News What does it mean to Support our troops

[Dissident Dan]

What does it mean to "Support our troops"

Lately, people have been saying "support our troops" all over the place. It seems to be the biggest buzz word, but does it have any concrete meaning?

Is it hoping for their safety? Is it supporting what they are doing? Is it respecting their decision? Something else?

If it's the first, then that's fine and dandy.

Is it the second? Why should someone who disagrees with the war support what they are doing? People might say that they're doing their patriotic duty or what not, but bush said in his 48-hours speech that "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable excuse for the Iraqis (as established in the Nourembourg trials)...so why should it be for USAmericans?

Is it the 3rd? I respect others' right to disagree with me, but that does not mean that I respect their opinions or decisions.

 

[kat]

Dan, I think, just to keep it in context, that Bush's statement that "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable excuse for the Iraqis was in reference to burning wells and possible chemical or biological weapon use.

To me the call to "support our troops" is a reaction to the treatment the troops were given upon return from vietnam. Being spit on, called names, actions to endanger them such as "Hanoi Jane's" etc. Although their could be no war if there were no soldiers to fight, the fact of the matter is this nation would cease to exist were their no soldiers to protect it...who's fault is it that they are at war today? the politicians who sent them there? or the people of the United States who put those politicians in office?

I disagree with the statement that the American Government is not the American people, we are a government of the people and by the people..if you disagree with the governments actions take it out on your politicians not our sons(&daughters), brothers(&sisters) and fathers(&Mothers) who enrolled to protect our nation not to become embroiled in a controversial war.


*Edited: gaw! I can't believe I left out the females who are fighting over there!

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Lately, people have been saying "support our troops" all over the place. It seems to be the biggest buzz word, but does it have any concrete meaning?

Is it hoping for their safety? Is it supporting what they are doing? Is it respecting their decision? Something else?

If it's the first, then that's fine and dandy.

Is it the second? Why should someone who disagrees with the war support what they are doing? People might say that they're doing their patriotic duty or what not, but bush said in his 48-hours speech that "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable excuse for the Iraqis (as established in the Nourembourg trials)...so why should it be for USAmericans?

Because Iraqi soldiers are following the orders
of their tyrant and US troops are following the
orders accepted by the democratic government
of the US, which represents the will of the majority.
That's the way things are done in democratic
countries.

Supporting the troops simply means being in their
favor with all the possible practical applications that
it might take in any situation. You are not forced
to accept the opinion in favor of the war. But, as
a decent citizen you should respect the soldiers
and their dangerous trade - defending the interests
of the people.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Zargawee]

Soldiers Should Be Respected For Only One Reason , Only If They Were Defending Their Own Home.

The Soldiers Who Invade Other Countries Make The Invaded Poeple The Country Of The Invader Country ...

So Invaders Must Be Hated , that's Why Nobody Likes G.W. Bosh.

 

[Kerrie]

here's what i mean by supporting our troops...

instead of protesting how our government is making choices, lend some care, compassion and support to the men and women who are sacrificing by sending letters, care packages, pictures and words of love and support for the tremendous courage they have for being on the forefront of this nation's security...

quoted from kat:

I disagree with the statement that the American Government is not the American people, we are a government of the people and by the people..if you disagree with the governments actions take it out on your politicians not our sons(&daughters), brothers(&sisters) and fathers(&Mothers) who enrolled to protect our nation not to become embroiled in a controversial war.

i was referring to the fact that we the people do not have as much say as we once had...referring to the sense that it seems the american people are becoming more disgruntled with the decisions our government makes...i feel that the american government needs to be more representative of the common american person rather then the common american politician...

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Kerrie
i was referring to the fact that we the people do not have as much say as we once had...referring to the sense that it seems the american people are becoming more disgruntled with the decisions our government makes...i feel that the american government needs to be more representative of the common american person rather then the common american politician... [/B]

70%

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by kat
Dan, I think, just to keep it in context, that Bush's statement that "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable excuse for the Iraqis was in reference to burning wells and possible chemical or biological weapon use.

Well, I think that causing international instability and inflaming terrorism can be put in the same category.

To me the call to "support our troops" is a reaction to the treatment the troops were given upon return from vietnam. Being spit on, called names, actions to endanger them such as "Hanoi Jane's" etc. Although their could be no war if there were no soldiers to fight, the fact of the matter is this nation would cease to exist were their no soldiers to protect it...who's fault is it that they are at war today? the politicians who sent them there? or the people of the United States who put those politicians in office?

I can see why you feel that way...but has any of that happened in this war? Are many people dogging the troops?

As far as whose fault it is, the fault lies on many shoulders. The largest culprits are the members of the bush administration. Of course, the general population's support of the war puts some blame on their shoulders. While the fact that almost half of the US's participating voters voted for bush/cheney helped bring them into office, I doubt that many of them had forseen war with Iraq when in the voting booth.

I disagree with the statement that the American Government is not the American people, we are a government of the people and by the people..if you disagree with the governments actions take it out on your politicians not our sons(&daughters), brothers(&sisters) and fathers(&Mothers) who enrolled to protect our nation not to become embroiled in a controversial war.

The USAmerican people get suckered into voting for people without knowing their real intentions and pressured into voting for them because our political system discourages 3rd parties.
A lot of people treat the election system like a popularity contest, voting for the "good 'ol boy", without really knowing (and sometimes, even caring) about his/her qualifications and ideology.

Also, people tend to stand behind decisions that they would have not initiated themselves. The majority of people in the United States are pro-war, but had bush not started the whole thing in the first place, it would not be an issue. The people would not have called upon the government to go to war.

Originally posted by drag
Because Iraqi soldiers are following the orders
of their tyrant and US troops are following the
orders accepted by the democratic government
of the US, which represents the will of the majority.
That's the way things are done in democratic
countries.

I don't buy into that. I don't think that it matters which the orders come from--a dictator or a dictator wannabe. Even though a majority of USAmericans support the war, the majority of the world's population opposes it. Also, the will of a republic does not always represent the will of the people. I don't think that most people just love corporate welfare and a complete absense of pollution standards for government organizations.

Supporting the troops simply means being in their
favor with all the possible practical applications that
it might take in any situation.

This is still a very vague statement without any concrete meaning. Could you give me an example. Kerrie did a good job of explaining what she means by "supporting our troops".

 

[FZ+]

What does it mean to "Support our troops"

To me, it is quite simple. It is to desire the war be over as soon as possible, but more importantly that minimal casaulties occur on both sides.
I don't see how anyone can argue against this.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I agree with that sentiment. I'm not sure if "support our troops" is the most appropriate label for that sentiment, though.