i don't support the troops...

[Freakaloin]

cuz of shit like this...

http://www.rense.com/general70/dahrjamailhowmass.htm

[Ryoki]

Heh, that article was also featured on antiwar.com.

[seremtan]

retaliation killings of civilians - remember Lidice? where the nazis massacred the entire village after heydrich was assassinated? one of the most notorious war crimes in history, and here's american soldiers doing exactly the same thing

in a 'war on terror' no less. oh the irony

[Canis]

You fucking idiot, its about not supporting the commands that end in this sort of thing. Supporting the troops ensures that those who did not partake in these acts are not treated as if they did.

[[xeno]Julios]

so canis - what would your attitude be towards nazi troops?

would u say - support the nazi troops, but not the ideology/command/etc?

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

You fucking idiot, its about not supporting the commands that end in this sort of thing. Supporting the troops ensures that those who did partake in these acts are treated as if they did not.

fixed it for you sparky

[[xeno]Julios]

You fucking idiot, its about not supporting the commands that end in this sort of thing. Supporting the troops ensures that those who did partake in these acts are treated as if they did not.

fixed it for you sparky

couldn't have said it better myself

p.s. i'm gonna make a hummus run in the next few hours

[Canis]

Yes in part, and that's only to prevent those "Nazi troops" that didnt partake in heinous crimes from being lumped together with those that did. Additionally, we currently have an all volunteer army and despite some punishment for disobeying orders, its nothing compared to the punishment and oppression that would be felt by those who didnt follow orders in the Nazi regime. As such, its tough for me to take the average german soldier during WWII and lump him into the same category as those who ordered the heinous crimes of WWII. It was almost a catch-22 for the german soldiers at the time. It was "either join us or get the fuck out or be persecuted" and I dont think you can blame the average joe for following the crowd to save his own neck. Heck, one might call french citizens during the times a "Nazi" for heiling hitler and supporting him after france fell. The "Nazis" were just a party, and even those high up in the ranks such as the many secretaries to even hitler himself, didnt know of the atrocities being enacted and yet still referred to themselves as Nazis.

[Canis]

You fucking idiot, its about not supporting the commands that end in this sort of thing. Supporting the troops ensures that those who did partake in these acts are treated as if they did not.

fixed it for you sparky

couldn't have said it better myself

p.s. i'm gonna make a hummus run in the next few hours

Absolutely not. Those who did partake in these acts may wish to hide behind those who did not in the guise of "just following orders", but its up to us to ensure they dont get away with it. Soldiers have been persecuted for the slaying of even downed enemy combattants in Iraq, and its up to those monitoring the combat to ensure the folks who didnt intentionally kill helpless and innocent folks dont get treated as if they did.

This alteration of the reasons behind the stance of "support the troops" seems to be another strive for putting down anything and everything that has to do with the current conflict, even if it means an attempt at lumping everyone over there into the same boat of having comitted war atrocities.

[[xeno]Julios]

Yes in part, and that's only to prevent those "Nazi troops" that didnt partake in heinous crimes from being lumped together with those that did. Additionally, we currently have an all volunteer army and despite some punishment for disobeying orders, its nothing compared to the punishment and oppression that would be felt by those who didnt follow orders in the Nazi regime. As such, its tough for me to take the average german soldier during WWII and lump him into the same category as those who ordered the heinous crimes of WWII. It was almost a catch-22 for the german soldiers at the time. It was "either join us or get the fuck out or be persecuted" and I dont think you can blame the average joe for following the crowd to save his own neck. Heck, one might call french citizens during the times a "Nazi" for heiling hitler and supporting him after france fell. The "Nazis" were just a party, and even those high up in the ranks such as the many secretaries to even hitler himself, didnt know of the atrocities being enacted and yet still referred to themselves as Nazis.

ok at least you're consistent. And i agree with you actually.

But just because i don't support the troops doesn't mean i hate them, or think them unworthy people.

Forced dichotomies tend to control our discourse, and this seems to be a clear example.

So, I can consistently say that most of the american troops are probably decent human beings, but that doesn't mean i support them!

I guess another clarification is between supporting the troops, and their actions.

I certainly don't support their actions.

So what exactly does it mean to support the troops?

edit: bbl nap

[R00k]

You're a pro at dissembling man.

I think it would be better if you started by defining what "support" means in your mind. That's a very vague and subjective term for a discussion like this to hinge on.

"Support Our Troops," in my mind, is nothing but a dirty worthless slogan in these days. One of my best friends of more than 12 years is in Iraq right now, but people can still claim I don't "Support Our Troops" -- whatever that means -- because I don't support what's going on over there.

So, in wanting these guys to come home because they are dying for someone else's interests (not the US citizens'), I am somehow being disloyal to our soldiers.

Fuck the phrase "Support Our Troops" and all the judgements it brings with it. It might have meant something back in the days when we only fought out of neccessity to protect the sovereignty of our country. That is no longer the case, and anyone who tries to label me as some kind of traitor simply because I think of our soldiers as human beings who deserve better, can fuck right off, and I've told quite a few people exactly that when they try to pull such O'Reilly-esque bullshit because they don't have the knowledge to justify their own positions.

[/rant]

[Canis]

Yes in part, and that's only to prevent those "Nazi troops" that didnt partake in heinous crimes from being lumped together with those that did. Additionally, we currently have an all volunteer army and despite some punishment for disobeying orders, its nothing compared to the punishment and oppression that would be felt by those who didnt follow orders in the Nazi regime. As such, its tough for me to take the average german soldier during WWII and lump him into the same category as those who ordered the heinous crimes of WWII. It was almost a catch-22 for the german soldiers at the time. It was "either join us or get the fuck out or be persecuted" and I dont think you can blame the average joe for following the crowd to save his own neck. Heck, one might call french citizens during the times a "Nazi" for heiling hitler and supporting him after france fell. The "Nazis" were just a party, and even those high up in the ranks such as the many secretaries to even hitler himself, didnt know of the atrocities being enacted and yet still referred to themselves as Nazis.

ok at least you're consistent. And i agree with you actually.

But just because i don't support the troops doesn't mean i hate them, or think them unworthy people.

Forced dichotomies tend to control our discourse, and this seems to be a clear example.

So, I can consistently say that most of the american troops are probably decent human beings, but that doesn't mean i support them!

I guess another clarification is between supporting the troops, and their actions.

I certainly don't support their actions.

So what exactly does it mean to support the troops?

edit: bbl nap

I get the difference. In claiming universal support for the troops it by default lumps all the troops together, and I am against that. I am in support for the troops with the condition of distinguishing their individual acts and keeping them liable for their actions. As such, the support for the individual soldier drops when he commits atrocities intentionally and deliberately. Additionally, the troops actions (as a unit rather than the individual soldier) are the responsibility of the commander, not the soldiers themselves. When it comes to executing unarmed people, that's the soldier's doing and he has the obligation to look at his commander and tell him "you do it, fuckface!".

[Canis]

You're a pro at dissembling man.

I think it would be better if you started by defining what "support" means in your mind. That's a very vague and subjective term for a discussion like this to hinge on.

"Support Our Troops," in my mind, is nothing but a dirty worthless slogan in these days. One of my best friends of more than 12 years is in Iraq right now, but people can still claim I don't "Support Our Troops" -- whatever that means -- because I don't support what's going on over there.

So, in wanting these guys to come home because they are dying for someone else's interests (not the US citizens'), I am somehow being disloyal to our soldiers.

Fuck the phrase "Support Our Troops" and all the judgements it brings with it. It might have meant something back in the days when we only fought out of neccessity to protect the sovereignty of our country. That is no longer the case, and anyone who tries to label me as some kind of traitor simply because I think of our soldiers as human beings who deserve better, can fuck right off, and I've told quite a few people exactly that when they try to pull such O'Reilly-esque bullshit because they don't have the knowledge to justify their own positions.

[/rant]

Yeah, I agree. Its obviously too general to be used with accurate meaning. I do think it separates the actions and decisions of our administration from being the responsibility of our troops and as such prevents vietnam-like blaming of the troops for the war, but it doesnt distinguish those who slaughter from those who carry out their tour of duty responsibly.

[Ryoki]

When it comes to executing unarmed people, that's the soldier's doing and he has the obligation to look at his commander and tell him "you do it, fuckface!".

You're assuming someone's ordering soldiers to do this kind of stuff?
I don't think it works that way.

[Canis]

When it comes to executing unarmed people, that's the soldier's doing and he has the obligation to look at his commander and tell him "you do it, fuckface!".

You're assuming someone's ordering soldiers to do this kind of stuff?
I don't think it works that way.

Not always, but in that scenario I mentioned, sure. If a soldier on his own whim goes and kills folks then its up to his commander or those who witnessed the action to file a report. Its tough, because this goes against the trained buddy system in our armed forces where in order for troop units to function well, there's an inherent trust and hush-hush system that follows. A unit will not function well if its actions are constantly being scrutinized.

[4days]

hasn't the "support our troops" thing always come from people being asked to endure genuine shortages? these days, we don't need to go without eggs or butter or chocolate or steel just because there's a 'war' on.

iraq might be stacked 10 deep with burning babies, but it's had zero impact on the availability of new car smell flavoured hamburgers.

all "support our troops" could really mean in that sense now is 'don't bitch about gas prices'.

[Canis]

I think it has a more direct meaning rather than being a mask for alternative, interpretable ones.

[Ryoki]

It's not a real war anyway, it's playing police in a sandbox, with half an army. An occupation.

[Canis]

Well, that's a different argument altogether, though not one without merit.

[R00k]

I think it has a more direct meaning rather than being a mask for alternative, interpretable ones.

Well, I think it used to have a more direct meaning. I don't think that meaning really applies anymore because our society has changed; but the slogan is still used for political purposes.

I mean, the people with the yellow ribbons on their cars, it's not like they are sending any care packages to Iraq (with exceptions of course). They have no idea what is even good for the troops, they just know that it makes them feel good to say they are supporting them, and say they gave somebody 3 bucks for the ribbon.

I don't know how many people I've met who have pretty yellow ribbons on their car, but don't even know anyone who's over there. But that doesn't stop them from trying to preach to me.

[Freakaloin]

only a moron would support our troops atm...

[Canis]

I think it has a more direct meaning rather than being a mask for alternative, interpretable ones.

Well, I think it used to have a more direct meaning. I don't think that meaning really applies anymore because our society has changed; but the slogan is still used for political purposes.

I mean, the people with the yellow ribbons on their cars, it's not like they are sending any care packages to Iraq (with exceptions of course). They have no idea what is even good for the troops, they just know that it makes them feel good to say they are supporting them, and say they gave somebody 3 bucks for the ribbon.

I don't know how many people I've met who have pretty yellow ribbons on their car, but don't even know anyone who's over there. But that doesn't stop them from trying to preach to me.

I dont see that as a negative thing. Folks feel they need to connect even if they arent actively involved. Granted its more selfish in the long run, but they're just doing something to make themselves feel better. Are they doing it to mask the real reasons for the war from themselves, or for anything similar? I'm sure some are using it for this, but I doubt most are. I think most folks genuinly feel compassion for the average soldier who's being ordered into service. Its like the displays of patriotism after 9/11 with folks waving american flags. Its more of a uniting effort than a coverup.

[ppp]

The US cannot risk oil being traded in any other currency than it's own. Those countries which do not comply with this simple rule will find themselves in a spot of bother..

Spinning this to the public in some form of 'honourable crusade' against an invisible bogeyman (historical reference pun intended) is starting to get tricky

[R00k]

I dont see that as a negative thing. Folks feel they need to connect even if they arent actively involved. Granted its more selfish in the long run, but they're just doing something to make themselves feel better. Are they doing it to mask the real reasons for the war from themselves, or for anything similar? I'm sure some are using it for this, but I doubt most are. I think most folks genuinly feel compassion for the average soldier who's being ordered into service. Its like the displays of patriotism after 9/11 with folks waving american flags. Its more of a uniting effort than a coverup.

If it were a uniting effort I wouldn't have any problem with it - but I think saying that is roughly on par with saying Bush is a uniter. It only unites people who already have the same ideologies, with the consequence of alienating the rest. To make an analogy, it has about the same uniting effect as putting a crucifix or a jesus fish on your car -- and selective unity is not unity for the country.

I understand what you mean about feeling a need to connect, and no there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But the social meaning of this specific slogan is "Do not dissent," and I hardly think that can be construed as constructive discourse or expression.

[Canis]

I'm in disagreement with an underlieing meaning of "do not dissent" in the "support our troops" slogan. I see it as a separation of our troops as individuals from the decisions of our government, and in that it serves to unite our common concern for our fellow americans despite our views towards our government and its policies.

The extent of what this slogan does to unite folks is always going to be questionable, but its an effort, and its a positive one in my opinion. It will always be selective, but I dont see it as having alterior motives than what it portrays through its literal meaning.

This all isnt to say the slogan wont be hijacked by politicians. There are always folks who will use the slogan to gain leverage with the public, but that shouldnt take away from how the public views the slogan.