Knowing what you know now would you still support the withdrawal of troops from Iraq

InHiding80

muskydan said:

rgambs said:

muskydan said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

callen said:

BS44325 said:

brianlux said:

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.

http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/242094/michael-moore-proving-once-again

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.

InHiding80

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.

muskydan

InHiding80 said:

muskydan said:

rgambs said:

muskydan said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

callen said:

BS44325 said:

brianlux said:

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.

http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/242094/michael-moore-proving-once-again

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!!!

badbrains

muskydan said:

InHiding80 said:

muskydan said:

rgambs said:

muskydan said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

callen said:

BS44325 said:

brianlux said:

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.

http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/242094/michael-moore-proving-once-again

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.

JimmyV

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.

badbrains

JimmyV said:

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.

Isn't it every year Jimmy? Haha

JimmyV

badbrains said:

JimmyV said:

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.

Isn't it every year Jimmy? Haha

It is really good.

Halifax2TheMax

JimmyV said:

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.

I totally agree. That hawks game was awesome. Chicago hawks that is. What great hockey.

brianlux

BS44325 said:

callen said:

BS44325 said:

brianlux said:

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.

http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/242094/michael-moore-proving-once-again

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.

callen

BS44325 said:

callen said:

BS44325 said:

brianlux said:

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.

http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/242094/michael-moore-proving-once-again

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.

callen

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

callen said:

BS44325 said:

brianlux said:

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.

http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/242094/michael-moore-proving-once-again

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.

Drowned Out

brianlux said:

Drowned Out said:

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 )

InHiding80

JimmyV said:

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.

callen

InHiding80 said:

JimmyV said:

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.

benjs

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.

JimmyV

callen said:

InHiding80 said:

JimmyV said:

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.

brianlux

Drowned Out said:

brianlux said:

Drowned Out said:

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?

Smellyman

Drowned Out said:

brianlux said:

Drowned Out said:

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 )

InHiding80

callen said:

InHiding80 said:

JimmyV said:

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.

Your Astros are unreal as well. At least my Angels are just so so unlike Chokeland. Can't wait until the Angels play them again.

BS44325

brianlux said:

BS44325 said:

callen said:

BS44325 said:

brianlux said:

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.

http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/242094/michael-moore-proving-once-again

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.