It was obviously inferred and we all know that but, no, not specifically stated as such. No use arguing the point though, is there?
Probably not but if we can't even agree on the contents of four clear as day sentences how can we agree on anything else? Musky stated that he was proud of what the troops did over there and that some of you were not. This is not complicated. Most have you have been arguing that you are not proud of the invasion, you are not proud of what our military did, that the US did more harm then good. This doesn't mean you don't support the troops and no one suggested otherwise. It is just another strawman argument built up so that people can play the victim card.
I don't know of a single person on this board that is not proud of US troops putting their lives in grave danger by following orders as they swore to do. It's the orders that are given as to deployment and stated enemy that's deplorable. This though shouldn't even have to be explained. It's so elementary but guess twisting reality to fit ones motivations blinds common sense.
How soon you forget the Michael Moore thread discussing American Sniper.
Lot of people not "proud" of the troop's actions on there. Go back and read it if you like...a number of you including Brian and Badbrains clearly didn't have any pride for the Chris Kyles of this world who were just following orders. You yourself even said this:
"I call those that stand up to invading force that has drones , jets, precision guided missiles and sharks with freakin laser beams Hero's."
Essentially you were supporting any resistance to those Americans who were just following orders. It's a fine position to take if you want but don't expect US veterans to appreciate how proud you are of their service.
I did and stand by whatever I said in that thread. I'm not a pussy ass chicken shit who slithers out of what I say. What's your point? I should be proud of someone like Chris? No thanks.
Edit-and if I was a vet, you'd be the LAST person I'd want to be advocating for or thanking me for my services. I'd actually tell you to fuck off, if I was a vet.
"if I was a vet"……that's priceless. Shame on you for even thinking let alone mentioning that on a day like today. Go back to the basement kid.
You packin' up yet?
How did you know?? I am gathering my gear as we speak for a Musky trip to the great state of Wisconsin as I am watching the Blackhawks….thanks for asking…GO HAWKS!!!
BS seems to believe that you're above the law if you're a soldier. If Chris Kyle were a pedo or wife beater, he's support him because the John Birch society says so with the "You're either with us or against us" crap. Cons need to stop seeing things in black and white. Some dems (I said SOME) as well.
It was obviously inferred and we all know that but, no, not specifically stated as such. No use arguing the point though, is there?
Probably not but if we can't even agree on the contents of four clear as day sentences how can we agree on anything else? Musky stated that he was proud of what the troops did over there and that some of you were not. This is not complicated. Most have you have been arguing that you are not proud of the invasion, you are not proud of what our military did, that the US did more harm then good. This doesn't mean you don't support the troops and no one suggested otherwise. It is just another strawman argument built up so that people can play the victim card.
I don't know of a single person on this board that is not proud of US troops putting their lives in grave danger by following orders as they swore to do. It's the orders that are given as to deployment and stated enemy that's deplorable. This though shouldn't even have to be explained. It's so elementary but guess twisting reality to fit ones motivations blinds common sense.
How soon you forget the Michael Moore thread discussing American Sniper.
Lot of people not "proud" of the troop's actions on there. Go back and read it if you like...a number of you including Brian and Badbrains clearly didn't have any pride for the Chris Kyles of this world who were just following orders. You yourself even said this:
"I call those that stand up to invading force that has drones , jets, precision guided missiles and sharks with freakin laser beams Hero's."
Essentially you were supporting any resistance to those Americans who were just following orders. It's a fine position to take if you want but don't expect US veterans to appreciate how proud you are of their service.
I did and stand by whatever I said in that thread. I'm not a pussy ass chicken shit who slithers out of what I say. What's your point? I should be proud of someone like Chris? No thanks.
Edit-and if I was a vet, you'd be the LAST person I'd want to be advocating for or thanking me for my services. I'd actually tell you to fuck off, if I was a vet.
"if I was a vet"……that's priceless. Shame on you for even thinking let alone mentioning that on a day like today. Go back to the basement kid.
You packin' up yet?
How did you know?? I am gathering my gear as we speak for a Musky trip to the great state of Wisconsin as I am watching the Blackhawks….thanks for asking…GO HAWKS!!!
Boo! Go Ducks! Suck it, Haliburton ass kisser.
Now that wasn't nice….Don't know what you mean by Hailburton ass kisser, but if that get's you off more power to ya. See ya in Chicago. What an amazing series!!!
It was obviously inferred and we all know that but, no, not specifically stated as such. No use arguing the point though, is there?
Probably not but if we can't even agree on the contents of four clear as day sentences how can we agree on anything else? Musky stated that he was proud of what the troops did over there and that some of you were not. This is not complicated. Most have you have been arguing that you are not proud of the invasion, you are not proud of what our military did, that the US did more harm then good. This doesn't mean you don't support the troops and no one suggested otherwise. It is just another strawman argument built up so that people can play the victim card.
I don't know of a single person on this board that is not proud of US troops putting their lives in grave danger by following orders as they swore to do. It's the orders that are given as to deployment and stated enemy that's deplorable. This though shouldn't even have to be explained. It's so elementary but guess twisting reality to fit ones motivations blinds common sense.
How soon you forget the Michael Moore thread discussing American Sniper.
Lot of people not "proud" of the troop's actions on there. Go back and read it if you like...a number of you including Brian and Badbrains clearly didn't have any pride for the Chris Kyles of this world who were just following orders. You yourself even said this:
"I call those that stand up to invading force that has drones , jets, precision guided missiles and sharks with freakin laser beams Hero's."
Essentially you were supporting any resistance to those Americans who were just following orders. It's a fine position to take if you want but don't expect US veterans to appreciate how proud you are of their service.
I did and stand by whatever I said in that thread. I'm not a pussy ass chicken shit who slithers out of what I say. What's your point? I should be proud of someone like Chris? No thanks.
Edit-and if I was a vet, you'd be the LAST person I'd want to be advocating for or thanking me for my services. I'd actually tell you to fuck off, if I was a vet.
"if I was a vet"……that's priceless. Shame on you for even thinking let alone mentioning that on a day like today. Go back to the basement kid.
You packin' up yet?
How did you know?? I am gathering my gear as we speak for a Musky trip to the great state of Wisconsin as I am watching the Blackhawks….thanks for asking…GO HAWKS!!!
Boo! Go Ducks! Suck it, Haliburton ass kisser.
Now that wasn't nice….Don't know what you mean by Hailburton ass kisser, but if that get's you off more power to ya. See ya in Chicago. What an amazing series!!!
shit, rangers have a better chance at coming back then Hawks.
It was obviously inferred and we all know that but, no, not specifically stated as such. No use arguing the point though, is there?
Probably not but if we can't even agree on the contents of four clear as day sentences how can we agree on anything else? Musky stated that he was proud of what the troops did over there and that some of you were not. This is not complicated. Most have you have been arguing that you are not proud of the invasion, you are not proud of what our military did, that the US did more harm then good. This doesn't mean you don't support the troops and no one suggested otherwise. It is just another strawman argument built up so that people can play the victim card.
I don't know of a single person on this board that is not proud of US troops putting their lives in grave danger by following orders as they swore to do. It's the orders that are given as to deployment and stated enemy that's deplorable. This though shouldn't even have to be explained. It's so elementary but guess twisting reality to fit ones motivations blinds common sense.
How soon you forget the Michael Moore thread discussing American Sniper.
Lot of people not "proud" of the troop's actions on there. Go back and read it if you like...a number of you including Brian and Badbrains clearly didn't have any pride for the Chris Kyles of this world who were just following orders. You yourself even said this:
"I call those that stand up to invading force that has drones , jets, precision guided missiles and sharks with freakin laser beams Hero's."
Essentially you were supporting any resistance to those Americans who were just following orders. It's a fine position to take if you want but don't expect US veterans to appreciate how proud you are of their service.
Why on earth should I have pride in someone based simply on the fact that they were following orders? I'm reading Bill Zimmerman's book Troublemaker and in that book he talks about soldiers and pilots in Vietnam that he interviewed who had refused to obey orders that they thought were bogus-- in this case it was orders to bomb civilians but that issue is not the point here. The point is, I am far more proud (if you will- I prefer "respectful") of people who follow their common sense and sense of moral judgement far more than people who simply "follow orders". So, yeah, I guess you do have me figured out. I'm OK with that. Definitely OK.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
It was obviously inferred and we all know that but, no, not specifically stated as such. No use arguing the point though, is there?
Probably not but if we can't even agree on the contents of four clear as day sentences how can we agree on anything else? Musky stated that he was proud of what the troops did over there and that some of you were not. This is not complicated. Most have you have been arguing that you are not proud of the invasion, you are not proud of what our military did, that the US did more harm then good. This doesn't mean you don't support the troops and no one suggested otherwise. It is just another strawman argument built up so that people can play the victim card.
I don't know of a single person on this board that is not proud of US troops putting their lives in grave danger by following orders as they swore to do. It's the orders that are given as to deployment and stated enemy that's deplorable. This though shouldn't even have to be explained. It's so elementary but guess twisting reality to fit ones motivations blinds common sense.
How soon you forget the Michael Moore thread discussing American Sniper.
Lot of people not "proud" of the troop's actions on there. Go back and read it if you like...a number of you including Brian and Badbrains clearly didn't have any pride for the Chris Kyles of this world who were just following orders. You yourself even said this:
"I call those that stand up to invading force that has drones , jets, precision guided missiles and sharks with freakin laser beams Hero's."
Essentially you were supporting any resistance to those Americans who were just following orders. It's a fine position to take if you want but don't expect US veterans to appreciate how proud you are of their service.
Of course there are individuals that do some shit in war. And there are rare orders that are wrong and Soldiers should counter those orders such as shooting and killing non combatants but having people say those that don't support the mission not supporting the troops is bull. But I understand how it may be comfortable to feel this way.
And as pointed out repeatedly, Ironically those that support going to war sacrificing our soldiers are the ones that don't give a shit about them. And then from another country. Please. Want to see someone that will sacrifice others lives and money due to paranoia, look in the mirror.
It was obviously inferred and we all know that but, no, not specifically stated as such. No use arguing the point though, is there?
Probably not but if we can't even agree on the contents of four clear as day sentences how can we agree on anything else? Musky stated that he was proud of what the troops did over there and that some of you were not. This is not complicated. Most have you have been arguing that you are not proud of the invasion, you are not proud of what our military did, that the US did more harm then good. This doesn't mean you don't support the troops and no one suggested otherwise. It is just another strawman argument built up so that people can play the victim card.
I don't know of a single person on this board that is not proud of US troops putting their lives in grave danger by following orders as they swore to do. It's the orders that are given as to deployment and stated enemy that's deplorable. This though shouldn't even have to be explained. It's so elementary but guess twisting reality to fit ones motivations blinds common sense.
How soon you forget the Michael Moore thread discussing American Sniper.
Lot of people not "proud" of the troop's actions on there. Go back and read it if you like...a number of you including Brian and Badbrains clearly didn't have any pride for the Chris Kyles of this world who were just following orders. You yourself even said this:
"I call those that stand up to invading force that has drones , jets, precision guided missiles and sharks with freakin laser beams Hero's."
Essentially you were supporting any resistance to those Americans who were just following orders. It's a fine position to take if you want but don't expect US veterans to appreciate how proud you are of their service.
I did and stand by whatever I said in that thread. I'm not a pussy ass chicken shit who slithers out of what I say. What's your point? I should be proud of someone like Chris? No thanks.
Edit-and if I was a vet, you'd be the LAST person I'd want to be advocating for or thanking me for my services. I'd actually tell you to fuck off, if I was a vet.
Well you are not a vet and I didn't expect for you to back down on your Chris Kyle comments. That's my point. When Callen says he "doesn't know a single person on these boards who isn't proud of the troops" I can tell him that you said otherwise.
Wait, so me not supporting Chris Kyle means I don't support ALL troops? Lol, what does someone say to this delusional post? And since you posted a link to that Michael Moore thread, there's a link in there of an American sniper calling out that same Chris Kyle. Why don't you go re-read that thread.
I swear I might be going crazy. Do you not understand the difference between "proud" and "support"? I really wish you had the ability to follow the flow of these threads. Musky used the term "proud". You and Brian then worked yourself up into a lather on being accused of not "supporting" the troops. I corrected you guys. Callen then said he's never seen anyone say they are not "proud". I showed an instance where you did just that and which you confirmed. Does that mean that you don't support the troops in general? Of course not. It seems you are an expert on the term "ass-clown" but have no clue when it comes to the difference between "proud" and "support".
So now you differentiate words that I used. Okay I hereby change my post from proud to support to better convey my message.
I stand by my post and premise that war mongers fall for the "if you don't support the war you don't support the troops". It's ridiculous and just old.
Probably the 10th time I posted this...it's the only point worth making in this discussion. People who throw that slogan at you are usually pretty far gone...
The point of public relations slogans like “Support our troops” is that they don’t mean anything… That’s the whole point of good propaganda.You want to create a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and everybody’s going to be for.Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn’t mean anything.Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? Noam Chomsky
I have to both agree and disagree here, Drowned Out. I like the Chomsky quote and it makes a lot of sense. The question "Do you support our policy?" certainly gets to the root of things and at that level, ones answer to it is the most revealing as to where one stands. It also requires more thinking so its a deeper question as well.
But when I say I "support our troops", I don't use it as a slogan. Carlin once said "symbols are for the symbol-minded". I'm sure he would have said something similar about slogans if the alliteration of that word worked better that way. No, I say I "support out troops" in a general sense in that too many young men (and today, some young women) are sent off to die for policies I don't accept agree with and I oppose those lives being wasted in support of those policies and, more specifically, I support those whom I personally know who have suffered mentally and physically as a result of being sent to Vietnam and the Middle East.
So I understand what Chomsky is saying in a broad sense but I would be very offended if he made that statement to me personally withput understand why I use the term (term, not slogan) "support the troops".
In any case, Chomsky's statement definitely bears a consideration.
I think he understands why you use the slogan....the whole point is that it is too broad a statement; too open for interpretation, thus rendering it meaningless....your post reinforces this - you say that it's 'in a general sense', while you're doubling down on your interpretation. You show your support by not supporting any policy you disagree with that puts them in danger. Others think in order to support them, you need to support the mission as well, because they're just following orders.
Personally, I have no problem showing my opposition to the slogan itself. I think if an Iraqi heard me defending their sovereignty, complaining about what's been done there, and ending my rant with 'but I support the troops', without clarification nor nuance, they'd think I was a massive hypocrite.
There are too many motivations for people to join the military, and too many soldiers who follow orders they know blatantly contradict the reasons they joined, for me to just say 'i support the troops' - that is blanket support, which to me is pretty rare to grant a huge group of people....Esp when I don't support the policy they're enforcing. I am not a religious person, but I try to stand up against islamophobia, and for the sovereignty of muslim nations, as a means to peace. Still, you will never find me saying 'I support the muslims'....because that would be stupid. There are some crazy-ass muslims out there, and I don't support any version of theocracy, be it in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or North America. Separation of church and state is a core issue for me. Supporting the troops regardless of policy is a brand of nationalism that parallels religious extremism too closely for my liking. I want the troops home safe, and in the countries they have invaded, the innocents left safe. That is about as much support as I can show without compromising my own values.
For the record, I agree with your stance on the best way to 'support the troops' (by ending hegemonic wars)...but allowing a debate about policy to be sidetracked by this topic is detrimental to that stance, and wasted energy; it will never actually do anything for the troops. Debating policy just might. (and yes I realize I just contributed to the debate I'm bitching about )
Interesting discussion - I guess I don't support the troops. Just as I'm saddened by the fact that we're encouraged by our society to lend our voices in four-year terms to PIC (People in Charge) who are usually acting in ways to ensure that PIC remain PIC, I see the same thing happening in militaries usually on behalf of governments, and I see it as a fucking shame.
If we were encouraged to think for ourselves about what's right and wrong, the way we're encouraged to vote for so-and-so or to enlist, we'd be in a much better position. Happy belated Memorial Day. Shame on the politicians who are truly the ones who deem this day necessary, and ensure that it's necessary year after year.
Maybe this is a bad analogy, but is a shepherd proud of his sheep if they're obedient? I'd assume only if complacency and obedience are all that sheep could amount to. If a shepherd found that his sheep were capable of an enlightened life (almost like that of a human) and maintained herding them, I feel that he is worthy of shame, and his flock should only be supported in their attempts at enlightenment.
Post edited by benjs on
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I don't want to wade too far into the minefield of this thread, but I will say this:
Playoff hockey has been better than playoff basketball this season. No doubt.
Especially since my Clips choked the big one against Houston.
Didn't choke, were handily defeated.
Go rockets. 3 more to go.
The Steph Curry fall last night was one of the worst things I've ever seen on a basketball court. Never seen a crowd go so quiet with the home team up by 20+ like the crowd in Houston did.
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,720
Probably the 10th time I posted this...it's the only point worth making in this discussion. People who throw that slogan at you are usually pretty far gone...
The point of public relations slogans like “Support our troops” is that they don’t mean anything… That’s the whole point of good propaganda.You want to create a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and everybody’s going to be for.Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn’t mean anything.Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? Noam Chomsky
I have to both agree and disagree here, Drowned Out. I like the Chomsky quote and it makes a lot of sense. The question "Do you support our policy?" certainly gets to the root of things and at that level, ones answer to it is the most revealing as to where one stands. It also requires more thinking so its a deeper question as well.
But when I say I "support our troops", I don't use it as a slogan. Carlin once said "symbols are for the symbol-minded". I'm sure he would have said something similar about slogans if the alliteration of that word worked better that way. No, I say I "support out troops" in a general sense in that too many young men (and today, some young women) are sent off to die for policies I don't accept agree with and I oppose those lives being wasted in support of those policies and, more specifically, I support those whom I personally know who have suffered mentally and physically as a result of being sent to Vietnam and the Middle East.
So I understand what Chomsky is saying in a broad sense but I would be very offended if he made that statement to me personally withput understand why I use the term (term, not slogan) "support the troops".
In any case, Chomsky's statement definitely bears a consideration.
I think he understands why you use the slogan....the whole point is that it is too broad a statement; too open for interpretation, thus rendering it meaningless....your post reinforces this - you say that it's 'in a general sense', while you're doubling down on your interpretation. You show your support by not supporting any policy you disagree with that puts them in danger. Others think in order to support them, you need to support the mission as well, because they're just following orders.
Personally, I have no problem showing my opposition to the slogan itself. I think if an Iraqi heard me defending their sovereignty, complaining about what's been done there, and ending my rant with 'but I support the troops', without clarification nor nuance, they'd think I was a massive hypocrite.
There are too many motivations for people to join the military, and too many soldiers who follow orders they know blatantly contradict the reasons they joined, for me to just say 'i support the troops' - that is blanket support, which to me is pretty rare to grant a huge group of people....Esp when I don't support the policy they're enforcing. I am not a religious person, but I try to stand up against islamophobia, and for the sovereignty of muslim nations, as a means to peace. Still, you will never find me saying 'I support the muslims'....because that would be stupid. There are some crazy-ass muslims out there, and I don't support any version of theocracy, be it in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or North America. Separation of church and state is a core issue for me. Supporting the troops regardless of policy is a brand of nationalism that parallels religious extremism too closely for my liking. I want the troops home safe, and in the countries they have invaded, the innocents left safe. That is about as much support as I can show without compromising my own values.
For the record, I agree with your stance on the best way to 'support the troops' (by ending hegemonic wars)...but allowing a debate about policy to be sidetracked by this topic is detrimental to that stance, and wasted energy; it will never actually do anything for the troops. Debating policy just might. (and yes I realize I just contributed to the debate I'm bitching about )
Damn it, you're making me work hard, Drowned Out! LOL! I jest of course because making my brain work harder will help keep it going. So, thank you!
Yes, a general statement such as "I support the troops" in of itself is meaningless. A more accurate statement (from me) would be, "Just because I am anti-war and do not agree with certain war/imperialist/hegemony related policies, that does not mean I am not capable of being supportive of many young men and women who are involved in carrying out these policies because I believe many of them are either misguided, young and naive and often, at their core, are good, decent human beings." (And that statement is based on personal experience.)
How am I doing?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Probably the 10th time I posted this...it's the only point worth making in this discussion. People who throw that slogan at you are usually pretty far gone...
The point of public relations slogans like “Support our troops” is that they don’t mean anything… That’s the whole point of good propaganda.You want to create a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and everybody’s going to be for.Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn’t mean anything.Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? Noam Chomsky
I have to both agree and disagree here, Drowned Out. I like the Chomsky quote and it makes a lot of sense. The question "Do you support our policy?" certainly gets to the root of things and at that level, ones answer to it is the most revealing as to where one stands. It also requires more thinking so its a deeper question as well.
But when I say I "support our troops", I don't use it as a slogan. Carlin once said "symbols are for the symbol-minded". I'm sure he would have said something similar about slogans if the alliteration of that word worked better that way. No, I say I "support out troops" in a general sense in that too many young men (and today, some young women) are sent off to die for policies I don't accept agree with and I oppose those lives being wasted in support of those policies and, more specifically, I support those whom I personally know who have suffered mentally and physically as a result of being sent to Vietnam and the Middle East.
So I understand what Chomsky is saying in a broad sense but I would be very offended if he made that statement to me personally withput understand why I use the term (term, not slogan) "support the troops".
In any case, Chomsky's statement definitely bears a consideration.
I think he understands why you use the slogan....the whole point is that it is too broad a statement; too open for interpretation, thus rendering it meaningless....your post reinforces this - you say that it's 'in a general sense', while you're doubling down on your interpretation. You show your support by not supporting any policy you disagree with that puts them in danger. Others think in order to support them, you need to support the mission as well, because they're just following orders.
Personally, I have no problem showing my opposition to the slogan itself. I think if an Iraqi heard me defending their sovereignty, complaining about what's been done there, and ending my rant with 'but I support the troops', without clarification nor nuance, they'd think I was a massive hypocrite.
There are too many motivations for people to join the military, and too many soldiers who follow orders they know blatantly contradict the reasons they joined, for me to just say 'i support the troops' - that is blanket support, which to me is pretty rare to grant a huge group of people....Esp when I don't support the policy they're enforcing. I am not a religious person, but I try to stand up against islamophobia, and for the sovereignty of muslim nations, as a means to peace. Still, you will never find me saying 'I support the muslims'....because that would be stupid. There are some crazy-ass muslims out there, and I don't support any version of theocracy, be it in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or North America. Separation of church and state is a core issue for me. Supporting the troops regardless of policy is a brand of nationalism that parallels religious extremism too closely for my liking. I want the troops home safe, and in the countries they have invaded, the innocents left safe. That is about as much support as I can show without compromising my own values.
For the record, I agree with your stance on the best way to 'support the troops' (by ending hegemonic wars)...but allowing a debate about policy to be sidetracked by this topic is detrimental to that stance, and wasted energy; it will never actually do anything for the troops. Debating policy just might. (and yes I realize I just contributed to the debate I'm bitching about )
It was obviously inferred and we all know that but, no, not specifically stated as such. No use arguing the point though, is there?
Probably not but if we can't even agree on the contents of four clear as day sentences how can we agree on anything else? Musky stated that he was proud of what the troops did over there and that some of you were not. This is not complicated. Most have you have been arguing that you are not proud of the invasion, you are not proud of what our military did, that the US did more harm then good. This doesn't mean you don't support the troops and no one suggested otherwise. It is just another strawman argument built up so that people can play the victim card.
I don't know of a single person on this board that is not proud of US troops putting their lives in grave danger by following orders as they swore to do. It's the orders that are given as to deployment and stated enemy that's deplorable. This though shouldn't even have to be explained. It's so elementary but guess twisting reality to fit ones motivations blinds common sense.
How soon you forget the Michael Moore thread discussing American Sniper.
Lot of people not "proud" of the troop's actions on there. Go back and read it if you like...a number of you including Brian and Badbrains clearly didn't have any pride for the Chris Kyles of this world who were just following orders. You yourself even said this:
"I call those that stand up to invading force that has drones , jets, precision guided missiles and sharks with freakin laser beams Hero's."
Essentially you were supporting any resistance to those Americans who were just following orders. It's a fine position to take if you want but don't expect US veterans to appreciate how proud you are of their service.
Why on earth should I have pride in someone based simply on the fact that they were following orders? I'm reading Bill Zimmerman's book Troublemaker and in that book he talks about soldiers and pilots in Vietnam that he interviewed who had refused to obey orders that they thought were bogus-- in this case it was orders to bomb civilians but that issue is not the point here. The point is, I am far more proud (if you will- I prefer "respectful") of people who follow their common sense and sense of moral judgement far more than people who simply "follow orders". So, yeah, I guess you do have me figured out. I'm OK with that. Definitely OK.
You don't have to be proud. Like I said...that is ok. Again...it is not a criticism...I am simply responding to Callen. This bring us back to my "sensitive much" comment. Don't get mad at me for pointing out the reality of your opinion which you are free to hold.
It was obviously inferred and we all know that but, no, not specifically stated as such. No use arguing the point though, is there?
Probably not but if we can't even agree on the contents of four clear as day sentences how can we agree on anything else? Musky stated that he was proud of what the troops did over there and that some of you were not. This is not complicated. Most have you have been arguing that you are not proud of the invasion, you are not proud of what our military did, that the US did more harm then good. This doesn't mean you don't support the troops and no one suggested otherwise. It is just another strawman argument built up so that people can play the victim card.
I don't know of a single person on this board that is not proud of US troops putting their lives in grave danger by following orders as they swore to do. It's the orders that are given as to deployment and stated enemy that's deplorable. This though shouldn't even have to be explained. It's so elementary but guess twisting reality to fit ones motivations blinds common sense.
How soon you forget the Michael Moore thread discussing American Sniper.
Lot of people not "proud" of the troop's actions on there. Go back and read it if you like...a number of you including Brian and Badbrains clearly didn't have any pride for the Chris Kyles of this world who were just following orders. You yourself even said this:
"I call those that stand up to invading force that has drones , jets, precision guided missiles and sharks with freakin laser beams Hero's."
Essentially you were supporting any resistance to those Americans who were just following orders. It's a fine position to take if you want but don't expect US veterans to appreciate how proud you are of their service.
I did and stand by whatever I said in that thread. I'm not a pussy ass chicken shit who slithers out of what I say. What's your point? I should be proud of someone like Chris? No thanks.
Edit-and if I was a vet, you'd be the LAST person I'd want to be advocating for or thanking me for my services. I'd actually tell you to fuck off, if I was a vet.
Well you are not a vet and I didn't expect for you to back down on your Chris Kyle comments. That's my point. When Callen says he "doesn't know a single person on these boards who isn't proud of the troops" I can tell him that you said otherwise.
Wait, so me not supporting Chris Kyle means I don't support ALL troops? Lol, what does someone say to this delusional post? And since you posted a link to that Michael Moore thread, there's a link in there of an American sniper calling out that same Chris Kyle. Why don't you go re-read that thread.
I swear I might be going crazy. Do you not understand the difference between "proud" and "support"? I really wish you had the ability to follow the flow of these threads. Musky used the term "proud". You and Brian then worked yourself up into a lather on being accused of not "supporting" the troops. I corrected you guys. Callen then said he's never seen anyone say they are not "proud". I showed an instance where you did just that and which you confirmed. Does that mean that you don't support the troops in general? Of course not. It seems you are an expert on the term "ass-clown" but have no clue when it comes to the difference between "proud" and "support".
So now you differentiate words that I used. Okay I hereby change my post from proud to support to better convey my message.
I stand by my post and premise that war mongers fall for the "if you don't support the war you don't support the troops". It's ridiculous and just old.
Well I have certainly been called a warmonger on here but at no time have I ever said "if you don't support the war you don't support the troops".
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,720
It was obviously inferred and we all know that but, no, not specifically stated as such. No use arguing the point though, is there?
Probably not but if we can't even agree on the contents of four clear as day sentences how can we agree on anything else? Musky stated that he was proud of what the troops did over there and that some of you were not. This is not complicated. Most have you have been arguing that you are not proud of the invasion, you are not proud of what our military did, that the US did more harm then good. This doesn't mean you don't support the troops and no one suggested otherwise. It is just another strawman argument built up so that people can play the victim card.
I don't know of a single person on this board that is not proud of US troops putting their lives in grave danger by following orders as they swore to do. It's the orders that are given as to deployment and stated enemy that's deplorable. This though shouldn't even have to be explained. It's so elementary but guess twisting reality to fit ones motivations blinds common sense.
How soon you forget the Michael Moore thread discussing American Sniper.
Lot of people not "proud" of the troop's actions on there. Go back and read it if you like...a number of you including Brian and Badbrains clearly didn't have any pride for the Chris Kyles of this world who were just following orders. You yourself even said this:
"I call those that stand up to invading force that has drones , jets, precision guided missiles and sharks with freakin laser beams Hero's."
Essentially you were supporting any resistance to those Americans who were just following orders. It's a fine position to take if you want but don't expect US veterans to appreciate how proud you are of their service.
Why on earth should I have pride in someone based simply on the fact that they were following orders? I'm reading Bill Zimmerman's book Troublemaker and in that book he talks about soldiers and pilots in Vietnam that he interviewed who had refused to obey orders that they thought were bogus-- in this case it was orders to bomb civilians but that issue is not the point here. The point is, I am far more proud (if you will- I prefer "respectful") of people who follow their common sense and sense of moral judgement far more than people who simply "follow orders". So, yeah, I guess you do have me figured out. I'm OK with that. Definitely OK.
You don't have to be proud. Like I said...that is ok. Again...it is not a criticism...I am simply responding to Callen. This bring us back to my "sensitive much" comment. Don't get mad at me for pointing out the reality of your opinion which you are free to hold.
I'm not mad at you, BS. Also don't see myself as confused about the reality of what I say. I try to only PUI on AMT in the PST PM.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,720
A little while back here we were talking about supporting troops but not wars and then just last night I came across this excellent example in the book I'm reading that tells how that can work. This action was organized by Bill Zimmerman, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden and others:
"With the November election looming, Fonda and Hayden organized an antiwar entertainment tour. The previous year, Jane had played in a political vaudeville show that traveled to military in the United States and the Pacific to entertain soldiers and sailors, much like the traditional USO tours- but with one critical difference. Instead of performers like Bob Hope who embraced the [Vietnam] war, Jane, her friend Donald Sutherland, and other actors performed satirical skits and songs that criticized or made fun of the war, the brass, and the politicians. It was called the FTA show, which in polite company meant Free the Army but on the bases where it played was also understood to mean Fuck the Army. The troops loved these performances and turned out in droves, despite the officers who tried to steer them away. Seeing entertainers who shared their skepticism about the war and took their side against the hated officers moved even more soldiers to protest and resistance."
Bill Zimmerman, Troublemaker, A Memoir from the Front Lines of the Sixties, , p 288
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
And it sure doesn't help when we kill, what's that number at now, 1,000,000+ Iraqi civilians? Doesn't seem to help.
I have heard the 1 million number thrown out a ton. in the eight years the US was in Iraq there would have had to been 342 deaths a day to make 1 million. That number is completely exaggerated.
Documented civilian deaths from violence 139,207 – 157,741
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Before my post gets taken out of context 1 life lost is too many, I am just rebutting the 1,000,000.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
And it sure doesn't help when we kill, what's that number at now, 1,000,000+ Iraqi civilians? Doesn't seem to help.
I have heard the 1 million number thrown out a ton. in the eight years the US was in Iraq there would have had to been 342 deaths a day to make 1 million. That number is completely exaggerated.
Also know people that served in Iraq and you will get different opinions from different vets. So one opinion is just that. Do very much appreciate hearing from someone that was there.
I know people that served and they have inherent need to believe what they did was correct and warranted.
At this point knowing what we know now, we should clearly see that US or coalition of western troops has done nothing to help the situation and will not do anything going forward. We could go back in, clear out the baddies then what? Stay for 20 years? As soon as we leave back to square one or actually worse as we will have killed more of the indigenous people.
We are being fed continuos dose of propaganda to make us hate the other guys. Link BS posted above perfect example. Don't be a BS and suck that shit up.
I was thinking this too. To 100% trust a war vet when looking for well-balanced opinions about foreign policy is probably a big mistake. War vets can be just as misinformed as any other random person out there as far as the politics behind the wars go. Many troops are intentionally brainwashed by the military, while others are influenced by related horrors that they have seen or been involved with. Others are getting their info from major news sources combined with rumours among other troops, which probably rage from accurate to complete and utter bullshit. Just because someone has been in a war, it doesn`t mean they are the experts on what that war is all about. They are only experts on the war itself (and really only on the part of the war they were directly involved in, and even then, who knows what their superiors are hiding from them or misrepresenting to them), separate from the politics, etc. Is it possible for a war vet to be very well infomed overall when it comes to a war and the politics behind it? Of course. Is it possibly for one to be completely misinformed and/or totally biased about it? Absolutely.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
And it sure doesn't help when we kill, what's that number at now, 1,000,000+ Iraqi civilians? Doesn't seem to help.
I have heard the 1 million number thrown out a ton. in the eight years the US was in Iraq there would have had to been 342 deaths a day to make 1 million. That number is completely exaggerated.
Documented civilian deaths from violence 139,207 – 157,741
Sorry but you're wrong. This is just one example I found from googling the number. Says over 450,000 Iraqis. This is one survey from national geographic.
Comments
Playoff hockey has been better than playoff basketball this season. No doubt.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
And as pointed out repeatedly, Ironically those that support going to war sacrificing our soldiers are the ones that don't give a shit about them. And then from another country. Please. Want to see someone that will sacrifice others lives and money due to paranoia, look in the mirror.
I stand by my post and premise that war mongers fall for the "if you don't support the war you don't support the troops". It's ridiculous and just old.
Personally, I have no problem showing my opposition to the slogan itself. I think if an Iraqi heard me defending their sovereignty, complaining about what's been done there, and ending my rant with 'but I support the troops', without clarification nor nuance, they'd think I was a massive hypocrite.
There are too many motivations for people to join the military, and too many soldiers who follow orders they know blatantly contradict the reasons they joined, for me to just say 'i support the troops' - that is blanket support, which to me is pretty rare to grant a huge group of people....Esp when I don't support the policy they're enforcing. I am not a religious person, but I try to stand up against islamophobia, and for the sovereignty of muslim nations, as a means to peace. Still, you will never find me saying 'I support the muslims'....because that would be stupid. There are some crazy-ass muslims out there, and I don't support any version of theocracy, be it in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or North America. Separation of church and state is a core issue for me. Supporting the troops regardless of policy is a brand of nationalism that parallels religious extremism too closely for my liking. I want the troops home safe, and in the countries they have invaded, the innocents left safe. That is about as much support as I can show without compromising my own values.
For the record, I agree with your stance on the best way to 'support the troops' (by ending hegemonic wars)...but allowing a debate about policy to be sidetracked by this topic is detrimental to that stance, and wasted energy; it will never actually do anything for the troops. Debating policy just might.
(and yes I realize I just contributed to the debate I'm bitching about
Go rockets. 3 more to go.
If we were encouraged to think for ourselves about what's right and wrong, the way we're encouraged to vote for so-and-so or to enlist, we'd be in a much better position. Happy belated Memorial Day. Shame on the politicians who are truly the ones who deem this day necessary, and ensure that it's necessary year after year.
Maybe this is a bad analogy, but is a shepherd proud of his sheep if they're obedient? I'd assume only if complacency and obedience are all that sheep could amount to. If a shepherd found that his sheep were capable of an enlightened life (almost like that of a human) and maintained herding them, I feel that he is worthy of shame, and his flock should only be supported in their attempts at enlightenment.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Yes, a general statement such as "I support the troops" in of itself is meaningless. A more accurate statement (from me) would be, "Just because I am anti-war and do not agree with certain war/imperialist/hegemony related policies, that does not mean I am not capable of being supportive of many young men and women who are involved in carrying out these policies because I believe many of them are either misguided, young and naive and often, at their core, are good, decent human beings." (And that statement is based on personal experience.)
How am I doing?
"With the November election looming, Fonda and Hayden organized an antiwar entertainment tour. The previous year, Jane had played in a political vaudeville show that traveled to military in the United States and the Pacific to entertain soldiers and sailors, much like the traditional USO tours- but with one critical difference. Instead of performers like Bob Hope who embraced the [Vietnam] war, Jane, her friend Donald Sutherland, and other actors performed satirical skits and songs that criticized or made fun of the war, the brass, and the politicians. It was called the FTA show, which in polite company meant Free the Army but on the bases where it played was also understood to mean Fuck the Army. The troops loved these performances and turned out in droves, despite the officers who tried to steer them away. Seeing entertainers who shared their skepticism about the war and took their side against the hated officers moved even more soldiers to protest and resistance."
Bill Zimmerman, Troublemaker, A Memoir from the Front Lines of the Sixties, , p 288
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Documented civilian deaths from violence
139,207 – 157,741
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/