Truly supporting our troops

[Working Man]

1) If you want to support our troops and make a statement, then campaign to vote out any US politician that isn't fighting to protect US jobs. If they troops have no jobs to come home to, or only jobs with mediocre benefits, then we have done them a dis-service, and have dissed their service to us.

2) remind any bonehead that you see driving a foriegn car with a US flag on it, or one of the those "Support our troops" stickers, that they infact undermine our ability to support our troops.. Think about how many jobs are lost to every car engineered, and manufactured overseas.. No, assembling them in the US is not the same as doing it here. There should be good jobs for our trained forces to come back to.

3) Can any vehicle that you don't REALLY need that is a gas hog. Get an economy car so that we can get off the oil usage binge...(here is the killer, our US manufactures are not getting into the HYBRID vehicle market. GM< FORD< CHRYSLER YOU SUCK!! Two ways,, no really reliable cars are made by you scumbags, hence the foreign car market explosion.)

4) Demand that US stores start selling more "Made in America" products. Shoes, and other goods, can be purchased that are made here for competitive prices, but they are getting much harder to find. The people who still, by luck, have a job making shoes in the US are only a fraction of the workforce it takes to actually make shoes. The suppliers of the materials, the truckers, the techs who fix the equipment, etc... They make up the part of our economy that has been stripped away as well by the slave labor forces in Asia and South America.

Without income to the US economy, how do we support our troops? By cutting back on their benefits??? Leaving their loved ones to fend for themselves due to budget woes??

We who remain stateside, while our troops are fighting around the globe, have to get off our asses and get things back on track.. Bill Clinton and George W may be of different politcal parties, and the parties may like to argue how different they are from each other, but in the end the two are very much the same. The only difference is who gets to stuff the money into their pockets. Both the current Democrats and Republicans out to have their asses booted out and their benefits slashed. They have failed the troops and have failed us at home by allowing the economy to get so screwed up.


And before you buy a flag to wave when the troops finally end up coming home, please make sure it too is made in the US... Wal-Mart is starting to whore them out to China too.

 

[5stringJeff]

Frankly, by purchasing foreign goods, we as consumers are sending a message to domestic producers: start making quality stuff at affordable prices. Whether or not something is made in the US or not is not a big deal to me, because there are American jobs in transporting those goods to the store, working retail, etc. etc. Just because something is manufactured overseas doesn't mean that there are no American jobs involved in its sale.

 

[mrsx]

I love my country and a value the patriotism and sacrifice of service people. My dad died on active service and when I visit his grave, the sight of all those little flags makes me sad and mad and proud all at the same time. My problem is that I think the war in Iraq (not Afghanistan) illegal, immoral and bad for America. I can separate the warrior from the war in my own mind, but how do I give outward support for those brave Americans who are fighting (as they swore so nobly to do) for what I think is a grisly mistake?

The idea of "support our troops, bring them home," makes sense to me but it's just an idea. IMHO it is still more supportive and patriotic than sending them over there without adequate planning, numbers or equipment while screwing them on pay and allowaces back here. I'm really troubled by this mess and I would appreciate any sincere ideas.

 

[GotZoom]

I love my country and a value the patriotism and sacrifice of service people. My dad died on active service and when I visit his grave, the sight of all those little flags makes me sad and mad and proud all at the same time. My problem is that I think the war in Iraq (not Afghanistan) illegal, immoral and bad for America. I can separate the warrior from the war in my own mind, but how do I give outward support for those brave Americans who are fighting (as they swore so nobly to do) for what I think is a grisly mistake?

The idea of "support our troops, bring them home," makes sense to me but it's just an idea. IMHO it is still more supportive and patriotic than sending them over there without adequate planning, numbers or equipment while screwing them on pay and allowaces back here. I'm really troubled by this mess and I would appreciate any sincere ideas.

Our troops are doing what the Commander in Chief has directed.

You can support our troops even though you don't support the cause.

 

[mrsx]

First please explain how the war in Iraq is illegal?

"how do I give outward support for those brave Americans who are fighting (as they swore so nobly to do) for what I think is a grisly mistake?"

Your confusion is obvious but still that is no reason to not support those who give you the right to have your opinions!

Here we go again! I asked a question about supporting the troops. You don't want to discuss that (OK by me) but want to get into one of those gotcha debates about whether the war is legal or not (boring!).

 

[dilloduck]

Here we go again! I asked a question about supporting the troops. You don't want to discuss that (OK by me) but want to get into one of those gotcha debates about whether the war is legal or not (boring!).

Been "gotcha-ed" one too many times I guess. Some folks who have been proven wrong admit it and move on instead of having the same old argument again with someone else.

 

[dmp]

I don't agree with the addage: You can support the troops, yet not support their cause. That's sorta like me saying I don't support my marriage, but I support my wife.


The troops are what they are doing. The troops are their cause.

 

[GotZoom]

In the big picture, as unfortunate as it is, the people who think the war is illegal, or wrong, or whatever, can jump and down and hold their breath until they turn blue.

It won't bring the troops back.

Just like you can respect the position a person holds but not necessarily the person, you can respect and support our troops regardless of what your stance on the war is.

You want to support them? Talk to the Red Cross. Call the Family Services branch (or whatever the branches of the services call is - Family Services is Air Force) and ask what is needed. Volunteer to babysit someone's kids while she goes grocery shopping - or gets her hair done.

Another idea - think of the time and energy you spend complaining about the war. Spend just half of that talking about how the troops and their families need our support and I bet you will see results quicker than you can imagine.
Call the local VA Hospital and volunteer to read the newspaper to the servicemember who is now blind because of a suicide bomber.

Talk about the soldier who comes home without a leg or an arm. Talk about the children who lost their parent. Talk about the family on food stamps because their major breadwinner is over in the desert.

You can say you feel the war is wrong.

Just say you support the troops more often.

 

[dmp]

In the big picture, as unfortunate as it is, the people who think the war is illegal, or wrong, or whatever, can jump and down and hold their breath until they turn blue.

It won't bring the troops back.

Just like you can respect the position a person holds but not necessarily the person, you can respect and support our troops regardless of what your stance on the war is.

You want to support them? Talk to the Red Cross. Call the Family Services branch (or whatever the branches of the services call is - Family Services is Air Force) and ask what is needed. Volunteer to babysit someone's kids while she goes grocery shopping - or gets her hair done.

Another idea - think of the time and energy you spend complaining about the war. Spend just half of that talking about how the troops and their families need our support and I bet you will see results quicker than you can imagine.
Call the local VA Hospital and volunteer to read the newspaper to the servicemember who is now blind because of a suicide bomber.

Talk about the soldier who comes home without a leg or an arm. Talk about the children who lost their parent. Talk about the family on food stamps because their major breadwinner is over in the desert.

You can say you feel the war is wrong.

Just say you support the troops more often.

again...feeling or thinking the war is wrong, or illegal is thinking our soldiers - who have the DUTY to not-obey unlawfull orders - are wrong and/or illegal.

Who was it that said, "Politics stops at the shore"?

 

[GotZoom]

Illegal in who's eyes?

There have been soldier's who have thought the war was wrong. They have refused to "go back" and have been discharged. I have yet to hear of any soldier being thrown in the brig for refusing to fight.

They have been re-assigned, discharged, and yes, punished (reduction in rank, etc) - but not thrown in jail - and not forced to "go back."

I would dare say that a huge percentage of troops don't feel the war is illegal, therefore serving at the pleasure of the President is without question.

 

[dmp]

Illegal in who's eyes?

There have been soldier's who have thought the war was wrong. They have refused to "go back" and have been discharged. I have yet to hear of any soldier being thrown in the brig for refusing to fight.

They have been re-assigned, discharged, and yes, punished (reduction in rank, etc) - but not thrown in jail - and not forced to "go back."

I would dare say that a huge percentage of troops don't feel the war is illegal, therefore serving at the pleasure of the President is without question.

In whomever's eyes. The army allows for Conscientious Objector...indeed. Still doesn't argue 'for' the concept that one can be a troop-supporter, yet not support their (and our) cause.

 

[GotZoom]

In whomever's eyes. The army allows for Conscientious Objector...indeed. Still doesn't argue 'for' the concept that one can be a troop-supporter, yet not support their (and our) cause.

Sure it does. Have you ever worked for someone you couldn't stand - but they were in a position of authority? You have to respect the position, but not the person.

I might not have respected Bill Clinton for his behaviour, but I still respected the position of the Presidency.

I support the war - sure, I have some questions about how it is being handled. Not the legality of it at all.

Many people felt that Viet Nam was similar to the war in Iraq. Many Americans did not support that war; to the end that when the troops came home, they were called baby killers and spat upon.

Did those troops deserve that?

 

[dmp]

Sure it does. Have you ever worked for someone you couldn't stand - but they were in a position of authority? You have to respect the position, but not the person.

I might not have respected Bill Clinton for his behaviour, but I still respected the position of the Presidency.

I support the war - sure, I have some questions about how it is being handled. Not the legality of it at all.

Many people felt that Viet Nam was similar to the war in Iraq. Many Americans did not support that war; to the end that when the troops came home, they were called baby killers and spat upon.

Did those troops deserve that?

Again - what are you asking? You are saying you support the war and the troops. I agree.

I'm saying, it's not possible to 'not' support what they are doing, and offer them any real 'support'. The whole "I support the Troops, just not the war" is nothing but lip-service...something Clinton was a 'pro' at.

 

[GotZoom]

The question was:

I can separate the warrior from the war in my own mind, but how do I give outward support for those brave Americans who are fighting (as they swore so nobly to do) for what I think is a grisly mistake?

mrsx obviously doesn't support the war. mrsx has every right to feel that way.

My responses were to the question how to support the troops but not the war.

I, like you, can't make the distinction between the two. I support both. I think everyone should support both - but we both know that will never happen.

I would rather have the people who don't agree with the war vocally support the troops instead of vocally disagreeing with the war while NOT saying anything about supporting the troops.

If mrsx can differentiate between the two, and outwardly support the troops, then bravo!

 

[mrsx]

Thank you for the suggestion. I called the nearest VA hostpital, which is over an hour away, and they are sending me information about volunteering in community outreach closer to where I live. It looks as if I'll end up driving outpatients to treatment. Probably won't be too many Iraq war guys but, hey a Vet is a Vet is a Vet. Anyhow, I feel a lot better thinking that I can actually do something to help someone.

As for the legality of the war, I suppose "illegal" is whatever the sheriff says it is. The Sec. Gen. of the UN has gone on record as saying that the invasion of Iraq was "probably" illegal under the terms of the UN charter. There is little doubt that if tried by a jury of his peers (other member states) Uncle Sam would be found guilty of illegaly waging war. Obviously, the case isn't going to come to trial - laws are for little states only.

I don't know if you have read the legal arguments by Mr. Jackson, the U.S. prosecutor at the Neuremberg trials of top Nazis. It seems pretty clear to me that under the rules used to convict Goering, Speer and other top members of that administration, Rumsfeld and Meyer would be guilty of war crimes for sure - Bush and Cheney probably too. Of course, the Nazis were bad and we are good - not to mention THE WORLD'S ONLY SUPERPOWER and God's agent on Earth.

 

[dmp]

As for the legality of the war, I suppose "illegal" is whatever the sheriff says it is. The Sec. Gen. of the UN has gone on record as saying that the invasion of Iraq was "probably" illegal under the terms of the UN charter. There is little doubt that if tried by a jury of his peers (other member states) Uncle Sam would be found guilty of illegaly waging war. Obviously, the case isn't going to come to trial - laws are for little states only.

We had the legal right based on UN Security Council mandates. Do some research before you come spoutin' off.

In fact....in FACT...if I had my druthers, we'd lay the smack down upon a few 'other' nations, too.

 

[5stringJeff]

As for the legality of the war, I suppose "illegal" is whatever the sheriff says it is. The Sec. Gen. of the UN has gone on record as saying that the invasion of Iraq was "probably" illegal under the terms of the UN charter. There is little doubt that if tried by a jury of his peers (other member states) Uncle Sam would be found guilty of illegaly waging war. Obviously, the case isn't going to come to trial - laws are for little states only.

You will have to prove your case better than that. Not only were there 17 separate UN resolutions that the US stood its case on, there was also the original cease-fire from the 1991 Gulf War, which Iraq violated numerous times by shooting at US airplanes enforcing the no-fly zone. That alone would have been justification to take down Saddam's regime.

 

[freeandfun1]

As for the legality of the war, I suppose "illegal" is whatever the sheriff says it is. The Sec. Gen. of the UN has gone on record as saying that the invasion of Iraq was "probably" illegal under the terms of the UN charter. There is little doubt that if tried by a jury of his peers (other member states) Uncle Sam would be found guilty of illegaly waging war. Obviously, the case isn't going to come to trial - laws are for little states only.

The problem with your conclusion is that it totally ignores the terms of the cease-fire that ended the 1st Persian Gulf War. In the terms of the agreement, hositilities were ceased as long as Iraq complied with the terms. Well, he didn't comply and 12 years laters, we finally did something about it and forced compliance upon him. Therefore, the war, if tried by a jury, would not be found to be illegal as he was in direct violation of the cease-fire agreement.

 

[mrsx]

The troops are what they are doing. The troops are their cause.

That doesn't make sense to me. I'd like to support that poor, mentally retarded hillbilly who is getting hung out to dry over the Abu Ghraib atrocities while all the top brass exhonorate themselves and the administration that described the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" skates free.

What the troops are doing is what every bunch of scared kids occupying a hostile population end up doing: rape, torture and murder. What is new is the cowardice of the slimy weasles who put them up to it and can't admit that they were wrong. Two years of victorious liberation and they can't drive from their Green Zone fortress to the airport.

I'm old enough to have watched what losing the Viet Nam adventure did to the U.S. forces. Here we go again, boys!

 

[CSM]

The troops are what they are doing. The troops are their cause.

That doesn't make sense to me. I'd like to support that poor, mentally retarded hillbilly who is getting hung out to dry over the Abu Ghraib atrocities while all the top brass exhonorate themselves and the administration that described the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" skates free.

What the troops are doing is what every bunch of scared kids occupying a hostile population end up doing: rape, torture and murder. What is new is the cowardice of the slimy weasles who put them up to it and can't admit that they were wrong. Two years of victorious liberation and they can't drive from their Green Zone fortress to the airport.

I'm old enough to have watched what losing the Viet Nam adventure did to the U.S. forces. Here we go again, boys!

Who in the administration has publicly or privately stated that the Geneva Conventions are "quaint"?

I totally disagree with your second paragraph. If such were the case, our college campuses would all be in flames.

Finally, I was in the Army both during the Viet Nam "adventure" and for a long time after. There is no comparison between then and now.