• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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?

Parmenion

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
137
Reaction score
7
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cnredd said:
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%.

I was being critical of the fact that the poster I replied to used documents to say why Iraq was in the wrong. My question was if two wrongs make a right? I am not criticsiing American troops in "Gitmo" as you call it. I am stating that Iraqi leader is on charges for Human Rights violations under the Geneva Convention, but that USA is similarly guilty of similar violations yet is not being tried for war crimes.

First, I believe that America has had many positive influences on the world as she finds her way in the world as a nouveau Superpower. Like many Superpowers that have gone before her in ages past, she is making mistakes which are highlited in neon lights by the media.

However, I think it folly for you to claim that the acts of "terrorism" as a means for communicating oines message are wrong. Ireland used terrorism against the British to win our indpendence. There was no way in hell we could have taken them toe to toe in a straight fight and they refused to listen to us for centuries in a peaceful manner. Were the actions of ours chlanns wrong or right is debatable but we have our freedom as a direct result of it.

There are two sides to every argument and while I support neither I try to see both for their merits and play Devil's advocate so that the passionate ones on both sides may argue their viewpoints with clarity and intelligence.

In reposnse to your statistics, you know that 90% of all statistics are made up ;)
 

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
Parmenion said:
I was being critical of the fact that the poster I replied to used documents to say why Iraq was in the wrong. My question was if two wrongs make a right? I am not criticsiing American troops in "Gitmo" as you call it. I am stating that Iraqi leader is on charges for Human Rights violations under the Geneva Convention, but that USA is similarly guilty of similar violations yet is not being tried for war crimes.

First, I believe that America has had many positive influences on the world as she finds her way in the world as a nouveau Superpower. Like many Superpowers that have gone before her in ages past, she is making mistakes which are highlited in neon lights by the media.

However, I think it folly for you to claim that the acts of "terrorism" as a means for communicating oines message are wrong. Ireland used terrorism against the British to win our indpendence. There was no way in hell we could have taken them toe to toe in a straight fight and they refused to listen to us for centuries in a peaceful manner. Were the actions of ours chlanns wrong or right is debatable but we have our freedom as a direct result of it.

There are two sides to every argument and while I support neither I try to see both for their merits and play Devil's advocate so that the passionate ones on both sides may argue their viewpoints with clarity and intelligence.
As I've posted in another thread, "terrorist" on this forum is usually referring to "Islamic radicals".

Other that, this post was very well conceived and written.:smile:

Parmenion said:
In reposnse to your statistics, you know that 90% of all statistics are made up ;)

36% of the people I meet tell me that.:lol:
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,124
Reaction score
553
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Parmenion said:
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

The people in Guantanamo do not come under Geneva Convention protections and protocol. If they did then we would have to be paying them and providing them education. Do you really want to pay OBL's driver and finanacier and various men who committed terrorist acts against others?

They are illegal combatants not POW's.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,124
Reaction score
553
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
vergiss said:
Supporting your troops means not sending them off to be slaughtered in an unjustified war.

Are you against our killing the terrorist we are fighting too?
 

Parmenion

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
137
Reaction score
7
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
The people in Guantanamo do not come under Geneva Convention protections and protocol. If they did then we would have to be paying them and providing them education. Do you really want to pay OBL's driver and finanacier and various men who committed terrorist acts against others?

They are illegal combatants not POW's.

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.

Would you like me to copy/paste article 4 of the Convention here in its entirety so you can see how wrong you are in your point, or would you rather look it up yourself?
 

AliG

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Support the troops means supporting the 'people' of America, the masses, it is not mean support all that the current policy/decision-makers
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by Parmenion:
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.

Would you like me to copy/paste article 4 of the Convention here in its entirety so you can see how wrong you are in your point, or would you rather look it up yourself?
Your assuming that people who post views such as this:
The people in Guantanamo do not come under Geneva Convention protections and protocol
...are ethical and objective when they analyze the issues from which they draw their conclusions. This is my subjective impression I get when reading many similar posts in response to (what I think are) pretty common sense facts.

How (or why) anyone could begin to argue for torture, takes some work on my end to understand. I have to fight thru my own rage towards that person just to continue dialogue on any level.

You may also find that the most popular weapon of choice for rebut's are Ad hominum attacks. Which speaks more about the person using it, than it does about the person they are speaking about.

My unfortunate conclusion: I don't think many posters on this board have any intention of meaningful, honest debate. They can't stop lying to themselves long enough to be honest with anyone.
 

DivineComedy

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Parmenion said:
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.

Parmenion you did choose sides when you said that.

Give me the coordinates of the capital city of the High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions that claims al-Qaida as their volunteer corps, we need it for our targeting computers.
 

DivineComedy

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Billo_Really said:
Your assuming that people who post views such as this: "The people in Guantanamo do not come under Geneva Convention protections and protocol" ...are ethical and objective when they analyze the issues from which they draw their conclusions.

“Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”

Al Quacka does not fit definition because they have not fulfilled the conditions, nor do they belong to a “Party.”

“Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.”

Al Quacka has not accepted or applied the provisions of the Convention, so we can not be bound to treat them as prisoners of war.
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
Support The Troops used in a potical forum. A shallow, trite slogan to attempt to belittle an opponent with a opposing view. So far the responces do nothing but proove the term IS a slogan and bumper sticker.


What it should mean: helping a family out whom has a servicemen overseas.

Visiting vetreans of previous wars and assiting with there wounds both mental and physical.

Being tolerant of oppsoing views and poltical dissent. Pr war people seem to deny this is a RIGHT OF FREEDOM those soldiers are supposedly fighting for.

Not making vial reamrks about more people dying in car accidents when the death toll is announced.

Complain to the Administration for its patheic treatment of soldies and destruction of veterans care and benefits.
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,466
Reaction score
2,083
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
vergiss said:
Supporting your troops means not sending them off to be slaughtered in an unjustified war.

agreed!!!!!!!!!
 

ban.the.electoral.college

Progressive, Green
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland, U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
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.

In my opinion "Support the Troops" means get the troops the hell out of Iraq ASAP, so they don't their asses killed!

Unfortunately, I think those bumper stickers and buttons people buy just mean that a citizen wants to parade around looking like a patriot, when in fact, they only want the troops to do GWB's mindless profit driven bidding. It's tragic too, because these self-proclaimed patriots are brainlessly supporting an international "trinket manufaturer" which is probably a sweat shop in indonesia.
 
Last edited:

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by ban.the.electoral.college
In my opinion "Support the Troops" means get the troops the hell out of Iraq ASAP, so they don't their asses killed!

Unfortunately, I think those bumper stickers and buttons people buy just mean that a citizen wants to parade around looking like a patriot, when in fact, they only want the troops to do GWB's mindless profit driven bidding. It's tragic too, because these self-proclaimed patriots are brainlessly supporting an international "trinket manufaturer" which is probably a sweat shop in indonesia.
As well as helping turn this country into a third world nation by outsourcing our jobs to the Pacific Rim.
 

Pub31321

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Im sick of my man Tetracide not getting any love on this site...he's the only one who makes sense in this whole discussion. This war has a purpose and is just. This war is important not only for our own safety but the safety of the world. But the reason for the war is beyond the point. Supporting our troops means supporting that they are fighting for something we all love...America. And instead of getting respect, all the soldiers are getting is hatred to what they are doing. They are defending freedom and they need our support. And this crap someone posted about the support our troops ribbon meaning to them "support the administration" is simply terrible. That is not what it is at all. Show the troops some respect and support them. I don't care if you support the war or not, respect the soldiers and the fact that they are giving their lives to protect us.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My unfortunate conclusion: I don't think many posters on this board have any intention of meaningful, honest debate. They can't stop lying to themselves long enough to be honest with anyone.

True, Billo, how very true. It is important, I think, that we recognize that this truth applies to some -- but thankfully not all -- posters of all persuasions, from the left and the right alike.

And, you know, all too often, this forum is not really about debate. It is about facilitating a gripe session, or just plain trying to get the last word on something, or boosting an ego by showing the stupid world how smart you are, or by deliberately baiting those of an opposing viewpoint (right or left, equal opportunity baiters), or some other ego-gratification stunt.

The good things about this forum:

> loosely moderated, but so far, effectively (IMO) moderated. Tolerance for most motivations, but mod intervention when the name calling gets too personal.

> two-way street: allows for presentation of all points of view, unlike some of the others, where if you post something that is not 'party line', you risk get tossed or shouted down with no exchange of anything.


> technically, it works pretty well too. phpBB in the hands of folks with lesser experience sometimes presents a problem.

Just my opinions -- your mileage may vary!

Lots of motivations, so little time!

PS: Billo, nit-picky I know but isn't it 'ad hominem'? Attacking the messenger instead of the message?
 
Last edited:

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Support the troops means dont send them to places like IRAQ or Vietnam
bring them home
they die in the sands of IRAQ So bush and cheney can make lots of $
and the ELITE can make cash selling war weapons
leaving them there is not supporting the troops
 

Pub31321

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Canuck you are so stupid! The troops are there and they arent coming home until it's finished, deal with it! So support that they are there defending us, stop saying "oh supporting them is bringing them home." Supporting them is supporting that they are choosing to give their life to defend freedom, so stop downgrading their cause and support them!

And Bush and Cheney aren't in this war for money...that statement and every other damn piece of crap you've said on this website is just a show of your stupidity.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
929
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.

"Supporting the troops" is code for SUPPORT THE ZOG LED AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IN ITS ATTEMPT TO EXTEND ITS IMPERIALISM AND GLOBAL CAPITALISM TO THE REST OF THE WORLD BY FORCE OF ARMS.
 

Pub31321

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yeah Aryan you seem to know what youre talking about :roll: Actually sit down and learn about the war and the reasons for it then come and talk to us. Imperialism...what a joke
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Aryan Imperium said:
"Supporting the troops" is code for SUPPORT THE ZOG LED AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IN ITS ATTEMPT TO EXTEND ITS IMPERIALISM AND GLOBAL CAPITALISM TO THE REST OF THE WORLD BY FORCE OF ARMS.

Yes, you must be very proud of us.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
929
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pub31321 said:
Yeah Aryan you seem to know what youre talking about :roll: Actually sit down and learn about the war and the reasons for it then come and talk to us. Imperialism...what a joke

You mean accept the same conditioning from your political masters and not express any opinions that query the agenda of the NWO?
 
N

norcalcraig

Stinger said:
The people in Guantanamo do not come under Geneva Convention protections and protocol. If they did then we would have to be paying them and providing them education. Do you really want to pay OBL's driver and finanacier and various men who committed terrorist acts against others?

They are illegal combatants not POW's.



we should just shoot them all on the spot
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by oldreliable67:
True, Billo, how very true. It is important, I think, that we recognize that this truth applies to some -- but thankfully not all -- posters of all persuasions, from the left and the right alike.

And, you know, all too often, this forum is not really about debate. It is about facilitating a gripe session, or just plain trying to get the last word on something, or boosting an ego by showing the stupid world how smart you are, or by deliberately baiting those of an opposing viewpoint (right or left, equal opportunity baiters), or some other ego-gratification stunt.

The good things about this forum:

> loosely moderated, but so far, effectively (IMO) moderated. Tolerance for most motivations, but mod intervention when the name calling gets too personal.

> two-way street: allows for presentation of all points of view, unlike some of the others, where if you post something that is not 'party line', you risk get tossed or shouted down with no exchange of anything.


> technically, it works pretty well too. phpBB in the hands of folks with lesser experience sometimes presents a problem.

Just my opinions -- your mileage may vary!

Lots of motivations, so little time!

PS: Billo, nit-picky I know but isn't it 'ad hominem'? Attacking the messenger instead of the message?
This is so true, I couldn't agree with you more. And sadly, I have to admit I've been guilty of everything you stated from time to time. What this board has done for me, whether I liked it or not, has helped me be more tolerant of others, whether some recognize that or not. I used to be a lot worse when I was younger and knew everything.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by Pub31321:
Canuck you are so stupid! The troops are there and they arent coming home until it's finished, deal with it! So support that they are there defending us, stop saying "oh supporting them is bringing them home." Supporting them is supporting that they are choosing to give their life to defend freedom, so stop downgrading their cause and support them!

And Bush and Cheney aren't in this war for money...that statement and every other damn piece of crap you've said on this website is just a show of your stupidity.
How can they be there defending us when Iraq didn't do anything too us!? Supporting the troops in Iraq is supporting the illegal occupation of a sovereign nation. This is an illegal war.
 
Top Bottom