Does DU really support the troops?

[seito]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=1982553

This was the thread that prompted me to join DU.

[crispini]

1. Hee, Seito.

Well, I have one of those yellow ribbons on my car. Isn't that enough? /sarcasm

[seito]

10. Hey crispini

As long as you keep driving that sticker to all those town hall, city counsel and LWV meetings, I would say that is certainly enough. :)

[mzmolly]

2. Almost 500 posts in that thread which called for "DU Vets" ...

DU IS "the troops!" :hi:

Recommended, thank yOU!

[seito]

5. Thanks mzmolly

This thread really puts things in perspective.

[mzmolly]

13. Indeed it does!

:yourock:

[UrbScotty]

3. Support the troops! BRING THEM HOME! (nt)

[Cha]

75. I say..

Protect The Troops! Give them armour and don't cut their benefits!

The bush fascists have put them in harm's way and are killing them off..any idiot can see that..but not worshippers at the alter of
monkey shit!

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seito]

7. I will never understand how the right

has framed itself as the party that supports the troops. So many Americans mindlessness accept what they are told.

What the left is for:
Bringing the troops home safe
Taking care of them upon their return
Allowing them to receive their full disability and retirement at the same time

The good news is that many Americans are getting hit personally, or they know someone that has been affected deeply by this war. That tends to snap them out of their hypnotic trance.

[CrispyQ]

22. I encountered such a person at Costco right before the election

She was parked across from me. I saw she had one of those yellow ribbon magnets on her SUV. After loading her haul into her truck, she had the gall to approach me & call me out on my anti-boosh bumper stickers on the very day I was loading up my truck with supplies to send to my friend, a nurse, who is stationed in Iraq.

As I loaded socks, tooth brushes, anti-itch cream, baby wipes, etc into the back of my truck she told me that she was a patriotic American & she didn't appreciate the message my stickers were sending to the troops & that I should be ashamed!

I told her where the supplies were going & who they were for. Then I asked her what she was doing to support the troops & then said, "Oh I see. You have a silly little magnet on the back of your car. That's very helpful to the troops." She at least had the good grace to turn bright red before she turned & walked away. I called out to her, "Hey! You should reevaluate your definition of patriotism." I watched as she backed out & roared off, but she made damned sure she didn't look my way.

What I've found interesting, is since boosh 'won' I've seen more & more vehicles with multiple ribbon stickers. Always the yellow one, and a variety of red, white & blue ones, but NEVER the one that says "Bring the troops home."

How they don't see their own hypocrisy simply amazes me.

[earth mom]

117. I don't support the war...

But Yes, I support the troops-by bringing them home!

[Fovea]

6. Let me ask the other question.

Do the Freepers, who sit in their exuburban mini mansions, driving SUV's, praise killing Aye-Rabs, and praying for Jeebus to bless our retarded sociopathic band of simians in DC support the troops?

I mean they all have the stickers on their Ford Exhibitionists, but what does that mean? Only that they support the war, which is decidedly not supporting the troops.

[seito]

14. They do not stop to think

They have been told that if you wave the flag and tell the world that you support the troops, that is enough. They do not realize that it is our sacred duty, as Americans, to ensure that our soldiers are never misused.

[Fovea]

39. Thank you for that response.

like a hammer to the nail, that drives it home.

I knew a German born woman whose husband had been a soldier under
the Nazis. He died in Russia, a place he did not want to be
fighting in a war he really did not want to fight, but he came
from a military family, and followed his family calling.

Like many of our troops regarding **, he didn't have a lot of respect, according to her, for the party/state and its war of ideology. He went to Russia thinking it a fool's errand.

She wound up marrying an American GI, and moving back to the states with him. But she still had a picture of her first husband, who did not look like a monster, just a kid, all proud in his uniform.

I met her in a production of 'Cabaret' back in 73. Her guilt
and sorrow hung around her like a dark cloud. I would spare our boys and girls Hildegard D's black lung of the soul. I hope hers cleared up before she died, but generally it is incurable.

[fooj]

53. "our sacred duty"...beautifully stated, Seito!

[BlueEyedSon]

8. I support war crimes, torture & genocide. As long as my gas is cheap.

:puke:

[Catch22Dem]

9. seito, I am a former "troop"

When I ordered my blue bands, from www.thinkblue2008.com I made sure my donation went to "Adopt a Platoon" So, now if some fundie repuke gives me shit about my blue band (I'm in Oklahoma, it happens all the time) I just reply "The money for this band went to Adopt a Platoon, what have YOU done lately?"

[seito]

11. Great idea

Thanks Catch22Dem for you CONTINUED service. :yourock:

[mzmolly]

15. Awesome!

:toast:

[lonestarnot]

56. Whoohoo...this be the band! n/t

[No Exit]

12. Does it matter, when we the people have zero power to help them?

The majority of Americans, DU included, want our troops HOME. Are we listened to? No--because in a fascist government, the people have no voice.

[seito]

18. We have more power than you think

The day we lose is the day we stop believing.

[No Exit]

33. OK, I'm willing to keep believing...

...until the day Bush/WWIII cause my death!

[TahitiNut]

30. When "the majority of Americans" invest 1/2 the time and risk ...

... to life and limb that the average person in the military invests, then and only then can it be claimed "the people have no voice." If the people choose to whisper, they cannot then claim they have "no voice."

How many of the '59 million' have actually joined a protest march?
How many of the '59 million' have held a General Strike?

At the same time, many of the '59 million' seem all-too-willing to shift the additional burden onto the backs of military and ask them to refuse orders and to refuse deployment. I guess it's easy to ask others to mutiny when the risk of asking it is nil. It's even easier, I guess, to take the worst of reported behavior and paint all military personnel with a broad brush.

[No Exit]

35. You won't find me disparaging the troops,

nor, for that matter, disparaging the top brass--b/c so many of even the top-level military have clearly stated that this war is a fraud. I agree with them.

Regarding your point that more people should be actively involved--point well taken.

I do speak my opinion, I try not to whisper it or be silent... it's just that it is very frustrating, when I (and the others speaking out) are NEVER listened to by this administration. We weren't even listened to when we voted! Instead, the election was stolen right out of our hands.

The real enemy is the adminstration--not the troops.

[Smarmie Doofus]

16. I don't support what they're doing; if that means I don't "support...

... the troops" then I don't support the troops.

I think many have been deceived, exploited, short-changed by the gov't.I sympathize with those in this category. Nonetheless, I do not support what the troops are doing in Iraq.

Shoot me.

[seito]

21. There is a difference between supporting the soldier

and supporting their mission. The soldier is just a person. There are good and bad people in every organization. I use the term soldier to represent every service member, regardless of the branch of service.

The soldier joined the military to serve this nation. Many joined over 20 years ago, and have been called back. The soldier has no control over the mission. The choice is literally "go to war or go to jail"

It is our duty to fight for them. It is our duty to make sure that the world knows how this administration is exploiting them, holding them for longer and longer deployments, and not providing adequate care upon their return.

Can you support the soldier and oppose the war? In my opinion,that is the only way to support them.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

42. You are making a blanket statement about all soldiers joining

to serve our country, and I disagree. Like Jessica Lynch, many young people join in order to obtain money for a college education. Other young immature kids lured by a promise of a life that was like being a character of a video game. Some because they are just that poor, and have no other place to go.

[seito]

54. You are right

Of course there are many reasons why people choose to enter military service. I teach at risk 16-18 year old kids. Many of them are contemplating joining the military as a "way out". They do NOT understand what they are getting themselves into. I try to enlighten them on what they are getting themselves into, and hope that they take it to heart.

[tsuki]

71. That is a shame. My father joined in 1947, to create a better life

for his family. And he did.

I am proud of my military heritage, but not of the those that use the military to promote their corrupt schemes for money and power.

[driver8]

106. My father also joined for a better life...

He grew up in Texas and knew that if he stayed, he would end up stuck in a small town with a shitty job and no way out. He told me that he could not wait to get out of his hometown.

My dad joined the Navy in 1955 and made a career out of it...doing a job that he loved. I am proud of my military heritage, also. (I am a 6 year Navy vet).

[Sapphire Blue]

77. So true

The 'perks' in the military recruitment promo ads are the reason so many young people took the risk of enlisting. I doubt that they expected to be shipped off to fight a war based on lies.

[mike_c]

49. I don't agree with that statement....

Substitute "armed robber" or "serial killer" for "soldier" to see how flawed that logic is. Or even "litterer." There is no crime without criminals, and we punish the criminals, not their "mission." If the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a crime against humanity-- and I think it is-- then everyone involved in it is a war criminal by definition. And as for the choice between war or jail, remember that WE are the ones who drafted the Nuremberg protocols that place responsibility on all soldiers to refuse illegal orders. There is a bit of a catch-22 operating here in that the national principles those men and women signed up to serve include the responsibility to refuse service in illegal actions. Would you ask a soldier to risk death for a corrupt and illegal foreign policy, but not ask them to risk jail in defense of our nation's principles?

[seito]

52. If I get the call

I will have a real choice. Go to war or go to jail. I am in the medical field, a non-combatant. I may have to REALLY make that decision. Are you willing to engage in civil disobedience along with the other 59 million Americans that oppose this war and go to jail along with me?

Just wondering...

[mike_c]

57. yes....

And I live and work in a community that is actively debating whether to provide refuge for refusniks and deserters. We have a draft resolution before the city council that calls on us to do just that.

If you get the call, and need refuge, PM me.

[seito]

59. Will do n/t

[ikojo]

68. To paraphrase.....

There's a difference between supporting the SS and supporting their mission. The SS is just a regular person. There are good and bad members of the SS.

The individual joined the SS to serve the fatherland. Many joined during the first great war. The SS has no control over the mission. The choice is go to war or to Auschwitz.

So what if they kill a few Jews or other so called undesireables, they have no control over what Himmler or Hitler orders them to do. They are only following orders as all good SS men do.



I say we all have moral choices and those who chose to torture do NOT deserve my pity nor my support.

I support those troops who choose not to serve in this war and who choose to defy orders to torture another human being.

THOSE troops are worth supporting and they are growing in numbers. Read the cover story in the March Harpers about troops going AWOL and the increase in their numbers since 2001.

[seito]

73. So let me make sure that I understand

I say we all have moral choices and those who chose to torture do NOT deserve my pity nor my support.

I support those troops who choose not to serve in this war and who choose to defy orders to torture another human being.

Are you saying that all soldiers that choose to go to Iraq, rather than go AWOL are choosing to engage in torture?

I oppose the war. I oppose ** and what THIS ADMINISTRATION is doing. I oppose the individuals that are committing war crimes. I support the activists that are doing everything they can to bring about an end to this illegal occupation.

The soldiers (all of them) deserve to be protected from this government. If we are not going to do it, then who will?

[ikojo]

87. No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that those who join

now, knowing they stand a good chance of going to Iraq and killing others are not making a moral choice. They know what this president and his supporters in both parties stand for yet they choose to go. They willingly choose to go to war by enlisting.

I can understand, to some degree, that the National Guard people did not enlist expecting to be sent overseas, THEY are the ones who are really being screwed because they are not considered full time military and thus do not receive all of the "benefits" accorded full time military people.

There are many choosing not to go, as the enlistment numbers, inside and outside the military, show. Many branches of the military are not meeting their quotas of either keeping them in or recruiting new members.

I AM saying that those who engaged in torture or KNEW about the torture and said nothing are not deserving of our support. That I will stand by.

[lonestarnot]

58. Not Shoot you! Don't support either! and they volunteered. n/t

[seito]

64. I do not understand

how anyone can brush aside what is happening to the troops with "they volunteered"

Soldiers are people too. Yes, they volunteered. I can not think of any free American adult that is more subject to abuse than a military person. I know of a soldier that was literally handcuffed and dragged onto the plane to go to Iraq.

The government has betrayed the trust of the military, just as it has betrayed our trust.

[lonestarnot]

65. I am not condoning the treatment of our troops by this administration

You must have misread. I am saying there should not be ANY volunteers!

[seito]

67. Sorry if I mis-interpreted your statement

Many volunteered in a very different world. Today, they are no longer volunteers.

[lonestarnot]

115. Itssso k..... Sometimes I don't even make sense to myself. LOL

I don't see as good as I used to, maybe I typoed or something and missed it. Sorrright Bobalouie!

[HysteryDiagnosis]

17. Support the troops after they come home as well, and don't

let them end up like so much used equipment that no longer has a use, nor importance. It's a blessing and a shame that organizations such as these exist.

http://www.nchv.org/index.cfm


Contact Us

333 ½ Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20003-1148
E-mail: [e-mail]


Thin Gray Line
Toll Free: 800.VET.HELP
Voice: 202.546.1969
Fax: [phone]


http://www1.va.gov/homeless/


* aggressive outreach to those veterans living on streets and in shelters who otherwise would not seek assistance;
* clinical assessment and referral to needed medical treatment for physical and psychiatric disorders, including substance abuse;
* long-term sheltered transitional assistance, case management, and rehabilitation;
* employment assistance and linkage with available income supports; and
* supported permanent housing.

[seito]

27. Thank you so much for your service n/t

[da_chimperor]

19. If by support you mean trying to keep them alive and whole . . .

Yes.

[seito]

26. That is EXACTLY what I mean

Thanks

[Nimrod]

20. Myself - only individuals

I've met too many people who couldn't wait to go over there and start killing brown people. I refuse to regurgitate the broad "SUPPORT THE TROOPS" buzzword crap, and I refuse to see or paint them all as angel-faced, blonde, blue-eyed heroes of the common man. They're human beings which means they're fully capable of being despicable, just like all of us.

I support individuals, not some iconic image of "TROOPS".

[seito]

25. The soldiers that I see are not eager at all to go to war

I served six years active duty, and I live in a military town. The father of one of my students leaves for Iraq on Tuesday. I can tell you that my experience is just the opposite.

The troops that are in Iraq are serving up to two-year deployments. They are being ABUSED by this administration. They do not look forward to going over there and killing anyone. They go over worried about when, (if) they will ever return.

[Nimrod]

28. A quote from a "troop"

"Give me a gun, I'm ready. One of those ragheads comes up to me and says 'I'm innocent' and I'll go 'Bang! Now you're dead.'" This was said to my face, and I'm quoting as accurately as I can remember.

Yep, some are being abused. Then again, some are enjoying the hell out of getting to kill, rape, and torture people. That's why I refuse to turn the "troops" into some kind of iconic conglomerate Good-Guy entity.

[seito]

31. There are good and bad everywhere

One of my best friends served in Desert Storm as an Army Medic. He suffers to this day with PTSD and Gulf War Syndrome. He is one of the most compassionate individuals I have ever known. He knows what it is like to treat a 4 year old that had her hand blown off because she tried to pick up a shiny bit of unexploded ordinance.

He has witnessed, in a very real and personal manner, the suffering that goes along with war. These veterans that have endured up to 2 years of war are going to be very different people when they return. For many of them, their lives will never be the same.

While I agree that there are some assholes out there, I disagree that they represent the majority. Just as there are some immature and thoughtless people here at DU, I believe that progressives, as a whole, are good hearted, compassionate and intelligent people.

[Nimrod]

34. Indeed

And I never once said I thought they were the majority. They MIGHT be, but I haven't met all of them yet.

See what you did, you made me do a disclaimer. :) I fucking hate those - they are so self defeating. It's like apologizing for having your opinion. Let us never speak of this again.

I realize mine is an unpopular opinion. We seem to desperately need our angelic Good Guys(tm) and our blood-drenched demonic Bad Guys(tm). I generally tend to see things in more shades of gray than that, however. As you said, there is good and bad everywhere - and for that exact reason, I don't angelicize. I especially don't angelicize something as vague as "troops".

[seito]

37. To never speaking of it again

:toast:

I respect your opinion, and your right to have it without apology. :)

[Nimrod]

38. ::grins::

And I, in turn, will respect yours. Support away, my friend. :)

[lonestarnot]

61. If they have been in military for 4 years, they volunteered with the

bushitler in power...Who in their right mind would join the military with this puke at the helm? I served in an air tactical control squadron U.S.A.F and recall seriously considering the ramifications of my enlistment before I signed. I remember considering then whether the then President of the United States would lie and send me to war for profit rather than purpose as grand as prior wars that had been fought, stood for, and I went with "No he won't" and signed. Yes, I'm a little paranoid, trying to think of all ramifications to all major decisions in life. People enlisting for this war now, and volunteering now. are just insane. The only way I would do it is if it were the only option given for escape of the death penalty and then I would think long and hard.

[seito]

69. Soldiers sign an eight-year commitment

Many that are still under obligation to serve joined under the Clinton administration. Some that are being recalled are retired and joined 20-30 years ago.

I agree that every person should seriously consider what they are getting into before enlisting. Unfortunately, many young kids do not.

I teach at risk 16-18 year old kids. They come from poor homes, and they have failed in school. Many of these kids have a 3rd grade reading level, and they believe EVERYTHING they are told.

They are so eager for anyone to take an interest in them. The recruiter comes along and offers them a way out of their present life. They sell them on the money for college, the job skill training etc. That is all it takes. These kids do not look beyond that.

The other day a kid asked me, "What branch of service should I join if I don't want to go to war?"

[TahitiNut]

23. You also might notice how few of us bother to weigh in ...

... on the jody-threads. :shrug:

[Divernan]

24. Thanks - I missed the original thread-was in post-election withdrawal.

If I'd seen it I would have listed my two WW II uncle/vets - one piloted Flying Boxcars over the hump (Burma); and the other was skipper of a PT boat in the Pacific; and my daughter -1st Lt., Army; and three Army officer cousins (Vietnam, Iraq I and Iraq II)

[seito]

80. My thanks goes out to all of your family members that have served

Is your daughter still in the service?

[knitter4democracy]

29. I do.

I think it's a more complex issue than "They knew what they were signing up for." I've knitted for the troops, and I've sent a care package to a unit registered through http://www.anysoldier.com (a sad, scary site, btw that lists everything they need) with my kids helping me.

I used to teach high school, and I know that there were a lot of kids pressured to go into the Army or whatever because they weren't ready for college or couldn't afford college with their grades and all (or they would never be able to go--our biggest recruiting area was special needs kids who were mainstreamed when I was in student teaching). I really don't think all those kids really knew what they were signing up for. War wasn't real to them, as they were too young to remember the Cold War or even the first Gulf War, and the closest they came to it were video games. Even the new recruits now are mostly trying to escape poverty and be able to work when they get out.

Those kids--and they are just kids, mostly--need to still feel connected with the people back home. They need socks, hats, skin lotion, and even scrubs and laundry soap. How can we not have compassion on them, kids caught up in a weird PNAC world?

[seito]

81. You do a great service

Thank you so much.

[knitter4democracy]

86. I wish I could do more. nt

[ScreamingMeemie]

32. DUers actually "do" something about it instead of putting a cammo

"support the troops" magnet on our car. Or handing out the unpatriotic labels to dems. For us, it's about protesting this farce, sending care packages to the troops, writing to our congresspeople, and...all the while, sobbing and hurting over every loss that isn't publicized quite so much anymore.

[necso]

36. Well, it depends on what you mean

by supporting the troops.

If you mean superficial lock-step patronizing* of the troops, consisting primarily of empty, pompous wheezings -- and little more than that (except when forced to do so by circumstances) -- or using their name (or that of flag, country, etc) to justify measures harmful both to individual members of military and to the American military as a whole (and to say nothing of the wider world of interests and issues), then no. That is what the RW does, not us.

If you mean wishing the best for individual members of the military, then, very largely, yes. And there are also members here who have taken concrete steps to do so by sending packages to the troops, buying phone cards for them, etc.

And if you mean supporting the troops by wishing to stop this counterproductive war and removing the troops from harm's way, then for many, yes. There are any number of people here struggling towards that end.

There are also any number of people here who support having a strong military that provides the best possible for its members (within affordable constraints) and veterans.

And there are members here who have considerable problems with the civilian casualties, the torture, etc involved in the war in Iraq. Many of these members, I think, have the good sense to realize that it is command that is ultimately responsible for these things. Still, some members probably see it otherwise. And these occurrences were (are) at best unfortunate, while some were (are) clearly illegal acts -- and it may reach further than that.

Myself, I know what war brings -- what war almost always brings. And I think of these things when contemplating the possibility of conflict. It was not that long ago, when a defended city fell, that it was expected that rape and murder, looting and vandalism by the victorious troops would occur (often widely and savagely). And although the "rules" of war no longer permit this, many bad things almost inevitably happen in war time (such as "collateral damage" -- particularly when fighting in populated areas). -- But the only way to completely avoid the unintended consequences of war is to avoid war itself.

And although avoiding war in general is not always possible, avoiding the war in Iraq most certainly was. Indeed, this war is a colossal misadventure fueled primarily by ignorance, delusion and hubris. -- How could it possibly be good for the military in the actual circumstances and practise?

...

patronizing: To treat in a condescending manner.

condescending: To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself.

One of the common methods of being patronizing is to pretend to treat someone with elaborate courtesy -- or as though he were a "superior" or a well-respected person, when he is really viewed (and treated) as an inferior, except in the most superficial ways. Done well, this can come across as actually being respectful and concerned -- as opposed to revealing the real (and total) hypocrisy of this pretense -- that is, as opposed to revealing the actual contempt and lack of concern, (as evidenced by the more meaningful acts) underlying this pretended, superficial and generally quite meaningless behavior.

...

And, of course, there are all those trolls who try to make us look bad.

[seito]

46. It was sort of a rhetorical question to highlight the attached thread

For me, supporting the troops, means:

Doing everything possible to ensure that they are never misused, or abused

Supporting the families, while the service members are deployed and providing adequate care when they return

Ensuring our government properly equips and trains them.

Fighting to bring them home as soon as possible

Ending the back-door draft and unreasonably long deployments

Honoring those that serve and have served honorably

[necso]

60. And so I took it. /nt

[Warren Stupidity]

113. This is a tough issue!

Consider the difference between the person who enlisted long before the invasion, and the one who enlisted long after it became clear that the war was fought on false premises. These two soldiers appear to me to be in two very different ethical places.

I might wish that all of our soldiers refused illegal orders to fight in the war, but I accept that this choice very difficult. I cannot however support in any way those who choose to volunteer now, knowing that their choice puts them into an ethically compromised position.

While in general I think our soldiers ought to be decently equipped, does my support extend to the latest in lethal anti-insurgency equipment? I hate to use numbers when making ethical decisions, but don't I have to consider the 100,000+ dead Iraqis when evaluating the merits of increasing the funding of our military budget for Iraq, knowing that extra spending will mean more dead Iraqis, that in some cases 'supporting the troops' means increasing the kill ratio?

Our opposition to the vietnam war has been used by the right, they continue to attempt to transform it into support for killing our troops. Jane Fonda should never have posed next to NV artillery. We played into their hands to a certain extent. We should be clear that for us 'support the troops' means 'bring them home now'.

[Bluebear]

40. Cheers, Seito! Thank you posting this separately!

In light of everything that was going on, I thought it would be a nice thing for everyone to see! :toast: You're on the 'greatest page' :)

[seito]

41. Thanks Bluebear

:toast:

It was such a touching tribute, thanks for suggesting a separate post.

[Longgrain]

43. I've seriously never seen any 'troop' bashing around here...

Lot's of anti-war talk, but never any bad-mouthing of our soldiers.

:shrug:

[Cooley Hurd]

63. What I've witnessed on DU is a frustration with events...

...and the actions of the US military in Iraq. It's hard to chirp "support our troops" when you see picture after picture after picture of the Iraqi victims of this war. However, I think it's safe to say the majority of men and women in our armed forces are also victims of the same conflict at the hand of the leadership that started it (and conducted it in such a horrific fashion).

Supporting the troops should be done on a case-by-case basis, IMO.

[Just Me]

44. By fighting an administration that is misusing our troops,...

,...we are giving support that makes a difference. We FIGHT for our troops, here at home. Our conservative counterparts FIGHT for the administration, not our troops, in my view.

We FIGHT for benefits for our troops.
We FIGHT for accountability/transparency of the motives by those sending our troops to a distant land to occupy a foreign nation.
We FIGHT for adequately equipping our troops.
We FIGHT for penalizing that leadership which misdirects our troops into violating laws and human rights.
We FIGHT against war-profitteers who nominalize the value of our troops.

[seito]

82. Absolutely

:toast:

[mattclearing]

45. I think DU does. I'm a conscientious objector myself.

And I have a lot of doubts about anyone who can be convinced to kill and possibly be killed in the name of something as arbitrary as a national border at the orders of a wealthy person who himself refuses to fight.

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and I certainly don't wish any harm upon them.

I do think there are serious moral questions that should be faced before signing on the dotted line, and I wonder if all of our recruits truly recognize:

1) That they are putting their lives on the line, and...

2) Who and what, precisely, they are putting their lives on the line for.

I couldn't do it, wouldn't do it, and regard those who have with a bit of unease.

[mopinko]

47. this whole meme is the epitome of evil

[Kathy in Cambridge]

48. Skittles and other DUers send care packages to the troops

they truly support those kids overseas.

Honestly, the only troop bashing I've seen on DU is by banned disruptors trying to stir up a shitstorm. People on DU actually put their money where their mouth is.

[seito]

83. Thanks to all the Duers

that "put their money where their mouth is."

:yourock:

[janx]

50. That thread is incredible. I wish we had had "greatest page" then.

Thanks for pointing it out.

[seito]

66. Thank You

I was very moved by the sentiment in that thread. I originally posted it as a reply to another topic. BlueBear suggested that I post it as a separate thread.

[bigtree]

51. *

[manic expression]

55. I think DU does......I certainly don't. eom.

[Cleita]

62. I don't support the war in Iraq, but I do support the rank and

file military personnel who have to follow orders. I support the brass who object to the military as led by Rummy. I don't support the *W friendly brass that have replaced the ones who objected to the mis-use of our military. I hope I make sense.

[LibertyorDeath]

70. If you mean trying to get an early end to the occupation of Iraq

or drawing attention to all the cuts at the VA or, sending supplies to the troops then YES!!

If you mean the destruction of cities like Falluja or the killing of Civilians then NO!!

My Country right or Wrong is for the brainwashed sheep!

[seito]

84. I meant only to highlight the sentiment expressed here on Veterans Day

My personal opinion is that we need to support the individuals that serve, while we oppose the war. Our government has betrayed the trust of the soldiers.

I remember a quote that John Kerry gave during the campaign that was very touching to me. I do not recall the exact words, but it was something along the lines of a soldier agrees to serve and asks only one thing of the country, only send him to war because we have to, never because we want to.

Now, the soldiers are being held under stop-loss, they are deployed for up to 2 years, they are not properly equipped and they return to a "grateful nation" where the government could give a rat's ass about their health and well being. To me, supporting the troops means fighting to end the betrayal and hypocrisy of the government.

[LibertyorDeath]

91. Well said I agree 100 %

[steve2470]

72. Hell yes ! Bring them home NOW so they can LIVE ! nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. "Support the Troops" is the same red herring they used in the '60s

The idea is that one must "support the troops" or be against the beleaguered GI's heroically defending the country against the commie..er..Iraqi..er..Syrian..er..Iranian...er..(insert enemy of the day).

It's not about "supporting" the GI cannon fodder sent to kill and die, it's about supporting the ambitions of politians and filling the bank accounts of the Military Industrial Complex.

[sparky_in_ma]

76. Thanks seito

For your service and those good people like you.:thumbsup:

[seito]

78. Thanks sparky

:hug:

[understandinglife]

79. Support the troops = End the illegal war with Iraq. All else is Bu$hpuke.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3186499&mesg_id=3186499

Peace.


BU$HPUKE = ANY EFFORT TO JUSTIFY OUR ILLEGAL WAR WITH, AND OCCUPATION OF, IRAQ

[bleever]

85. DU supports the troops in the way that matters most:

respecting the depth of their sacrifices, and seeing their service as a national treasure that should not be spent without the most serious consideration.

Anything less is an abomination. And that's what we have now.

[seito]

88. Thanks bleever

This administration has betrayed the trust of our soldiers in every way possible. DUers support the troops with actions that speak so much louder than words, stickers or magnets.

We fight to end the back door draft, to help those that have chosen not to go to Iraq, to get the soldiers proper equipment and armor and to bring them home safe.

[DemGirl7]

89. I supoort the troops alot...

but I really look down on people who say if you want the troops to come home (which I do)you are not supporting them...I think those people are so brain-washed by this faux patriotic crap, that they don't see that our troops are dying for a war based upon faux information.

[seito]

95. That is the same mentality

used to paint anyone that disagrees with ** and his policies a traitor. ** has betrayed this nation and the military. It is our DUTY to oppose him.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

90. I "support the troops" only in the sense that I want as few as possible

killed. I do not support their mission or their commander-in-chief or anyone who sent them into harm's way. Not at all.

[seito]

93. I agree

The purpose of this thread was to highlight the sentiment expressed here at DU on Veterans Day. I think we all want the same thing, an end to this war, and the troops returned home safe.

[Califooyah Operative]

92. yes. Du does. and that thread makes me proud of the many DU vets! nt

[seito]

94. Thanks for understanding the message

I am very proud of the service of so many here at DU. It is ridiculous for the right to claim that we do not support the troops. We support them in ways that really matter.

[pauliedangerously]

96. This "support the troops" thing is ridiculous...

What does that really mean anyway? "I support the troops." Talk is cheap. I pay my taxes. I don't bitch about paying taxes. I don't consult with accountants to find ways to pay less taxes. Social Security and Medicare aside, I paid Uncle Sam six grand last year.

I don't think the troops give a rat's ass if I have a tacky yellow ribbon on my car, and I'm sure that thousands of them are more pissed off at the US government that I am.

I don't recall seeing any yellow ribbons when US troops were in the Balkans.

So what should DU do to show its support for the troops? Should we all be furnished with little yellow ribbon avatars?

Give me a fucking break already.

[seito]

97. This was just a reminder of the sentiment expressed here on Veterans Day

It was posted by request of another DUer. I am sorry that the term "Support the Troops" is offensive to you. Did you look at the attached thread in the original post?

So what should DU do to show its support for the troops? Should we all be furnished with little yellow ribbon avatars?

The question was rhetorical, and the answer was in the thread that is attached. DU does support the troops in ways that yellow magnet bearing, SUV driving, flag waving fundies never will.

Peace

[pauliedangerously]

116. I have no doubt of DU's support...

..and my frustration isn't directed at anyone or anything on this forum; it's directed at the idea in general.

I don't find the term "support the troops" offensive; I find it meaningless and vague, and I grow weary of people getting defensive when others criticize the military institution.

[independentchristian]

98. It is not about "the troops"

It is about the "policy" and the "ideology."

The "troops" are nothing but numbers to these cowards running the government. Nothing but an instrument to accomplish their goals.

They don't actually support "the troops."

They use "the troops" to further their fascist, imperialistic agenda.

[seito]

99. Perhaps I should have titled this thread differently

It was posted to highlight the sentiment expressed by members of DU toward Veterans.

I agree that ** does not give a shit about the soldier that he so easily sends to war. He has not attended one military funeral, and meets with the families when it suits his political agenda.

I also agree that the statement "Support the Troops" is overused, and meaningless to most people.

edit: sp

[seito]

100. Dupe

[solinvictus]

101. Support the troops by...

fighting like hell to have decent equipment, benefits, and a support system when they come home. At the same time, though, we need to give our civil leadership hell for placing them in harm's way on this fool's errand we have going in Iraq. Remember, they didn't make the policy to be there and, honestly, I do believe many of those indicted for prisoner abuse were told to do it.

[seito]

103. I agree 100%

Those soldiers were following orders, albeit illegal orders.

[Nightwing]

102. YOU BET I DO!

I just don't support the madman in charge.

[Psephos]

110. My sentiments exactly n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

104. Um, some DUers *are* the troops.

A lot of others were, and even more (like myself) are friends and families of current and former military folx. I'm studying to be a counselor because there's gonna be a lot of kids who left their minds in Iraq. I've met some on the street already...

[Psephos]

105. "We support the troops" - except for the amputees

This DU thread (on which I posted) does not make a good case for "we support the troops" being an expression of genuine feelings. It concerns the return of Iraq War amputee David Rozelle to active duty in Iraq.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1232373&mesg_id=1232373&page=

Some of the most disgusting comments were thankfully removed, but a lot of what remains is not cool.

There's so much to value in most DU threads, but not in that one.

Peace.

[Califooyah Operative]

108. We do support the troops.

I agree there's some disgusting and tasteless things said in that thread, but a handful of folks in one thread, even if you could come up with a hundred people who speak like that about our troops, it's the tinyest of a minority at DU and most anywhere else for that matter. It's hardly representative of DUers as a whole.

[Psephos]

109. I agree with you, Califooyah

Still, if we don't call it out on the tiny minority who post such trash, then the tiny minority will become larger.

[Califooyah Operative]

111. I agree. nt

[Skittles]

107. I'M IN THERE!

yes INDEED!

I've sent countless care packages to the troops in Iraq - rigging up an Easter package now!

THANK YOU for showcasing that thread - it was indeed amazing! :D

[seito]

112. Thank you Skittles

Thanks for your service, and thanks for everything that you do now. I know that you and other like you really make a difference :thumbsup:

[Fleshdancer]

114. Hell yes

Not only am I an Army brat who happens to have a sibling fighting overseas right now, but I also voted for the Vietnam Vet last election. :)

[dhinojosa]

118. Sorry, I don't even know what that phrase means.

There is no description as to what context are they referring to.

For example, what if you wrote a thesis paper on some rhetorical subject. Somewhere in that paper, you use the words: support the troops. You turn that paper in and your English professor/instructor doesn't give you a great grade. You look down to see all the corrections and mistakes and you find next to 'support the troops' the words in red ink 'Doing What?'

That's what I am talking about. I am not going to be made to feel guilty from some stupid phrase that doesn't make any sense. I am educated enough to not have to put up with something like that. So if I get asked 'Do you support the troops?', I better get a description of what the troops are doing so that I can tell them that I support this, that, or the other.


In closing, let me ask you something, do you support auto-mechanics?

[seito]

120. Me either

Did you read the link?

[dhinojosa]

122. yessir/mam

[seito]

123. I do support auto mechanics

I sure could not get along without them :thumbsup:

[UdoKier]

119. Unlike republicans, we support veterans.

In other words, we believe in fulfilling our obligation to provide them health care, counseling, help in finding civilian employment.

And unlike republicans, a lot of us do NOT support what they our troops are being forced to do in Iraq, and roundly condemn those who violate Geneva convention rules.

So you tell me, do we support the troops?

I suppose that we do, but I hesitate to use such worn-out jingoistic catch-phrases.

[seito]

121. I would say yes, and I agree that the phrase is overused

I wish I had titled the thread differently, because it has become more of a debate over the phrase, and many have missed the point. I wanted to highlight a thread that I found to be very powerful, and expressed the respect that many DUers had for veterans.

[RedCloud]

124. DU, aka depleted uranium, does not support troops.

It kills them!

[seito]

125. I am all too familiar with that n/t