The not blaming the troops thing

[Ignoramus]

I, of course, do not condemn people who are troops. But, I think there is confusion between "the troops" vs. "the invasion and occupation".

When I hear the phrase "support the troops" uttered by someone who doesn't mean support the invasion and occupation, I usually just ignore what I think the words mean in the abstract.

The phrase "support the troops" has bothered me since the first time I heard it. I think it is another marketing phrase, like "pro-life". They are both black mail.

If you say you are not pro-life, you are saying you oppose life.

"Support the troops" seems to mean, support what the troops are being ordered to do. If you say you don't support the troops, it doesn't mean the opposite, it means that you hate the troops (people's children).

Would it be okay to say support the foreign insurgents in Iraq? No, because people would take that to mean that you support suicide bombings. I bet that there are insurgents who think they are doing something noble. There are probably grieving families who have a feeling of pride for their terrorist son.

The point is, people are good. It's actions that can be bad. I "support" gang members who do drive-bys, in the same sense that I support the troops. Just thinking you are doing something honorable, doesn't make it so. So, there is no distinction between an American troop, and foreign insurgent (i.e. non-american, non-iraqi) in Iraq and a gang member in my mind, accept in terms of the separate issue of their actions, and political issues.

Beyond that, even though I let it pass when people say they "support the troops", but they oppose the invasion. I keep reading and hearing things that make me think they actually are buying it anyway, to some extent.

People thank troops for being honorable. It isn't honorable to be the human force behind the invasion and occupation. It's brave. Doing a drive-bye is brave. Being a sniper is brave.

If a soldier joins because he thinks he is fighting for "his country", that intention is honorable. Is it honorable if someone does a drive-bye for his gang because he thinks he's protecting his hommies? Ultimately, no. Neither is honorable.

I think people have a casual notion about killing in military actions. If you are not engaged in defending against an attack, or some other of a list of exceptions, if you kill someone, it is an atrocity. It's not an excuse that you are in the military, except as far as it would be an excuse that you were in a gang at the time.

Like, the entry on truthout about the soldier who opposes the war, but he's going because he has to. He's going to probably commit acts of violence and possibly killing. I don't condemn him personally, but somehow it's a somewhat casual issue in the minds of some people.

It's the same as someone saying, "I don't really want to go down town in Manhattan and start shooting people, but I really have to or else I'll be put in jail".

Being in the military in an illegal war and occupation, or being in a gang, or being in an "insurgent group", doesn't excuse you from your actions.

So, I don't support the occupation, and I don't support the actions of the troops. I do "support" people who are troops, as much as I support people who are gang members, or town snipers.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. You brought an asbestos suit, I hope

[Mikimouse]

9. Why? The statement is open and honest...

and if one reviews the number of times that hearings have resulted in complete exonertion of the troops involved (in both the Afghan theatre and Iraq), when the evidence (sometimes on video) indicated that a crime had been committed, then it is not unusual for people to become distrustful. I am not the least bit surprised at this, and wouldn't flame the OP.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Yeah, the RWers mean "Support the WAR" when they say

"support the troops"

[bryant69]

7. That part I agree with

But the part where he equivocates soldiers with gang members is not as easy to buy into.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Ignoramus]

11. I was hoping for elaboration on that part

The part you disagree with.

[Vickers]

3. I *was* a troop, and I'll say whatever the fuck I want whenever I want to.

Got a problem with that, buddy? :)

[merh]

4. Support the warrior, NOT THE WAR.

:patriot: :hug:

[Just Me]

5. IOW you strongly oppose the BushCo/neoCON regime.

After all, that regime is FULLY responsible for the occupation and all policies involving that occupation,...including illegal invasion/war, illegal torture, illegal defrauding of the American people and the world, illegal profiteering/fraud, etc. etc.

[Solly Mack]

6. I'm happy you got that off your chest

[NeoConsSuck]

8. I'll put on my asbestos suit also..

To me, "Support the Troops" is just a neocon cover for "Support Our War".

Go to a "Support the Troops" event, and tell them you support the troops, but you don't support the troops acting as the NeoCon's private army, killing innocent people for their natural resources. See how many friends you make at that event. I don't think you'll make too many.

"Support the Troops by Bringing Them Home" is my motto.

[Just Me]

12. In my view, it's just another form of exploitation by these people.

And, it's not about supporting "their war",...it's about blind loyalty to the corrupt corporacratic regime that is also exploiting our troops in addition to our blood and treasure.

[Qanisqineq]

10. .

not again

:crazy:

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Qanisqineq]

14. ROFLMAO

:rofl:

[Ignoramus]

15. An assertion, isn't an argument

[BeatleBoot]

17. You're right - it isn't an argument

I think you're doing a good job letting people know what you think.

Let them draw whatever conclusions they want.

Carry on...


:popcorn:

[Ignoramus]

16. Sigh. No arguments as usual. Just insults.

I might as well be posting on some right wing site.

[natrat]

18. at this point :fuck all of it

boys playing soldier murdering people,boys playing general lying to the world

[neweurope]

19. I*'m German and I have never understood this "I don't support this war

but I support the troops" thing. For decades your army has been fighting wars against the poor of this earth. None of these wars were noble.
I understand that you feel for your soldiers who are in Iraq without good armour. I understand those of you who buy telephone cards for them. After all it's your sons and daughters over there, your nephews and nieces.
But in my mind every telephone card you buy for your soldiers supports this war.
Your army is a voluntary one. I think it is impossible to support a soldier and not support the war he's fighting OR the administration that sends him into it.

-----------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Retired AF Dem]

20. Our Army has helped your economy

Since you didn't have to pay for a large military you were able to have the great social programs that you have today. Don't get me wrong, I love Germany, spent 15 years of my career there and stayed five more after I retired from the military, wish I was still there.

[neweurope]

21. I'm too tired to argue your point - in my mind a military that large was

not even necessary - but what you are saying does not seem to relate to my post in my opinion. Peace.

------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Retired AF Dem]

22. I do agree with you

You can't support the troops but not support the war. If you don't support the war than you can't support the troops. Complicated world we live in.

Also remember our Army doesnt fight anywhere unless it is sent by the Govt. So don't blame our army for where or what it has fought for.

[neweurope]

23. Interesting times, indeed. And they'll be more interesting still.

----------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[manic expression]

27. However...

they are still responsible for their actions, even if some jerk with a star on his chest tells them to do something. Also, there is no excuse for firing on crowds of civilians, abusing/torturing detainees, getting kids to crowd around you for protection, etc.... Look at Nuremberg Trials, "following orders" is no excuse.

[NeoConsSuck]

25. You brought up an excellent point..

I was reading an article a while back, the premise was the rest of the free world (Japan, Europe etc) were more than willing to let America play the part of the world's policeman, while they put their tax proceeds to better education, social programs and infrastructure.

It is my thought that Bush, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Pearle and the rest of the neocons are anti-American traitors. Their allegiance is to multi-national corporations whose allegiance is to no country.

The Iraq war was not about desposing a brutal dictator. It was about liberating the oil fields for the free market system. And whether that oil is pumped to America, China, India or the planet Pluto is irrelevant. As long as the free market system profits, and not governments or their citizens is all that matters.

And that is what is freaking out the freeptards. They thought that somehow the oil would now be provided to them at a greatly reduced price. American oil companies showing thanks to Americans. LOL!!

[Just Me]

24. It's not too complex. The CIC establishes policy, foreign and domestic.

The troops are, for all intent and purpose, OWNED by the executive with no rights. They SHOULD be able to trust that they will be utilized to serve in honorable and noble causes.

Over the last several decades, the troops have been consistently brainwashed into believing they are serving a noble mission, never being informed of the true motivating policy. In other words, they are exploited, along with humanity.

If anyone seeks to establish justice and properly place responsibility in such matters, it must be upon the CIC and his regime along with the large multi-national corporations closely interwoven with our government.

[manic expression]

26. I definitely agree

soldiers are responsible for THEIR actions. We should not excuse horrible doings because they wear the American flag on their shoulder. They make the choices to shoot into crowds, or put kids in dangerous situations, or abuse a detainee. If someone is part of a wrong occupation, I will NEVER support them in that mission and role, regardless of what country they are from or what rationalization they use; I do, however, both give them the respect and consideration I would give anyone.

You hit the nail on the head better than I could have.

[Moderator]

28. Locked.

As stated, the original post seems inflammatory, in that it equates troops stationed in Iraq with gang members.