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...,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

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]

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.

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

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

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]

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:

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:

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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.