I DON'T SUPPORT our troops.

[Mycroft]

Well, I do. Everyone should know that, but apparantly Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times feels differently:


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...mment-opinions

Quote:

Warriors and wusses
I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.

I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.

And I've got no problem with other people — the ones who were for the Iraq war — supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.

But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there — and who might one day want to send them somewhere else. Trust me, a guy who thought 50.7% was a mandate isn't going to pick up on the subtleties of a parade for just service in an unjust war. He's going to be looking for funnel cake.

What a nice guy.

[Skeptic]

It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam...

For these guys, every war is Vietnam, and every republican president is Nixon, since they hope that by such mantras they will revive their own "finest hour".

[3point14]

I think he may just be trying to point out the poblems involved in the states if you want to oppose the war. If you're against the war, then you're deemed unpatriotic (which seems to be an offense on a par with murder in the USA)

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by 3point14

I think he may just be trying to point out the poblems involved in the states if you want to oppose the war. If you're against the war, then you're deemed unpatriotic (which seems to be an offense on a par with murder in the USA)

No - I think he's saying that he doesn't support the troops.

Quote:

Well, I think I said it clear in the column, too. I don't have a...if you are for the war in Iraq, I think obviously, then you should support the troops. My problem is the people who are against the war and support the troops anyway, I think that's kind of an excuse. I think that's a way of making you feel better about your guilt, and I think that's kind of a lazy form of pacifism.

and

Quote:

Yeah, I'm just simply saying that as a person whose against the Iraq war, I think all these I support the troop statements, I support the troops magnets, are a little hypocritical.

and

Quote:

HH: You don't honor the troops? I mean, you don't support the troops. That's what you said. You're sticking by that? That's your story, and you're sticking with it?

JS: I don't support the war, so I would find it very hard to support the actions of the troops in a war that I don't agree with.

[3point14]

Fair enough. Perhaps I should have said that that's what he made me think about. Although that was probably not his intent.

[Perforatu]

No, no, no, you shouldn't take it seriously. It's hyperbole. You know, like Ann Coulter.

If the extent of his argument is that he doesn't want to throw parades for veterans returning from wars he disagrees with - shoot, I don't support troops either.

[roger]

What on earth does it mean to "support our troops" anyway? If you aren't sending care packages over, or otherwise lending material or emotional support, what "support" are you really offering? Yes, I sort of get it - returning Vietnam soldiers didn't exactly get a warm welcome, and that undoubtedly affected morale. Hey, I respect people who are putting their lives on hold and their life in danger to carry out our country's mission (whatever I may think of that mission), but to say I support them, well, that seems to shift the congradulations from them to me. "Ain't I special" it seems to be saying. Well, no, I'm not.

[bob_kark]

This man obviously hates our freedom. We can't listen to freedom haters. That's unpatriotic-like.

So the guy doesn't support our troops. I think he's just trying to make an extreme point, though its really not, more than anything else. In fact, I think the only reason there is so much focus on supporting our troops is because of the backlash at Vietnam vets when they returned home. However, I don't see anyone, with the exceptions of a few crazies, calling our troops baby killers and the like. The other reason of course is to further the WH admins cause and attempt to quash dissenting opinion. In that sense, I can understand his point in not wanting to blindly support the troops.

However, I still think his lack of support is misplaced. Who is really going to want to care enough about this small distinction he creates with his argument. Will that really invoke any kind of policy changes? Especially when you resort to calling people who are against the war, but support the troops "wusses." What is this, High School? Is that really what he wants the focal point of his argument for not supporting the troops to be? Wow, you really won me over Joel! How do I become a self-serving jackass like you?

Edited to fix some poor spelling and for clarification.

[Mephisto]

As a disabled veteran, I have no problem with anyone NOT supporting the troops, it's a personal choice and I admire Stein's honesty. I would much rather have someone be straightforward in their opinions than to be wishy-washy at the behest of the majority.

As Roger said above, "supporting our troops" usually entails slapping a yellow magnet, or a flag, or a "God Bless America" bumpersticker on our vehicles. This is usually enough for most people, to give the illusion that they are actually supporting our troops and most people are content to go no further.

"Supporting our troops," isn't anything but a catch phrase (so common as this administration continues to take advantage of the typically short American attention span). The troops certainly need some support from somewhere, but it's easier for the Bush administration to drum up a nationalistic fervor than it is to provide adequate body armor (remember before the elections when the Bush campaign said this would be Kerry's biggest shortcoming?). There are even allegations that Halliburton (for all the money they're getting) isn't even purifying the troops' drinking water correctly! Recent papers from the Pentagon have shed light on the fact that our military is stretched too thin to do their jobs effectively (who'd a thunk it?), and we all know about the inadequacies of the armor in their vehicles.

Now, when you couple all these "shortcomings" with the fact that the Bush administration has been cutting back on V.A. benefits, you realize just how much the troops actually DO need our support. Unfortunately, the people responsible for actually supporting them are the same ones who put them in harm's way on a whim, only to cut back their veteran's benefits when they return from "protecting America" minus limbs, or eyes.

I abhor this war and the people who orchestrated it for their benefit, yet having been a wartime pawn once myself, I can't blame the troops. I will nearly always support the troops, but I will NEVER support anyone willing to commit them on a trumped-up whim.

[Ed]

Is he getting paid to write?

Got it.

[Mark]

It's interesting...most would agree that the current administration "supports the troops," and yet that same administration sent them off to a war for no good reason, inadequately armed/armored, with too few troops. They then prevent anyone from seeing the flag draped coffins when those troops come back dead.

This is "supporting the troops?" Maybe Stein has a point.

[Ed]

I really don't understand what it means to "support the troops".

I pay taxes, that supports them. I don't get engaged in logistics. I think the military is necessary and I think that the US has a good one. The soldiers that I have met have been nice enough. I don't think that this war is a good thing and I don't think we should have gone but that was not the choice of some pfc. I don't see how we can just bring them home. I think that they do a good job under trying, politically defined circumstances. So, what does this all mean? Is "supporting the troops" sort of a verbal tic or mechanically crossing one's self when one enters a church, or tossing salt over your shoulder?

So what exactly does it mean to "support the troops"? Not vilify them? Sounds like another media invented sound bite completely devoid of meaning.

[bob_kark]

Originally Posted by Mark

It's interesting...most would agree that the current administration "supports the troops," and yet that same administration sent them off to a war for no good reason, inadequately armed/armored, with too few troops. They then prevent anyone from seeing the flag draped coffins when those troops come back dead.

This is "supporting the troops?" Maybe Stein has a point.

I would agree, however he goes from saying:

Quote:

After we've decided that we made a mistake, we don't want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object to a war we barely understood

To saying this:

Quote:

But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying.

Ok, don't blame the troops, but ultimately they are responsible. Talk about a mixed message.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by bob_kark

I would agree, however he goes from saying:



To saying this:



Ok, don't blame the troops, but ultimately they are responsible. Talk about a mixed message.

True. I don't buy into the "universal soldier" stuff either (if anyone else is old enough to get that reference). Still, it remains odd that everyone agrees Bush supports the troops, when he is the one setting up the situations that are getting them killed.

But, yeah, Stein definitely is off the beam with much of what he is saying, IMO.

[Luke T.]

Say a fella walked into an army recruiter's office six months ago and volunteered to go to Iraq. And he's there now.

Do you support him?

[Luke T.]

Say a fella who's been in Iraq for the last two years just re-enlisted for another tour.

Do you support him?

[Manny]

Originally Posted by Ed

So what exactly does it mean to "support the troops"? Not vilify them? Sounds like another media invented sound bite completely devoid of meaning.

Except it's not. "Not vilify them" is actually a pretty good start. Not comparing them to Nazis, like Dick Durbin did, would be a decent start. Not screaming "war crime!" every time a difficult situation comes up, that would be another thing.

[Ed]

Originally Posted by Luke T.

Say a fella walked into an army recruiter's office six months ago and volunteered to go to Iraq. And he's there now.

Do you support him?

What does it mean to "support"? Pat him on the back? I think that the war is a bad idea but I sure as hell don't want the military to start making up their own mind as to what political directives they will follow. In that sense I "support" them following orders. Is that what you mean?

[Luke T.]

Originally Posted by Ed

What does it mean to "support"? Pat him on the back? I think that the war is a bad idea but I sure as hell don't want the military to start making up their own mind as to what political directives they will follow. In that sense I "support" them following orders. Is that what you mean?

NO.

A person volunteers to engage in a war you oppose. Do you support him?

[Manny]

Originally Posted by Mark

They then prevent anyone from seeing the flag draped coffins when those troops come back dead.

Here's one. And another. And another. You know, you were just wondering why people accuse you of lying. It's because you lie. A lot. About everything.

[Luke T.]

Originally Posted by manny

Here's one. And another. And another.

And there's nothing stopping anyone from taking pictures of the graves of the Iraq war dead in Arlington. About 8 percent of them are there.

[Orwell]

You guys have a pretty short memory.

[Ed]

Originally Posted by Luke T.

NO.

A person volunteers to engage in a war you oppose. Do you support him?

Support as defined how?

1. To bear the weight of, especially from below.
2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping.
3. To be capable of bearing; withstand: “His flaw'd heart... too weak the conflict to support” (Shakespeare).
4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen: The letter supported him in his grief.
5. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities.
6. To furnish corroborating evidence for: New facts supported her story.
7. 1. <LI type=a>To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign.
   2. To argue in favor of; advocate: supported lower taxes.
8. To endure; tolerate: “At supper there was such a conflux of company that I could scarcely support the tumult” (Samuel Johnson).
9. To act in a secondary or subordinate role to (a leading performer).

I am having a very hard time pinning down what "support" means in this context.

[Orwell]

Hey what do you know, I don't support your troops either!

Would that make me an unpatriotic american, if I was a US citizen, that is?

[Luke T.]

Originally Posted by Ed

Support as defined how?

1. To bear the weight of, especially from below.
2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping.
3. To be capable of bearing; withstand: “His flaw'd heart... too weak the conflict to support” (Shakespeare).
4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen: The letter supported him in his grief.
5. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities.
6. To furnish corroborating evidence for: New facts supported her story.
7. 1. <LI type=a>To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign.
   2. To argue in favor of; advocate: supported lower taxes.
8. To endure; tolerate: “At supper there was such a conflux of company that I could scarcely support the tumult” (Samuel Johnson).
9. To act in a secondary or subordinate role to (a leading performer).

I am having a very hard time pinning down what "support" means in this context.

Now you are getting the picture. Anti-war people who claim to "support the troops" are hard to pin down on what they mean.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by manny

Here's one. And another. And another. You know, you were just wondering why people accuse you of lying. It's because you lie. A lot. About everything.

Who is lying? As a Bush apologist, do you even know what truth is? To you people truth is whatever makes Bush look good. You should have worked for Pravda.

Quote:

Update (13 Jan 05): Soldiers' families and the Louisiana National Guard have defied the Pentagon and allowed the media to film and photograph the arrival of six area Guardsmen killed in Iraq. More here.

Update (22 Apr 04): Due to a Freedom of Information Act request from The Memory Hole, the Air Force has released 288 photographs showing soldiers' remains arriving home (plus 73 of the Columbia astronauts). These are the images that the Pentagon prevented the public from seeing. See them here

To this problem, the Bush administration has found a simple solution: It has ended the public dissemination of such images by banning news coverage and photography of dead soldiers' homecomings on all military bases.

In March, on the eve of the Iraq war, a directive arrived from the Pentagon at U.S. military bases. "There will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein [Germany] airbase or Dover [Del.] base, to include interim stops," the Defense Department said, referring to the major ports for the returning remains.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/

Quote:

In March, before the Iraq war began, the Pentagon clamped down on similar coverage from military installations around the world, such as Ramstein Air Base in Germany or in Afghanistan. "The prohibition includes ... the movement of remains at any point," the Pentagon guidelines say.

The result is that images of caskets being returned to U.S. soil are not shown to the American public. This policy contrasts with Italy's national display of grief last month when 19 of that country's troops died in an Iraq suicide bombing and received a state funeral through the streets of Rome.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ket-usat_x.htm

There are liars on this board, but it ain't me.

[Luke T.]

Originally Posted by Orwell

You guys have a pretty short memory.

Explain.

[Orwell]

Originally Posted by Ed

Support as defined how?

1. To bear the weight of, especially from below.
2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping.
3. To be capable of bearing; withstand: “His flaw'd heart... too weak the conflict to support” (Shakespeare).
4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen: The letter supported him in his grief.
5. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities.
6. To furnish corroborating evidence for: New facts supported her story.
7. 1. <LI type=a>To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign.
   2. To argue in favor of; advocate: supported lower taxes.
8. To endure; tolerate: “At supper there was such a conflux of company that I could scarcely support the tumult” (Samuel Johnson).
9. To act in a secondary or subordinate role to (a leading performer).

I am having a very hard time pinning down what "support" means in this context.

It means politically castrating yourself, since it is very hard to support the troops while opposing the war.

Don't worry, it's just another jingo tactic to make the opponents of this war look "unpatriotic".

"My country right or wrong", don't you know?

[specious_reasons]

I don't really understand the fuss. Joel Stein is a professional ass. He's a comic, and unlike Coulter, intends to be known as a comic.

Should you want to hear him weigh in on other serious topical issues, try VH1.

Quote:

Being desperate for attention, he has appeared on any TV show that asks him: VH1's "I Love the Decade You Tell Me I Love," HBO's "Phoning It In," Comedy Central's "Reel Comedy" and E! Entertainment's "101 Hottest Hot Hotties' Hotness."

[Luke T.]

Originally Posted by Mark

Who is lying? As a Bush apologist, do you even know what truth is? To you people truth is whatever makes Bush look good. You should have worked for Pravda.

Don't need a media circus during a solemn event. I would support such a move for a war even you would support, Mark. Or for a war I would oppose. Your noise about it just exemplifies the reason. You want to "support" the dead by propagandizing them in an anti-war cause. Use the deaths of men who would probably very much disagree with you if they could speak.

And as I said, Arlington cemetery has a corner that contains around 8 percent of the graves of the Iraq war dead. That's more than what could be captured on film at a military base KIA homecoming.

[Orwell]

Originally Posted by Luke T.

Explain.

From a few months ago:

US concern over war dead photos

Quote:

Pentagon lawyers are examining the release of photographs of the coffins of dead American soldiers repatriated from Iraq.
The images, taken by Department of Defense officials, appeared on the web after the US Air Force released them under the Freedom of Information Act.

Pentagon rules dating back to 1991 ban the media from covering the return of the remains of soldiers killed abroad.

Critics say the rule is designed to cover up the human cost of war.

Defence officials insist it is in the interests of bereaved families.

I think this stupid policy was repealed, but not without the pentagon objecting.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Luke T.

Explain.

I think it was a reference to this story: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ntagon23m.html

[Manny]

Originally Posted by Luke T.

Explain.

He thinks the left's lie that the Pentagon's directive that families decide on their own what public exposure their loved ones' remains receive equates to a prohibition on anyone seeing them has been received as truth. So does Mark. This is actually a perfectly good example of not supporting the troops. The directive originated because many military families objected to their loved ones being used for political purposes. It was precisely to support them that the Pentagon changed its policy.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Luke T.

Don't need a media circus during a solemn event. I would support such a move for a war even you would support, Mark. Or for a war I would oppose.

And as I said, Arlington cemetery has a corner that contains around 8 percent of the graves of the Iraq war dead. That's more than what could be captured on film at a military base KIA homecoming.

Fine. Just don't try to pull a Manny and claim it isn't happening, and that anyone who says it is is a liar.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by manny

He thinks the left's lie that the Pentagon's directive that families decide on their own what public exposure their loved ones' remains receive equates to a prohibition on anyone seeing them has been received as truth. So does Mark. This is actually a perfectly good example of not supporting the troops. The directive originated because many military families objected to their loved ones being used for political purposes. It was precisely to support them that the Pentagon changed its policy.

You said it wasn't happening at all and that I was a liar. So now it is happening, you just agree with the reasons.

And you call me a liar.

[Luke T.]

It's funny no one who opposes the war can answer a simple question. Every time I've asked it, the answer has been dodged.

[Orwell]

Originally Posted by manny

He thinks the left's lie that the Pentagon's directive that families decide on their own what public exposure their loved ones' remains receive equates to a prohibition on anyone seeing them has been received as truth. So does Mark. This is actually a perfectly good example of not supporting the troops. The directive originated because many military families objected to their loved ones being used for political purposes. It was precisely to support them that the Pentagon changed its policy.

How convenient!

Yeah, yeah, whatever... They looked bad because of this, they spinned it, and you bought it.

[Orwell]

Originally Posted by Luke T.

It's funny no one who opposes the war can answer a simple question. Every time I've asked it, the answer has been dodged.

I oppose the war, I don't support your troops. I want them to leave Iraq. How's that for clarity?

Would I be unpatriotic, if I was an US citizen?

[Manny]

Originally Posted by Mark

You said it wasn't happening at all and that I was a liar. So now it is happening, you just agree with the reasons.

And you call me a liar.

You are a liar. Here's what you said: "They then prevent anyone from seeing the flag draped coffins when those troops come back dead." They do not prevent anyone from seeing the flag draped coffins. If the family agrees, the flag draped coffin can have its own show on CBS.

[Ed]

Originally Posted by Luke T.

Now you are getting the picture. Anti-war people who claim to "support the troops" are hard to pin down on what they mean.

We have a long history of the military being absolutely subjugated to the civilian government (as do all Western Democracies, even the pinko ones). Interfering with that relationship can have results that I fear to contemplate. A person volenteering, with full knowledge, to serve in a campaign I disagee with is part of our process and his dicision is made between himself and his God. My argument is with the government because the the military will do what they are told. I guess that the question of "support" is really a non-issue.

I might point out that as much as the anti-war people are full of crap on this issue, so are the idiots that drape themselves with the flag and, loudly, declare undying "support" for the troops.

Here are some objective areas where one might be said to "support" the troops:

-increased pay and benefits
-education programs
-health and hospitalization stuff after separation
-adequite supplies when deployed

I am in favor of all of these things.