Do you think it is possible to support the military but not support the reason they are in Iraq? Do we as Americans have a duty to support our military???

Certainly, it's possible. As a former military man myself, I can tell you it's quite easy to support funds for decent pay housing, and benefits, making sure they have the most effective, up to date equipment, etc. It's also easy to thank those in uniform now for whatever role they have in preserving our security.

Does that mean I have to unequivocally support the policies of whatever administration in power chooses to use them for? Absolutely not.

In my mind, there is a big difference between those that give the orders, and those who carry them out. It is not difficult to separate the two, and to be able to support the soldiers, while criticizing the administration.

I concur with Niteguy. The men and women who join the service play a vital role in preserving our country, and they deserve respect. They don't decide when and where we go to war, and any criticism should be placed upon those who do.

Without question it’s possible to support the troops without supporting the government who put them in a conflict, I do. That’s why I’ve always felt military service is one of the noblest professions: they put their lives on the line even though they may not agree with the policy that put them there.

Is it our duty as citizens to support the military? The irony here is as individuals we don’t have to support them or their actions even though their actions give us the freedom to not support them. I think the key to your question is ‘duty’, yes it’s our duty, but we obviously have the right not to exercise that duty (good luck with that one).

I think as a country we’ve matured to this understanding. I’ve seen no accounts of soldiers being spit on or harassed when they returned home from either of the Gulf wars, unlike the returning vets of Vietnam.

Thankfully it’s quite the opposite. I was lucky enough to be present in an airport terminal when they announced if anyone would like to get the usual perks for giving up their seats for two returning solders. There was a mad dash for the counter and the applause that followed brought a tear to my eye and swelled my heart with pride.

Yes.

The men and women in Iraq deserve our support even if some don't support the war. They run on morale. If they know that the American public supports their efforts, they will have high morale to get them through the rough days they have.

Yes, we do. I think we owe our respect to the men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line to keep us safe. Even if we do not support the orders which put them into a conflict (and in some cases they don't), we must make every effort to support the troops but not the policy-makers. They need our support because it helps make life abroad easier and because they deserve it.

As a former Navy man (and soon to be National Guardsman, pending my physical, &c), I say yes.

I "came up" during the Reagan era when there was still a lot of post-Vietnam animosity towards the military, and morale was somewhat low. Towards the end of the 80s, the military as a whole was more respected, though reservists were still red-headed stepchildren of sorts. After the 1st Gulf War, that all changed. Throughout the 90s, we had a strong military but a rather flimsy foreign policy and no clue as to how to best employ it. Our last two presidents (Clinton & GW Bush) did not serve (Bush, as we all know, shirked his duties while Clinton doid not serve at all).

I think the question goes well beyond simply respecting the military. Does society respect any sort of authority? Does society respect civic duty and obligation to serve their country?

Or have we become so lost in the feeding frenzy for personal pleasure, personal profit, instant gratification, and obsession with celebrity that we have forgotten the very meaning of civic duty and sacrifice?

Most people I know respect (or at least pay lip service to) the military. Few of them know much history, or anything about the causes and effects of war in general. It is too easy to let Fox News do one's thinking for them these days...and the media generally portrays the military in a more or less positive light (or as it suits their ratings, I imagine)...

It has ALWAYS been possible to respect the military without necessarily supporting the war (the Civil War got to that point, and so too I imagine did the Revolutionary War). It is MORE important, however, that today's Americans learn a little more about American and world history, civic duty, the structure of our republic, and our foreign policy. I am convinced that so armed, the average American citizen will not only have more respect for the job the military has to do but will be better able to get involved in the electoral process which, in the end, yields those who make our foreign policy...

Sorry for rambling! :-)

Carry on...

Of course we can respect the soldiers but not always what they are used for.
What they do for us deserves at the least our love and support. They also deserve for us to stand strong in how they are used and we should never allow them to be as misused as they were in Vietnam.
Probably one of the saddest things today is how there is a false sentiment being voiced by certain members of the media and politicians that to not support Bush is to hate the US Soldier.
Personally I beleive that our soldiers should be paid much better and have better living conditions. I have seen some of the housing PROJECTS they live in here in the states and it is not forgivable.

Hmm- I too, "came up" doing the Reagan years, and was 17 when I joined. Had no idea about any kind of politics whatsoever. Voted the republican ticket, cause my family did. Had no clue. Wanted leave, booze, money, women and cars, in that order. Did what I was told. Period. Quickly.

Was in Central America helping the US do some very bad things in those countries. Had no idea. I think today, soldiers are probably a little more informed and care a little more, just because there is SOO much more likelihood of combat, whereas in my time, it was pretty rare, unless you were supporting some of the elite-spook/combat units.

So, in my rambling, the soldiers duty is not to question why, but to do or die, it is up to the civilians back home to make sure that our soldiers lives are not being wasted for idiotic reasons, as in Iraq or Vietnam, but to support the troops by holding our goverment accountable, as it should be in a republic!

What does that mean, "Support the military"? We all have great respect for our military people's sacrifice. But lately it seems a lot of people are telling us that's not enough. All anyone can think of is cheer louder, or put up more of those "support the troops" signs (as though anyone doesn't), or wave the flag some more. Does that put food on anyone's table?

If we really supported our troops, we would allow our reservists to get back to a 6-month rotation, so they can be sure of having jobs and a marriage when they get back. Bush needs to put away his arrogance, get out there and make some deals with countries that can help us by sending troops, especially Muslim and Arabic-speakers. If all he does is sit in the White House and sulk, our troops aren't going to see that as support.

Wow my Dad is in a unit in central Illinois. I live in central Illinois. Like seeing fellow central Illinois folk.


Suporting troops is the duty of all Americans given yes basically any circumstance. I dont think anyone wants another nam where the public harasses and demonizes the troops. The people at home give the soldier something to come home to.

Do you think it is possible to support the military but not support the reason they are in Iraq? Do we as Americans have a duty to support our military???

Yes to both questions. Although, I support the reasons for going into Iraq and respect those who oppose going into Iraq (while not always agreeing with their reasoning behind their opposition), I believe our troops deserve our respect, moral support, and most humble gratitude for serving their country and in the process (as in all wars) willing to make the ultimate sacrifice.

My husband is a retired Air Force Lt. Col. and our hometown is the location of Davis Monthan Air Force Base where we participate in various activities for not only the DMAF men and women, but all men and women serving their country.

I certainly think that the public can and should support the military regardless of the reason they are deployed into combat. They are our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters. They do not formulate, advise or consent on matters of foreign policy and international relations. (of course I'm speaking of the workers bees here, not Rumsfeld and company)
I just wish that concern for healthcare, housing and pay were not simply problems to be dealt with (or at least debated) during election cycles. Service men and women are in that capacity 24/7, while many civilians, pundits and politicians conveniently forget about us until national elections draw near. Both major parties are responsible for this.
It is also my desire (though probably never realized) that military members not be misrepresented, glorified, deified, or maligned by virtue of media ignorance. We here on AD have gone back and forth on subjects such as Jessica Lynch and the military aspects of the War on Terror. And while it makes for good informed debate, I lay much blame on the media for not only their laziness in pursuing the truth, but also altering or misrepresenting soldiers for a better, sexier story.

As a prior Army active duty soldier, I would say Yes to both questions. I did not support the Clinton policies in Haiti and Somalia, for example.

I have a problem that hopefully some of you can enlighten me on. Many Bush bashers and anti-Iraq war proponents state that "They support" our troops but not the commander in chief and not his policies. Fair enough, that is what makes this country the greatest country in the world. But what does "support our troops" mean? What are You personally doing to support our troops. Unfortunately, those words ring very hollow to many current and prior service members. From the current Democratic candidates to many on the left and major media I do not see how they support our troops. And please, do not say Time magazine awarding our soldiers The Person of the year award is an example. The award was originally designated for Mr. Rumsfield, he respectively declined, stating that the American volunteer deserves the honor. That is an example of supporting our troops.

God Bless America and God Bless our Soldiers!

As others have said, yep it's very possible. I supported my own countries troops in the recent war in Iraq, but at no point have I supported them being there.

I have had my fair share of anti-liberal abuse mind, most notably at one Scottish Socialist protest in Dundee where more conservative minded people decided to point out that we were a "####### disgrace to the country" and that we "should be dying instead of our boys".

I find from my own experience, therefore, that the notion that you cannot be patriotic and support your nations military at the same time as protesting against your governments actions is one that is thrown about by overly patriotic non-thinkers. In my view, that protestors should be abused for expressing the very freedom our leaders keep harping on about (the freedom which apparently makes us better than everyone else and always in the right) simply because we 'aren't with the programme' is the real disgrace.


DO NOT ATTEMPT TO BYPASS THE PROFANITY FILTER - JAIME

edit: sorry, Jaime

The question you pose is a good one, ProudAmerican, but the rah-rah rhetoric you surround it with already betrays your feelings on what the answer is going to be. Your post makes me think that you see deploying the military into a hostile situation at the behest of a President guided by bad intelligence as somehow being "supportive".

Try this for supportive: those that oppose invading Iraq want our sons, our daughters, our fathers, our mothers, our sisters and our brothers back home where they're not being shot at by a hostile nationalistic population. We want our troops to come home alive. We will work hard to raise enough stink over this President's misguided deployment of troops based on horribly collected and interpreted intelligence (for more on that, see other threads in the "War on Terrorism" section). Bringing them home alive is the best present we could give them and the best way to support them.

Oh, yeah, telling our Congress-critters to properly fund them and their benefits would be another great way.

But supporting their deployment? No way. That's pushing them out front to get shot at and saying from the rear "We support you!" which is a crock of ... um... profanity.

Amf, just as you and I would agree that there are those who either use the troops for their advantage, or ignore their plight entirely to prop up their support of the adminstration, would you also agree that there may be at least a minority of administration opponents who use the fact of men and women dying in Iraq to support their cause?
When we lost 18 men in Mogadishu, the troops were pulled out a mere couple of weeks later. The case could be made that those men died for absolutely nothing. Yet there was no concern raised, that I saw or heard, from many of the same groups or people that are speaking out now.

AMF: Obviously we disagree philosophically and politically so I will not try to change your point of view and leave it at we agree to dis-agree. BUT, you did not answer my question. If you "support our troops" what are YOU personally doing to show that support?
Me personally, I am running a marathon and raising thousands of dollars for The Freedom Alliance. This money will be used for educational scholarships for children who have lost a mom or dad in the war. I also send emails, magazines and books to the soldiers. This is what I meant by support. It is awfully easy to be a critic, AMF.

Remember empty barrels make the most noise!

Umm... so being an opponent of the Administration and vocally pointing out that they are needlessly getting our troops killed is a bad thing? Putting pressure on the Administration to figure out a diplomatic solution that's smarter than "Bring 'em On!" is a bad thing? It's better to support getting the troops shot at? Or am I not understanding the question?



Thought I made that clear, ProudAmerican: I'm one of the vocal folks who are supporting candidates -- both monentarily and with my actions -- who weren't so gung-ho to get us into the Iraq mess based on faulty intelligence. If that brings them home one day sooner, that's... what?... one or two soldiers I help save from dying and several more I help save from being hurt. But I also like your way and commend you for it.

Wish I knew of something like the 9/11 fund that would fund proper body armor and other niceties for the troops; I'd give to that as well.

I don't think you are understanding the question. What I am saying is that just as there are people who don't care about soldiers dying because they simply want to rah-rah the administration.........there are some I believe, that don't care about soldiers dying, they simply use it for ammunition to pooh-pooh the adminstration.
I think it's sad either way. The military shouldn't be used as pawns by either side of the aisle, but I think it happens.

Of course. It is the duty of civilians to ensure that the reason for sending our troops in harm's way is sound. Our soldiers don't have the discretion to do that themselves (as others have mentioned). Discouraging the frivolous and/or counterproductive use of our forces is the ultimate support for our troops, IMO.

Edited to add:I do agree with DTOM that our troops should not be used as pawns simply to disparage the administration, though. I see a lot of that going on.

It's also awfully easy to point a finger and accuse someone of being "unpatriotic" because they are protesting a war or vocally against a war.

The phrase "We support the troops" being used by lefties was adopted to clarify that just because you are anti-war and perhaps anti-Bush, it doesn't mean in any way you are "against the troops" as many conservatives had proposed immediately after the anti-Iraqi-War-Part-2 movement began.

For instance if I say:

"I hate this war, I think it's worthless and stupid for these 20 reasons."

The first thing that generally would come out of a flag-waver's mouth would be, "How can you be against the war, with our troops putting their lives on the line for freedom."

I believe the phrase being criticized in this thread became a quick defensive tool to respond to this accusation. The point being:

If you are in favor of the war, you are no more "for" the troops then people who are against the war, because we both care about the troops, it's just that our support has manifested in two different ways.


Pro War people believe that saying anything against the war or W demoralizes the troops and proves anti-war mongers are "anti-troop."

Anti-war people believe that the best thing for the troops would be to get them home as soon as possible because less of them will die in what they percieve as a pointless and unneccessary war.

And because I'm curious, could you provide a link for the Freedom Alliance Proud American (if they have one), I am always interested in supporting a pro-troop organization.

Since ProudAmerican isn't in here at the moment, here's the link.


Freedom Alliance

smorpheus: Here is the link and I am sure the soldiers will appreciate your support.

http://www.freedomalliance.org/

Now to your comments, I DID NOT call anyone unpatriotic. You have every right to disagree with any policy decisions an administration may make. I disagreed with many of the Clinton administration. I served to help protect your right to disagree and that is what makes this country wonderful. Just think, the people of Irag can now do this for the first time in 30 years! What a wonderful gift, FREEDOM!

You did not, however, give any examples of HOW you personally are supporting the troops. Giving lip service to "support" seems like a cop-out. Many people who disagree with the Bush policy of preemption and the Iraq war state that they "support" the troops. HOW!!!!!! It seems to me that many of these people are just spewing the party line because they do not want to be seen as un-patriotic and part of the blame america first crowd.

I was simply trying to point out exactly why It was being used by liberals constantly. I agree it's annoying and has gotten to the point where it doesn't really mean anything. But I also think conservatives have been abusing it just as much and for a longer period of time.

What I'm trying to point out:

How is anyone in support of Bush/War any more supportive of the troops than someone who is not in support of Bush/War by default?

Conservatives have been saying the "Support Our Troops" line for a very long time, it was directly tied with the yellow ribbon campaign. And to be honest, when I was younger and much more conservative I would spew it out constantly when it had absolutely no real meaning.

Both sides are equally guilty of abusing this catch-phrase, and I don't see how it applies any more to one side than another.

As to your question, I have donated to:
http://www.opgratitude.com/

Which to me appears to be an organization solely dedicated to helping our troops. I do not however use "I support our troops" in regular arguments with people about the war. I may have to pull it out if someone is harping on being anti-american or anti-troop because I am anti-war, but I would only use it as a defense, never as part of my argument.

And PLEASE dont' take this personally, but I would not donate to Freedom Alliance, because they have taken just about every oppurtunity on their site to attempt to ridicule the anti-war position. If you look at "Operation Gratitude" they are not alienating anyone, and I feel more comfortable being fiancially involved with them.

*Edit* corrected my mispelling of the Freedom Alliance

This all brings to mind a poem by Bro. Rudyard Kipling, entitled "Tommy*"

(* "Tommy" is short for "Thomas Adkins", the generic name for the average british Soldier, somewhat akin to the American "G. I. Joe". "Tommy" is also a carryover from the rather derisive 18th century "Thomas Lobster", used by civilians to describe the redcoats)

While this poem describes the plight of the late 19th century British private soldier, it can easily apply to a soldier/sailor/airman/marine of today:

****
Tommy
by Rudyard Kipling
I went into a public house to get a pint of cheer.
The owner up and says, "We serve no Red Coats here".
The girls behind the bar, they laughed and giggled fit to die.
I'm out into the street again and to myself says I;
O it's Tommy this, and Tommy that, an Tommy go away.
But it's "Thank you mister Adkins", when the band begins to play.
The band begins to play my boys, the band begins to play.
O it's "Thank you mister Adkins, when the band begins to play.

Yes, making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep.
Is cheaper than them uniforms, and they are starving cheap.
An hustlin drunken soldiers when they're going large a bit.
Is five times better than parading in full kit.

Then it's Tommy this, and Tommy that, and "Tommy, own your soul"?
But it's "thin red line of heroes, when the drums begin to roll.
The drums begin to roll, by boys, the drums begin to roll.
O it's "thin red line of heroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red heroes, nor we aren't no back guards too.
But single men in barracks, most remarkably like you.
And if sometimes our conduct ain't all you fancy paints.
Why, single men in barracks don's grow into plaster saints.

While it's Tommy this, and Tommy that, and Tommy fall be'end.
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir, when there's trouble in the wind.
There's trouble in the wind, by boys, there's trouble in the wind.
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk better food for us, and schools, and fires, and all.
We'll wait for extra rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook room slops, but prove it to our face.
The widow's uniform is not the soldier's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, and Tommy that, and "chunk him out, the bruit".
But it's "Savior of this country" when the guns begin to shoot.
And it's Tommy this and Tommy that, and anytime you please.
And Tommy ain't a blooming fool - you bet that Tommy sees.

****

Perhaps "supporting our troops" simply means not neglecting/forgetting about them in peacetime, as we Americans have often done in the past.

During the Vietnam era, our troops were often shouted at, spat upon, &c &c because a certain (and increasingly more vocal) element of the population mistakenly saw them as an instrument of oppression rather than Americans doing their duty.

Obviously we don't make that mistake today, but there are problems here, and the mass media (and our obsession with it) is largely to blame.

Instead of community involvement (which is where politics and statesmanship begin), we are glued to the television and/or the internet (BTW THIS forum is VERY useful, so I don't consider this a waste of time at all, but I think you catch my general drift).

Our news media can best be described as "Info-tainment", and people who "get their facts" from such programming are missing much valuable information. Our obsession with celebrity rather than issues and everyday life has ensured that we will pick our presidential candidates based on media spin and not much else. The media seems to have created a "wall" between our leaders and ourselves, but those of us involved in political activity know better.

I mentioned before that we Americans tend to pay very little attention to world and national history, and the mass media is of little help there as well. History is pretty dry stuff, but in order to really understand ourselves and our would-be adversaries, it is important to know a little about them. Watching too much TV won't make us more informed Americans.

We take a LOT for granted these days, and we can be instantly gratified in just about any aspect of our lives. We expect it.

This perhaps applies to the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

On the one hand, this war, right or wrong, will take time to make manifest any good it may have done. People these days are not that patient. The 2004 election is coming up, and politicians are caught up in this instant gratification mess as well.

Our consumerist society needs to INHALE and see the bigger picture. When and if they do, they will JOIN political clubs, RUN for office themselves, and VOTE in droves. Our troops are BEST SUPPORTED by an American public that cares about their own civic duties.

The mass media is more pernicious that we'd be willing to admit. It's all about theatrics.

When they "support" the troops, it's either through sensationalism (ie raising Jessica Lynch to the status of Alvin York), gaudiness (the various "Super Bowl Half-Time X-Trav-O-Ganzas" featuring all sorts of superficial blandishments), or through the empty happy-talk of the various models cum talk show hosts.

When they show protesters, they tend to concentrate on the fringe elements, the would-be anarchists, &c and not on the congressional debates. when they "protest" the war, they do so using celebrities and not everyday community leaders. In short, the media will be happy to "cash in". I wonder if the media was as hep to this 40 or 50 years ago...

Anyway, my point is that SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS means accepting them as a part of who WE are as citizens.Whether they are guardians of democracy or instruments of oppression and corporate greed is entirely up to how we see ourselves and how much we truly care about our system of government...and that is all a factor of how much we are willing to learn about our government, our history, and that of the rest of the world...

Carry on...

Lt. Jim: Well stated! That is why I enjoy participating in groups like this, I am reminded everyday of how fortunate I and my family are for living in the greatest country in the world!

Well, I was e-mailing a couple of my family members that are currently in (for those of you that don't know, every male member of my family back to the revolutionary war has served, and now, every single member of my generation's kids in my family is currently in the military if they are old enough, and four of my generation are in the military now, one just completed F-15 school in Florida) and asked what "support" meant to them, and typically smart alecs that my entire family is, said "um, write your congressman and get us out?" LOL- One is REALLY REALLY tired of Iraq, having been there 8 months now, due for rotation out, but not being rotated due to staffing problems over there.

In my opinion, it's extremely important to always support the military (regardless of if you support the reason for them being there). The men and women in the armed services don't have any control over who to attack or where to go. They are simply doing their job and following orders. I think the biggest travesty of the Vietnam War was not the soldiers who died but the soldiers who came back the US to greet jeers and spitting crowds.

ProudAmerican, sorry I didn't see your post when I contributed earlier. Basically I said that I was against the Iraq war, but that I did support our (not just British, but also Australian and American) troops.

So what do I mean by support? I hadn't actually thought about physical support, as you have mentioned, so thank you for bringing that to my attention.

When I mean support, I mean of course that I wish them no harm, as many have pointed out. It has certainly been thrown at me that because I am anti war that I want our troops to fail and get slaughtered, believe it or not. Some people really are just that narrow minded.

When I say I support our troops, I simply mean I want them to be safe, and regardless of my opinion on the war, I want them to succeed. Yes I was against the war, as was 70% of my nation. But it happened anyway. For me, that then meant I wanted our allied soldiers to do well in what our government sent them off to do. This is support, in my opinion. I can't see how anything else can really be expected of me. When 70% of a country says it doesnt want war, and its leader says 'tough we're doing it anyway', is every adult citizen therefore expected to contribute in a physical way, through raising funds or waving flags or even joining the military itself, or be branded unsupportive of our army? Can support not be an intrinsic matter, can I not support our military with a simple mental 'good luck'? Afterall, it appears to me that many think 'not supporting' means wanting them to die. I never want that to happen. It is my government I'm against, it's them who sent these people who vowed to serve our nation off to fight and possibly die.

So no, I do not spend any of my free time assisting our military. That would be a tad too far really, when I think what was done was in the interests of the fat cats and the fat cats alone. But I commend you, ProudAmerican, for taking action in something you believe in. However, I would advise that you do not use your position to challenge others comments on whether they support the military or not. Support can be interpreted in many different ways. Does John Doe support the fight against AIDS? How can he, when there are people out there in Africa volunteering as nurses and he is not? Honestly, that's how it sounds to me.

In my last post, I attempted to define what I feel constitutes "supporting our troops". if you'll indulge me, I'd like to address the other half of the topic, "...no matter what.."

Robin Scotland's point about "people supporting the Aids fight" is very interesting, and I would like to address it/elaborate on it/perhaps extrapolate something from it...

The question was posed as to whether or not "John Doe" could say he supported the fight against AIDS if he sat at home while others were volunteering in Africa?

. Perhaps John Doe can't (or won't) volunteer in Africa, but he can do one of several other things...

A) Contribute money or time in some other manner (ie through church)
Help educate those nearest him about the dangers of AIDS (assuming we all agree avoidance is half the battle won)
C) Volunteer locally
D) Not contribute to the spread of aids

...and no doubt other things as well. It would seem that John Doe, while not necessarily a front-line volunteer, can in fact support the fight against AIDS, perhaps even to the best of his ability.

BUT...

What if John Doe is against what he feels are the "root causes" of AIDS? That is to say, "deviant behavior", "intravenous drug use", &c &c. What if John Doe feels that AIDS needs to be stopped but for more selfish reasons (ie so HE doesn't somehow catch it)? If he still contributes money towards the fight against AIDS, does his support count as much as anyone else's whose opinions differ from John Doe's?

How would one categorize that sort of support?

What if John Doe can contribute millions to AIDS research but is vocally anti-gay?

There are MANY gray areas here.

Consensus seems to agree that one can "support our troops" while being against the war, and only the definition of "support" needed clarification. We seem to agree that supporting the troops means, more or less, a combination of cheering them on, praying for them, morally or physically supporting them in some way (ie care packages or letters), seeing to their welfare (ie bidding Congress to increase their benefits, &c), making the transition from civilian to soldier and back as easy as we can for them (ie employers keeping the departing reservist's job open), and in other ways. Other questions, however, seem to ask whether or not doing so WITHOUT supporting the "cause" is patriotic.

What exactly does that mean?

Let me pose a scenario. A colleague who himself served in the military (with combat experience) said this to me the other day upon hearing that a draft dodger returning from self-imposed exile in Canada was being hailed as a hero (I don't recall the specifics, but even as a hypothetical, the example above should suffice for the sake of argument): He felt that ANYONE who fled to Canada was a coward, while a TRUE hero (patriot) would have remained in the US and "gone to jail" or otherwise do what other consciencious objectors do, thus standing up for their convictions. His conclusion was that one can be a draft dodger AND a patriot but ONLY by either bravely facing the consequences here at home or by doing something else other than fighting.

Can this be said of those who protested the war yet maintain they support our troops?

I would say in many (perhaps most) cases, yes.

The media, however, interfered once again and presented rather sensationalist views. They appealed to our basest emotions, no matter WHICH side we took on the war. "Celebrities" who spoke out against the war were instantly compared to Jane Fonda by the so-called "flag wavers", who in turn were portrayed as near-fascists. The media tended to concentrate on large, staged events with, one might presume, the intention of shocking the average middle American viewer (and keeping him/her glued to the TV long enough to watch the commercials)...!

My take on it all is WHAT SAYETH THE ACTUAL PUBLICK???

Well, polls were taken, &c &c. 70% or so were against the war, or so I've heard, read, &c. If that is a majority, then what, if anything, went wrong? Aren't majorities supposed to carry a democracy? Can our president really dictate when and with whom we go to war, and can he dictate what does and doesn't constitute patriotism?

Yet again, the media (particularly the number of newspaper editorials I read online) capitalized on sensationalism and creating mild panic by suggesting in more than one editorial I've read that our government perhaps no longer cares about the wishes of its people, or that our system of government is headed for some sort of corporate totalitarianism! Other editorials called for a more level-headed approach, but for some reason even I tended to be tempted to read the "gloom & doom" editorials first! The best (and most infrequent) editorials, however, were written not by journalists but by average people. I found more emotion in those, and it was those few editorials which caused me to think about where "the other side" was coming from, and to better understand them...

George W. Bush is, at best, a controversial president right now. So was Lincoln, during the Civil War/War between the States. History will judge him, but he remains an easy target, along with the "fat cats" of corporate America. The media will continue to stir sensationalism, and we'll continue to believe it as long as the "info-tainment" doled out by the mass media remains a substitute for our having to sit up and think...or get up and do!

To me, patriotism is NOT so much a function of agreeing or disagreeing on the actions of a particular administration, but a function of how much faith one has in our system of government, and the example we each set for our fellow citizens. As such, one theoretically CAN support the fight against AIDS while being totally anti-gay (presuming, of course, such sentiments do not manifest themselves in the form of physical violence or other wanton actions against gays), and in the same way, one can be a patriot while protesting the war. As long as one sets a good example (one, for example, may be anti-gay in conscience yet treat all...gay and straight...as fellow human beings), one's credibility (and by extension, one's opinions) will (or should) be taken more seriously.

What to me constitutes bad form, however, is when an American bad-mouths "America" as an entity, or otherwise acts as if our government or system of government is evil. it can also be construed as bad form (or setting a less-than-stellar example) to engage in destructive behavior or allow emotion to cloud reason when protesting. Engaging in theatrics, as many of the fringe element protesters did, seemed as much a ploy to attract attention as to actually achieve anything. I've always seen such wanton "rebellion" as a vicarious "rebellion" against mommy and daddy. Such protesters detest most if not all authority, and if the war had been called off that instant, they would have found some other cause with which to empower themselves. Mind you, I said "bad form". One can say or think whatever one likes, but it may or may not succeed in getting that person's point across.

I suppose in a way, however, those who bad mouth America as an entity MAY have a point. I DID say in a previous post that our military (and by extension our nation) is a reflection of each and every one of us, and if we are in fact collectively wanting in some sort of way we do need to address that. By the same token, however, the question remains...is the protester setting a better example for the rest of us to follow?

There, then, is my answer to the second half of the topic in question. I hope my attempt to answer it was satisfactory and within due bounds...

I apologize if I digressed too far from the topic, but hopefully my post made sense...

Carry on..!

I can tell you how I support them .. I volunteer all my time running
www.operationmilitarypride.org

it is my way of telling the military I support you!!!
We all should send a card a letter and let them know they are NOT alone over there!! They need to know we stand behind them 100%

On the literal sense, every taxpayer supports our troops. Of course, no honest taxpayer has a choice in this matter.

On the political sense, exercising our rights in a free society supports our troops' missions each and every day. That is, assuming the missions support our free society.

Everything else is emotion. I do not support the misuse of our troops; however, when misused, I passionately support the rights and due privileges of our troops.

Better health care. Better family support. Better pay. Better retirement and education bennies. Better equipment. Better leadership. Better vet bennies. Better everything for our troops.

I support these support realities when troops are used properly, too. Just thought I'd bring that up.

I do not support President Bush and his mission from god. There is a difference, you know. Or maybe you don't. Oh well, carry on.

It all depends by what you mean when you say support the military. Too often people say support our troops when what they mean is support our war. I pity the troops in Iraq greatly, but I sure can't support what they're doing. I also don't in any way want to be associated with those who are supporting the war by cheering on our troops regardless of what they're asked to do. This just looks like fascist idiocy to me.

I also think there are a lot of misconceptions about Vietnam getting expressed here. Have you ever met a Vietnam vet who was jeered or spat on? I think this sort of thing is mostly right-wing fearmongering and tall tales. Vietnam vets have, however, been very neglected, and deserve the best veterans' benefits we as a society can afford.

I write to my friends in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere at least once a week - sending them pages from some pop culture magazines, etc. I baked food for the wife of a friend who was killed. I adamantly protested the war to begin with.

I, my father, my mother, my little sister and my grandmother all donated our frequent flyer miles to soldiers who could use them to get home while they were on leave in America. Which makes me wonder - why did they need privately donated frequent flyer miles?

So I wonder, why hasn't anyone mentioned that while it is possible to support the troops but not support the war, it also seems possible to support the war without supporting the troops. Take for example our president - who likes to send our soldiers to war, but also likes to lie to them about when they will be able to rotate home. He also likes to deny veteran's benefits, and use ridiculous strategies that don't secure supply lines - so soldiers die from dehydration and not enemy fire. Bush really likes to overpay Haliburton $61 million dollars to deliver fuel from the US to troops in Iraq... and then not do anything to make them pay it back and even squashes legislation that would make similar war profiteers face jail time! He really really likes to fly to Iraq and serve turkey, allowing him to personally lie to soldiers' faces about his support of the troops.

Why don't more people who do support the troops in real physical ways (donating money, etc) wonder why our President and many other Republicans (and yes, even some democrats) in the legislature don't support the troops in ways that would be significantly more beneficial to many more people. (I think all of my family's combined flight miles bought 2.5 seats - but how many millions would Vet benefits affect? or making sure companies aren't overcharging our military? or say, flying soldiers at least within 90 miles of home during the one to two week leave some miraculously do get instead of expecting them to buy a $200 plane ticket on their own?)

I know four Vietnam vets who were spit on by 'enlightened' liberal college age people when they came home, two at the airport, and one outside of his VA hospital. Maybe you haven't heard of any cases because of the company you keep.

Rebelkate, thank you for donating frequent flyer miles, I wish more people would. BUT, can you cite any veterans benefits that were denied? I can't name one.
Who has died from dehydration, because of Bush?

The American people owe their support to U.S. troops at all times in all conflicts they are ordered to except for one. That is when U.S. troops are unconstitutionally used agaisnt American citizens, such as at Waco as just one example. The orders that pit U.S. troops against their own countrymen are illegal, constitutionaly prohibited and should be disobeyed by any and all service men and women.
This type of situation is for the civil authorities to settle. Saving for that instance the troops deserve the best we can provide them with in equipment, training, quality of life, and secure retirements.

letting the troops know we still support them, even if some don't suport the war in Iraq helps their morale, which they need to stay sane in the danger zones of Iraq.

Knowing that they are not supported because they are in Iraq, they feel depressed and don't try to make America proud

Thanks, y'all.

Speaking from a personal point of view, I wasn't all that convinced myself before I left. Little tempered now - I'm pretty sure we did the right thing, but for the wrong reason, and not even for the reason we said we were doing it. Was that confusing enough?

I'm glad we helped. I'm glad we got rid of Saddam. Seeing these people, I'd have done it just for that.

That being said, there are times to NOT support the military, i.e. if we ever were to go contrary to our civilain leadership, but that hasn't happened in about 140 years. (or at best, 50, if you count Mac)

Absolutely!

I think what it comes down to is HOW you oppose the war in Iraq, or more accurately, what you say in your opposition to it.

For example: If you say: Diplomatic Options were not exhausted, so we should not be there. This is completely reasonable opposition (that I happen to disagree with) and is a case that can be made while still supporting our troops overseas.

If however you say: Diplomatic Options were not exhausted, and as a result 1000s of Iraqi civilians have been needlessly killed. This I feel crosses the line. By saying 1000s of Iraqi civilians have been needlessly killed you are implying, intentionally or not, that our service men and women are slaughtering Iraqis for no reason. This type of Inflammatory Rhetoric hurts troop morale and can lead to distraction that can cause someone to get killed.

Another example I used in another thread is a woman who took a picture, presumably of her son in the Army, and put it on a poster with the words "bring him home now" for a peace rally in Washington. I highly doubt that her "son" would appreciate her using a picture of him in uniform, with the American flag behind him to oppose a war he is assumably active it. Those pictures are usually taken at the end of boot camp or a major military school. I for one would have ended my relationship with any relative that choose to take a picture of my pride in service and use it to protest that same service.

It comes down to what you say and how you say it. There are valid reasons to oppose this war. However, there are real everyday American Men and Women in the field right now fighting it (it is far from over). When you voice your opposition, remember that they can probably hear you.

"Do you think it is possible to support the military but not support the reason they are in Iraq? Do we as Americans have a duty to support our military???"

IMO, once American troops are committed to combat operations, I feel, it is the responsibility of the American people to support those troops in every positive way possible.

Maybe one has to have served in combat to fully understand the importance of having the support of the people one feels he/she is really fighting for.

There was plenty of time for protests and debate before troops were committed to Iraq. It was then those against the war had a chance to change the minds of their elected representatives.

Once troops are committed the time for protests are, IMO, over.

1SG

i fully agree with this. with the exception of perhaps generals, most soldiers and other members of the armed forces have no control over the decision their leaders make. this is not their job. their job is to carry out their orders. i can not hold this against them. it is the government's fault.

i do not think we have to support the troops 100%, but the blame should not be directed at them.

pyotrveliky Posted: Mar 22 2004, 11:25 PM

"i do not think we have to support the troops 100%, but the blame should not be directed at them. "

Why would you not support the troops your elected government has sent into harms way? You have stated that you do not blame them. Why would you then give them anything but you total support?

I believe that one can disagree with their government policies even during wartime, but that disagreement should be of of the type that does not give aid and comfort to the enemy, thus prolonging a conflict, insuring the deaths of more Americans then absolutly necessary.

1SG