NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously, it's like, logically impossible. Supporting the troops means wishing them well and hoping they don't get killed, right?

And yet, by supporting the war, you want to go over there and fight. And what happens when they go over and fight? They get killed.

So how can you be pro-war and pro-troops? They're mutually exclusive! It doesn't make any sense... I'm trying to think of another example but I just woke up after sleeping like a dead log so exuse... me, anyway, discuss.

you can't "Support Are troops" is just a generic phrase thrown around by people when they can't debate properly...it's just Ad Hominem

By supporting the troops, you also must support who they are and what they do. Even if you do not like the idea of them being there and being shot, you can for instance send them ameneties (toilet paper, candy, etc.) to make life there easier for them. And for those who are the type there are prayers and stuff. That is the only way I can see both simultaniously.

Seriously, it's like, logically impossible. Supporting the troops means wishing them well and hoping they don't get killed, right?

And yet, by supporting the war, you want to go over there and fight. And what happens when they go over and fight? They get killed.

So how can you be pro-war and pro-troops? They're mutually exclusive! It doesn't make any sense... I'm trying to think of another example but I just woke up after sleeping like a dead log so exuse... me, anyway, discuss.

You just thought? It seemed obvious from the first time I heard the phrase "support the troops".

you can't "Support Are troops" is just a generic phrase thrown around by people when they can't debate properly...it's just grammatically incorrect

True, true.

Fixed.

Well, except for the error..

You just thought? It seemed obvious from the first time I heard the phrase "support the troops".
Actually, I've been planning this poll for about 5-6 months but forgot about it and just remembered. :p

My taxes support the troops and the war.

Sure you can:

It really means "support the troops efforts in Iraq", or "support the brave troops who are fighting for americas freedom".

bleh if I go to war I don't want some asshat telling me I'm supported I also personally hate someone idolizing me and giving me special treatment

so I say scew the war and meh the troops

Sure you can:

It really means "support the troops efforts in Iraq", or "support the brave troops who are fighting for americas freedom".
Wait, aren't they supposed to be fighting for IRAQ's freedom? Or has that line run it's course yet?

Sure you can:

It really means "support the troops efforts in Iraq", or "support the brave troops who are fighting for americas freedom".roflol, which part of the US is on the banks of the Firat and needs its freedom fought for? And what are the troops' efforts in Iraq, really? That nice US president has not given any conclusive explanations yet. Well, from here it looks like they are there to wreak extensive havoc.Wait, aren't they supposed to be fighting for IRAQ's freedom? Or has that line run it's course yet?As if US Americans ever gave a wet fart for Iraq's freedom.

Wait, aren't they supposed to be fighting for IRAQ's freedom? Or has that line run it's course yet?

Whatever, i'm just repeating slogans.

roflol, which part of the US is on the banks of the Firat and needs its freedom fought for? And what are the troops' efforts in Iraq, really? That nice US president has not given any conclusive explanations yet. Well, from here it looks like they are there to wreak extensive havoc.

I'm not saying I agree with it.

It really means "support the troops efforts in Iraq",
That is not supporting troops, that is supporting a war.

or "support the brave troops who are fighting for americas freedom".
That stopped being a valid phrase the instant WWII ended.

I'm not saying I agree with it.don't have to. if you really believe that US freedom must be fought for half a globe away, you are truly out of your mind.

There not always mutually exclusive. The troops, that is, the actual people in the US military, are all volunteers. Even if they do not support this war, they support the idea of fighting for the US, so there's no reason no one else should. I support this goal (protecting the US) and not the war in Iraq, but if it was a fight worth fighting, I would support both.

A couple of years ago, a different viewpoint was published in The Onion, America's Finest Newssource, here (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34068).

True, true.

Fucked Up.

Well, except for the error..

Fixed. There's a difference between spelling and grammar.

Seriously, it's like, logically impossible. Supporting the troops means wishing them well and hoping they don't get killed, right?

And yet, by supporting the war, you want to go over there and fight. And what happens when they go over and fight? They get killed.

So how can you be pro-war and pro-troops? They're mutually exclusive! It doesn't make any sense... I'm trying to think of another example but I just woke up after sleeping like a dead log so exuse... me, anyway, discuss.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the neat pieces of proof showing fundemental differences in thinking amongst people. I've seen others--most notably my old English teacher--say the exact opposite: how could you support the troops and NOT support the war as well?

Fixed. There's a difference between spelling and grammar.

I see. I just figured since it was an entirely different word, that it would fall under grammar.

I'm not sure.

The greatest lie in the Iraq debate perpetuated by the conservatives is that if you don't support the troops (in thier context means supporting Bush policy) you are somehow treacherous and unpatriotic. It's the same logic that got Vietnam war protesters in universites and colleges sprayed with tear gas and beaten by police for disagreeing with the policy of the day.

Sure you can:

It really means "support the troops efforts in Iraq", or "support the brave troops who are fighting for americas freedom".

what if you dont support what they are doing in Iraq and you feel they aren't fighting for your freedom

what if you dont support what they are doing in Iraq and you feel they aren't fighting for your freedom

I can't help you with the first part but the latter means that you are sane.

"Support the troops" doesn't really mean anything at all... it's a meaningless patriotic slogan that to me seems to suggest a general acceptance of US militarism and the paradigms behind it.

I don't support "troops", I support people... US and Iraqi.

I hope the troops don't die, but that's about it. I don't send care packages or anything...they made the silly decision to join, after all.

My mother gave me some really good advice when I was maybe 10 years old...she said I should never date a policeman, a fireman, or a military man. I've been careful to follow it.

I hope the troops don't die, but that's about it. I don't send care packages or anything...they made the silly decision to join, after all.

My mother gave me some really good advice when I was maybe 10 years old...she said I should never date a policeman, a fireman, or a military man. I've been careful to follow it.

Ah.. Well, I'm free every other month.

I hope the troops don't die, but that's about it. I don't send care packages or anything...they made the silly decision to join, after all.

My mother gave me some really good advice when I was maybe 10 years old...she said I should never date a policeman, a fireman, or a military man. I've been careful to follow it.

or a doctor, they may not have the high death risk, but they will still be working all the time. ;)

I support neither and thus I need not worry about such a paradox.

Ah.. Well, I'm free every other month.

? Are you one of the three?

? Are you one of the three?

The three little pigs?
or
The three individuals with enough leisure time to be free every other month?

You guess.:)

I Support The Occupation Of Iraq, But I Don't Support Our Troops
The U.S. went to war in Iraq to remove an evil and dangerous political adversary from power. Now that we have done that, the American troops must remain in Iraq until the country is a fully functioning democracy, able to spark change throughout the entire Middle East. While I find this obvious, there are still a lot of people in our country who fail to grasp it. I support Bush-administration foreign-policy goals, but I stand firmly against the individual men and women on the ground in the Persian Gulf.

Yes, occupying Iraq does require troops, but they are there for one reason and one reason only: to carry out the orders of the U.S. Defense Department. As far as their overall importance goes, they are no more worthy of our consideration than a box of nails. Ribbons and banners in ostensible "support" of the troops miss the whole point of the invasion, which is to gain a strategic hold over that volatile and lucrative geopolitical region.

Need I remind the reader that it is our flag, not the troops, that we salute? It is our nation-state, not a bunch of 20-year-olds in parachute pants, that deserves our allegiance. As a patriot and true American, my heart sings at the thought of the Pentagon, and the zealous, calculating measures undertaken by the proud military bureaucracy of this great superpower. I feel a surge of pride when I think about our high-tech GBU laser-guided bombs, capable of carrying a 2,000-pound warhead. I tied a ribbon around my tree for the safe return of our nation's F-16s, because our military aircraft are instrumental to finishing our work in Iraq. And on the back of my car, I have a sticker stating my support for the CIA's ongoing efforts in Iraq.

I support the occupation, and the occupation alone, because when we start to support the troops, we pave the way for irrelevant concerns about their families back at home. Before you know it, questions about who is and isn't going to be home in time for Christmas will be interfering with the crucial decision-making process of our commander-in-chief.

I'd like to ask those currently trumpeting their support for the troops a question: Have you ever actually met any of these soldiers in person? Well, I have, and believe me, they are no more impressive than any other low-level functionary of a large institution.

In all honesty, my soul swells with pride at the thought of the military-strategy papers and cost-analysis reports in which the troops are represented as numerical figures. But, as for the men and women—well, in almost every respect, they are average. Although they are no less intelligent than any other American, it is certainly fair to say they lack the ability to devise the complex strategies and tactics to manage their own divisions, much less grasp the nuanced reasons for their deployment.

It is ridiculous that my "heart" is somehow morally or ethically obliged to "go out" to the troops. In fact, had the troops not been put to productive labor by the sheer might and institutional authority of the U.S. military, a good number of them would be sitting around bars, drinking and gambling. In short, we shouldn't view the troops as objects of sympathy, because their very contribution to our society is their ability to carry out simple commands on a battlefield.

Allow me to pursue this from a more personal angle. I have a son in the military. If I may say so, we've never gotten along particularly well. Frankly, he's been a bit of a disappointment to his mother and me. Nevertheless, he is our flesh and blood and always will be, and we wish him no harm. So I speak from a position of personal experience when I say that, while I do not wish death for any of the troops, death tolls should not be our greatest concern. All that matters is the pursuit of the foreign-policy goals of this great land, the land I love. America.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34068

Thus proving once again that the Onion has an article for every occasion.

or a doctor, they may not have the high death risk, but they will still be working all the time. ;)

Well yeah, there's lots of other professions to avoid, but I think those are the big three for me.

Doctor isn't a good idea either, but it depends where they practice and what their concentration is in. An E.R. doctor = not great pay, awful hours. Podiatrist = good pay, okay hours, gross. Plastic surgeon = high pay, okay hours, reprehensible morals most of the time. Geez, I can't think of any good doctors to marry. You're right. :P

The three little pigs?
or
The three individuals with enough leisure time to be free every other month?

You guess.:)

The latter.

you can't "Support Are troops" is just a generic phrase thrown around by people when they can't debate properly...it's just Ad Hominem

??? :confused:

[/GRAMMAR_NAZI]

Seriously, it's like, logically impossible. Supporting the troops means wishing them well and hoping they don't get killed, right?

And yet, by supporting the war, you want to go over there and fight. And what happens when they go over and fight? They get killed.

So how can you be pro-war and pro-troops? They're mutually exclusive! It doesn't make any sense... I'm trying to think of another example but I just woke up after sleeping like a dead log so exuse... me, anyway, discuss.

What are you on pot or something? THE TROOPS ARE PRO-WAR and PRO TROOPS!
If your friend worked for a super-market, you'd say "I can't say I like him and still let him keep his job because he's too good for that work."
Once again, the best people to debate this against you are the troops themselves.

Seriously, it's like, logically impossible. Supporting the troops means wishing them well and hoping they don't get killed, right?

And yet, by supporting the war, you want to go over there and fight. And what happens when they go over and fight? They get killed.

So how can you be pro-war and pro-troops? They're mutually exclusive! It doesn't make any sense... I'm trying to think of another example but I just woke up after sleeping like a dead log so exuse... me, anyway, discuss.

Oh, and another thing, I am so happy people like you weren't running the country in the 40's.
Now Bush himself, yes that's possible. I myself am not agaist the war, just how that *^&$ING IDIOT is conducting it.

Wait, aren't they supposed to be fighting for IRAQ's freedom? Or has that line run it's course yet?

Technically I wouldn't say freedom is the object of the war at all. I'd say the purpose of the war is to neutralize the threat of major killers. Certainly, I'd say they aren't "Hitler-Threat", there is NO WAY IN HELL they could take away America's freedom (unless you count the lawyers :p).