fansince62 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 since so many of you have uncovered a new found love for freedom of speech....something that apparently escaped many of you during the past three decades in which politcal correctness had a very chilling impact on freedom of speech......I would like to investigate one small thought.....just what do the celebs/anti-war types mean when they say they opposed the war but supported the troops? now, I'm sure it made them FEEL warm and fuzzy and noble to say this, but what is the real import? 1) Saying so is really a free pass. It really means "I don't want any of the troops to suffer injury or death". Ok....anyone...regardless of their position on war.......can say this. Moreover, there is no cost to saying this. 2) Do you support the troops if you do not support the policies, strategies, COMMANDS of the folks directing the troops? 3) Do you support the troops if you are against defense expenditures for systems the trooops use in battle? 4) Do you really support the troops if you have never been to any rally to send them off, greet them upon return....in short....recognize anything they have done? in other words......is it empty rhetoric with no real follow-up? does anyone really believe that the Sarandons & Robbins of the world would turn up at victory parades as a show of support for the troops? of course not...because they would view that as a tacit endorsement of the means/goals - and this they cannot do. so.....support for the troops becomes a rather empty, meaningless gesture. it has no real content. 5) Do you really support the troops if you can never envision youself or your children becoming a volunteer serviceperson? by this I mean that many chose not to serve in the armed forces because they feel it is immoral to follow a role in life that might cause them to kill other humans. if it is wrong for them on these grounds, then it has to be wrong for everyone else who is in the military. not arguiing that this is the case for everyone - but it is obviously the case for many. how can supporting the troops be divorced from supporting what they do? So....what this really boils down to is an expression of sympathy to the parents of troops and the troops' spouses/children. It has no further import than that....and it really has questionable meaning in the larger context of what the troops do, the moral assessment of what they do, how they are provisioned to do it.....moreover......it is intended to drive a wedge between the troops and their leadership....there is a cold, post Viet Nam calculating aspect to this....don't kid yourselves......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 What you are saying may very well be true, but so what? I wouldn't wish any harm on any of the troops and I hold no ill will against them upon their return. They did not make the choice to go to war with Iraq, someone else, who is their boss made that choice and they had to obey, that's their job. I see no point what so ever in holding it against them personally. My boss makes decisions that I don't always agree with, but If I want to keep my job, I have to obey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Fan, Do you have to support all of the defense items to "support the troops"? This thought of your's seems dangerous to me. You've expanded what "support of troops" into the political arena. What next, I must vote for the person with the biggest defense budget to support my troops? Gimme a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Do you complain to the clerk at the drug store when the store's policies are crap? Why? They are doing a job they are paid to do. They don't make the decisions. Complaining to them is just plain unfair. You're putting them in a position where they have to either go against their job or against often times common sense. What's more, they then get to deal with others' complaints ina addition to having a crappy job. Now on to troops: We ask our military to do some of the most horrifying things imaginable. We ask them to do it without fail and without hesitation. In return, we agree not to give them grief about what they are ordered to do. There is a thresh hold which we still won't tollerate (war crimes), but by and large, we agree to understand they do their jobs, and they do them well. What we ask them to do is decided by political decision makers. By the time the order is given, we expect them to do it. If you have a problem with what they are doing, you address the decision makers. You don't guilt those who you've asked to do a hard job. Not that I agree with your point, but I have to ask if you realise the flip side fo your arguement? Do you support the troops when you send them off to war 2 times in a year and a half? What if you advocate shipping them off from their families and jobs a third time in 2 years? Is that your form of support? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted April 23, 2003 Author Share Posted April 23, 2003 I see none of you have elected to define what "support the troops" actually means. let me spell out for you what I was trying to communicate: - it is an empty statement expressed for poltical reasons. but it has no practical consequences. good enough? and Code....you are wrong.....anyone can resign from military service at anytime. if needs be they can engage in activities that will result in the individual being summarily discharged. the short order cook notion you and others (JackC to be exact) push reflects a certain ignorance of what a volunteer force truly is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 support the troops = hoping they come home healthy soon + saving their jobs here at home + not holding following orders against them + paying their salaries (such as they are) while they are soldiering + doing what we can to give them the equipment needed to carry out their jobs The problem is you would have us vote for military equipment needed for jobs we don't think should be done before it's needed. As soon as it's a forgoone conclusion or likelyhood that the troops will be there, you cna expect (and you got) support for funding. Maybe you missed it, but I sure noticed an aweful lot of add ons to the war budget from our Republican congress. Is that supporting the troops? risking the funds to the troops over pork barrel spending? Of course it's only Liberals who don't support the troops. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 fansince... yes, they are free to quit if they want, but that is their job their income... I know that I am not in a position to quit my job because I don't agree with my boss. I deal with that dilemma often and the way I see it, I do my job the way my boss wants me too and one day, I will be in my boss' shoes and I will call the shots.. but even then, someone else will still be my boss, heck, my boss's boss might be the ones calling the shots and he may not agree with it.. anyway, you get the point. The military is NOT a community service group.. it is a profession, a job. People don't join the military to work for free, the do it because it is a profession that suits them. I think I can safely say that not every single soldier was 100% in agreement with Dubya.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted April 23, 2003 Author Share Posted April 23, 2003 the decison makers are elected officials. they are empowered to make these decisions...elected representatives vote.....the system isn't set up for instant recall every time someone diagrees with an outcome. the recall occurs every 2 years or 4 years. call it the consent of the governed......there's a notion for ya..........once that decision has been made...the folks who argue it is illegitimate, illegal, etc., as was claimed recently.........are neither democratic nor supporters of the American system...... and yes we often complain to the clerk because they are a link in the communication chain........ and yes......complaints have been directed to the troops....just what do you imagine the protestors outside the army bases in Texas were trying to accomplish? who do you imagine their target audience was? What does support the troops mean???????? how can one advocate this and adopt other positons that are contrary to the interests of the troops? My assertion is that this is an emotional statement that, while nice to hear, has little in the way of practical consequences....other than that the folks saying it will shed a tear if a stray bullet happens to intercept your path or that they will refrain from spitting on you when you return from combat......... as for taking orders....one last time...it is a voluntary force....no one forces servicepersons to join or stay in........if one believes strongly enough...they can getout.......your idea is more appropriate to the course of events while in battle or executing the daily business of the military....but it doesn't recognize that if there is disagreement, options (which do carry a cost) exist.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Originally posted by gbear Of course it's only Liberals who don't support the troops. :doh: DING...DING...DING... tell him what he's won Johnny!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Originally posted by JackC Fan, Do you have to support all of the defense items to "support the troops"? This thought of your's seems dangerous to me. You've expanded what "support of troops" into the political arena. What next, I must vote for the person with the biggest defense budget to support my troops? Gimme a break. Well I see the village (message board) Idiot is at it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Originally posted by stratoman Well I see the village (message board) Idiot is at it again. Just because you don't understand it make me an idiot? I guess by that definition there are a lot of idiots around. Fan, I agree that "support our troops" statements are "empty" in some ways. Most statements of hope are my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 fansince... let me ask you then, why didn't all the military quit when Clinton was in office? For as much complaining as I have heard about Clinton's lack of military support or his lack or morals or any of the hundreds of other complaints... why wasn't there a mass exodus in the military??? I'll answer that for you.... It's called MONEY. People need it to survive and it usually takes presidence over one's political values. AGAIN... the military is a profession, it is not a policical party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Well, there is the literal supporting of the troops- paying taxes to raise funds for the millitary, but that doesn't really count because US citizens don't really have a choice in how their taxes are parcelled out. There is the spiritual supporting of the troops, but praying for their safety and their mission doesn't count because that has no tangible impact on the soldiers. There is the vocal supporting of the troops, sending out messages of good will and hope, but that doesn't count because saying words is meaningless. There is the emotional support of the troops, providing care for families left behind liberal and conservative artists performing concerts and making dedications to soldiers and answering the letters of servicemen, but that doesn't count because they're not in danger while doing this... plus it's too touchy feely. There is the material support. Cans, donations being sent to families, soldiers, etc., but this doesn't count because it is tokenism. There is the monetary support that goes to families, war camp survivors, rebuilding efforts, etc. but that doesn't count because again it is likely tokenism and again it is easier to give of yourself emotionally, spiritually, materially, monetarilly, verbally, and cognitively than it is to sit back and not attend a rally pro or anti to demonstrate for that which you believe. There is the monetary support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 fansince... let me ask you then, why didn't all the military quit when Clinton was in office? For as much complaining as I have heard about Clinton's lack of military support or his lack or morals or any of the hundreds of other complaints... why wasn't there a mass exodus in the military??? I'll answer that for you.... It's called MONEY. People need it to survive and it usually takes presidence over one's political values. AGAIN... the military is a profession, it is not a policical party. I''ll answer your question Code. There was a mass exodus from the military. Of course, it was initiated by clinton in the drawdown. If money was an issue back then, trust me, there wouldn't be anybody in the military. Fortunately, there are people who are here for reasons other than money. Plus, those of us that are career minded knew we could outlast the son of a *****! I knew senior NCO's and officers that actually waited until he and his slimey followers were out of office so they wouldn't have to have his name on their retirement certificates! That's BAD. And we are still suffering from the drawdown that went too far. As I write, people in my career field and others are in what is called "Stop-Loss", which means that even if your enlistment is up or you are ready to retire, you are forced to stay on active duty until further notice. Simply because there are not enough people in the service to get the job done during wartime. Neat, huh? When's the last time you were told you couldn't QUIT a job? Just one of the rights we give up to serve. As for people who say they "Support the troops but not the policy" What a load of bullsh!t. WE ARE THE POLICY, dumbdicks! Just like we were the policy when we were delivering pizza's to the Balkins. It is nothing more than an attempt, mainly on the part of celebs, to dodge the public bullet on their uninformed positions. It rings so hollow. You can tell when they say it that is was something their agent told them to say, so as to not totally destroy their careers. Nobody in the military buys it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 not Supporting your military in my book: holding up funds for necessary equipment until a leaky damn in Vermount is fixed. holding up funds until salmon are labeled organic holding up funds until a money is made available for a $52 million training center in Aberdeen holding up money until the dairy industry in Nevada and AZ is aided. All of these were put forth as add ons to the war budget. Some were from each side of the aisle. :doh: I guess that's what I win, Stratoman. That is unless you'd like to argue how holding up the war budget over these items is "supporting our troops." Because we all know only the Dems fail to "support our troops." :puke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted April 23, 2003 Author Share Posted April 23, 2003 Code...some good questions..... - Lots of good people, many among the best, quit during the Clinton era; it's a drain that doesn't show up in the overall statistics. - If you are good at what you do in the military, there are plenty of jobs in the civilian world waiting - so money is not always a determining factor - I personally witnessed - by accident (single walk-on during a round of golf) - incidents during the late 90s in which newly retired officers were burning the certificates they received from the President recognizing their service to the country - symbolic acts representing a disaffection from the leadership. whatever else you want to think of it - childish, stupid, etc - it did represent a morale issue that was not limitted to a few folks. Let me rephrase the question: If a Martin Sheen or Susan Sarandon says they support the troops....what the *ell does that mean? It's a statement that has very little meaning beyond "I don't wish injury or death upon you". Otherwise, it has no other practical consequences. Support is the wrong word. Something along the lines of "I wish you no harm" falls closer to the mark. But support is a distractor which is dishonest.....this is not how the word support is ordinarily understood. when you say "Bill...I support you"...it is generally taken to mean "I am on board with your cause...or I agree with what you are doing." this is not what these folks intend.......... These last minute appropriations are for operations and maintenance....to answer someone else. not the weapons systems developments - you know...like the B-1 the Clinton admiinstration wanted to kill - that take years. in case you haven't noticed...the military has become politicized to some degree...it is largely conservative and republican........this may or may not be a healthy thing....but it is the case.........yes the military is bound by oath and law to execute the lawful orders of the civilian leadership.........but that doesn't mean military members can't have a pov, can't vote, or act collectively to express their interests....it happens subtly in a million ways every day..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 fansince, if you want to reword your question to mean "I don't wish ill will or death" to the troops, then I can pretty much agree with that. I don't wish any ill will or death to the troops... When I say I support the troops, this is exactly what I mean: I hope and pray that they can return home safely and I don't hold any troops personally accountable in the decision to go to war, therefore, wouldn't spit on them or take part in any of the other negative anti soilder sentiment that happened after Vietnam. That's my meaning... I can't speak for anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted April 23, 2003 Author Share Posted April 23, 2003 btw...as a sidebar.......someone mentioned a whole back that there are some in the military who disagree with the war in Iraq....there may very well be a few.......my response is that they are fools if they participate in a war they disagree with as members of a VOLUNTEER force...... and.......the money issue isn't as cut & dried as some would have it - sure folks stay in for money...but it is often the case that foregoing that income is not the difference between feeding the family and living on the street......it may mean the difference between a low income house and a mid-income house...it then becomes a personal matter of how strong one's convictions measure up against material needs/wants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 my response is that they are fools if they participate in a war they disagree with as members of a VOLUNTEER force...... You make it sound like they were of another profession and then Bush put out the word that he wanted a war so they volunteered... When someone enlists in the military, it's safe to say that the are aware that there is a chance that they will see combat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.