Why I don't support the troops.

Post Reply New Topic

There is some intimation that the reason people are in the army is that they wholeheartedly support the policies of the Bush administration. Being shoved into a death dealing situation whatever the policy of the administration is no doubt an extremely mentally disturbing condition. There are all sorts of reasons for being engaged in active fighting, one of them being part of the National Guard that the soldier assumed on enlistment to consist of activities within the USA. I have no doubt that a reasonable portion of the military does support the administration policy but it also seems very likely that many soldiers are trapped into a situation that leaves them no choice but to do as they are told. Aside from being railroaded into this trap the administration has openly tried to deny the tragedies of their deaths by minimizing publicity of the dead and wounded and people suffering severe mental troubles from their horrible experiences. The Walter Reed medical situation has been duplicated throughout the Veteran's Administration and recent reports are that the government is trying to eliminate much of the psychological help that the returning veterans desperately need. It's quite evident with these lacks and with the military's lack of sufficiently properly armored vehicles and other basic protection equipment that the government itself is not properly supporting its troops.

what is this?! look, cut the crap and just support the troops, how hard can it be? wtf??

But why? What does 'support the troops' even mean?

Odd. Ron Paul, who was more critical of administration policy than anyone else dared to be, had more active-duty military support than all the other candidates combined. Given that his support among the general population was more or less negligible, this would suggest to me that many troops really are not pleased with the policy.

Why?

Right! Let's support the fighting men by getting them out of the hopeless situation the Bush administration put them in. The guys have suffered enough to support the ego of a leader who doesn't give a damn for their health or safety or well being.

Fred, the reason I down your threads is because you annoy me with your bigotry and Marxist/populist blend politics. Also, when I made the mistake of taking you seriously, it turned out badly because you don't respond to reason.

Judging by some of your political/economic views, this is at best the pot calling the kettle black. In any case, I do make an effort to study history, economics, and worldwide politics- my current interest is in sub-saharan Africa.


As I said in the OP, the military hasn't done crap to preserve liberty for at least the past 50 years. Our troops aren't fighting to maintain my freedoms. That is a simple fact. Unless you want to explain to me how killing Iraqi civilians gives me more freedoms. Jingoistic rhetoric has long since lost its capability to disable my cognitive function.

Last edited by Orwell on 26 May 2008, 8:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

That argument's been tossed around a couple times. I'll say this: I don't have to feel any great sense of respect toward someone to value their human life. I don't want people killed/maimed if it can be avoided, regardless of how I feel about those people. So yes, let's bring the troops home where they'll be safer.

Ya know Orwell, the last 50 years have seen at least one world war. Our grandfathers fought that war so we could have wrongplanet and use English instead of German. And had no one stepped up against the Nazis, you ungrateful turd, there would be no one on autistic spectrum alive today. We would have all been "cleansed" along with the other undesirables and worthless eaters to make way for the Aryans.

Think about that.

People fight your battles for you all the time. You're defended from the bullies who'd otherwise beat you to a pulp. Show some proper respect for the people who protect you from the bullies.

Meanwhile, enoy those freedoms of yours. Whine, complain, belitte others, etc.

Let's see now. Which bully are you indicating? Saddam Hussein who never attacked the USA or the USA who attacked Iraq with phony reasons? I did not admire Hussein who was a prime SOB but he was an ally of the USA for a long time in spite of that until he became a useful target to elevate the ego and status of Bush under the totally false accusation he was connected with Al Quade. A military action against the actual bully would probably be considered treasonous.

Yeah, this post just makes me laugh. You are an idiot. Please check your history. When did WWII occur? Last time I checked, it was more than 50 years ago. It ended in 1945, and 2008-1945=63 years, and I believe 68>50. Woot for basic arithmetic skills.

You completely missed my point. Way to go!





(Math was never my strong suit.)

No, I got your point, I just didn't feel much need to respond to it because it was crap. And Sand had already managed to destroy the ideological content of your post by the time I noticed it.

Here, I'll respond now if you like: What has the military actually done to protect me in my lifetime? Or even, what have they done to preserve the liberty of Americans during my father's lifetime?

You should ask your father.

Obviously you struggle with power relations. You don't want to respect anyone because you don't see why it's necessary. That's your deal. I don't respectn it, but I abide it.

Sarcasm isn't a very effective argument. It was a historical question. For reference, my father was born in 1960- almost 50 years ago. Looking back over history, I can't find anything the US military has done in that time to defend Americans' liberty.

Nope, I respect quite a few people. Several of my teachers, my parents, my pastor, the mods here on WP, and plenty of others. I don't have an issue with power so much as I have an issue with people who abuse positions of power or think they have a right to lord it over the rest of us.

Although I agree with your statement in the time period presented, as a veteran of WWII I well remember the events of the time and do believe there was no alternative to halting the Nazis and the brutal Japanese with military action. And I highly respect the men that had to do terrible things to themselves and others at the time. Many of the military actions on both sides probably were unnecessarily inflicted on helpless populations and the post war re-establishment of cordial relationships between nations that opposed each other in the war demonstrates that perhaps some other course of history could have been possible. I don't know.

That political action could and should have been carried out to prevent the growth and crisis of totalitarianism is another subject.