i don't support the troops...

[Transient]

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]

Well. Fucking. Said.

[Freakaloin]

i don't blame the troops for their attrocities really...hell if i was in iraq i would prolly wanna kill some stoopid civilians for just being in that hot hell hole...its the ppl who have forced them to be there who need to fuck off...saying supporting the troops now days is code for i'm a bushbot...and everyone with half a cock knows it...

[R00k]

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.

It does absolutely nothing for our troops. That's the point.

And it does nothing to unite people who aren't already in agreement. If you say that it "will always be selective," then how can you say it's actually an effort to unite anyone?

It's nothing but a 10-cent slogan used by people who like to "bumper brag." Just like the jesus fish and "My kid is an honor student" stickers.

Like I said, there are exceptions to this, but those people don't need to use the phrase to explain how they feel, because they are doing something REAL to support the troops.

Uniters are people who ask for help in earnest, and rally support - not people who turn a national ethos into an invective simply to make themselves feel like they are in the right, and to question the moral righteousness of people who are not.

[R00k]

i don't blame the troops for their attrocities really...hell if i was in iraq i would prolly wanna kill some stoopid civilians for just being in that hot hell hole...its the ppl who have forced them to be there who need to fuck off...saying supporting the troops now days is code for i'm a bushbot...and everyone with half a cock knows it...

That's where you get into the really sad facts that underlie this whole situation. The fact of the matter is, our boys are shooting at innocent people over there for the same reason they did in Vietnam -- they don't know who the enemy is anymore.

You send these kids off to a desert 2000 miles away on a pack of lies, and give them completely unattainable goals, then leave them sitting there for 3 years surrounded by people who increasingly want them gone, and what are they to do?

Eventually, after seeing the 50th roadside bomb blow up one of their buddies, and once again looking around and having no idea which of these people it came from - if any - what the hell kind of choices are they left with?
They are forced to drive down that exact same street again the next day, you know.

So, every now and then, they go and bomb the shit out of a city, but aside from that, there are no enemies, no objectives in sight. And after so many months of getting slammed from every side, coming and going, day and night, when they least expect it, what else are they going to do besides start killing whoever is nearby when it happens? It's no more complicated than Pavlov's dog.

[bikkeldesnikkel]

there's nothing worse than killing innocent people, to me it's just as bad as the nazi's did.

plus it has never been about supporting your troops, thats total bullshit. the troops haven't got anything to do with it. THEY JUST FOLLOW ORDERS. it's all about the ones giving the orders.

[Canis]

Well I dont see it as anything more than a moral support for the troops, but I dont think its supposed to be anything more than that either. There are those who go beyond just saying they support the troops and actually do it with support packages, etc., but I dont think the slogan is a claim of this. I think its a claim of where one's concerns lie (politics vs the wellbeing of the soldiers).

If you choose to see it as a bumper brag, then its just that. I'm not claiming it isnt that, but rather am validating it more than being purely a selfish cause. Still, I cant prove this, and I can see how many folks who otherwise wouldnt think twice about it will use it to include themselves in with those who actually do support the troops.

I guess to an extent I'm arguing for my own thoughts, in that I dont actively support the troops, and I dont display the slogan, but I do morally support them and wish for their wellbeing and in that sense I support them and not the politics behind their actions, so as such, I do support them in ways that are included in the slogan's meaning.

[bikkeldesnikkel]

people are stupid, they think that if you support your troops you should also support the orders given to them

[R00k]

Well I dont see it as anything more than a moral support for the troops, but I dont think its supposed to be anything more than that either. There are those who go beyond just saying they support the troops and actually do it with support packages, etc., but I dont think the slogan is a claim of this. I think its a claim of where one's concerns lie (politics vs the wellbeing of the soldiers).

If you choose to see it as a bumper brag, then its just that. I'm not claiming it isnt that, but rather am validating it more than being purely a selfish cause. Still, I cant prove this, and I can see how many folks who otherwise wouldnt think twice about it will use it to include themselves in with those who actually do support the troops.

I guess to an extent I'm arguing for my own thoughts, in that I dont actively support the troops, and I dont display the slogan, but I do morally support them and wish for their wellbeing and in that sense I support them and not the politics behind their actions, so as such, I do support them in ways that are included in the slogan's meaning.

Understandable. Hence, my first reply:

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.

[Foo]

Why support them? Why not just feel a bit sorry for them.

[Canis]

...

Understandable. Hence, my first reply:

...

I lose track of things sometimes.

[[xeno]Julios]

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!".

still doesn't answer the question - you hinted at it here tho:

I guess to an extent I'm arguing for my own thoughts, in that I dont actively support the troops, and I dont display the slogan, but I do morally support them and wish for their wellbeing and in that sense I support them and not the politics behind their actions, so as such, I do support them in ways that are included in the slogan's meaning.

Ok, so you support the iraqi insurgency "troops" then right?

You bring in the distinction between troops that are guilty of crimes and those which are not, and are mapping that distinction into the discussion of the slogan "support the troops".

Don't you think that's a bit orwellian?

By going around saying you support the troops, you're probably sending a message that is completely different from "judge those who are guilty of crimes differently from those who are not".

Here's a question:

Do you support the ACTIONS of the "innocent" troops?

i fuckin e., do you support their being there in the first place?

[Freakaloin]

GOING AROUND SAYING U SUPPORT THE TROops means u support bush and illegal and immoral wars...it means ur a fagot...

[Canis]

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!".

still doesn't answer the question - you hinted at it here tho:

I guess to an extent I'm arguing for my own thoughts, in that I dont actively support the troops, and I dont display the slogan, but I do morally support them and wish for their wellbeing and in that sense I support them and not the politics behind their actions, so as such, I do support them in ways that are included in the slogan's meaning.

Ok, so you support the iraqi insurgency "troops" then right?

You bring in the distinction between troops that are guilty of crimes and those which are not, and are mapping that distinction into the discussion of the slogan "support the troops".

Don't you think that's a bit orwellian?

By going around saying you support the troops, you're probably sending a message that is completely different from "judge those who are guilty of crimes differently from those who are not".

Here's a question:

Do you support the ACTIONS of the "innocent" troops?

i fuckin e., do you support their being there in the first place?

TBH I think we're taking the context of this a bit too far, and are interpreting it to mean and include practically everything when doing that just confuses matters.

I dont think supporting the troops has anything to do with why we're overe there, and has anything to do with the missions in which they partake, regardless of whether or not they've committed atrocities. It's a basic and very simple separation of our troops from the decisions of our administration in order to not blame them for the politics. I believe its both logical and widespread that if a soldier commits atrocities in the line of duty he's marring the image of the rest of our troops, and most folks are not using the slogan to shelter such individuals. One can pick the slogan apart all day, but at its most obvious and meaningful level its a sign to others that I dont lump the troops in with the decisions of our administration and hence, blame them for the conflict.

[plained]

canis your pappy saddend you know persur lawerness?

youve the knack

[[xeno]Julios]

I dont think supporting the troops has anything to do with why we're overe there, and has anything to do with the missions in which they partake, regardless of whether or not they've committed atrocities. It's a basic and very simple separation of our troops from the decisions of our administration in order to not blame them for the politics. I believe its both logical and widespread that if a soldier commits atrocities in the line of duty he's marring the image of the rest of our troops, and most folks are not using the slogan to shelter such individuals. One can pick the slogan apart all day, but at its most obvious and meaningful level its a sign to others that I dont lump the troops in with the decisions of our administration and hence, blame them for the conflict.

ok let me ask you this question:

When you say "I support the troops"

which troops are you referring to? American? Iraqi insurgents?

I'm guessing you're only referring to the american troops. Why?

If the primary message you want to get across is that you don't want to lump the troops in with the immoral and incompetent administration, then there are far more direct ways you can do so rather than "i support the troops"

How about

"I don't support the war/invasion"

or

"I don't support the gov't"

Isn't that much more concise relative to the message you wish to get across?


By saying you support the troops, you are (perhaps unwittingly) conveying the message that you support their actions.

[Canis]

If what you disagree with is the rhetoric then you're not going to get anywhere. "I support the troops" is clear enough for most of the population except for those who seem to have an anal retentive problem with its exact meaning. I'm under the mindset of "who cares" with respect to being so specific, especially with regards to moral-boosting generalities such as this. I generally throw out the notion of being in support of the troops as it is described in the phrase. They're folks from my country who're overseas and are caught up in a political mishap. I dont blame them for it, and they have my support in a general sense, which is all the phrase is supposed to imply. When it comes to individual atrocities, generalizations no longer apply, and hopefully the reverse is observed, where folks dont start applying individual acts to the generalization and thereby change it around (which seems to be what's happening here).

"I support the troops" is different and not inclusive of "I support what each and every soldier is doing or has done over there". Its left as a generality in order to be just that, and doesnt touch on specifics.

I can say I dont support the war, and I'm against many of the government's foreign policies, but I additionally feel supportive of our troops. I'm not going to argue the semantics of it.

[[xeno]Julios]

"I support the troops" is different and not inclusive of "I support what each and every soldier is doing or has done over there". Its left as a generality in order to be just that, and doesnt touch on specifics.

You still haven't addressed my point, which is that when you claim to support someone, it SOUNDS like you support their actions. And EACH AND EVERYONE ONE OF THOSE TROOPS is engaging in an action which is harmful, by virtue of THEM BEING THERE.

Note that I'm not trying to say you should judge or hate them because of this.

If the meaning of "I support the troops" is what you claim it to be, then you should say something like

"I pity the troops"

Another way of thinking about it is this:

Imagine you are an iraqi civilian, and you hear an american claiming that she supports the american troops.

How would you feel? What would you infer the person meant?

Language needs to be used responsibly.

[R00k]

Language needs to be used responsibly.

Ahh, I wish more people thought this.

[Canis]

"I support the troops" is different and not inclusive of "I support what each and every soldier is doing or has done over there". Its left as a generality in order to be just that, and doesnt touch on specifics.

You still haven't addressed my point, which is that when you claim to support someone, it SOUNDS like you support their actions. And EACH AND EVERYONE ONE OF THOSE TROOPS is engaging in an action which is harmful, by virtue of THEM BEING THERE.

Note that I'm not trying to say you should judge or hate them because of this.

If the meaning of "I support the troops" is what you claim it to be, then you should say something like

"I pity the troops"

Another way of thinking about it is this:

Imagine you are an iraqi civilian, and you hear an american claiming that she supports the american troops.

How would you feel? What would you infer the person meant?

Language needs to be used responsibly.

Well, like I said, its a semantics issue that most folks dont seem to have a problem with. I disagree with your inclusion of multiple meanings into this phrase, and its not changing the way I view the phrase. I'm not trying to be stubborn, but "I support the troops" is how I feel, and I dont include myself in how you've defined the meaning of this phrase. I disagree.

[Hannibal]

If the meaning of "I support the troops" is what you claim it to be, then you should say something like

"I pity the troops"

lol, I don't think he means pity.

Maybe....I support the troops in as much they are risking all to accomplish their mission...yet I believe the mission given them by Bush and Co. is teh suck. That's probably more what he had in mind.

Of course there is a serious tension between caring about/admiring the people involved and deploring the fagged-up, trumped-up rationale for the mission itself. And if you also consider the war itself to be 'illegal', the tension magnifies like a mofo.

[[xeno]Julios]

if any troops deserve support, it's those that are risking their lives fighting off americans.

that's one way of looking at it.

[Dukester]

How about

"I don't support the war/invasion"

or

"I don't support the gov't"

Isn't that much more concise relative to the message you wish to get across?

heh, during vietnam that meant, "I spit on the troops as the get of their plane."

People now say "I support the troops" because there is no bad publicity from that.

And based on my own observations, the "I support the troops" was started intially by the anti-war crowd as in "I support the troops, by telling you to bring them home." The "I support the troops" from the Bushie side came later and has steamrolled into something that is only a catch phrase that means nothing. Or as Geoof says, a bushbot.

[R00k]

Well, like I said, its a semantics issue that most folks dont seem to have a problem with. I disagree with your inclusion of multiple meanings into this phrase, and its not changing the way I view the phrase. I'm not trying to be stubborn, but "I support the troops" is how I feel, and I dont include myself in how you've defined the meaning of this phrase. I disagree.

The word "Support" has about 1,000 meanings, and for someone to not know exactly what you're talking about isn't semantics.

It is merely you being either too lazy to fully express what you mean, or being intentionally vague.

I reiterate: It is not someone else's fault that they don't understand your meaning in this case, it is yours.

And familiarly, you have waffled for a full page defending your use of the word "support" in this context - even though it's obvious people can't understand what you're saying - claiming that it sums up your thoughts nicely.

"Support Our Troops" doesn't mean anything. It's one of those phrases that, when people hear you say it, accept it to mean what they think it means.

It's a 10-cent slogan, it's hollow rhetoric, it means what the listener wants it to mean. Is that your fault? Of course not. But when you say it, you are expressing yourself in an intentionally vague manner, knowing that people will hear what they want to.

Which is why, when I hear you say it, it means you don't do a thing to support the troops, but you like to talk about supporting them because it makes it sound like you care a lot. Which you don't, as evidenced by countless threads since 2003.

[/rant 2]

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

Canis is always apologizing for American atrocities. What's up with that?

[Dukester]

He's not an Apologist.
He's not actively looking for something to apologize for.
I think that's why!