Do we still support the troops?

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Netfotoj, Oct 21, 2007.

  1. Netfotoj

    Netfotoj Premium Member

    2,652
    2
    0
    Townhall writer Austin Hill asks, Does Suburban Middle-Class America Still "Support the Troops"?

    He describes what happened when local National Guard troops used a private park for training in his neighborhood in a middleclass suburb of Phoenix, Arizona. Short version, they got threatened and ordered to leave immediately.

    Gives me sort of a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I grew up in the country in North Carolina and the Army regularly trained in the woods behind my home on my father's land with his express written permission, along with every other landowner in the area. We were all proud to support the troops. But it seems that those days are gone. :(

    This makes me want to holler "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!" but I fear nobody's listening. :evil:
     
  2. QPluralisT

    QPluralisT Guest

    71
    0
    0
    Some people have an irrational fear of people the military, it's not that these people wish ill of the troops, they've just never experienced them before this point.

    Other people eat/live/sleep their neighborhood covenants. :x
     

  3. charmincarmens

    charmincarmens New Member

    126
    0
    0
    S T I L L

    What do you mean by ( steel support the troops) ? Always support the troops, always.
     
  4. pilotbenjamin

    pilotbenjamin New Member

    106
    2
    0
    always support the troops. maybe not the agenda, but we have to have the utmost respect and admiration for all of our men and women in the armed services.

    I think people try to say if you don't support the war/occupation, you don't support the troops. totally off.


    how can anyone not support the military?
     
  5. DocChronos

    DocChronos Premium Member

    151
    0
    0
    An interesting side note to the “Do you support the troops?” question. I was talking with a retired AF Chief Master Sergeant the other day about the value of military service, and I opined that one of the current problems we have is that so few men have actually served their country, compared to previous generations. The CMSgt told me that fewer than 15 percent of current age-eligible men have served in the military, compared with more than 50 percent in the 50 years and up age group.

    What that means is that if I stand in a crowd of 100 men older than 50, 50 or more of them will have military experience. On the other hand, if one of you younger fellows stands in a crowd of 100 men your own age, fewer than 15 of you will have served in the military. Draw from that whatever conclusion you want.

    I live in a military town by choice. When my wife and I first moved here nearly 30 years ago, we were still trying to decide whether we were “home” yet, when I saw an article in the local newspaper that settled it for me. A guy decided to rob a tavern with a sawed-off shotgun. What he didn’t know was that the two gents playing pool in the corner were Rangers from Ft. Lewis. By the time the police arrived, the Rangers had pretty much disassembled him and had him all packaged up for transport. I told my wife, “We’re home!”

    Do we still support the troops? In my town we do.

    Doc
     
  6. Buzz

    Buzz Premium Member

    1,410
    0
    0
    But, when you undermine the mission you undermine the troops, and from there on any declarations of vocal support for the troops are lip-service.

    I have several friends in Iraq. I hear from them frequently. If you suggest to them that you can support them while not supporting their mission they will tell you that you are dead wrong. To a man (of the ones that I know) they are disgusted with the lack of support back home and believe that it gives the enemy encouragement and puts them at greater risk.

    Opposition to the war is anyone's right, but to suppose that one can support the troops and not their mission is lunacy. They are on the mission. It is their life, and possible death.

    Sorry, I just don't get it. It's the screwiest rationalization that I've ever heard. I'm not calling anyone un-American or unpatriotic. That's not the point and is now used as a foil anytime someone points out that words can have consequences. The expression of your opinion is obviously your right as an American. But don't kid yourself that you can have it both ways. Along with the expression of opinions come consequences. The First Amendment doesn't create some kind of vacuum insulating words from causation. If you think that your words are powerful enough to stop the war why would you doubt that they are powerful enough to embolden our enemies and deep six our troops' moral.

    Buzz
     
  7. babj615

    babj615 Premium Member

    4,189
    33
    48
    Eloquently put, Buzz.....

    For the record, I do Support our troops AND the mission.....

    8) 8)
     
  8. pilotbenjamin

    pilotbenjamin New Member

    106
    2
    0
    i'm curious what the mission is? wasn't it accomplished years ago?
     
  9. babj615

    babj615 Premium Member

    4,189
    33
    48
    hehehe....

    "If a tree falls in the forest but no one is there to hear it fall, does it still make noise?"

    ...the mission is clear.

    ...some just cant see it for the trees they are huggin.....

    :wink: :wink: :wink:
     
  10. QPluralisT

    QPluralisT Guest

    71
    0
    0
    To undermine something would mean to have a direct goal of not supporting the troops. Regardless of how one looks at "the mission", you'd be hard pressed to find many Americans that actively wish ill on American soldiers; secretly or otherwise. What is "the mission"? The War in Iraq? The War of Terror?

    What if either of the above are being mishandled? Why would I send my fellow Americans into a situation where I do not understand what they are fighting/dying for.

    If "the mission" is delivering our soldiers safely home from Iraq, then I am 100% behind it. If "the mission" is continuing to send friends over to die for a mission that our government cannot define or lay out a structured planned towards, heck no.

    The problem Buzz is that you apparently "get it" while 65% of the country according to the latest polls do not. The 65% of us would love to understand this glorious mission that we have set out upon in Iraq, but no one on the pro-war side can provide us with any valid or substantive reason to do so. You can call the rest of us unpatriotic/underminers/un-American/lunatics/tree huggers/ anything you want, but I am not going to suspend logic, the lives of my friends, or my own life for a cause that no one has been able to define to me for nearly 5 years.

    Doc, it's the difference between an all volunteer army today and the draft/army of yesterday.

    Personally I think we should have mandatory conscription for 6 months to 1 year in the United States. Military service should still be voluntary, but every American should be capable and ready to defend their country. It would certainly prevent events like the OP.
     
  11. Buzz

    Buzz Premium Member

    1,410
    0
    0
    There you go, putting words in my mouth that were never uttered. In fact, I said the opposite.

    Sorry, I will not debate with someone who plays those games.

    Buzz
     
  12. babj615

    babj615 Premium Member

    4,189
    33
    48

    Do you actually believe either you OR the government has the time or inclination to lay out every last detail of intel over and over until you get it?????

    Maybe in grade school when you were learning your times tables, or cursive writing......

    But this whole "We deserve to know everything" and "Deserve a structured timetable" BullShiz is getting out of hand....

    We are fighting a war.

    The time table is "It will be over when they quit fighting US."

    The 'structure' changes dynamically from minute to minute, and is not the same in every theatre of combat at any given time....

    I don't think the 'sheeple' of this country had the information you are requesting/demanding in WWI or WWII....

    If you don't completely understand what is at stake, PLAY ALONG.....

    Your "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" will depend on it.....
     
  13. babj615

    babj615 Premium Member

    4,189
    33
    48
    ....my guess would be that the 65% of the US population you speak of primarily consists of those who were born somewhere else & came here to reap the benefits afforded by those who have shed their blood and given their lives over the last 200+ years fighting for the core set of values and beliefs this great country was created/based on....

    ...probably the same people who demand we change all our beliefs to suit their own because "thats how it is in my homeland...."

    ...probably the same people who have only a high school level or lower education....

    ...probably the same people who demand top wages and benefits for basic unskilled labor and therefore contribute to running all the "good jobs" out of the country and then have the audacity to complain about such....

    ...probably the same people who feel they are "Entitled to this and that............" just because they live here in the USA......


    The List goes on and on and on....


    YOU suggest we suspend a War simply because YOU do not understand it? Because it doesn't suit YOU?

    Sorry pal, YOU are not that significant.....
     
  14. pilotbenjamin

    pilotbenjamin New Member

    106
    2
    0
    we are not fighting a war. no war declaration has ever been signed. Have congress sign a declartion. since WWII we've never declared war and WE'V never won a war since then.

    I think the war in afghanistan was justified, but we are just losing americans for naught. We can't spread democracy by force.


    "....my guess would be that the 65% of the US population you speak of primarily consists of those who were born somewhere else & came here to reap the benefits afforded by those who have shed their blood and given their lives over the last 200+ years fighting for the core set of values and beliefs this great country was created/based on.... ",
    Does this make anyone less american? If your not native born, BS. we have almost 50% of the troops are minorities.

    The founding fathers and the constitution both support non-interventionist foreign policy, staying out of nation building, staying out of entangling alliances, don't get involved with the internal affairs of other nations . " core set of values and beliefs this great country was created/based on..." WRONG.

    I think supporting the troops in times like this is similar to supporting a brother or sister that commited a crime and maybe had to go to prison. You don't agree with what they did but they are still your family.

    If someone was standing on my street corner, searching me whenever they felt like, stealing my stuff, i don't care you if originally I liked having you here after 3 years, I'm going to try to defend myself. We are waiting for them to stop killing us, they won't nor would I with an occupying force.
     
  15. squirrelpotpie

    squirrelpotpie Premium Member

    338
    0
    16
    not convinced the majority of americans are in favor of an immediate withdrawal from iraq but if they are it would not be the first time that a majority of folks have been misled into wanting something that is not in our or the worlds long term best interests.

    even my peace loving quaker fiancee' doesn't think an immediate withdrawal from iraq is a good idea.

    sure it would be nice to have the troops home "avoiding foreign entanglements" and all that, but we are there now and we have a responsibility to ourselves and the people of iraq to leave the place better off than we found it.
     
  16. SELFDEFENSE

    SELFDEFENSE Premium Member

    3,817
    31
    48
    The Constitution does not lay out what a "declaration of war" is. The Congressional vote to authorize the Iraq invasion is a clear statement.
     
  17. QPluralisT

    QPluralisT Guest

    71
    0
    0
    Buzz, while I should have noted that you avoided the terms "un-American and unpatriotic", lunacy and undermine were used. My apologies, but all the same, it's words used to chastise a group of people who have studied the case for war just as diligently (if not more) and come up with a separate conclusion.

    Bab, I am not asking for every detail, but I have seen no evidence compelling enough to topple a sovereign government. If the government is asking the people to support a violent conflict, then they had better be prepared to provide a solid reason behind it.

    How are they fighting us? We're fighting them aren't we? What was the rhetoric, fight them there so we don't have to fight them here? We started a war under the guise that they would start it if we didn't, of which there is little more than anecdotle evidence and well-wishing.

    Are you saying roughly 200 million Americans are 1st gen. immigrants? :shock:

    Part of the problem is that this war is straying from the core values we as Americans believe in.

    Yes yes, and the anti-war say the pro-war all watch NASCAR, live in the sticks, and sleep with their sisters. It's probably not true, but it sure is comforting. :) (Nothing wrong with NASCAR, I just hear that one a lot.)

    I suggest that I cannot support the United States engaging us in a bloody and costly battle that I cannot understand or see an end to.

    I am significant enough to stand for myself, to organize with the 65% of America that feels the same as I do, and call for an end to a seemingly worthless conflict.

    "Better to light a candle than curse the darkness" as the proverb goes.
     
  18. SELFDEFENSE

    SELFDEFENSE Premium Member

    3,817
    31
    48
    "...battle that I cannot understand or see an end to."
    Understand: Iraq is the Normandy beachhead of WW III (or IV depending on how you count the Cold War).
    End to: When we win and they lose (to paraphrase Ronald R.) and topple the prime mover in world Islamo-Faschism - Iran.
     
  19. QPluralisT

    QPluralisT Guest

    71
    0
    0
    If our goal was to remove "Islamic Facism" as one calls it, then why did we attack the only secular state in the Middle East proper?

    Saddam and the Ba'ath party had been long time critics of Islamic government.
    -The Ba'ath party was founded on secular principles
    -Iraq split with the Syrian Ba'ath party when Syria decided to incorporate religion into their system
    -Iraq began a very bloody war with Iran from 1980-89 when the crazies took over in 1979.
    -Saddam suppressed the Shi'a in his country to insure that this sort of uprising would never occur in Iraq.

    Removing Saddam Hussein, a strong bastion for secular government in the Middle East, created a power vacuum for Iraqs neighbors to reach into. The GWB regime either holds an incompetent position on Middle Eastern politics, or we are not fighting to end extremist Islam in Iraq. If anything we are creating it for the next generation to deal with the consequences.

    On the flip side, the Iranians were incredibly helpful to our invasion of Afghanistan and were actually making reformist concessions up until the "Axis of Evil" speech.

    So we have now removed Iran's two most reviled enemies and we have failed to replace either with equally effective governments of any sort. This hardly seems like we are on the road towards removing Islamic extremism, if anything it would be easier to argue we are supporting it. Further, occupying a part of the Middle East (many of the holiest sites in Shi'a Islam) vastly improves the credibility of those that use Islam to their own advantage.

    The "prime mover" of political Islam is actually Wahabbi Islam which originates in the KSA. I believe 17/19 hijackers in 2001 were from the KSA and of the Wahabbi tribe. I have yet to hear one ornery cat call to invade the Kingdom.
     
  20. Buzz

    Buzz Premium Member

    1,410
    0
    0
    Apology accepted. But, the problem is that folks who are dissenting against the war are raising the "you are calling me un-American" defense even when no one is doing so as a means of shouting down the dissent to their own dissent. My comments had nothing to do with patriotism or definitions of Americanism and were based upon a position of cause and effect, and very specifically said so, but there it was, the old "you can call me un-American....blah, blah, blah". Patriotism is a state of mind and I don't pretend to know what is in the hearts and minds of men. The thing is that there isn't even a need to go there. When you look at the situation the only thing that matters is cause and effect. And while I would never impute ill intent on someone by the mere expression of their opinion, that doesn't change the fact that based upon the consequences of their actions/dissent they are misguided. Geraldo Rivera can squat in the mud diagraming troop positions all day long but I will not question his patriotism, but, I will point out that his actions are misguided subjecting our troops to greater risk.

    Buzz