"Support the troops"

We've heard that expression just about everywhere, there is also the liberal offshoot "support the troops, bring them home!", but how does one support his or her troops? What does this expression mean to you?

Your input would be appreciated, thank you.

[stafffighter]

I support the troops by not wanting them to throw their lives infront of needless conflicts.

[Jimsween]

The only people I've ever actually believed wanted to support the troops were people who knew somebody in Iraq. More often than not they are only using it to justify thier politial beliefs and to imply the other person is anti-troops in some way.

But how does one directly support their troops? (Besides paying taxes)

[Jimsween]

At 12/17/03 11:23 PM, stafffighter wrote: I support the troops by not wanting them to throw their lives infront of needless conflicts.

This is a perfect example of a person using that phrase to support thier political agenda without actually caring for the well being of the troops much at all.

[Jimsween]

At 12/17/03 11:27 PM, punk_shithead wrote: But how does one directly support their troops? (Besides paying taxes)

You can't directly support the troops without assisting them physically in some way (sending goods, shipping yourself to Iraq with them).

[stafffighter]

How is saying they shouldnt die needlessly not careing about them?

[Jimsween]

At 12/18/03 12:24 AM, stafffighter wrote: How is saying they shouldnt die needlessly not careing about them?

It doesn't, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what you were doing. You think we should take the troops home because you don't like the war, not because you are worried about thier safety. Your just using the sympathy for the troops to further your political agenda.

[blueloa13]

I dont support the troops becuase it was their choice to go and kill people. But i do feel the upmost sorrow for them and i feel sorry the families that lose their sons, daughters, husbands, and wives. I do want them back home becuase yes i hate war, and i still hate to see people dieing (outcome of all wars) on either side.

[RydiaLockheart]

What about sending letters or something? Every year, the local newspaper sends Christmas cards to soldiers stationed overseas. Letting someone know you care could be considered a method of support. Hell, who doesn't want someone to care?

Care packages are a more obvious method of support. You have to write down exactly what you're sending, but that's no big deal.

[adrshepard]

You can support the troops by not treating them like murderers when they come home, unlike after Vietnam, where veterans were called butchers and such. You can support troops by writing letters and such and letting them know that we as civilians recognize their sacrifice.

And another thing, about supporting the troops by "not wanting them to throw their lives away in useless conflicts?" Hell, its not up to them to decide whether a war is good or not. They signed up for it and they knew the risks. Its their job, and its a tough one.

[NEMESiSZ]

Why should anyone waste their time talking politics to some fool with an anarchy logo in his signature?

[napalm6b]

Although the soldiers don't have a choice in going to war, the citizens of a democratic country have the responsibility to make the difficult WELL INFORMED decision as to when sending young people off to die is worth it.

I don't believe that has occured in this instance. So in good faith I can't support the actions of the American army in Iraq. I think their efforts are wasted serving a hard line republican ideology in the same vein as other goodies but oldies like segregation and eugenics!

[takeit2themax]

"support the troops" is to let the men and women over there know we appreciate them for doing the grueling tasks that they have to do and for risking their lives to put an end of saddams regime.

[NEMESiSZ]

At 12/18/03 07:41 AM, napalm6b wrote: like segregation and eugenics!

Yeah, liberating oppressed people is a lot like genetic discrimination.

Just so you know, the republicans freed the slaves.

[D2Kvirus]

Support the troops by sending them somewhere people don't shoot back. Simple!

[bumcheekcity]

At 12/18/03 03:40 AM, blueloa13 wrote: I dont support the troops becuase it was their choice to go and kill people. But i do feel the upmost sorrow for them and i feel sorry the families that lose their sons, daughters, husbands, and wives. I do want them back home becuase yes i hate war, and i still hate to see people dieing (outcome of all wars) on either side.

So true. You took the words right out of my mouth. I second everything you have just said.

So basically there are no direct and accesible ways to support the troops? Someone mentioned the treatment of soldiers when they came back from vietnam but this took place after the war. Do you know anyone who sends letters to troops overseas unless he or she knows someone there?
In other words: what have you done to support the troops so far?

[stafffighter]

At 12/18/03 01:05 AM, Jimsween wrote:

It doesn't, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what you were doing. You think we should take the troops home because you don't like the war, not because you are worried about thier safety. Your just using the sympathy for the troops to further your political agenda.

I admit I don't like this war. But I do fully regognize that there are causes its nessesary to appraoch in force. So I applaud the courage of someone who does that. At the same time Im saying that someone that brave deserves, if they're going to give their life for something, for it to be a worthwhile cause. Im not saying I can define what is worthwhile and what isn't but evidense that this war wasn't is impossible to ignore.

[napalm6b]

At 12/18/03 10:02 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Yeah, liberating oppressed people is a lot like genetic discrimination.

Just so you know, the republicans freed the slaves.

At 12/18/03 10:02 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote:

Yeah, liberating oppressed people is a lot like genetic discrimination.

Funny thing I'm not exactly sure what the reason is that we went to war.

First they tried to connect Saddan Hussein with the Osama Bin Laden, but couldn't because Saddam is a socialist and Osama is a religiouse fanatic which makes them enemies.

2nd They tried to scare everyone into believing that Iraq had WMDs: the evidence for nukes was found to be poorly created counter-intelligence and the equipment for chemical weapons was never found.

The WMD case wasn't enough to kill thousands
so they decided to turn this into an emotional crusade against a demonized icon. This is the same strategy that muslim fanatics have used for decades and I don't think flaws of this kind of thinking need to be explained.

3rd liberation of Iraq: If the administration wanted to liberate Iraq why didn't they have a clear plan for rebuilding the country when they started the war? Why didn't they work with the UN to remove the leadership of Iraq and cooperate in rebuilding the country?

When people have this many different stories about the motives for their actions I think most people would consider them liars.......

And about the republicans freeing the slaves, if you can't tell the difference between Abraham Lincoln and George Bush then you shouldn't discuss politics in public......

[OpIvy420]

At 12/18/03 07:29 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Why should anyone waste their time talking politics to some fool with an anarchy logo in his signature?

Nobody forced you to post here.

There really is no way to directly support the troops except paying taxes. Your politics don't matter at all. You could be Noam Chomsky or Ann Coulter, but as long as you pay taxes, you're paying their salaries. However, the Republicans hijacked the phrase "support the troops" to mean that you are an ideological slave to the Bush administration.

At 12/18/03 11:58 PM, OpIvy420 wrote: There really is no way to directly support the troops except paying taxes. Your politics don't matter at all. You could be Noam Chomsky or Ann Coulter, but as long as you pay taxes, you're paying their salaries. However, the Republicans hijacked the phrase "support the troops" to mean that you are an ideological slave to the Bush administration.

This is what I've been waiting to hear all along. "Support the troops" is just an empty propaganda slogan. After all, who wouldn't want to support the people who put their lives at risk everyday for the protection of world peace?
You can't support troops, however by questioning the morality of legality of a military action, what are you doing? You're not supporting the troops.
No one knows what it really means (how can you support the troops) because it doesn't mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? That's the one you're not allowed to talk about.

[Jimsween]

You can't DIRECTLY support the troops. See how we said DIRECTLY, not in general, but DIRECTLY. There is no doubt that troops will be happier if they feel that the war they are fighting is appreciated, and they feel that people back home care for them. And when troop moral is better, troops fight better. Just because you can't directly support them does not mean your actions don't matter.

Next time you try to make a point, don't be so grabby to twist anything anybody says into agreeing with you, because more often than not, what you believe is far from what the majority does, and the majority doesn't like it too much when you turn what they say into crap.

Jim, if the troops really needed support in America when they're in another country wouldn't the slogan be "support us"? The slogan obviously wasn't made back by the troops themselves but by a government aentity. The slogan dates back to WWII when propaganda posters were common, you would see "support the troops! buy war bonds!" or "support the troops! recycle what you find around the house!" but what the people were doing wasn't supporting the troops but supporting war efforts. Of course they were indirectly helping the troops by providing them with money and material but by supporting the troops you're supporting the policy that the troops are supporting.

By not questionning the actions of troops, you're not questioning U.S. policy and that's what matters.

Did you ever hear a news report during the Iraq war stating that troop morale was low because of anti-war protests back in America? Do you honestly think that the troops in Vietnam sat around the TV watching the anti-war protests and felt depressed because of that and not the fact that they might make it through another day?

[Jimsween]

At 12/20/03 03:46 PM, punk_shithead wrote: Jim, if the troops really needed support in America when they're in another country wouldn't the slogan be "support us"? The slogan obviously wasn't made back by the troops themselves but by a government aentity. The slogan dates back to WWII when propaganda posters were common, you would see "support the troops! buy war bonds!" or "support the troops! recycle what you find around the house!" but what the people were doing wasn't supporting the troops but supporting war efforts. Of course they were indirectly helping the troops by providing them with money and material but by supporting the troops you're supporting the policy that the troops are supporting.

This has to be the worst debate I ever heard, not only do you fail in proving that troops are not effected by support or lack of support for the war, but you manage to not prove the rant that had nothing to do with my last post. By recycling and buying bonds you made it possible to give troops extra ammunition and send backup forces, without those you can do niether and more troops will die, no doubt about it.

By not questionning the actions of troops, you're not questioning U.S. policy and that's what matters.

I never said that we shouldn't question the actions of the troops, you just made that up in your warped little mind.

Did you ever hear a news report during the Iraq war stating that troop morale was low because of anti-war protests back in America?

Yes I did, a US soldier was talking about how it was really hard to have motivation to do his job when it seemed nobody supported the war and also said something about the Iraqi people not liking them there.

Do you honestly think that the troops in Vietnam sat around the TV watching the anti-war protests and felt depressed because of that and not the fact that they might make it through another day?

Did I even said anything that could remotely imply this at all? NO! Yet again you go twisting other peoples words to try and prove your debate, if you can't find an argument based on facts don't even bother coming here. I said troop moral goes down when there is lack of popular support for a war, not only is that a proven fact, but it has been said over and over and over by veitnam veterans.

If you want to keep making yourself look like a dumbass, then by all means continue twist my words around and post things that have absolutely nothing to do with the argument, but if not, you may want to avoid spewing out crap like your last post.

[Lyddiechu]

At 12/18/03 01:05 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 12/18/03 12:24 AM, stafffighter wrote: How is saying they shouldnt die needlessly not careing about them?

It doesn't, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what you were doing. You think we should take the troops home because you don't like the war, not because you are worried about thier safety. Your just using the sympathy for the troops to further your political agenda.

True, but if you think that the war is not worth dying for, then its your responsibility to support the troops by asking to bring them home. I don't think this war is worth the lives of young americans,
but then again I don't want to demoralize the troops. So I say I disagree with the war but I am going to support the soldiers as long as they are there.

What happened to the vietnam vets was an absolute disgrace. I hope we are more mature than that now and will treat our veterans better.

At 12/20/03 06:23 PM, Jimsween wrote: This has to be the worst debate I ever heard, not only do you fail in proving that troops are not effected by support or lack of support for the war, but you manage to not prove the rant that had nothing to do with my last post.

Yes and all you're doing is finding new and exciting ways of saying "you're wrong and I'm right"

By recycling and buying bonds you made it possible to give troops extra ammunition and send backup forces, without those you can do niether and more troops will die, no doubt about it.

Look at the big picture, Jim. You may be supporting the troops but you're supporting your country's policy which made them go to war. You may be supporting the troops but in the big picture that doesn't matter, you're supporting your country's policy even if you don't know what it is.

I never said that we shouldn't question the actions of the troops, you just made that up in your warped little mind.

Calm down Jim, if you never said that we shouldn't question the actions of the troops but we should support them, no matter what then how do you manage to give your unconditional support to the troops yet at the same time speak out against any atrocities that may be commited by them?

Yes I did, a US soldier was talking about how it was really hard to have motivation to do his job when it seemed nobody supported the war and also said something about the Iraqi people not liking them there.

You have anecdotal evidence of one soldier saying something remotely similar to what I asked and also how the Iraqi people don't like them here. Well without an official source I just don't believe you. And why did you mention that part about the Iraqis? Why would anyone support troops that aren't their own?

Did I even said anything that could remotely imply this at all? NO! Yet again you go twisting other peoples words to try and prove your debate, if you can't find an argument based on facts don't even bother coming here. I said troop moral goes down when there is lack of popular support for a war, not only is that a proven fact, but it has been said over and over and over by veitnam veterans.

It's a proven fact, then please link me to a website that did archive this correlation.

If you want to keep making yourself look like a dumbass, then by all means continue twist my words around and post things that have absolutely nothing to do with the argument, but if not, you may want to avoid spewing out crap like your last post.

Calm down Jim and lay off the flames or it'll get you banned again.

[Jimsween]

At 12/20/03 11:15 PM, punk_shithead wrote:

At 12/20/03 06:23 PM, Jimsween wrote: This has to be the worst debate I ever heard, not only do you fail in proving that troops are not effected by support or lack of support for the war, but you manage to not prove the rant that had nothing to do with my last post.

Yes and all you're doing is finding new and exciting ways of saying "you're wrong and I'm right"

An all your doing is finding more ways to change the topic, ironically enough, from talking about you changing the topic.

By recycling and buying bonds you made it possible to give troops extra ammunition and send backup forces, without those you can do niether and more troops will die, no doubt about it.

Look at the big picture, Jim. You may be supporting the troops but you're supporting your country's policy which made them go to war. You may be supporting the troops but in the big picture that doesn't matter, you're supporting your country's policy even if you don't know what it is.

You weren't saying that "You shouldn't have to support the troops because it requires you to support your countries policy" you were saying that it is impossible to support the troops. And that simply isn't true. This is yet another example of you twisting words around to try and prove your beliefs.

I never said that we shouldn't question the actions of the troops, you just made that up in your warped little mind.

Calm down Jim, if you never said that we shouldn't question the actions of the troops but we should support them, no matter what then how do you manage to give your unconditional support to the troops yet at the same time speak out against any atrocities that may be commited by them?

I don't, and I'm not aware of any ways to do so. But that isn't what this debate is about. You are changing the topic completely here.

Yes I did, a US soldier was talking about how it was really hard to have motivation to do his job when it seemed nobody supported the war and also said something about the Iraqi people not liking them there.

You have anecdotal evidence of one soldier saying something remotely similar to what I asked and also how the Iraqi people don't like them here. Well without an official source I just don't believe you. And why did you mention that part about the Iraqis? Why would anyone support troops that aren't their own?

CNN doesn't have transcripts of every report they do on thier site, so of course I don't have anecdotal evidence. But that doesn't change the fact that it happened. The question "Is troops moral effected by popular support for a war?" shouldn't even be up for debate, it's obvious it does. If you can't see that then that sucks for you but it does not make your debate valid, because almost every other person does see it.

Did I even said anything that could remotely imply this at all? NO! Yet again you go twisting other peoples words to try and prove your debate, if you can't find an argument based on facts don't even bother coming here. I said troop moral goes down when there is lack of popular support for a war, not only is that a proven fact, but it has been said over and over and over by veitnam veterans.

It's a proven fact, then please link me to a website that did archive this correlation.

Can you find me a link to a website that "archived the correlation" of troop moral being effected by the enemy being villified? Of course not, but it doesn't take too much effort to understand why it would be, and it doesn't mean the troops sit around all day thinking about how much they hate Saddam Hussien either, It's subliminal.

If you want to keep making yourself look like a dumbass, then by all means continue twist my words around and post things that have absolutely nothing to do with the argument, but if not, you may want to avoid spewing out crap like your last post.

Calm down Jim and lay off the flames or it'll get you banned again.

You've been banned more for flaming than me, so I wouldn't be talking.

[AbstractVagabond]

Is it possible to support the troops?

Answer: Hell yes!!!

I hear the question of how anyone can actually support the troops. I've seen all the replies here and NOT ONE used the magical words "MORAL SUPPORT". What? You actually thought support could only exist on a physical level? C'mon. Saying words of encouragement, sending out wishes, saying a prayer, anything along those lines that helps the soldiers keep a positive frame of mind. That's all "support the troops" mean. If that phrase feels like a right-wing propaganda tool to you, that could be because right-wingers take morality a hell of a lot more seriously than others.

[Chaoslight]

Slightly off-topic: I recently saw a bumper sticker that I liked a lot.

'War is Hell. So why do we send so many good men there?"

I think the best way to support the troops is to not fight pointless wars.