"I Don't Support The Troops"

[Annie]

points for honesty? I think he speaks the truth, that others won't. Many are anti-American. Insufferable indeed:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Warriors and wusses
Joel Stein

January 24, 2006

I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.

I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.

And I've got no problem with other people — the ones who were for the Iraq war — supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.

But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there — and who might one day want to send them somewhere else. Trust me, a guy who thought 50.7% was a mandate isn't going to pick up on the subtleties of a parade for just service in an unjust war. He's going to be looking for funnel cake.

Besides, those little yellow ribbons aren't really for the troops. They need body armor, shorter stays and a USO show by the cast of "Laguna Beach."

The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day. Though there should be a ribbon for that.

I understand the guilt. We know we're sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful.

After we've decided that we made a mistake, we don't want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object to a war we barely understood.

But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying. An army of people ignoring their morality, by the way, is also Jack Abramoff's pet name for the House of Representatives.

I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel.

But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam.

And sometimes, for reasons I don't understand, you get to just hang out in Germany.

I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country. But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I'm listed in the phone book.

I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.

Seriously, the traffic is insufferable.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

points for honesty? I think he speaks the truth, that others won't. Many are anti-American. Insufferable indeed:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Anyone who draws a comparison between signing up for the armed forces and clicking on a pop up window... well... there ya go.

 

[CSM]

"I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country. But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I'm listed in the phone book."

Kind of says it all. Criticizes something he knows absolutely nothing about, takes the service of others for granted, and has pretty much done nothing all his life. I am supposed to take his opinion seriously!


The guy knows damn well that the chance of anyone even remotely affiliated with the military would beat him up is very remote though I bet he would not hesitate to sue the heck out of anyone who did.

 

[jAZ]

Supporting the Iraq War and supporting "the troops" are two entierly unrelated actions.

I didn't support going into Iraq, but I sure as HELL supported the troops. I come from a family with deep military history. So does my wife.

There are a LOT of people like me who supported our efforts in Afganistan, but didn't in Iraq. You know what? A lot of "the troops" served in both wars.

I'm sorry, but the whole campaign to demonize those against the Iraq War is an absolutely disgusting political tool to pit one segment of our population against the other. This "divide and conquor" campaign strategy is so disgusting, I want to throw up.

Talk about "unAmerican".

"May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."

 

[jAZ]

points for honesty? I think he speaks the truth, that others won't. Many are anti-American.

Being a pacifist (there are many and they don't support any war), doesn't make one "anti-american". "America" isn't one and the same thing as "War".

Sorry to break it to you. Some people envision a home without war (and nieve as they may be). That doesn't make them anti-american.

Just stop.

 

[CSM]

Supporting the Iraq War and supporting "the troops" are two entierly unrelated actions.

I didn't support going into Iraq, but I sure as HELL supported the troops. I come from a family with deep military history. So does my wife.

There are a LOT of people like me who supported our efforts in Afganistan, but didn't in Iraq. You know what? A lot of "the troops" served in both wars.

I'm sorry, but the whole campaign to demonize those against the Iraq War is an absolutely disgusting political tool to pit one segment of our population against the other. This "divide and conquor" campaign strategy is so disgusting, I want to throw up.

Talk about "unAmerican".

"May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."

No more disgusting than the ongoing campaign to demonize the current administration and the US. Makes me want to throw up.

I have no fancy quote, but I firmly believe that we should never view disloyal subversion as mere honest dissent.

 

[manu1959]

Supporting the Iraq War and supporting "the troops" are two entierly unrelated actions.

I support going into Iraq, and I sure as HELL support the troops. I come from a family with deep military history.

There are a LOT of people like me who support our efforts in Afganistan, and in Iraq. You know what? A lot of "the troops" served in both wars.

I'm sorry, but the whole campaign to demonize those in support of the Iraq War is an absolutely disgusting political tool to pit one segment of our population against the other. This "divide and conquor" campaign strategy is so disgusting, I want to throw up.

Talk about "unAmerican".

May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.

 

[theHawk]

Being a pacifist (there are many and they don't support any war), doesn't make one "anti-american". "America" isn't one and the same thing as "War".

Sorry to break it to you. Some people envision a home without war (and nieve as they may be). That doesn't make them anti-american.

Just stop.

It does make you anti-american. Untill we live in a world without tyrants and terrorists, we will have war. Pacifist ideas are not going to change tyrants around the world, so if we don't take the war to them, they will eventually take it to us. If you can't see that, then you are only blinding yourself and living in a dream world.

 

[5stringJeff]

This guy is a loon, plain and simple.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Here's a couple more anti-war libs being honest:

 

[NATO AIR]

And can you belive crap like this gets published in a major newspaper, by a "major" columnist.
Its even worse that in truth, he's being quite honest, not even attempting to decieve anyone about his true feelings.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Joel Stein:
Warriors and wusses
I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.

I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.

And I've got no problem with other people — the ones who were for the Iraq war — supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.

But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there — and who might one day want to send them somewhere else. Trust me, a guy who thought 50.7% was a mandate isn't going to pick up on the subtleties of a parade for just service in an unjust war. He's going to be looking for funnel cake.

Besides, those little yellow ribbons aren't really for the troops. They need body armor, shorter stays and a USO show by the cast of "Laguna Beach."

The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day. Though there should be a ribbon for that.

I understand the guilt. We know we're sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful.

After we've decided that we made a mistake, we don't want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object to a war we barely understood.

But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying. An army of people ignoring their morality, by the way, is also Jack Abramoff's pet name for the House of Representatives.

I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel.

But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam.

And sometimes, for reasons I don't understand, you get to just hang out in Germany.

I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country. But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I'm listed in the phone book.

I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.

Seriously, the traffic is insufferable.

 

[NATO AIR]

oops, i posted this in the military sect.

i give him an A for honesty.

and in reality, at least he's not a total wackjob, he wants to see them get their pensions, hospitals, mental health and safe, immediate return. That is far more appreciative and "supportive" than most americans who "support" the troops in voice alone, not action, then dare to get angry over the war 2 years into it because of what they hear on the media or the internet.

of course, the administration is just as bad, having been overwhelmingly dishonest and incompetent in its war effort for 2 years, now that its finally getting somewhere with professionalism, not idealogy, and patient, hard work, not wishy-washy "annoucements" that have no follow-up, its in danger of losing the PR war because it allowed the DEMS and others to hit them for years on valid and invalid points alike without an honest comeback.

 

[CSM]

oops, i posted this in the military sect.

i give him an A for honesty.

and in reality, at least he's not a total wackjob, he wants to see them get their pensions, hospitals, mental health and safe, immediate return. That is far more appreciative and "supportive" than most americans who "support" the troops in voice alone, not action, then dare to get angry over the war 2 years into it because of what they hear on the media or the internet.

of course, the administration is just as bad, having been overwhelmingly dishonest and incompetent in its war effort for 2 years, now that its finally getting somewhere with professionalism, not idealogy, and patient, hard work, not wishy-washy "annoucements" that have no follow-up, its in danger of losing the PR war because it allowed the DEMS and others to hit them for years on valid and invalid points alike without an honest comeback.

"But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying. An army of people ignoring their morality, by the way, is also Jack Abramoff's pet name for the House of Representatives."

This is the line I object to the most; who the hell is this guy to pass judgement on anyone, much less the members of our military? The arrogance of this guy is typical, I suppose but I dont have to swallow it just because he says it.

 

[Mr. P]

"I Don't Support The Troops"

I'd like to meet this guy when I'm out with CSM, OCA and PALE!

 

[NATO AIR]

"But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying. An army of people ignoring their morality, by the way, is also Jack Abramoff's pet name for the House of Representatives."

This is the line I object to the most; who the hell is this guy to pass judgement on anyone, much less the members of our military? The arrogance of this guy is typical, I suppose but I dont have to swallow it just because he says it.

CSM, doesn't it sound like this guy is almost suggesting the military revolt? i guess he wants to live in an America with military coups whenever a president tells the military to do something they don't 100% agree with.

 

[CSM]

CSM, doesn't it sound like this guy is almost suggesting the military revolt? i guess he wants to live in an America with military coups whenever a president tells the military to do something they don't 100% agree with.

This guy hints at a lot of things and all but comes out and calls the military a bunch of murderers. The subtle connection to the Nazis ("I was only following orders!") belies his opening sentiment. Makes me speculate that the drugs kicked in somewhere in the middle of is effort and that's when his true purpose comes to light.

For a person who is an self proclaimed leech on society, he's pretty arrogant.

 

[Annie]

Being a pacifist (there are many and they don't support any war), doesn't make one "anti-american". "America" isn't one and the same thing as "War".

No it doesn't, however those like the author, yes, they do qualify of anti-American.

Sorry to break it to you. Some people envision a home without war (and nieve as they may be). That doesn't make them anti-american.

No, just stupid, not naive.

Just stop.

No.

 

[pegwinn]

Well now. I had to set down my coffee cup and read it again. At first, I was homicidally angry, then I calmed down to a simmer. Essentially this doofus is encouraging the military to mutiny. And, while he wants us to think morality, he says we are stupid.

But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I'm listed in the phone book.

I think I might look this guy up. From about 1000 meters on a day with no cross wind.

 

[Gunny]

"I'm against the war but support the troops" is a contradiction, period -- just plain-old blowing smoke by the left.

From a logical standpoint, how can ANYONE call a war unjust and/or immoral but say by doing so they are NOT calling the actions of each and every individual conducting the war unjust and/or immoral?

While paying lip service to "I support the troops," the idiots don't realize what troops hear: You judge the war immoral and unjust;therefore, you are saying I am committing immoral and unjust acts.

Think that doesn't f--k with the mind of someone carrying the responsibility of whether or not to drop the hammer?

 

[Hobbit]

I'd like to meet this guy when I'm out with CSM, OCA and PALE!

Don't forget me. I have a long fuse, but a pretty loud bang at the end of it. Did you miss me finally getting an overdose of Psycho? This guy tears me up, though. By the time I finished reading this, I had crushed 7 coke cans (yeah, I'm messy and don't usually take them to the recylce bin until I have about 10 on my desk) with a single hand against my desk. My mom saw me tossing them and told me I didn't have to step on them beforehand...

The last time somebody let my fuse burn down in person, this "tough guy" who thought he could beat up any 'band wuss' because he played football found himself flat on his back bawling his eyes out. I essentially castrated his ego in one shot and started to walk away, then got detention....It was sooooooooo worth it.