was spoken to courtesously, especially by the elderly, and in Lexington, Kentucky, a group of busiessmen, one of whom I had spoken to on the airplane flying in from California, a man who had fought at Iwo Jima, bought me and my wife dinner, though I thought that it was I who should have feted him.
IF they knew what is best for our troups, wouldn’t they be bringing our troups home to their families and out of harms way, instead of leaving them to fight an unpopular, unjustified war?
Surely the best way to support our troops [and the USA’s of course] is to campaign for this insane war to end? I think we should question our governments’ decisions … especially the decisions that got us into this war.
As a soldier who has served in OIF, and also one who thinks is was a mistake from day 1, I can say that I certainly view it in the “support the soldiers, not necessarily the war.” I don’t mean that to say that people who support the administration and the war can’t say ‘support the troops’ but that I view the ‘support the troops’ sayings as a direct statement about the soldiers, regardless of your view on the war.
Lots of soldiers support the war, and there are also a lot that think it was wrong, misguided, etc. Most of the people in the military signed up to protect the country, and regardless of whether or not you view the war as part of that protection, the soldiers don’t get to choose what wars they participate in. They’re thousands of miles from home in an inhospitable, terrible place, worrying about whether or not they’re going to live to see tomorrow. If you have a thing against the war, or the miltary and political leadership, fine, but the sticker is saying that you shouldn’t take that out on the people who serve. I really think it’s an attempt to prevent the mistreatment of veterans that happened after Vietnam.
It’s just my opinion, but if you feel that soldiers don’t deserve your support, you don’t belong in the country…because without them, the US would fall. Feel free to protest the war, protest the decision to go to war all you want, but the individual soldier is not to blame when it comes to military operations.
WTF does this have to do with people supposedly spitting on troops, or with my previous answer? The students were rioting. The troops were called in by the governor. Somebody started shooting. People got killed for no reason. End of story.
I was in the Navy in the 60s, 70s and 80s. The uniform changes were to upgrade the appearance of sailors to a more professional appearance and to cut down on manufacturing costs by making the uniforms similar throughout the ranks. There was resistance from within the ranks, particularly from the CPO community, as lower enlisted were given a uniform similar to that worn by Chiefs.
I don’t know how you equate this with Vietnam, as that conflict was long over before the uniform change. As to ‘protective coloration’, that’s just nonsense. I’ve yet to see a civilian wearing a chest full of ribbons, or a military hat for that matter.
I have. During the Dark Years, a lot of Viet Nam Vets Against the War wore their “campaign hats”, sometimes uniform shirts and decorations. And for any number of them, it was a commonplace for them to find the transition to civilian shoes difficult and uncomfortable.
As to the slogan at hand, I think it is weighted more to a “pro-war” position only by demographics. A lot of people want to make an entirely non-controversial political statement, and you can hardly get more non-controversial than “support our troops.” It suffices as a patriotic statement without actually committing one to any real position on the matter. Of course, those persons who display the slogan as a rebuke to the scurrilous treason of “peaceniks” are free to interpret each and every such luke-warm assertion as a ringing agreement with their own position. In thier minds, they are the overwhelming majority of right-thinking Americans, the vaporous “Silent Majority”. All in all, this works to the advantage of the Bushiviks, almost by default.
I agree and for that reason, I will not place one on my car. To me, those ribbons mean: “support Bush and his admin, turn off your brain, and follow blindly–it’s what all good patriots do.”
I support our troops so much, I would not send them into harm’s way to wage a jingoistic, unjust war on an undeclared enemy. But hey, I’m part of the evil blight that will be assimilated at some point…(joke).
I’m just back from Christmas with our daughters and sons-in-law and our grand-baby so I have missed much of this. I’ve also posted a debatable rant over the death of a friend and the destruction of my former unit some thirty-five years ago. None-the-less there is a compulsion to stick my nose in this discussion.
I suppose for some people the phrase “support the troops” means support the mission and equates love of country with acquiescence in the Administration’s Middle East policy and equates support of that policy with support of the troops. That false equivalence allows some people to claim that not sticking the ubiquitous plastic slogan on my car means that as the driver of a naked car I wish the men and women who make up the armed forces ill and that I am not a loyal American. That sort of simplistic balderdash is precisely why I have chosen not to hand my local hardware store $5.00 in order to slap a plastic wrapped magnet on the back of my car – I don’t want to do anything that might suggest that I think my government’s policy in the Middle East is wise, well advised or rational or that I in any way support it.
The troops, however, is another thing. We have some 150,000 soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors in country in Iraq. I doubt if one of them was consulted in advance for their views on the decision to invade Iraq, or occupy Iraq or try to convert a fragmented society into a unified democratic country. I don’t know that for a fact but I do derive that conclusion from the fact that neither Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon or anybody claiming to represent them ever inquired about my felling and thoughts or the US policy toward Indo-China, or the feelings and thoughts of anybody I know. Consulted or not, supportive of the policy or not, ever one of those kids (and most of them are kids, some pitifully young) spends every hour of every day in discomfort, eating bad food, drinking bad water, getting too little sleep, going unwashed , separated from family and friends, and at risk of being killed or maimed. Few of them chose to do that, to lead the dog’s life that goes with being a soldier (generic term) in a hostile theater. Ever one of them received written orders to go off to Iraq. For them I hope for a safe return home, an honorable service and a professional performance of duty. For them I hope for adequate supply, necessary equipment and intelligent leadership and a minimum of discomfort.
I do not, however, support the mission – the conquest of Iraq and its transformation into a wholly owned subdivision of Big Oil. I have no faith in the claim that my country is in Iraq in order to bring the Middle East the blessings of parliamentary democracy and federal government structure.
These young men and women have followed the flag of my country, the same flag I followed as a young man, into a crack-brained foreign adventure. I do not support that. I want there to be no mistake about that. I will not put a yellow ribbon on my car.
Jman, how are things in K-town? Do we still user Panzer Kaserne? How about Kleber Barracks. Is the Barbarasahoff still going? Lord, I’d love to see that place again.
Yeah, Panzer is still operating, as the HQ for 21st Theater Support Command. Kleber Kaserne is also rolling along. Because of Ramstein, K-town isn’t expecting any major changes due to the force restructuring, but that could change of course. The Barbarossahof is still there, but it’s not the big magnet that it sounds like it was in the past.
to me, support the troops means to not forget them, and respect them for what theyre doing regardless of whether you respect the government that sent them. i have the utmost respect for past and current serving people in any forces, they offer themselves up to a risk greater than most of us will in our lifetimes, and are often treated like shit.
It means nothing. It’s a manipulative invention of pro-war jingos, a pure Strawman designed deliberately to polarize all discussion of foriegn policy into “Those Who Support Our Fighting Troops” and “Those Who Don’t.”
In reality, that dangerous place where George Bush rarely ventures, there are virtually no U.S. citizens who wish harm on American soldiers, or who see them as anything more evil than underpaid young people thrown into life-threatening situations every day and therefore deserving of sympathy and support, which we all give, whether we want to or not, through our taxes and through other means. We all support our troops.
Some support, however, is not unconditional. If U.S. soldiers violate the conventions of war, for example, some of us support judicial recourse, as appropriate, while others (in the guise of “Supporting Our Troops”) will seek to justify any behavior, however overtly criminal, of American soliders, rationalizing it as the martial equivalent of “frat-boy hazings” and “overenthusiasm” and the like. Or they will, somewhat tortuously, insist that since the Commander-in-Chief is a part of the Armed Forces, “supporting the troops” must extend all the way UP the chain of command, and therefore extend to supporting his policy decisions without question. Otherwise, we send mexed missages to the world, right?, and we can’t have that.
It’s code, IOW, for questioning the patriotism of U.S. dissenters without a shred of evidence that any of them have ever said or thought a word against the U.S. soldiers fighting abroad.
It’s really disturbing that so many people on this board are so full of hate. The magnets and stickers saying “I support the troops” are extremely popular because most Americans do support the troops. They want them to know that they are appreciated and honored. I see many cars sporting democrat and republican campaign slogans side by side with the yellow ribbon stickers.
It is very sad for so many of you that such a nice gesture brings nothing but foam to your mouths and harsh words to your lips. The crazy stuff that people here are twisting out of such a simple and noble gesture to mean is ridiculous. Petty, hateful, childish and just over the top ridiculous.
Candy mint/Breath mint. No doubt, there are many people who wish to broadcast a sincere, and entirely safe, political stance. And slapping one of these on an SUV offers an opportunity to indulge in droll, post-modernist irony. As well, its entirely sensible to suspect to the point of certainty that at least some of these people support the bankrupt political agenda that got us into this shitswamp and would very much like to throttle dissent from persons they regard as insufficiently patriotic.