• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What does "Support the Troops" mean?

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
What does this mean to you? When you say, "Support the Troops", what exactly does this mean? How does one "Support the Troops"? Prove to me this is nothing more than a slogan on a bumper.
 

Tetracide

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Location
West Coast, U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Support the troops means not to parade the death count, respect the work they are doing as people doing it, regardless of if you think they should be doing it or not.

Supporting the troops means not calling them murdered, savages, or portray them as such.

Supporting the troops is hoping they are safe and will finish what they have gotten into so they return safely home, not hopeing we fail just so you get bragging rights.

This isn't directed at any one person.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Supporting your troops means not sending them off to be slaughtered in an unjustified war.
 

Mancunian

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
72
Reaction score
2
Location
Manchester, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Billo_Really said:
What does this mean to you? When you say, "Support the Troops", what exactly does this mean? How does one "Support the Troops"? Prove to me this is nothing more than a slogan on a bumper.
There are people who don’t support the troops?

Most of the posts I have read by people on here who are against the war appear to be directing their objections towards the politicians who sent the troops over. Of course, I haven’t read all posts by everybody so could be wrong.

As for the actual question, I would say writing to the troops with stories from home and well wishes is good way to support them. The ultimate way would be to get yourself over there! :2razz:
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Billo_Really said:
What does this mean to you? When you say, "Support the Troops", what exactly does this mean? How does one "Support the Troops"? Prove to me this is nothing more than a slogan on a bumper.

I'm guessing that you're talking about the ribbons that you see on peoples' cars. Well, if that's the case, whenever I see that, troops are not what comes to mind. The administration is. To me, those magnet ribbons mean nothing more than "support the administration." It's really too bad.

tetracide said:
Support the troops means not to parade the death count, respect the work they are doing as people doing it, regardless of if you think they should be doing it or not.

Supporting the troops means not calling them murdered, savages, or portray them as such.

Supporting the troops is hoping they are safe and will finish what they have gotten into so they return safely home, not hopeing we fail just so you get bragging rights.

This isn't directed at any one person.
This seems like you're really attempting to polorize people into two groups. Unfortunately, that will lead to "sides" where the other side is the enemy. This sort of mentality is really detrimental to any sort of debate.

That would be like anyone anti-Iraq war claiming everyone who is pro-war is greedy oil hogs who send American boys and girls to bleed blood for black gold. That's not the case. In actuality, I would say that a very slim portion of pro-war people who have a strong interest that oil as a major reason why they support the war. Most honestly feel that they're doing good and spreading freedom (which I take strong issue with, but that's their opinion). I can respect that.

The same thing goes with anti-war protests. The vast majority of people against the war do not consider the people in the military murderers or savages, instead pity them for being "used and abused" by their Commander in Cheif.

The same thing applies to those who want to end the war. I haven't met a single protester (and I've done it a lot) who wants this war to end for bragging rights. That alleged characteristic of anti-war people is completely ignorant.

As some people believe that once a country is committed to a war, the whole country should support it in a unified voice. I don't. I feel that the government should be a voice of the people, not a voice for the people. So, if the government does something that I do not agree with, I'm not going to support it. Especially in a democracy where relatively quick changes can be made without more bloodshed. I am loyal to my fellow Americans, not to the government in place. If I feel that bringing our boys home is the best thing to do, I'm going to push for it. You should be able to respect that. You may not agree with it, but at least you know that my intentions are good, and therefore, it is no longer necessary to distance yourself and even demonize the other side.
 

Tetracide

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Location
West Coast, U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The last bit of your post echoes exactly what I just posted in one of the dozens of Cindy Sheehan threads. You honestly and truly believe that pulling troops out is the best thing for America (that wasn’t a question). Your intentions are to make this country safer, and therefore a better place. I, and all those in the political arena should recognize that.

The part where we clash is the definition of a better and safer country. I believe finishing the job, standing down as Iraqis stand up, and continued assistance to form a free and representative government in Iraq is a tremendously good thing for this country. I believe pulling troops out prematurely would be disastrous to our cause, and to the War on Terrorism. I believe that the reasons a democratic nation is being established is not only so we have an ally in the War on Terrorism, but so a shining example of liberty and freedom can be seen in that hellhole we call the Middle East.

These two key factors I think are huge blows to terrorism in this war we have engaged in after September 11th. I believe that the President did this whole-heartedly to make this country safer in the long run, not in the short run like Clinton attempted to do. You should also believe that he did this in the benefit of this country, but you should also stand true to your beliefs. You don’t think we should be there, tell us why, and tell us what you would do now, not what you would have done differently. You think we should pull our troops home, tell us why, and tell us what your next move would be in the War on Terrorism if you choose to continue it.

This is true and honest debate. I, and many others have been caught up in the emotions that range from pure anger and frustration, to patriotic-stubborn pride. We have all been plunged into such situations where the opposing side would prefer to assault us as people, instead of our ideas. Some define that as a lack of the ability to address the issues, others see it as a debate tactic.

I’m going to bed, but I look forward to debating why I think your policy would not work, and why you think my policy will not work. I’m tired of debating why we went into Iraq – we are already there, and things are already rolling. Accept reality as it is, and let’s talk about what to do next. I’ll hope to see you later.
 
Last edited:

Parmenion

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
137
Reaction score
7
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So lets say the DowJones drops a good few points one day, do you guys start saying "Support the stock brokers"?

Or is it just one section of the work force that gets this kind of slogan?
 

sargasm

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Tetracide said:
Support the troops means not to parade the death count, respect the work they are doing as people doing it, regardless of if you think they should be doing it or not.

Supporting the troops means not calling them murdered, savages, or portray them as such.

Supporting the troops is hoping they are safe and will finish what they have gotten into so they return safely home, not hopeing we fail just so you get bragging rights.

This isn't directed at any one person.

Yes, great idea, let's ignore the death count and pretend that everything is going fabulously over in Iraq. In my book, supporting the troops doesn't mean putting a white trash ribbon on your car, supporting the troops means not sending them off to die for an evolving ficticious cause in Iraq.
 

ILikeDubyah

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Phx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
sargasm said:
Yes, great idea, let's ignore the death count and pretend that everything is going fabulously over in Iraq. In my book, supporting the troops doesn't mean putting a white trash ribbon on your car, supporting the troops means not sending them off to die for an evolving ficticious cause in Iraq.
Yeah, because parading the body count on the news every night did wonders when it came to support for the Vietnam war. (That was sarcasm)
 

imprtnrd

Active member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
270
Reaction score
8
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Support Our Troops----Bring Them Home NOW!!!!!!!!!!!! Not 2 yrs from now,
not 1 year from NOW! Get out of Iraq!!!!!!!!!!! NOW. Once the U.S. and other countries leave(if there are any still there) Iraq will fall just as fast if not faster then Vietnam!! What next, Bush? Iran? Syria?
 

sargasm

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
ILikeDubyah said:
Yeah, because parading the body count on the news every night did wonders when it came to support for the Vietnam war. (That was sarcasm)
Yes, hiding the truth to create "support" from peoples homes on the other side of the globe works wonders on the battlefield.
 

Parmenion

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
137
Reaction score
7
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes but in Vietnam, the USA managed to wipe out 3 million Vietnamese (only half of the number of Jews executed in WW2) at the low low cost of only 58-60 thousand American deaths. In fairness thats a fairly cost effective genocide when you think about it.
 

DivineComedy

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Billo_Really said:
What does this mean to you? When you say, "Support the Troops", what exactly does this mean? How does one "Support the Troops"? Prove to me this is nothing more than a slogan on a bumper.
Supporting the troops means not calling it an “unjust war,” or a “wrong war,” or a “war for oil,” or a war based on a lie, when the facts and the laws do not support such lies.

Read and weep:

“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;” http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/20030220UNRes678.asp

“Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,” http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

“Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,” http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

“March 5, 2003: Bus bombing in Haifa. U.S. citizens killed: Abigail Leitel, 14, who was born in Lebanon, New Hampshire.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/usvictims.html

“The suicide bomber was 20 years old, a student of the Hebron Polytechnic University (from which a large number of suicide bombers have emerged) and a member of the Hamas terrorist organization.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/861590/posts

March 13, 2003: “(CBS) Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber.

In a packed banquet hall on Wednesday, the families came one-by-one to receive their $10,000 checks. A large banner said: ‘The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein.’“ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml

“H
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

“SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Supporting the troops means that you do not say the war is a “wrong war” while defending answers that can only support the killing of our troops:

“ 2). Why not go on record as to whether you agree with your ‘liberal‘ comrade that Osama is ‘playing by the rules of warfare?’ What about Hamas and other terrorist groups?

This one, believe it or not is fairly straight forward... Terrorist groups fight with the weapons they have available... Hamas and other groups don't have airplanes, tanks and the like to fight the Israelis... So they use the only weapons avaiable to them.... The problem I have is the killing of innocent people... If they want to blow up the Israeli military.. GO FOR IT!!” (questions answered that way by an ignorant “liberal” DEMOCRAT after Hamas had called on the killing of our troops in Iraq with their known method of suicide apparatus) (Maybe the Daytona Beach News-Journal’s former webmaster has a copy of that page of the “liberals!” topic, if you want to see the full context.) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-01-10-hamas-iraq_x.htm

Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom was and shall always be a noble cause, and just war.

Complaining about not having enough troops for the invasion is fine, do it in Congress, just explain to me the rotation needed to sustain such numbers until Iraq had a Constitution, stable Government, and the ability to sign a peace treaty? Condemn the “liberal“ for saying Osama was “playing by the rules of warfare,” condemn the “GO FOR IT,” with all your heart, if you truly are anti-war. Complaining about not having enough armor on our Sherman tanks is fine, but do not blame the president for the killings committed by criminals in civilian disguise while Iraq is a high contracting party to the rules of warfare. Do not say the president is responsible for the killings of our troops when Congress voted for the above quoted authorization. Explain to me how you expected to support our troops, to get the help of the international community, when you called it an “unjust war,” a “wrong war,” a “war for oil,” and a war based on a lie?
 
Last edited:

Parmenion

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
137
Reaction score
7
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Would you say that by breaking 15 articles of the Geneva Convention that the USA could be consider as much in breach of Human Rights as, say for instance the groups they are fighting?

Article 13 of the third convention, concerning the treatment of prisoners, insists that they "must at all times be protected... against insults and public curiosity".

The prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention. The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28, religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38, access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72).

They were not "released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities" (118), because, the US authorities say, their interrogation might, one day, reveal interesting information about al-Qaida. Article 17 rules that captives are obliged to give only their name, rank, number and date of birth. No "coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever". In the hope of breaking them, however, the authorities have confined them to solitary cells and subjected them to what is now known as "torture lite": sleep deprivation and constant exposure to bright light. Unsurprisingly, several of the prisoners have sought to kill themselves, by smashing their heads against the walls or trying to slash their wrists with plastic cutlery.

The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war.

Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified, article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal". But when, earlier last month, lawyers representing 16 of them demanded a court hearing, the US court of appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory, the men have no constitutional rights. Many of these prisoners appear to have been working in Afghanistan as teachers, engineers or aid workers. If the US government either tried or released them, its embarrassing lack of evidence would be brought to light.


I am not taking sides here, I am simply pointing out that two wrongs hardly make a right and that while you accuse certain groups of breaching certain documents - you may also wish to look at the international rules and documents which America is in turn breaching...
 
Last edited:

Timequake

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Supporting the troops means:
1.Respecting their decision to go to war. Nobody forced them to go, they chose to go. There is no draft, people; they know what they signed up for. The people who are dying put themselves at risk, unlike in Vietnam.
2.Having faith that the soldiers know what they are fighting for, why they signed up in the first place.
3.Having faith that they are making quality decisions while representing their country.
4.Standing behind your country, no matter what.
 

Parmenion

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
137
Reaction score
7
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kind of like the way the German troops stood behind their country no matter what in WW2?
 

Timequake

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Are you calling Americans Nazis? I'm sorry, i wasn't aware that we were genocidal elitists
 
Last edited:

sargasm

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
^^ you are a moron, he is not calling americans nazis, he is obviously just pointing out that the german soldiers stood behind their country no matter what, just like you said american soldiers should.
 

Parmenion

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
137
Reaction score
7
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hell no!

I am demonstrating that you should be far more careful with the phrases you choose.

To say "no matter what" is atrociously ambiguous implying that you "would" agree with standing behind them if they were to commit genocide. I am sure this is not what you meant and so the lesson is to make sure you know the implications of the way you state points.
 

Timequake

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The comparison offends me.

What does calling me a moron do except make you look ignorant and juvenile

Parmenion- i understand what you meant now, thank you.
 
Last edited:

Parmenion

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
137
Reaction score
7
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I wouldn't insult you any more than I would like to be insulted personally.

But I would like you to advise me:

1. Would you agree that your statement was ambiguous?
2. Would you think that it was okay for any other country to support their troops in the same light "no matter what"?
 

Timequake

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
yes, I should have simply put "Stand by your country"
 

sargasm

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Referring to Parmenion's rant on Gitmo, I ask...

IF everything written was indeed true, why are you critical of the whole USA, or at least the militry aspect of it(Over 1.2 million troops), when Gitmo(and Abu Gharib) represent no more than a few dozen soldiers?

When Scott Peterson was convicted of murder, do we cry that "This is what Californians do?"

I am not taking sides here, I am simply pointing out that two wrongs hardly make a right and that while you accuse certain groups of breaching certain documents - you may also wish to look at the international rules and documents which America is in turn breaching...You are equating procedures, right or wrong, to to terrorist who indesciminately kill civilians with impunity...

Terrorists - Wrong 100%
USA - Wrong 2%

How novel of you to point out the 2%.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,334
Reaction score
16,228
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
What does "Support the Troops" mean?
It means not chanting garbage the enemy wants to hear or agree with.
It means not accusing our troops of attrocities.
It means giving our troops the benifit of the doubt.
It means demanding that the media not show our troops in a negative light and that we demand that the media show some of the good things our troops are doing over there.
It means that we allow our troops to fight without one hand tied behind their backs instead of a bunch of suits dictating what they can and can't do.
 
Top Bottom