I hear lots of talk regarding "supporting the troops". What actual meaning does this statement have? If you support the troops, what activities do you engage in?
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- What exactly does "supporting the troops" entail?
Doing your jobK8Kommunist wrote:
I hear lots of talk regarding "supporting the troops". What actual meaning does this statement have? If you support the troops, what activities do you engage in?
Put magnets on your car.
not to bring religion into this but this is what i do, say a prayer for my brothers/sisters in arms, those who've payed the price, and flame anti-military idiots who hide behind the 1st Amendment, (by anti-military i mean people like: http://www.thetravisty.com/Oh_Shit!/wmv … nerals.htm. not to mention make a donation to http://www.lbeh.org/
The whole idea of "Supporting the Troops" goes back to Vietnam. During that war there were many people against the war just as there are now. However, back then the protesters viewed soldiers as part of the problem. There were incidents of people returning home and being spit on, being called baby killers, and on and on.
To the extreme protesters the only right action when being drafted was to run to Canada (cowards). You can't run a military like that - where the soldiers only have to carry out the missions or orders that they want to carry out. As long as a soldier is given a lawful order, it needs to be carried out.
There are a LOT of repercussions that still exist to this day because of some tof the actions that took over during that time period. It was only recently that Jane Fonda appologized for going over to Vietnam and meeting with the enemy like she was on some press tour. There are pictures of her siting in an AA gun smiling. That same AA gun was use to try and shoot down American planes. That's like someone getting a picture of themselves smiling while holding the gun used to murder someone in my opinion. It took 30+ years for her to admit/realize that what she did was wrong.
Anyway, you don't have to agree with the war in order to support the troops. Supporting them means not rejoicing when they are killed, helping to take care of your neighbors who have immediate family members involved in the war if needed.
Oh, yeah. It also means that you do not "convict" them of crimes as soon as an accusation has been made before the facts have actually been investigated. You know, like how Senator Murtha did. There are bad people in the military just like in the rest of society. So, I don't believe that they are above the law, but at least wait untilt he facts come out before making judgement publicly - especially if you are a government official.
To the extreme protesters the only right action when being drafted was to run to Canada (cowards). You can't run a military like that - where the soldiers only have to carry out the missions or orders that they want to carry out. As long as a soldier is given a lawful order, it needs to be carried out.
There are a LOT of repercussions that still exist to this day because of some tof the actions that took over during that time period. It was only recently that Jane Fonda appologized for going over to Vietnam and meeting with the enemy like she was on some press tour. There are pictures of her siting in an AA gun smiling. That same AA gun was use to try and shoot down American planes. That's like someone getting a picture of themselves smiling while holding the gun used to murder someone in my opinion. It took 30+ years for her to admit/realize that what she did was wrong.
Anyway, you don't have to agree with the war in order to support the troops. Supporting them means not rejoicing when they are killed, helping to take care of your neighbors who have immediate family members involved in the war if needed.
Oh, yeah. It also means that you do not "convict" them of crimes as soon as an accusation has been made before the facts have actually been investigated. You know, like how Senator Murtha did. There are bad people in the military just like in the rest of society. So, I don't believe that they are above the law, but at least wait untilt he facts come out before making judgement publicly - especially if you are a government official.
holy f***ing shit, If I've ever seen a fanatic crazy religious woman...no offence to any religion, but that is ridiculous... +1 for making me see how crazy the world/people can be...[1FR]S3v3N wrote:
not to bring religion into this but this is what i do, say a prayer for my brothers/sisters in arms, those who've payed the price, and flame anti-military idiots who hide behind the 1st Amendment, (by anti-military i mean people like: http://www.thetravisty.com/Oh_Shit!/wmv … nerals.htm. not to mention make a donation to http://www.lbeh.org/
Those incidents were despicable, agreed. The governments were no better (I once talked to someone who was a joined by choice, but knew many who'd been conscripted. When they got home, they landed at the opposite end of the airport to the terminal in the middle of the night so as not to upset people, and given the number of a cab company. Of course, in Australia you could choose to refuse to go overseas if you were a conscript).Psycho wrote:
There were incidents of people returning home and being spit on, being called baby killers, and on and on.
Why? Many of them probably didn't want to fight a war which they didn't believe was just. Is that so wrong?Psycho wrote:
To the extreme protesters the only right action when being drafted was to run to Canada (cowards).
So, dodging the draft is disobeying an order? I'm confused as to what you're saying. You can't run a military on volunteers only?Psycho wrote:
You can't run a military like that - where the soldiers only have to carry out the missions or orders that they want to carry out. As long as a soldier is given a lawful order, it needs to be carried out.
So, when an American is killed it's murder, but when an American kills it isn't? Or anyone dying is murder?Psycho wrote:
That same AA gun was use to try and shoot down American planes. That's like someone getting a picture of themselves smiling while holding the gun used to murder someone in my opinion.
The part where I take issue here is that not rejoicing when they are killed has nothing to do with supporting them, it's about being a human being. I never rejoice at death, it's always preferable to find a solution in which everyone survives.Psycho wrote:
Anyway, you don't have to agree with the war in order to support the troops. Supporting them means not rejoicing when they are killed, helping to take care of your neighbors who have immediate family members involved in the war if needed.
Personally, unless something incredibly wacky turns out to have happened, on a Martian encounter sort of scale, I don't see how those soldiers can be absolved of responsibility. But then, we've discussed this before.......Psycho wrote:
Oh, yeah. It also means that you do not "convict" them of crimes as soon as an accusation has been made before the facts have actually been investigated. You know, like how Senator Murtha did. There are bad people in the military just like in the rest of society. So, I don't believe that they are above the law, but at least wait untilt he facts come out before making judgement publicly - especially if you are a government official.
You know, if they were drafted I'd most likely support them. In this case they decided to sign that piece of paper and then have the nerve to tell me they're defending my rights or freedoms over in Iraq, which wasn't exactly threatening anything really except it's own people, which isn't our responsiblity. If you want to claim it is, there's tons of countries in Africa that have similar regimes. Why don't we help them? I think it has to do with potential Halliburton profits.
Congratulations! That's extraordinarily hypocritical. Free speech is only ok when they say what you like to hear. I don't think anyone should interfere with a funeral under any circumstances. I'm not hiding behind anything. I can say what I want if I choose. If you run into the Phelps congregation and want to fight them, that's your choice and there's consequences for those choices.[1FR wrote:
S3v3N]...anti-military idiots who hide behind the 1st Amendment...
The military will never punish its own like they deserve. Especially when you've got Haditha, Abu Ghraib, and the marines and that Navy guy who dragged that Iraqi out of his house and shot him and tried to make it look like "insurgents" did it. Abu Ghraib for example. Ringleader got 10 years, Lynndie England got 2, others got like 6 months. If I supported the military I'd find that behavior incredibly shameful, and I'd want to see real justice done for tarnishing the reputation. But at this point it looks like tarnishing reputation is one of the things the military does well.Psycho wrote:
Oh, yeah. It also means that you do not "convict" them of crimes as soon as an accusation has been made before the facts have actually been investigated. You know, like how Senator Murtha did. There are bad people in the military just like in the rest of society. So, I don't believe that they are above the law, but at least wait untilt he facts come out before making judgement publicly - especially if you are a government official.
its people in the Phelps Congregation that hide behind mr 1st amendment and say its a good thing these american fighting men/women are dying. I don't agree with this whole gagglefuck going on over there, but i went because i was following orders, but my main goal was to make sure my squad made it out alive which they all did. I tend to get alittle irrate with the EXTREMIST anti-military people, atleast give some respect to those that have died, because you know if that whackjob from the video i posted lost one of her kids, she'd be devistated, but she didn't think what it'd be like to have protesters at her sons funeral.. its just awfull..
When the USA entered WWII almost no one knew of germany's atrocity's and after all it was japan who attacked us. With the limited knowledge the individuale possesd on the topics many if not all would have been justified avoiding service Ala Cananda like their 1960s bretheran. luckily for all few did. As for vietnam, I geuss most people don't care as much about asians. I can not judge them.
Removing your commander-in-chief so the troops can come home.K8Kommunist wrote:
I hear lots of talk regarding "supporting the troops". What actual meaning does this statement have? If you support the troops, what activities do you engage in?
having the decency to not protest at funerals of KIA or Walter Reid, are you listening code pinkies and sheehan whores?
and Ikarti, you would love a nice retreat to Leavenworth
and Ikarti, you would love a nice retreat to Leavenworth
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-06-30 12:13:59)
Except that Germany was overtly aggressive, North Vietnam was not until after the South had not followed the agreed protocol.Horseman 77 wrote:
When the USA entered WWII almost no one knew of germany's atrocity's and after all it was japan who attacked us. With the limited knowledge the individuale possesd on the topics many if not all would have been justified avoiding service Ala Cananda like their 1960s bretheran. luckily for all few did. As for vietnam, I geuss most people don't care as much about asians. I can not judge them.
It entails wearing a bra.
Response not applicable ( pattern well established ) Please stay on topic. Germany was not aggressive to the USA and we were already hunting and attacking their Navy ( Sink on Site Orders ) and aiding Great Britain Militarily well before 12-7-1941Bubbalo wrote:
Except that Germany was overtly aggressive,Horseman 77 wrote:
When the USA entered WWII almost no one knew of germany's atrocity's and after all it was japan who attacked us. With the limited knowledge the individual possessed on the topics many if not all would have been justified avoiding service Ala Canada like their 1960s brethren. luckily for all few did. As for Vietnam, I guess most people don't care as much about Asians. I can not judge them.
Anything you do that would or could bolster the Morale of an enemy combatant is
( Not supporting the Troops )
and pushing them into danger, It also lengthens the War who's outcome is a foregone conclusion to anyone with first hand knowledge EI ( GunSlinger )
By bolstering the Enemy's will to try and attack, you are assuring that more will die.
But we know deep inside liberals really don't care about Iraqis or Coalition troops anyway.
( Not supporting the Troops )
and pushing them into danger, It also lengthens the War who's outcome is a foregone conclusion to anyone with first hand knowledge EI ( GunSlinger )
By bolstering the Enemy's will to try and attack, you are assuring that more will die.
But we know deep inside liberals really don't care about Iraqis or Coalition troops anyway.
They were, however, aggressive to you allies.Horseman 77 wrote:
Response not applicable ( pattern well established ) Please stay on topic. Germany was not aggressive to the USA and we were already hunting and attacking their Navy ( Sink on Site Orders ) and aiding Great Britain Militarily well before 12-7-1941
It means looking past the rhetoric and remembering that there are human being who have sacrificed for our country . Right or wrong is established after the fact by history. The men doing the dying should not be judged through a political lense, they do not make policy.
It always makes me laugh when anti-Bush people suggest that the moral thing for the foot soldiers to do is shoot their commanders. Are there really people that ignorant? Oh yeah. And some of them have been elected.
If al gore had one the election our military would still be doing 98% of the things it has done thus far, the only real difference is that the liberals would be on board with everything thats happened ( just like they were in Kosovo ).
A supporter of the troops is one who realizes that politics is a language of lies, and that war is a language of death and pain. The people of the former speak for personal gain, the people of the latter speak their language for their countrymen and comrades.
It always makes me laugh when anti-Bush people suggest that the moral thing for the foot soldiers to do is shoot their commanders. Are there really people that ignorant? Oh yeah. And some of them have been elected.
If al gore had one the election our military would still be doing 98% of the things it has done thus far, the only real difference is that the liberals would be on board with everything thats happened ( just like they were in Kosovo ).
A supporter of the troops is one who realizes that politics is a language of lies, and that war is a language of death and pain. The people of the former speak for personal gain, the people of the latter speak their language for their countrymen and comrades.
it also means not reporting leaked information that could cost the lives of the troops (or free world citizens, in the case of the NYT, though that's off topic), this is historically called "treason"
I would only half agree with that: if they post information that does little other than risk troops lives (i.e. "I'm here with X squad about to assault X location alongside X other people, and the general battle plan is......"), then yes. But if it is something which is of genuine value to the public (i.e. "It turns out the government was lying, they already have troops in X country despite claims otherwise") I'd disagree. Having said that, treason isn't the term for putting troops in danger, but rather betraying the Crown (in fact, according to the OED it has to be such that it is punishable by death).
What does this mean ?Bubbalo wrote:
They were, however, aggressive to you allies.Horseman 77 wrote:
Response not applicable ( pattern well established ) Please stay on topic. Germany was not aggressive to the USA and we were already hunting and attacking their Navy ( Sink on Site Orders ) and aiding Great Britain Militarily well before 12-7-1941
Please read and edit your posts before you hit send. We were not " allied " before the conflict even started.
Very frustrating grrrr.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-07-01 09:15:31)
France/Britain. Even if you don't define them as allies, they were trading partners.Horseman 77 wrote:
what?
so was Germany well into the fighting at the start of both World Wars, well into the battle for Britain at World War Two's start in fact. Please acquire some knowledge on the subject before you air your views.Bubbalo wrote:
France/Britain. Even if you don't define them as allies, they were trading partners.Horseman 77 wrote:
what?
Once you tip your hand its kinda hard to bluff your way through the round.
Yes, but Capitalism relies on variety. If Germany took over Europe, the US wouldn't have really had anyone else to trade with.
So its ok to fight over Trade rights, comodities and resources that sustain life in any civilization?Bubbalo wrote:
Yes, but Capitalism relies on variety. If Germany took over Europe, the US wouldn't have really had anyone else to trade with.
Cool we all knew that anyway. Otherwise.....
When the USA entered WWII almost no one knew of germany's atrocity's and after all it was japan who attacked us. With the limited knowledge the individual possessed on the topics many if not all would have been justified avoiding service Ala Canada like their 1960s brethren. luckily for all few did. As for Vietnam, I guess most people don't care as much about Asians. I can not judge them.
Totaly knocked flat and run down, left in middle of public street with his pants down around his ankles and a Knobby dildo in his butt with no lube on video with a live link to internet .
Bubalo owned Case 38 g. Woooot.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- What exactly does "supporting the troops" entail?