As liberals, can we really support the troops?

IsnÕt his point that we can not support the troops in this unnecessary war.

I was just following orders is not an excuse.

ThatÕs what the German soldiers said, I was just following orders.

Ted RallÕs point could be that we liberals canÕt have or cake and eat it too.

Think the Manson case, everyone is responsible.

Think bombing from 30,000 feet and killing innocent civilians, support the troops, can we really IN THIS CASE?

Rall's point is that the Repubs are using the whole "support our troops" bullshit to support what the troops are being TOLD to do.

It's a cover for them.

If you're taking him literally you're in danger of sipping the kool-aid.

The hypocrisy of the republicans on this issue is criminal. They have NOT supported the troops, either by armoring them (a BIG FUCKING SCANDAL waiting to erupt) or by getting them proper benefits when they get home, and mostly of all by BRINGING THEM HOME.

Yeah, to the repubs, "supporting the troops" means leaving them in Iraq where they are sitting ducks, without body armor, hiding their dead bodies as they're flown home, lying to them about why they're there in the first place, and making them scapegoats when they follow orders and get busted breaking the rules.

I never heard about this. Can you tell me more?

<<The hypocrisy of the republicans on this issue is criminal. They have NOT supported the troops, either by armoring them (a BIG FUCKING SCANDAL waiting to erupt)>>

I hear ya, their doing the war on the cheap while sucking and giving away billions of dollars to their
Campaign contributors.

---------------------------
Dboon makes some great points that I agree with as well.

The chef is directly responsible for the sushi.

The architect is responsible for designing the building.

The murderer is responsible for death.

In the military, it is the commander in chief that is responsible for waging war.

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

There are just different ways of interpreting this toon.

support our boys in Vietnam, bring 'em home, bring 'em home." Pete Seeger

same thing applies to Iraq . . . support our troops . . . bring 'em home! . . .

just left of center.

... or no. What they're doing is wrong, and supporting them is the same as supporting the policy that put them in Iraq.

You support the troops by only sending them into a situation where they are DEFENDING THE COUNTRY.

You support the troops by supplying them properly and giving them body armor.

You support the troops by honoring the dead as they are flown back to the country.

And you support the troops by not necessarily putting them in harm's way.

I am a Democrat and I support our troops. Bring them home.

... as long as we have this huge standing army and insane commitment to military spending on the current scale, military leaders and their pawns (e.g. Bush / Cheney) are going to find a way to justify that spending by getting us into wars.

And they will always use this "support the troops" scam to keep people in line with their aims.

because there "shouldn't be burglars".

Of course there shouldn't be a use for a military, but we're not to the point in the world yet where that's realistic.

.. it plays along, man. you keep going along with the prevailing trend until it gets out of hand, and all of a sudden you're watching people get killed on television. Young people, bystanders, all kinds of people. When you accept wrong, you internalize it after awhile.

We need to stop wasting so much of our country's resources and people on the military.

But we are at the point in our history that we can scale it down to a more reasonable size. The US spends more on our military than any other country in the world. In fact we outspend the next twenty seven countries COMBINED. Well over fifty percent of our annual governmental budget is spent on the military(once you add in all of the covert spending). This is an insane policy, one that if continued will lead us down the path that the Soviet Union took, military spending to the brink of bankruptcy.

Just think of the good that money could do if it was redirected away from the military. Universal Health Care would be a reality. Social Security would be flush. And our deficity would once again be a surplus.

No, we can't do away with the military in this day and age, especially since Bushco has done such a fine job of making enemies out of most of the world. But we can easily cut military spending in half, and still retain a fully functioning military force that is fully capable of defending this country.

1) GET THEM THE FUCK OUTTA THERE.

2) Make certain each and every one of them recieves proper mental and phsical health care and that their families are fed and supported.

3) Put the *assholes who have so heinously abused them IN JAIL. FOREVER.

Pragmatism says every nation must have an army made of its own citizens ...

Pragmatism says that every nation, for good or bad, has a leader ...

Pragmatism says that those citizen soldiers, for the good of tactical efficieny, will learn to execute orders from their CO's, otherwise the purpose for having an army, as a defensive bulwark against attack, would be comprimised ....

Pragmatism says that, given the accepted purpose for maintaining a standing army, individual soldiers MAY find it difficult to identify unlawful orders from lawful ones, depending on the nature of the engagement ....

I do not blame the rank and file soldiers for 'doing their duty' as directed from their CO's ..

I will blame them if they DO in fact commit what are obvious unlawful orders, like those executed in Abu Ghraib ....

I know a few reservists in Iraq, they are not pleased by what is happening, they are saddened and forlorn, but dutiful, ... and patriotic ....

The human condition dictates that defensive armies must exist, and idealism, whilst the fount of innovation, has yet to stop men from hitting eath other with bigger and more dangerous sticks and stones ...

choice to disobey orders to Iraq! They have a contractural arrangement with the government to somplete their ordered mission. They are permitted to disobey an order is it is an illegal order, but they must take it to their command. They do not have the option of saying, this is crazy....I QUIT!

.... we're having this war right now because we have such a big military, and because we have so many damn troops in the first place. Huge military spending has to justify itself eventually - like the Necons say, "use it or lose it".

We need to find make better futures for young people than killing. And by the way, they're not all innocent, these troops. Some were smiling in those pictures, you might notice. I sure as hell don't support my tax dollars supporting their particular 'livelihoods'.

"We're having this war right now because we have such a big military".

That is simply not a factual statement.

... as you'd like to cheat on your wife. And this is a statement of historical fact - Dick Cheney and the Neocons have openly professed that having the strongest military in the world is no good if you don't put it to "good use."

The military is a tool. It's like a gun.

If I own a gun, and I use it, is it the gun's fault?

Didn't think so.

.. you wouldn't have been able to use it. Right?

but I don't.

We don't have shoulder-launched missiles to get people to work.

And yet, I support the Party!

Likewise, I support the military, despite the guilty ones.

As I said in post #18, not all of our troops are actually guilty. Just like not all Democrats are guilty of a crime. I wouldn't oppose the Party because of a few bad apples.

A few bad apples don't spoil the whole bunch for me.

war...a number of years ago. HOWEVER, America has been flaunting that fact that they are the only remaining super power. I personally don't like that, but, if you're going to say that, you have to be able to back it up.

My son is in the Navy. I don't hink he's a killer, not does he. His camandr in chief deployed the Nimitz in Gulf War I and he did what he was supposed to do. When called to allert, he made sure the aircraft was launched as fast a possible, and recovered intact.

You are trying to fault the military for the desires of the leaders! You're WRONG!

You can totaly eliminate the philosophy of the political Leaders, and you won't need a military, or you can support the leaders, and agree somebody has to do the dirty work.

You can't have both!

That's like saying everybody who workd for a company that builds bombs, fighter jets, or Patriot missles should just get another job because they are enabling war. Do you really believe that?

Go after the right target with your anger!

...everybody who workd for a company that builds bombs, fighter jets, or Patriot missles should just get another job because they are enabling war. Do you really believe that?"

Yes, it seems pretty clear that's true - if there's a bunch of war toys around, it certainly makes it easier to have wars.

These statements:
"HOWEVER, America has been flaunting that fact that they are the only remaining super power. I personally don't like that, but, if you're going to say that, you have to be able to back it up.", and

"You can totaly eliminate the philosophy of the political Leaders, and you won't need a military, or you can support the leaders, and agree somebody has to do the dirty work."

seem to be contradictory.

..to the ends of its resources right now. If it were not then we'd never have called reserves to action for so long and sure wouldn't be talking about activitaing the IRR.

... more than all of the Asian and Nato nations put together.

but what does that have to do with the fact our military is short enough on men & women to have activated the reserves and to be on the cusp of activating the IRR?

They'll get more people and waste more money - a draft and a bigger budget.

Maybe its just lost in transition but I don't understand how thi relates to what I said?

You said we were so eager to go to war because we had such a huge military. I pointed out it apparently wasn't huge enough because we had to rely on reservists and we are about to call IRR.

If we instituted a draft it would just further argue my point- we did not have the manpower necesary to sustain these particular two wars at the same time.

Here are two secondary sources for total troop strength in the US military (because I can't immediately find the numbers straight from the DOD):

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883073.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html

Both of these place the total number of human beings under arms for the US at 1.4 million, so I think that's probably pretty close.

And this one is even more interesting:

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/defense_spending.shtml

because it gives the same 1.4 million figure for the total military PLUS 864,558 guard and reserve.

So you tell me why there's a desperate shortage of troops requiring calling up the reserves and guard.

The latter two sites say that there are about 250,000 troops abroad (both sites cite numbers before the Fierce Warrior Chieftain's grand Iraq jihad, so the number now is more like 400,000, leaving a mere million--1.8 million counting guard and reserves--to defend the homeland).

I can suggest a reason:

Because Iraq is supposed to be the proving ground for the insane neocon theory that the US can shockenawe primitive brown people with its fab high-tech weapons, and they'll be so askeert that they will tremble before US troops and do what they're told. The US hardly needs any troops in theater at all.

How's it working out, Mr. Rumsfeld?

Last I heard, the US was facing no threat whatsoever of invasion of its home territory. So do you find it as interesting as I that there are cries of troop shortages in Iraq, and the Great Jihad is staffed by part-time personnel? I have no idea why the part-timers are carrying the burden when there are a million full-timers back in the States. Do you?

The relevance of the grotesquely large military budget is this: If a country is spending half a trillion dollars a year on its military, why TF is it understaffed? A reason that springs immediately to mind is that the military budget is primarily a means of directing taxpayer money to the people to whom it rightly belongs: the filthy rich.

The troop shortage in Iraq really is a mystery, don't you think? If you'd like to explain it to me, that'd be great!

... nice work.

and they stand the chance of going to Leavenworth if they do....So I guess they have to ask themselves what they are willing to do, what price they are willing to pay, what price they are willing to exact on others and what they are willing to rationalize.

One always has the option of saying no....never kid yourself about that.

What takes more balls....an almost certain trip to Leavenworth or fighting in a war that is illegal?

Do I support our troops? Gee I don't know...how does one support the troops?...by baking them cookies? By Putting a ribbon around the tree your front yard? By giving them a pass for fighting in an illegal war? By insisting that they not be used as low wage mercenaries by corporations that feel they are above paying taxes? By properly equipping them? By living up to the promises made them after they are discharged? Support the troops....a nice little phrase...which has no real meaning.

RC

I haven't, and my son is unreachable right now to ask him if he agrees with me. You say Levenworth if they dis-obey an order. All I hear from Generals both active and retired is that every member of the military has the right to take an ilegal or imoral order to his command. I admit, I don't know what you do if the command say "do it".

Are these Generals talking BS when they say this?

If they are, why are we taking the low level folks to courts martial?

I know personaly how convincing leaders (bosses) can be. They tell everyone how great we are, and what a valuable job we are doing. The commande does this too!

I still think you are wrong in condeming the troops for the actions and ideals ( or ideals) of the leadership!

Sounds like solid advice to me.

In the end the person you will always have to answer to is yourself. From the day you are sentient till the day you die.

I say Leavenworth if they refuse to fight or a penalty slightly less harsh that will leave some scars.

It'd be a hard decision to have to make, wouldn't it. I'd support a soldier willing to make the harder choice.

Which one is that? You tell me.

RC

Supporting the troups is not the same as supporting Bush and the war. When men and women join the armed forces they have an obligation, a duty, to serve and protect our country and if that means they have to go to Timbucktoo (sp?) then they go.

They don't have a choice where they go -- they just do it. Most of these young men and women join up to pay for college, medical benefits and other educational opportunities.

Don't blame the troups for the mistakes of this administration.

It means not wanting their hazard duty and combat pay cut while they are there. It means not wanting one more dead American soldier or one more dead Iraqi. to me, anyway.

Read:

http://truthout.org/docs_04/051504A.shtml

Don't hate the player. Hate the game.

.. there is no game.

opportunities to get an education.

Many young men and women see this as their hope for a future. Few think they will end up in a war zone when the recruiter talks about being "all that you can be."

Yes I support the troops. My husband arranged for his company to adopt a troop as well. They supplied these young people with towels, soap, toothpaste and other *luxuries* not provided by our Government. 4 of the 37 people they *adopted* are now dead.

Some of the items they requested were:

Shampoo
Towels
Soap
Shaving equipment
and other basic essentials
Flea collars for sand fleas
Sun-block

and other non-essential reminders of home like:

Snickers bars and other candy
Magazines
Bottled water

My dad served in Vietnam. I protested this war, and still support the troops.

I do not support the *mission* and that is the distinction has to be made.

.. and anything else that the Pentagon might throw their way. It is not a pleasant thing to say, but they're complicit in a great wrong. And some of them are laughing about it.

take any huge group of people and there are gonna be plenty of bad ones.

Be realistic.

... in the first place. It's something that has to be done. When really there were other little rationalizations that led up to this big one, like we need this huge military standing by for action all of the time.

Then one day people see what's really going on and it seems more 'insane' than 'realistic'.

Nobody seems to want to answer that question.

"But there shouldn't be burglars!"

well of course not. But there are

Were they going to break into my house?

Many wore their military uniforms. Some of them served in the first Gulf War.

These troops are people who deserve our support, compassion, and respect. We can support the troops without supporting the mission.

They are some of the ultimate victims of this bullshit war.

They are us. Do you want them maimed or dead because George is Satan? I want them healthy and alive. I want them coming home to their families and treatment for their nightmares.

I WANT THEM FED.

I believe that's consistent with being a liberal.

Liberal is derived from a Sumerian word meaning HEART, CORE, FAMILY, ANGER.

How do YOU define liberal? Is it the state of being Pontius Pilate? If you don't like it, you wash your hands?

American soldiers are blood of my blood. When they bleed, I bleed. And the blood on their hands is on my hands. I can't walk away from myself, now can I?

It's sad what a crabbed, narrow vision of liberalism some people have. For them, to be a liberal has come to mean preserving and celebrating their moral purity, like a prissy old lady tut tutting over dirty words on tv.

What many forget is that the bulk of "the troops" are products of the poverty draft that we have had for years in this country. Good jobs for high school grads are becoming fewer every day and college expenses are skyrocketing. For many people, military service is literally their only shot at making a decent living or getting an education.

Any genuine liberal would see that such people are also victims of Bush and Big Money Inc. But some would rather heap their contempt and anger on the victims than take on the ones ultimately responsible.

... than being troops. I've said so in previous posts in this thread. That does not absolve them for participating in this imperial adventure, though. Sorry - it just doesn't. They signed up to kill, they were trained to kill, and now they're killing. Don't feign surprise now.

"Adventures, opportunities

The glossy, black-and-yellow brochures in the recruiting station were emblazoned with the Pentagon's new slogan, "An Army of One."

The brochures list all the skills to be learned by recruits, and the adventures and opportunities they will experience.

"As a soldier in the active Army," reads one brochure, "you could be assigned to a duty station such as Hawaii, Alaska, the Far East, Europe and more. You'll experience these places as no tourist can. You'll meet interesting people, learn the language and experience unique and interesting cultures."

There's no mention in any of those brochures about Baghdad or Kabul, Afghanistan, or Kuwait - or even Seoul. Nothing about a war against terrorism, or suicide bombers or grenade launchers fired by invisible guerrillas.

The only numbers plastered on the wall near Mason's desk are huge ones with dollar signs: $20,000 for a signing bonus, $50,000 for a college education.

That's a lot of money to some poor Chinese or Hispanic youth from Flushing. According to the Army, quite a few are responding to the pitch."

http://www.notinourname.net/resources_links/gi-reality-23sep03.htm

What many forget is that the bulk of "the troops" are products of the poverty draft that we have had for years in this country. Good jobs for high school grads are becoming fewer every day and college expenses are skyrocketing. For many people, military service is literally their only shot at making a decent living or getting an education.

Any genuine liberal would see that such people are also victims of Bush and Big Money Inc. But some would rather heap their contempt and anger on the victims than take on the ones ultimately responsible.

:toast:

"What many forget is that the bulk of "the troops" are products of the poverty draft that we have had for years in this country. Good jobs for high school grads are becoming fewer every day and college expenses are skyrocketing. For many people, military service is literally their only shot at making a decent living or getting an education.

Any genuine liberal would see that such people are also victims of Bush and Big Money Inc. But some would rather heap their contempt and anger on the victims than take on the ones ultimately responsible."

The trouble with that arguement friend is that there are many, many people who were in the same position as these volunteers, yet they managed to improve their position in life without having to resort to the the military option. I myself was homeless in my younger days, penniless and without a college education. Yet through hard work, and deferred expectations, I managed to receive a college education and better myself. Many other millions have done the same.

Those who went into the military were taking the easy way up, without any thought to the moral consequences of their actions. To anybody considering the military after Vietnam it should have been obvious that the possibility of being deployed to action in an illegal and immoral war was quite real. Yet for many people this moral reality simply wasn't taken into consideration. They simply went for the cash and be damned about the consequences. Most in fact figured they could do their time, and skate out without having to see combat. They gambled and lost.

While I support the troops, I also feel like they should also take responsibilty for their actions. There is always the option of NOT following an illegal order, and while that option will most likely send the soldier to Leavenworth, at least temporarily, better that than being a good soldier with blood on your hands.

Support the troops, bring them home.

They didn't ask for this unnecessary war anymore than we did, and they're the ones putting their asses on the line for the rest of us. It's not their fault that Bush lied about Iraq in order to be able to attack it, and they're the ones who are having to pay for his lies and deceptions.

They're living in conditions most of us wouldn't be able to handle for even a day, their mail is being censored, they're being kept over there longer than they were supposed to be, they're not being given the equipment they need to be effective, they're even being charged for their food if they get injured, etc., etc. The LEADERS are the ones at fault, NOT THE TROOPS! And let's not forget that there are many DUers who have family and friends over there, or who have been there themselves.

... and they were trained to kill, and now guess what? They're killing. There's no element of surprise here.

by their superiors who told them that the Iraqis were responsible for 9/11, that they were torturing people so prevent another 9/11, and that the insurgents were "terrorists".

Feel free to go start a country that doesn't have a military. See how long it lasts.

to be able to defend our country and most of them genuinely believed they were doing just that after 9/11; they didn't expect Bush to lie and deceive them and use their lives as pawns in Iraq.

Like it or not, no country can exist for long without a military; I shudder to think what would have happened had we not been able to defend ourselves after Pearl Harbor. An idealistic dream world is all very nice, but, like it or not, it just doesn't exist.

Thank You.

wanted to focus on how we can justify supporting the troops.

A very thought provoking toon, thanks for posting it John.

Are all of our troops in Iraq guilty of abuse? NO.

However, our troops go through so much torture themselves in Iraq, due to the insurgents, and only a handful of them are actually committing these atrocities.

It's wrong to accuse all of them of abuse. Most of them have nothing to do with Abu-Gharaib at all.

In my country, you are innocent until proven guilty. Most of our troops are ***NOT*** guilty.

.. you might not like to hear that, but it's true.

supporting Bush?

How do you not support the troops?

Line up at Dover and celebrate as each coffin is being unloaded?
Do you write LTE calling for death and injury of more American soldiers?

Because the airlines are regulated and subsidized by Bush, the planes in the air are watched by air traffic control that answers to Bush, the homeland security guys who check your bags- they are on Bushes payroll. If you fly comemrcial you are supporting Bush.

This stands true for lots of things. Hell if you pay taxes you're supporting Bush!

I'll keep my liberal identity, continue to support our troops, and continue to campaign to get that man out of office.

.. bush wants to deregulate the airlines and privatize air traffic control.

we can take any institution or govt supported activity in the nation and insert it in place of commercial airlines.

BULLSHIT! It's "liberals" like you who give the rest of us a bad name. There's a lot more I could say, but it would obviously sail right past you since you're so "pure and sure" that you don't need to listen to anyone else.

BTW, try telling that to the many people here who have family and/or friends in Iraq, or who are are were there themselves. How dare you!

.... their fallen ones were fighting for the right cause, and then they're used by the war-mongering media to support The Cause.

The media may show a few families who support the war but what evidence do you have that, that is the case with even a majority of military families?

I support the troops that joined the service to get college paid for or to learn a trade that are stuck in a mess they didn't create.

I support the troops that went to Iraq because their country called them to serve.

I do not support the troops that think getting out in the field and getting to empty some clips into some ragheads is more fun than Quake 3.

I do not support the profiteers.

I do not support the torturers.

I do not support the rapists.

I do not support those who are holding back food from the hungry who won't bow their heads and accept Jay-zuz into their heart as their personal savior.

Is THAT clear enough

I don't see supporting troops to be contrary to being a democrat. It may however contrast with being a pacifist. Not all democrats are pacifists, nor are all pacifists democrats.

I don't support the policy that brought us into Iraq but I do support my troops.

Ted Rall does not speak for this liberal.

I will always support our troops.

Here's the thing that to me is w's most criminal act:

We have an all-volunteer military. Most of these people signed up for personal reasons (mostly financial I would guess). They know that the purpose of the military is to fight. Therefore they realize that although they're joining up to receive training, or to receive benefits for themselves adn their families, they know that they may be called upon to fight for our country -- and they are willing to do so -- with the understanding that this country will not ask them to fight unless it is absolutely positively unarguably necessary.

This war does not, never has, and never will fit that criteria. This president blew his end of the contract. He's the one who isn't supporting our troops.. in so many ways.

I just cannot stand that man.

The ones doing the depravity in Iraq - I'd sooner spit on them for helping to make America a target for more violence and hate, thanks to their selfish perversions. But there are just as many, if not countless more, who truly ARE ethical and moral. I'd support them in an attosecond.

Nothing is black or white. It goes down to each individual and their circumstances. Heck, if Lyndie England was forced to smile at the behest of her CO, then I might even feel sorry for her (except her smiles didn't look forced at all...)

You would be called Whigs or something that didn't survive in politicalese...

Does he take supporting the troops - to mean supporting the war?

Actually supporting the war is opposite of supporting the troops.

I take supporting the troops to mean:
Supporting their safety.
Supporting an end to the war.

In other words I support them in the way their families might, not in the way the Bushies do.

There is one problem with that statement:

The 'Bushies' don't support the troops.

But you knew that, right?

Seems Rall and * have the same definition of so called support?

You and I are on the same page my friend :hi:

They may "support" our troops, but not in their actions.

As someone who has a great deal of Vets in their family, including my husband... as someone that lived on military bases for 8 yrs up until just a couple of years ago... as someone who got to know many soldiers and their families... my answer is a resounding YES we can.

Believe me, MOST of these troops don't have fantasies of war and a burning desire to go fight in them. Most joined because they couldn't get work in their hometowns, needed money for college, or had to support a young family so they made what they thought was a good, noble decision at the time.

I'd also like to add that every single military veteran I know is against this war and was from the beginning.

we can hate this fricking war and still support our troops

As an AMERICAN liberal you can. They are your fellow citizens, and should deserve the support and respect of those they are sacrificing so much for. Don't agree with their mission - then work to bring them home - SAFE.

Still, you cannot help but think that "support the troops" = "support Bush/US foreign policy." In this atmosphere, you cannot separate the two. Too many people in this country believe that. You are not allowed to think otherwise without being labeled as "unpatriotic." This attitude overwhelms you, particularly if you live in a region (NE Florida/SE Georgia) with three military bases located within a 50- to 60-mile radius.

In the original Rall thread, someone mentioned that she never cheers when the troops are being deployed or when they return. She is stating what I and others both inside and outside this forum have felt: too many people treat this war (same with Gulf War I) -- and war in general -- like it's a damned football game. We are expected to be spectators and/or cheerleaders, rooting for the "good guys" -- and we do not need to be told who the "good guys" are. I, for one, refuse to keep score, let alone play cheerleader.

On the one hand, I am told that the "just following orders" defense is not good enough to absolved of war crimes. On the other, I am told that soliders have no choice but to follow orders, except those that are illegal. From what I read and see on TV, there is not a little confusion/ignorance on the part of AT LEAST SOME of the troops over what is legal/illegal in war.

I am told that the Iraqis are my enemy, and that the troops are "defending" me against them. Bullshit! I have no quarrel with the Iraqi people, yet I am expected to cheer their deaths, see them as "uncivilized," "heathen," "subhuman," disrespect them in so many ways, simply because I am an American. I have more to fear on the "homefront" than I do from some "terrorist" or "radical Islamist" "over there."

In short, I do not believe in this war, the reasons -- stated and unstated -- for its prosecution, the people who are running it. Moreover, one of my brother's best friends, a 21-year-old Marine, is in Iraq right now. He is like a little brother to my brother, and he wants to get the hell out of there, period. Therefore, I am not going to dis him or anyone else -- and I (want to) believe that THEY are the majority in today's Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines -- out there who signed up just for the tuition, the job training, the chance to travel, and other benefits. I have even taught some of these kids, and they are by and large GOOD people. However, I will not pay homage to, let alone deify, those who joined just so they can "smoke some towel-heads and sand-niggers" and anyone else who isn't American/Christian/Anglo-Saxon/true red-white-and-blue good ol' boy.

If this sounds somewhat disjointed, it is because there is a lot of confusion mixed in with how I really feel about American foreign policy and its implementation/imposition on the rest of the world. The troops are supposed to be acting in my name. But what they are REALLY fighting for is most certainly NOT in my name. Peace.

Yes, we can support the troops by demanding that they be brought home to their families.

But, oppose our leaders when they engage in pointless wars. It's the right-wing that does not support the troops. They support the President and will send our troops to die for any war he declares. If you support our troops, you want them out of harms way.

It's not the troops that are the problem. It's the institution, created by the civilian leadership, that is the problem. The civilian leadership sets the tone for the institution, and the people at the lowest level inexorably act out their roles in the institution. If you have people in the leadership who don't believe in the Geneva Convention, how do you expect the people at the bottom to know that the people at the top are horribly misguided?

"Supporting the troops" means understanding that people have sacrificed, and accepted a social role that may very well mean their personal or mental being. Does everyone who signs the dotted line understand the nature of their sacrifice? Probably not. But that doesn't change the fact that they signed up, in the overwhelming majority of cases, to defend the country, despite what it might to do them.

Making sure they have the supplies they need to remain as safe as possible, insuring they are not overstretched and have tours too long without break, as well as extra benefits upon their return such as QUALITY healthcare for life, job retraining in the event of physical injury, and a large payoff to their families in the event of death. It's about having appropriate social policies in place to insure life-long health and greater security to the best of our abilities. Seems to me like those jobs do better in the hands of Democrats.

Abu Ghraib. I guess he thinks we can get rich repuke votes.

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

yeah, you and what other army??? Big talk from a little piss ant.

They don't just have to survive this war, they have to win it, or we're fucked.

And they vote, too. Someone--that would be me--is reminding them that this time when they send in an absentee ballot they're really ratifying their own lives, and deaths. You can remind them of that, too.

We'll see how it plays out this time. We won't be lacking for bodies to put in place--a single thread on the Free Republic usually garners a couple of platoons worth of responses, so I nominate them for the first draft. Since it's my stupid idea, I'll go too.

Do you support them?

:P

are the reason the Democratic Party is the MINORITY party.