"Supporting the troops"

[Locut0s]

I was reading the post asking "do DUers support the troops", and was going to post this there but it sort of took on a life of it's own. First I'd like to say as a Canadian I can't speak for any Americans so take this just as my 2 cents.

The question often asked by both those on the left and right is "do you support the troops". Often those on the right use it in a rhetorical/condescending way, almost saying "you don't do you". On the left unfortunately it's often little better, tacked on to the end of speeches as if to say "I have to add this or the right will attack me".

The phrase "Do you support the troops" as it has come to be used in this day and age usually means "do you unconditionally support the troops" on this level I have to say no. There is this view on the right that soldiers are almost godlike, they don't earn unconditional respect, they have it from the day they sign up as if it somehow became part of the fabric of their being from that day forth. In the eyes of the right there is nothing, absolutely nothing, you could do that is worse than not support "our men in arms". As this is usually what is meant when the phrase "do you support the troops" is used, I have to say on that level no.

What I do support is the cause, if it deserves support. Unfortunately so few of the wars fought during the 20th century really had any purpose behind them, beyond death. I would have supported fighting Nazi Germany, I would have supported a military backed peace keeping operation in Rwanda and Darfur, I support limited military operations specifically targeting terrorism, not iraq... I don't support for supports sake. I don't put a segment of the population on a godlike pedestal beyond all reproach no matter what they do. Down that road lies fascism. One of the things that has been worrying me about America since 9/11 is the idolization of certain figures. Firemen, Police and soldiers have taken on an almost mythical quality that I feel is very dangerous. I sometimes feel we are only a few steps away from seeing posters being printed with a military soldier silhouette against a rising sun, the kind of mythical god like figures that are so often created in both fascist and communist states.

Let me make it clear that I do believe that people who willingly risk their lives to save others are indeed heroes and should be rewarded, but such praise needs to be reigned in when it starts to take on nationalistic qualities.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. The phrase "support the troops" is as nonsensical and meaningless

as the phrase "war on terror."

[stanwyck]

2. absolutely

what exactly does "support the troops" mean? Specifically. And I say this as a mother of a Marine who is in back in Iraq. I love my son. He "supports the troops" by doing his job and hoping none of his buddies gets wounded or killed. And I do my job by loving him and waiting for his safe return.

[Patriot Acts]

90. I SUPPORT OUR TROOPS MORE THAN YOU DO....

...SO, naner-naner boo-boo!! ;)

[ClintonTyree]

3. For the most part................

"supporting the troops" for many Americans means nothing more than buying a ribbon magnet or two and slapping on their cars.

[seito]

9. I agree n/t

[Mr_Spock]

84. No kidding huh.

:eyes: They don't do anything more than buy a magnet and a Made in China weathered flag and they are "troop supporters and patriots". :eyes:

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[southpaw]

5. So, do you think the war in Iraq is justified?

Just wondering...

[PaleBlueDot]

7. I think the war came 12 years too late...

We should have toppled Saddam in 1991, when we had far more troops and equipment for the job, and a perfectly good justification for making it happen. It would have been a straightforward World War II kind of thing: kick the invader off the land that is not his, destroy his ability to make war, kill or capture his power structure, then set about reconstruction and renewel, sans fascism. That Bush 1 elected not to topple Saddam ranks as one of the truly terrible decisions, political or military, of any American president, in the last 50 years.

[neweurope]

12. Pale blue... *coughs* You have no right to topple anybody, with

all respect.


-----------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[PaleBlueDot]

14. Then who else would have toppled Saddam?

Or Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo for that matter? Not trying to start a fight, just curious as to the answer.

[neweurope]

35. Indeed pale blue, you have no right, period. You helped topple Hitler.

For the wrong reasons, but you did and I'm grateful. Very grateful. But toppling Sadam was never on the US agenda. The US helped him in his crimes. The USA have no damned right in earth to just start wars whenever they feel like it. They have been doing this ever since the USA were founded. I think it's time to stop this. High time. On what ... moral grounds do YOU attack ANYBODY?!

------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

52. Wouldn't it be up to the Iraqis to decide on toppling THEIR leader?

How as it EVER our business to decide who gets to be leader of other sovereign nations???

By the way, the rightwingnut trick of "you must hate the US" isn't very popular on this board; tends to get a poster tombstoned. ;)

[realisticphish]

87. wow

i have never heard anyone actually say that. thinking that the united states has no justification to war does not constitute hating it

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Kingshakabobo]

13. But what about THIS war?

I'm curious to hear from a service member about THIS war.

[Coastie for Truth]

11. That is not what "Pale Blue Dot" was positing.

I would say (as a conscription motivated volunteer from an earlier time) that "supporting our troops" is absolutely, positively, 100% unrelated to "supporting the foreign (non) policy of the President."

They are two completely different things -- two totally unrelated questions.

Conflating the two questions is the kind of thing that the Swift Boat Veterans for their flavor of Truth relied upon.

Don't get me going on the Swifties--
1. http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/WEBCUTTERS/Point_Welcome.html

2. http://www.aug.edu/~libwrw/ptwelcome/PointWelcome2.html

3. http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/Articles98/NHwells.htm

I supported Bostrom and Phillips -- but not LBJ's policies. (and I was there).

[PaleBlueDot]

17. Thanks, Coastie. And to add...

Again, barring a severe injury or other such unforseen event, I'll still be in uniform long after Bush is history. Many of the senior NCOs and officers/warrants I serve with have been around since the Carter years, and in some rare cases, Ford/Nixon. I don't think anyone can stay in the service long if they only care about one particular president and his policies. You have to believe in the country itself; in the service itself.

[matcom]

i'm sorry your service isn't currently "defending the Constitution"

for that i am sorry.

and yes, i'm a Vet

[PaleBlueDot]

10. It's not?

Care to explain?

[matcom]

16. absolutely

this war is Constitutionally illegal. it was preemptive. no threat to our "homeland" (gawd i hate that word)

you have been lied to friend.

no threat. no reason. no legality. period.

it is Unconstitutional in every facet. it is a criminal act. period. no grey areas abound. by every definition, it is a war crime in itself

before you ask your next question, i'll save you the trouble:

19kilo
M1A1 Crewman
Germany
Defended the Fulda Gap
4 years

[PaleBlueDot]

19. Yes, but...

My oath does not specify Bush specifically, just the office of the president. If the war is wrong and illegal, then the fault lies with the politicians. Again, I'll still be in uniform when Bush is a matter of historical debate.

[matcom]

20. not debating that

but don't go touting that you are "Defending The Constitution"

look. if I were still in i would have little choice as well. that isnt' your fault. i FULLY understand that.

but don't do it under the guise that you are defending ANYONE in this country when you cross the borders of Iraq.

don't do that and you will be one step up on the rest of the sheeple. be honest about what it is. and more importantly, what it ISN'T

[PaleBlueDot]

25. I'm just saying that my oath is to literally defend the constitution...

Just as it was when Clinton was in office, and Bush 1 before him, and Reagan before him, and Carter before Reagan, and so on and so forth. Hate the war, fine. Hate Bush, fine. My oath wasn't to wage war on the people of Iraq. My oath was to defend the constitution and follow the orders of the president, whomever that might be. In four years, it will be somebody new. Maybe he/she will absolutely reverse course, and suddenly we're not at war anymore and everything is peaceful again. I'm still bound to defend the constitution and follow my orders, starting with the CiC.

[matcom]

28. again. apples and oranges

it is your duty to follow the orders of the President.

THAT is what you are doing.

i'm more concerned with your 'education' (NOT trying to berate you btw) and the 'education' of your fellow service men.

just UNDERSTAND what this war is and how it came about. don't tout the military line here or anywhere else unless it is what you TRULY believe.

i'm really not jumping on you here. there are MANY of us Vets here on DU and we are simpathetic as hell. but "defending the Constitution" is NOT what you and the others are doing. following orders? yup. you have to (unless the order is unlawful - *or so we were led to believe in Basic* :eyes:

[PaleBlueDot]

32. I am sorry that you are so jaded!

The way you describe it makes it sound like we're paid thugs. Nothing more than a bunch of mafia hit men. That's certainly not what I signed up for. Hell, my unit doesn't even issue anyone in my section a weapon. My job is to help other soldiers get their life insurance policies and personal affairs in order so that if they get killed, their families are taken care of. Is that bad?

[matcom]

37. then you were lucky

look. i came from a COMBAT unit. hell yes we were "paid thugs" (although i wouldn't have used that term)

you are given an order in a combat unit, you follow it. PERIOD. there is no debate, there is no "But...."

and the reason is that you are told (probably rightfully so in the right situation) that ANY hesitation on your part will likely get others killed.

that friend, doesn't make me "JADED", that makes ME understand something you cannot. there is debate behind a desk in an office. there is NO debate when you are waist deep in mud and shit and diesel and CERTAINLY not when bullets are flying.

i resent your Jaded remark. its nice that you don't need a weapon to do YOUR job but some of us did. i don't belittle you for your non-combat job, in fact, am jealous that i wasn't smart enough to pick a similar MOS so i could put my 20 in and get out with a pension.

thanks though

[PaleBlueDot]

46. Yeesh

We all have to qualify on our weapon, and at any time, we all might be required to use it. Several of my "desk" buddies have been sent to the fighting in the last year. So there is no guarantee. What I'm trying to say is, if the Iraq war had never existed, if 9/11 had never happened, the nation would still need sailors and airmen and marines and soldiers to protect the country. The liberty we enjoy in the U.S. is not a given, and it never has been. Even during our most isolationist periods, we always retained some kind of military, and I'm not convinced that they were--that we have always been--paid thugs. It's about much more than that.

Anyway, our experiences and our deductions regarding service are obviously quite different.

[matcom]

64. goddamn RIGHT they are

and don't you forget it.

[retnavyliberal]

69. Well, what war DID qualify then? WW1? WW2?

Was invading Europe and liberating the camps in the interests of defending the homeland? No, but it was a damn good thing to do wasn't it? Were we lied to? Absolutely. Should we still be there? Hell no. But if you see your neighbor beating his children, should you go inside and say, "Whew, good thing he isn't in my yard doing that. I might have to get involved."

[LynnTheDem]

54. Your FIRST OATH is to defend the USC against all enemies...your SECOND

oath is to obey all officers appointed over you (enlisted).

Officers' oath is FIRST to defend the USC and SECOND to obey the POTUS.

Iraq is a violation of the USC.

Your FIRST sworn duty is to defend the USC. Against ALL enemies. Foreign AND DOMESTIC.

You should be able to figure it out from there.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

57. When the rest of the US military wakes the fuck up to REALITY

And decides to do their FIRST SWORN DUTY.

[retnavyliberal]

71. And what would you have them do specifically? n/t

[LynnTheDem]

73. Their sworn duty.

Defend the United States Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Saying NO to bush's illegal USC-violation war of aggression would be a perfect start-point.

[retnavyliberal]

78. Saying no, meaning what. not going over when ordered?

Have you served? Do you know what would happen to a military member that did that? YOU may think that this war is unconstitutional. I may too. But us debating this here is not grounds for any young man or woman to get arrested for desertion at best. If the war is truly unconstitutional then bring the case to the Supreme Court. I am a simple retired military man, but isn't that the only true answer to the question of somethings constitutionality.

[LynnTheDem]

I am an active duty 20-year career army officer; yes I have served.

I still serve.

The US Military top brass should have done what they swore to do and said NO to bush and his illegal USC-violation war of aggression.

That is what they should have done.

What ALL military officers should do now is say NO MORE to bush's illegal USC-violation war of aggressiona nd order their troops to stand down.

That is what should be done.

[retnavyliberal]

82. First, Thank you for your service...

but is that what you have done? Have you ordered your troops to not do their functions in this conflict?

[LynnTheDem]

83. Thank you for your thanks;

And thanks to you for your service as well.

My CO actually did fight our deployment to Iraq, and he fought hard. Unfortunately even he wasn't high enough up the chain of command to do much good. As you know, being former A/D yourself, if the top command doesn't stand firm against illegal orders, it's pretty much impossible for anyone lower down the chain to do so; we're simply removed from the chain.

Ask General Shinseki how that works.

[retnavyliberal]

88. That is because the "illegal order" is a slippery slope

that often leads to vacations in Kansas. The constitutionality of the war in Iraq is a legal gray area at best. We seem to disagree if we should have gone at all, but we agree as to if we should still be there. I just don't think calling out the troops for mutiny is the solution.

[LynnTheDem]

89. No I don't think it is a grey area at all.

The USC is VERY clear about what constitutes legal war; Iraq is very clearly NOT legal.

No grey areas at all.

Mutiny has nothing to do with it for 2 reasons; the army doesn't have "mutiny", and refusing to follow illegal orders is not "mutiny" even if the army had such a thing. ;)

[seito]

70. Army officers do not swear an oath to obey the POTUS

Enlisted
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Officer
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

[LynnTheDem]

75. Duh me, sorry about that!

You're right, huge brain fart on my part!

[seito]

76. I posted both the enlisted and the officer's oath

I do not remember swearing an oath to the POTUS. I have read it three times, but maybe I missed something :crazy:

http://www.siena.edu/armyrotc/curriculum/forms/DA%2071%20Oath%20of%20Office.pdf

[LynnTheDem]

77. Nope you're right, I was thinking of the enlisted/NCO oath and did

a total snafu. Officers don't swear allegiance to the POTUS. That's supposed to be to ensure the USC is upheld even against the POTUS. Unfortunately the US military has let that lapse.

[seito]

18. Sadam Hussein did not have the capacity to attack the United States

He was not a threat to us. Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorists before we decided to invade. This war is based on lies.

The administration changed mission statements mid war. Now we are bringing freedom to the people of Iraq. Over 100,000 killed and counting. This is not a war to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The enemy is in the Whitehouse and he is building corporate wealth over the graves of our young people.

Make no mistake. This is not about terrorism, freedom, or the Constitution. This is about money.

[PaleBlueDot]

22. Hitler was not much of a threat, either...

I'm sure that if FDR had been a realpolitik kind of guy, he could have let the British fend for themselves, brokered some deals with Japan, watched as the Soviets and Germans exhausted themselves on eachother, then brokered some more deals, et cetera. Also, there is historical precedent for changing missions in the middle of a war. Lincoln did it. I'm not saying Bush is an angel. But I'm not sure he is the absolute devil, either. Nor am I convinced that deposing Saddam was a bad thing. Again, I thought we should have done it in 1991. We had far more reason to do it then than we do now. Now it feels like we're trying to make up for a horrible mistake over a dozen years in the past.

[matcom]

24. so, how do you now feel that "we" have 'installed'

an Islamic Theocracy in Mesopotamia?

happy about it?

i am simply because THAT is what the PEOPLE their chose (as much as their elections were "free" and "fair")

but......

we deposed a SECULAR dictator (who WE created) and now, in its place, have a fairly radical Theocratic state.

i would say that "we" are less safe than we were before this fiasco.

any thoughts?

[PaleBlueDot]

27. I think history shows us that

functional democracies rarely attack eachother. It might be argued that the Iraq election was a farce. But I believe it was far more "real" than anything Saddam staged. Perhaps the Shiite control of Iraq will wind up being bad. I'm not so sure. Talk to me again in 20 years when the fruit of this thing has ripened. None of us can see the future. But I think all of us can be heartened by even the possibility of truly consensual, democratic rule in the Middle East. There is so little of it there, and yet so many people who desperately crave it.

[matcom]

30. but a Shiite Theocracy is exactly the OPPOSITE!

on paper. by definition. no democracy.

the policy has already FAILED!

and don't worry, you won't HAVE to wait 20 years. i give it about 3

[PaleBlueDot]

33. I have much more hope than you do, I guess...

Bush or no Bush, I can't bring myself to hope for failure in Iraq. Too many Iraqis, Americans, British, et cetera, have paid the ultimate price for this experiment. I hope it works. Again, Bush or no Bush. I care not about Bush. I care about the Middle East breaking free of fascism.

[matcom]

38. its not ABOUT Bush

it has already failed! look at the facts and what has happened?

this is not my wish. this does not put a smile on my face!

it is reality. let history teach you SOMETHING

[PaleBlueDot]

48. History has not been written yet, matcom

To declare democratic Iraq a "failure" so soon, is in my opinion, premature at best. Give it a chance.

[seito]

29. Actually, we are making up for a horrible mistake 5 years ago

Our motives for Invading Iraq in 1991 were questionable, but we did have a treaty with Saudi Arabia, and Iraq did invade Kuwait, so, it may have been justified.

This President stood against President Clinton in his action in Bosnia. Genocide was happening there, and this Candidate Bush claimed that we were misusing the military. He calaimed that if he was President, he would not engage our military forces in "nation building"

Saddam Hussein was effectively neutered. He was not a threat to his neighbors and he certainly was not a threat to us. He was an evil man, there is no doubt about that, but there are evil leaders around the globe.

So, are we going to rescue all of the other nations under the grip of evil dictartors, or just the ones that are rich in "natural resources"? I am sorry, I appreciate your service, but this conversation is no longer productive. I wish you the best. Stay safe, and I hope that you take a moment to reflect on exactly what you are asked to do and why.

Veteran
U.S. Army
Medical Service Corps

[matcom]

31. agree with a caveat

"and Iraq did invade Kuwait, so, it may have been justified. "

you forget that George H.W. Bush gave Iraq the OK to invade! it was the slant-drilling that we didn't like. its ok for dictators to invade their neighbors as long as they don't fuck with OUR oil

[seito]

34. Is that right?

I did not know that.

[matcom]

40. yuppers

we gave the go ahead. let Google be your friend :hi:

[LynnTheDem]

59. Yeppers.

On 24 July 1990 two Iraqi armoured divisions moved from their bases to take up positions on the Kuwaiti border. Later the same day the US State Department spokeswoman, Margaret Tutwiler, asked whether the US had any military plans to defend Kuwait, replied: ‘We do not have any defense treaties with Kuwait, and there are no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.’

On July 25th, US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, met with Saddam Hussein to discuss the coming invasion;

Glaspie: "But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

"The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction."

On July 31, two days before the invasion, Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly testified before Chairman Lee Hamilton of House Foreign Affairs. Asked repeatedly if we would come to the defense of Kuwait if it were attacked, he insisted there was no obligation on our part to do so.

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/02-19-98.html

[matcom]

62. you rock Lynn

:yourock:

[LynnTheDem]

65. Thanks! Except this is Lynn's hubby.

But I stole that from Lynn's "Iraq; The Book of Bullshit" opus so it's really thanks to her anyways. :D

[matcom]

66. than thank YOU oh great Hubby of the Lynn

:7

[LynnTheDem]

67. LOL! Oh wait...Lynn says that should be

"oh hubby of the Great Lynn".

See what I got to put up with??? :D

[seito]

72. Thanks Lynn and Hubbie of Lynn and Matcom

I learned something new today.

Y'all ROCK :)

[PaleBlueDot]

36. No we can't "rescue" them all...

But rescuing even one nation from abject fascism is, I think, worth it. Provided that we all agree that there is nothing worse than fascism. Can we all agree to that?

[matcom]

41. we might as well agree on it

cause we are more and more rapidly LIVING it right here.

read the Patriot Act at all?

[PaleBlueDot]

43. It's not fascism until Bush is Prez-4-life

And no way in hell is that happening. The Joint Chiefs would happily go into the Oval Office themselves and hog-tie Bush for the trip to the paddywagon. Assuming the Secret Service didn't already take care of it. One thing that annoys me is when people declare the U.S. fascist without realizing what exactly true fascism means. If we and our current U.S. are "fascist" I'd love to see someone's idea of a truly "free" country. Give an example, please.

[matcom]

45. funny. my father is more scared of it than *I* am!

doesn't mean a THING right?

*ahem* He is retired (33 years) from the CIA (counter-terrorism chief) - AND until recently a LIFE LONG REPUBLICAN

but you sleep well tonight. have a sweet dream for me

[PaleBlueDot]

47. I suppose I've been watching too much of the American Experience

Specifically, the Presidential series.

So many past presidents, Dems and Reps both. Loved. Hated. In many instances, many were convinced that President so-and-so was going to be the doom of the Republic. Somehow, it never works out that way. And we've had presidents who have done far worse that Bush. I firmly believe that the country will still be here, and that we will still be a free democracy, when Bush leaves in 2008 and a new man/woman is elected; probably a Democrat, if patterns of history are any indication.

[LynnTheDem]

60. That is bullshit. The definition of fascism doesn't include being

"prez for life".

Buy a dictionary or try Google. Both are your friends.

[LynnTheDem]

56. If YOU agree America under bush is indeed a fascist state.

And how come if we can't "rescue them all" we started with a nation that DIDN'T NEED OR WANT "rescuing"???

Poll: Only 2% of Iraqis View the US as Liberators, 97% as Occupiers

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=7752&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported

The vast majority of Americans say "humanitarian" is not justification

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1114-06.htm

Human Rights Watch; Iraq invasion cannot be justified as humanitarian intervention

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0126-07.htm



You've drunk the rethug koolaid, boy.

[Bouncy Ball]

91. We didn't go into Iraq

to rescue anyone from fascism. We invaded and attacked that country because supposedly they were a HUGE threat to us because of their WMDs. Remember that?

Ooops, where are they?

And by the way, it breaks about a dozen international laws to invade a country to affect regime change. You simply CANNOT use that as a justification.

But bushco is. Hmmmm. Is it any wonder the rest of the world is backing away from us faster than a stinky drunk who just fell into the outhouse hole?

[CatWoman]

51. why do you keep lumping Saddam with Hitler?

Do you remotely have any idea what the fuck you're talking about?

[LynnTheDem]

53. Active duty army officer here; show me where in the US Constitution it

says America can invade & occupy a nation.

Show me where it says wars that aren't self-defense from IMMINENT threat are ok.

And if you are active duty, you should already have known that NOWHERE in the USC does it authorize war for anything less than imminent self-defense.

[LoveMiamiB]

74. Me too. Good one!

[seito]

8. Thank you for your service n/t

[LynnTheDem]

61. Thank you, seito.

-Gary (husband of LynnTheDem)

[Malva Zebrina]

23. when you support the troops you support the war.

that is the meaning given to that slogan and it is disingenous.

When I see a yellow ribbon, what I see is support for the mission. I see hundreds of them all over and I assume all who sport that catchy little paste on, support the war. They, even if they do not support the war, have put themselves into that position of advertising Bush's mission as one to be supported.

And I fail to see what sacrifice there is to this war, other than the troops who signed up, are now in a sticky wicket and I really wonder sometimes, how many of them actually do support this war. I have no idea.

If they have no supplies, I will try to do something aobut that, but to automatically blindly latch on the Bush meme of "support the troops" (and thus support the fascism and the greedy imperialism of Bush) is really, when you get down to it, blind nationalism.

On the part of Bush supporter, and war supporters, it is just great to to paste a yellow ribbon on your car and be in with the in crowd who advocate slaughter based on the lies of their president, on the part of those who suffer guilt over the accusation that unless they adopt Bush's meme, put those yellow ribbons on their cars, speak eloqently about the "Sacrifice" to bring "freedom" or to defend the "freedom" of America, they will be thought of as un American or as "spitting on the troops" metaphorically speaking.

So we have those who do not support the war, saying they support the troops and to me this is a disconnect.

[PaleBlueDot]

39. You most certainly can support the troops and hate Bush too!

It happens all the time! In my own unit even! Don't think for a moment that the troops are all of like mind. I know several soldiers who think Bush is a lobotomized orangutan, but that yellow ribbon magnet is on their truck or car just the same, because when they support the troops, they support their friends and neighbors and coworkers and, sometimes, husbands, wives, sons, daughters, whatnot.

[Malva Zebrina]

68. Not connected

to the meme "support the troops" . That is not what I am talking about. I fully realize that troops are like any other population , some good, some bad, some in between. I am opposed to the romanticizing of the troops to the point where they are all heroes not to be questioned.

What I am talking aobut is the adoption of the meme "support the troops" as a capitulation or an adoption of Bush policies.

I can never in good conscience say I support the troops, because what that boils down to, in my interpretation, is that I support Bush's unholy mission.

See what I mean?

[seito]

6. To me "Supporting the Troops" means

Protecting them from a government that has betrayed them

Giving them safe refuge and fighting to ensure that their basic human needs are taken care of

Working to ensure that they are given proper training and equipment to accomplish the mission

Exposing those individuals that have ordered or have committed war crimes

Working the ensure that the government ends the back door draft

Providing adequate health care to them upon their return

I do not put the service of a soldier above that of anyone else. They are a part of this nation. They have a vital role to play. Like everything else in America today, they are subject to the corruption of those that are in charge.

[Coastie for Truth]

15. Unfortunately, some have painted the Progressive Community

as treating the individual service member (and veteran) as an untermenchen class.

This is that the Swifties preyed upon.

[maxsolomon]

21. its only intended to end any debate

our foreign policy/president = the troops. it is a poisoning of the language. the follow up is that they're defending our freedom. that's what the military is SUPPOSED to do, sure, but it ain't what those lives are being spent on. unless you consider our freedom from high gas prices to be the essence of our republic.

and it IS inherently pro-bush. its only been in common parlance twice; and both wars were started by who? presidents bush.

quit kidding yourself.

[PaleBlueDot]

42. The yellow ribbons did not start with Bush, though...

Check this out!

http://www.loc.gov/folklife/ribbons/ribbons.html

[neweurope]

26. It's a question that I have been wanting to ask, and I think I'll ask

it again. Your troops have fought Nazi Germany (for the wrong reasons, but anyway you did): Very good.

What else have your troops done?

Some of you know the following - those that don't I ask to look at it. Troops defending the country are praiseworthy and worthy of support. Troops that are being employed to help the big capitalist players of the USA are a willing tool of that policiy and as such need to be opposed - in my opinion.

Not in yours, probably. I read this "but I DO support the troops" in every second post here and it baffles me. If the troops fight for a wrong cause the troops are wrong. If they are wrong those who support the troops are wrong. If the troops fight an unjust war those who support the troops are supporting the war mongers. In my mind nothing could be clearer and I have not so far understood those of you who unconditionally "support the troops" even when speaking of the Iraq war which everybody here agrees is wrong.

Now:

SOUTH DAKOTA
1890 (-?)
Troops
300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.
ARGENTINA
1890
Troops
Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE
1891
Troops
Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI
1891
Troops
Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated.
IDAHO
1892
Troops
Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
HAWAII
1893 (-?)
Naval, troops
Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO
1894
Troops
Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed
NICARAGUA
1894
Troops
Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA
1894-95
Naval, troops
Marines land in Sino-Jap War.
KOREA
1894-96
Troops
Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA
1895
Troops, naval
Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA
1896
Troops
Marines land in port of Corinto.
CHINA
1898-1900
Troops / Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
PHILIPPINES
1898-1910(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, killed
600,000 Filipinos.
CUBA
1898-1902(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO
1898(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, occupation
continues.
GUAM
1898(-?)
Naval, troops / Seized from Spain, still used as base.
MINNESOTA
1898(-?)
Troops
Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
NICARAGUA
1898
Troops
Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA
1899(-?)
Troops
Battle over succession to throne.
NICARAGUA
1899
Troops / Marines land at port of Bluefields.
IDAHO
1899-1901
Troops / Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.
OKLAHOMA
1901
Troops
Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
PANAMA
1901-14
Naval, troops
Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914-99.
HONDURAS
1903
Troops
Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REP.
1903-04
Troops
U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA
1904-05
Troops
Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA
1906-09
Troops / Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA
1907
Troops
"Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS
1907
Troops
Marines land during war with Nicaragua.
PANAMA
1908
Troops / Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA
1910
Troops
Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS
1911
Troops / U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA
1911-41
Naval, troops
Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA
1912
Troops / U.S. interests protected in Havana.
PANAMA
19l2
Troops / Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS
19l2
Troops / Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA
1912-33
Troops, bombing
20-year occupation, fought guerrillas.
MEXICO
19l3
Naval / Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1914
Naval / Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO
1914
Troops / Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
MEXICO
1914-18
Naval, troops
Series of interventions against
nationalists.
HAITI
1914-34
Troops, bombing
19-year occupation after revolts.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1916-24
Troops
8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA
1917-33
Troops / Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I
19l7-18
Naval, troops
Ships sunk, fought Germany
RUSSIA
1918-22
Naval, troops
Five landings to fight Bolsheviks.
PANAMA
1918-20
Troops
"Police duty" during unrest after elections.
YUGOSLAVIA
1919
Troops
Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
HONDURAS
1919
Troops
Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA
1920
Troops
2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA
1920-21
Troops, bombing
Army intervenes against
mineworkers.
TURKEY
1922
Troops
Fought nationalists in Smyrna (Izmir).
CHINA
1922-27
Naval, troops
Deployment during nationalist revolt.
HONDURAS
1924-25
Troops
Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA
1925
Troops / Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA
1927-34
Troops / Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR
1932
Naval / Warships sent during Farabundo Marti revolt.
WASHINGTON DC
1932
Troops / Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
WORLD WAR II
1941-45
Naval,troops, bombing, nuclear
Fought Axis for 3
years; 1st nuclear war.
DETROIT
1943
Troops
Army puts down Black rebellion.
IRAN
1946
Nuclear threat
Soviet troops told to leave north (Iranian
Azerbaijan).
YUGOSLAVIA
1946
Naval / Response to shooting-down of U.S. plane.
URUGUAY
1947
Nuclear threat
Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE
1947-49
Command operation
U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
CHINA
1948-49
Troops
Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
GERMANY
1948
Nuclear threat
Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
PHILIPPINES
1948-54
Command operation
CIA directs war against Huk
Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO
1950
Command operation
Independence rebellion crushed in
Ponce.
KOREA
1950-53
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats
U.S.& South Korea fight China & North Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, & vs. China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN
1953
Command operation
CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM
1954
Nuclear threat
Bombs offered to French to use against siege.
GUATEMALA
1954
Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new govt nationalizes U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT
1956
Nuclear threat, troops
Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; MArines evacuate foreigners
LEBANON
1958
Troops, naval / Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ
1958
Nuclear threat
Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINA
1958
Nuclear threat
China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA
1958
Troops / Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM
1960-75
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; 1-2 million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in 1968 and 1969.
CUBA
1961
Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY
1961
Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
CUBA
1962
Nuclear threat, Naval
Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with USSR.
LAOS
1962
Command operation
Military buildup during guerrilla war.
PANAMA
1964
Troops / Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA
1965
Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1965-66
Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA
1966-67
Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.
DETROIT
1967
Troops / Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES
1968
Troops / After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIA
1969-75
Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN
1970
Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS
1971-73
Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA
1973
Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
MIDEAST
1973
Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE
1973
Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA
1975
Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.
ANGOLA
1976-92
Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN
1980
Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Emba-ssy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets war-ned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA
1981
Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR
1981-92
Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA
1981-90
Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON
1982-84
Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim and Syrian positions.
HONDURAS
1983-89
Troops / Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
GRENADA
1983-84
Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
IRAN
1984
Jets / Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA
1986
Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.
BOLIVIA
1986
Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN
1987-88
Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA
1989
Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
1989
Troops
St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES
1989
Jets / Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA
1989-90
Troops, bombing
Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA
1990
Troops
Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA
1990-91
Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait; 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ
1990-?
Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT
1991
Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
LOS ANGELES
1992
Troops
Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA
1992-94
Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA
1992-94
Naval Nato blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA
1993-95
Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI
1994-96
Troops, naval
Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
CROATIA
1995
Bombing
Krajina Serb airfields attacked before Croatian offensive.
ZAIRE (CONGO)
1996-97
Troops
Marines at Rwandan Hutu refuge camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA
1997
Troops
Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA
1997
Troops
Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN
1998
Missiles
Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN
1998
Missiles
Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ
1998-?
Bombing, Missiles
Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA
1999-?
Bombing, Missiles
Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo.
YEMEN
2000
Naval
Suicide bomb attack on USS Cole.
MACEDONIA
2001
Troops
NATO troops shift and partially disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES
2001
Jets, naval
Response to hijacking attacks.
AFGHANISTAN
2001
Massive U.S. mobilization to attack Taliban, Bin Laden. War could expand to Iraq, Sudan, and beyond.
(The first bombing began on October 7, 2001. Several Afghan cities come under aerial attack. The story continues).

Frankly I was to laz7y to update.

There were always GOOD AMERICANS who supported the troops. Supported them in Puerto Rico and Hawaii, Argentina and Nicaragua, Samoa and Honduras, China, Korea and Panama, Vietnam, Philippines and Cuba... and the story goes on.

Without your support none of this could have happened or at least MOST of it could not have happened. So why do you - peaceloving folks evidently - support the troops and thus support your military-industrial complex every damned time - with a clear conscience?

It's as if it were a reflex. And now - please don't hate me. I like you here on this board, I really do. But I CANNOT understand this "support the troops" thing.

on edit: There is no country on earth which has warred as much as yours. And you still think the policies of the masters and supporting their willing tools are two different things, totally unrelated. I just don't get it.

----------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[PaleBlueDot]

49. I am officially taking a break from this thread for the day!

Gonna go explore the rest of DU. I signed up because this topic sounded interesting. I did not intend to get into a detailed debate with matcom or any other person. L-8-er!

[CatWoman]

50. The bigger question is

why the fuck doesn't the administration support the troops?

Never mind the individuals here -- why the hell doesn't the administration support the troops?

That's the question of the day. This day, the next day and the day after that.

[matcom]

58. bing!! bing!!

*crickets* :eyes:

[LynnTheDem]

63. Now that's a damn fine question.

And not one that's ever going to be asked or answered in the MSM.

[Locut0s]

81. But that IS what I'm saying!

Part of what I mean is that the "support the troops" line when use by the right is, as someone else said here largely meant to just end the discussion. To those on the right who really "support" the war in IRAQ support the troops means to hell with the troops, "support the war" there is not difference in their minds. When you say to Hell with the individuals I'm saying that is EXACTLY the problem. The individual people that make up the military, their personalities flaws and all, have been replaced by an idealized image of what a solider is that we must "support or you hate the nation". Once you have such an ideal it becomes easy for those on the right to sell the real troops down the river, because in their eyes they don't exist anymore it's about winning the war and how many idealized soldier "units" it's going to take to do so.

[chlamor]

79. Support an economy that doesn't require military interventions

Reduce Military budget by at least 50%

[Locut0s]

80. Let me make something clear...

It seems that some people, even those that agree it seems, may have misinterpreted my post a little. I was in no way saying that the US military is fascist. I was arguing against the idolization of certain sections of the US populace that has for the most part been spearheaded by the far right. I am not saying that it's wrong to be proud of soldiers, firefighters, and police officers. They certainly deserve praise. I am saying though that it is worrisome when you have an atmosphere in which you are given the dual message "not to support is to hate your country" and "those who server are flawless individuals capable of no wrong". It is not that I feel that people in uniform are to be held in suspicion, nothing even close to that in fact. But the idea that they are beyond reproach, as those on the right also often mean by this phrase, is not comforting either.

[Swamp Rat]

85. Cool.

I didn't read any posts in this thread. I started reading it backwards for some odd reason.

Your point seems clear and I find your position reasonable.

I have family and friends in combat, so my support is of a personal nature.

I hate war.

I want peace.

[Mr_Spock]

86. I understand - others just look for an opening to push their agenda

There's nothing you can do about it - excellent post and point BTW - I agree completely with what you are saying - thanks :D