I’m sorry Dangerosa but this is a if frogs had wings argument.* If you study history it will teach you one thing. There has always been war. We humans for whatever reason seem to be hardwired for it. People, who do not understand history, are doomed to repeat it. The countries that survive are the ones that are prepared to defend themselves.
As to regurgit8 comment about people enlisting and not realizing that they might have to go to war, this is a little strange. You mean to tell me that a young person could sign up for the Army or Marines, go through basic training, learn how to fire a weapon, go to advanced infantry training and not understand that they might have to go to war??
If you believe that our troops are that dumb then you must believe that they are dumber than a box of hair. Personally I give them more credit than that. The one I have met all understand that they are on the pointy end of the stick and if the politicians screw up, they are the ones that go in and fix it.
*If frogs had wings they wouldn’t bounce their asses all over town. But the fact is that frogs don’t have wings.
So let’s see. War is inevitable, so you might as well just accept it. At the same time, people who don’t understand history are the ones who go through the same things over and over again. So… you’re suggesting we stay uninformed, or what?
And yeah, I think the only reason that pro-war rallies are called something different is that it’s not PC. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but I wish it were less misleading.
I agree that there has always been war, and there will always be the need to have the means to defend yourself. Having studied history, I agree, we are doomed to repeat it…this one is reminding me of the Spanish-American war.
Rick, do you think that the 18 year old Germans who fought in WWII were evil? Or were they just doing their jobs? Did they believe they were defending their country from the humiliation of WWI and the terrible depression in Germany following it? If you were German in 1943, would you “support the troops?”
I support the troops - I think we should pull them the HELL out of there before more of them get killed making a bad diplomatic situation worse and increasing the likelyhood of creating Arab and Muslim martyrs. (See Coll’s great debate thread for details).
Because it’s pretty obvious that we support the troops. No-one is hoping that our troops are out there getting shot to pieces. Whenever “support the troops” is brought up, it is used to mean two things:
Support the troops, because you don’t. If someone is telling you to support the troops, it’s often because they believe that you don’t. It is accusatory and usually an attempt to manipulate favour against those of us who are anti-war.
Support the troops, and shut up about ending the war. Because, apparently, if you are protesting the war you are against the troops. This sentiment is also accusatory and usually an attempt to manipulate favour against those of us who are anti-war.
So, when someone goes around saying that they support the troops, it usually means one of the two above things. You shouldn’t have to say that you hope your fellow countrymen don’t get shot up; it’s pretty damn obvious.
As such, supporting our troops has taken on a warped meaning. I support our troops in that I don’t want them to get captured or killed. I’m not cheering them on while they kill Iraqi soldiers or civilians and I’m not celebrating because they marched into Basra, no matter who gave the orders. I see no triumph in what they’re doing, and I don’t think that I should treat it as such.
So do I support them? I support them as much as anyone reasonably should. But, it’s not like barracking for a football team - I’m not rejoicing in their victories and hoping for their success. I just hope that they don’t come to harm and that they come home as soon as possible.
So, to answer the OP - because the term is loaded. And it’s a nasty trick of the pro-war politicians that has caused it to be loaded as such.
Exactly.
And it is why public opinion, as evidenced by the opinion polls, has turned (in Australia) from 70-odd% against the war to over 50% support for the war.
The ‘support the troops’ mantra has got to be one of the most disgusting pieces of manipulative media I have ever seen. Most people are unable to differentiate between the war and the troops, especially when they are being told that not to support the troops is “un Australian”, and it has flowed on mean anti war is “un Australian”. People may well have been anti war, but the guilt trip being laid on them over the treatment of troops after Vietnam has turned many from an antiwar stance to a support the troops aka support the war stance.
It is simple. One can support the troops and not support the reason they’re over there. It would take a simplistic moronic American to want Americans harmed in any way to prove a point. That is idiotic. It is not their fault that they are over there beause of a faulted, misguided, insidious foreign policy formulated by a coterie of conservative right wing hawks, and then scripted and given to Bush to read aloud to the american public.
So, I reiterate, I support our troops. I want them to get this truly embarrasing war over with as quickly as possible and come back home to their families. Then we can concentrate on “fixing” the awful condition our country is in vis a vis a devastated economy, shattered foreign relations, a mounting deficit, reforming and shoring up scocial security, rapacious incursions on enviromental law, ad infinitum.
Let’s say you got a couple of buddies who want to rob a bank.
You don’t want to. You think it is a bad idea.
So, do you offer moral “support” to your buddies when they drive down to the local First National and begin?
I still think the catch-all phrase “support the troops” is just a way for pro-war mongers to tell people like me to finally sit down and shut the fuck up.
Sort of like, “it’s too late now, it’s already started…come on, party pooper, join in the gang bang.”
Well, the answer is NO.
I support getting our troops safely the hell out of there. Geez…we did such a fine job in Vietnam, you’d think SOMEONE would remember how that mess turned out!
My point is that no human lifes, troops, civilians, our side, their side, any side should be sacrificed for a cause as idiotic as this. For an egotistical president who shouldn’t be in office in the first place, who ended up in office because he cleverly defrauded the system (he had a lot of help, of course, he is not smart enough to have done so by himself), and who now tries to fool the public into thinking that Iraq and 9/11 are somehow related (scary part, a lot of idiots believe it), for a war that is legally and morally wrong.
Nobody should have to die for this. Many military people know this and many feel the same way about it. But you are not going to hear their voices because they don’t want to appear disloyal or (gasp!) cowardly. To the American warmongering machine, “cowardice” is worse than death. Literally. Whereas to more thoughtful, thinking people, “cowardice” is just a bad name that has been attached to something previously known as “survival instinct”.
Additional thought: I believe that military people when they are first sworn in promise to DEFEND their contry. If there is any part in that oath that says, “and I will follow my leader into any pre-emptive, unjustified strike against a country that is not really a threat against us”, I would like someone to cite it.
The whole “Support the Troops” thing has acquired a different flavor since Vietnam: I’d agree that before that war supporting troops meant supporting the war, at least euphemistically.
But during the Vietnam war, a great many people who were anti-war were also blatantly anti-troop. Many soldiers (drafted in the first place) came home from getting shot at, to indifference, anger, and hatred from their own countrymen.
So now, there is a distinct difference apparent between supporting soldiers (human beings with families) and a war (political cause). You can hope the best for a human, wish them good luck, pray against hope that they come home safely, that they are not injured or traumatized, that you believe in them as human-beings, all without believing that the politicians who put them in harm’s way are correct or that the cause warrants the endangerment of their bodies.
Is it so hard to imagine Vietnam Vets coming home to “It’s good to have you home - I respect your courage to enter hell and your skill/luck to come home in one piece”? No part of this would have explicitly supported or decried the war. I imagine that many Vets would not have felt so embittered if that’s the response they’d received from their countrymen.
I’d answer the OP that Pro-Troops seems to equal Pro-War for the same reason that Anti-War seems to equal Anti-Troop. We don’t like to give our enemies (debate-wise) the benefit of the doubt, and assuming the worst of our opponents is more satisfying than assuming the best. It’s just specious, that’s all. It’s far easier to vilify a caricature.
Meanwhile, a debate can be drawn so far off topic by the infighting of “Pro-Troop != Pro-War” that you never get to the original issue of “Is this war just?”. It’s all an awesome argument tactic.
I’ll finish by saying I think that our collective memory of Vietnam has someone screwed our knee-jerk reactions up: I think a large contingent of people see any war as a ghost of Vietnam, and an excuse to break out the protest signs. I think a lot of people on the other side of the fence see any protest as immediately leading to ostracization of and hate towards soldiers. I have every faith that given a choice, people prefer to behave like automatons.
“I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD.”
*
You may equate cowardice to survival instinct but many americans do not. Indeed, many peoples of this world do not.
Cowardice is failing to take action when there is evil being done.
Cowardice is to wait for someone else to do the work, make the sacrifice, take action for something that everyone is responsible for.
Cowardice is to allow others to suffer and die so that you would be safe and comfortable and not acknowledge their contribution to your safety and comfort.
Cowardice is backing away from the enemy before you defeat him.
For those of you that can’t seem to make out the difference between support for our troops, and support for the war you might want to take a visit over to The ships project
A bunch of little old ladies decided that our troops should not have cold feet or heads at night, so they started knitting. No politics just care for our troops, and sailors.
Here is one of the thank you notes posted on the site.
::: Blows kisses to some nice lady somewhere who is knitting for our boys.:::
