What does "Supporting the Troops" mean?

[dblack]

If you have to make shit up, you really don't have an argument at all.

I got news for you skippy, blind allegeince to the flag, is not patriotism.

And I do not support criminal behavior and actions that go against our American heritage. We're doing the same fuckin' thing the nazis did and I find it disgusting. If that's what you support, then renounce your citizenship and get the **** out of the country! I'm sure the folks in Weimar, will accept your kind.

No, it's not. Patriotism is a love of one's country, not blind support for bad leadership. In the hands of frightened authoritarians, it's a tool to silence dissent. **** them.

Oh joy. More partisan excuse-making. "B-b-b-but the other guys do it too!!!"

 

[daveman]

Speaking of mindless support for terrorists...

So the Nuremberg Principle's and being against the kind of wars Hitler started, is supporting terrorists?

Man, you really are fucked in the head!

Not as fucked as someone who claims Bush is Hitler.

 

[daveman]

Funny how the anti-war left fell silent when Obama was elected, innit?

They don't want to question Democrat authority.

I didn't fall silent!

I've been protesting Obama's policies as much as I protested Bush's.

Okay, that's one...

 

[daveman]

No, it's not. Patriotism is a love of one's country, not blind support for bad leadership. In the hands of frightened authoritarians, it's a tool to silence dissent. **** them.

Oh joy. More partisan excuse-making. "B-b-b-but the other guys do it too!!!"

Can you point to a similar inform-on-and-denounce-your-neighbor thing by the Bush Admin?

Kthnxbai.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What does "Supporting the Troops" mean to those who constantly accuse others of not supporting the troops? It means this...

"Shut up, don't ask questions,
do nothing to stop the madness,
and sit by and watch thousands of them die?"​

...that is what you're supposed to do, when supporting a troop.

Anyone who's ever accused someone of not supporting the troops, that is what they're expecting you to do. That is what "Supporting the Troops" means. Putting them in harms way over bullshit lies and in situations that have nothing to do with defending the nation, is how you demonstrate your support and gratitude for their service to this country.

"Supporting the Troops" basically means you put up signs and use symbols that say you support the troops.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What does "Supporting the Troops" mean to those who constantly accuse others of not supporting the troops? It means this...

"Shut up, don't ask questions,
do nothing to stop the madness,
and sit by and watch thousands of them die?" ​

...that is what you're supposed to do, when supporting a troop.

Anyone who's ever accused someone of not supporting the troops, that is what they're expecting you to do. That is what "Supporting the Troops" means. Putting them in harms way over bullshit lies and in situations that have nothing to do with defending the nation, is how you demonstrate your support and gratitude for their service to this country.

Unless you have control over their deployment there is nothing much you can do but support the troops as soldiers simply fulfilling their chosen and sworn duty to country and oppose those who put them there by voting against them at the next election if you so choose.

And put up a sign.

 

[dblack]

Funny how the anti-war left fell silent when Obama was elected, innit?

They don't want to question Democrat authority.

I didn't fall silent!

I've been protesting Obama's policies as much as I protested Bush's.

Okay, that's one...

There's a lot more of us than you might think. Still, we are massively outnumbered by the partisan fanboys.

 

[Billo_Really]

Not as fucked as someone who claims Bush is Hitler.

I didn't say he was Hitler, but I did mention their similarities.

 

[daveman]

"Supporting the Troops" basically means you put up signs and use symbols that say you support the troops.

I feel more support when I see a ribbon:

...than when I see leftist bullshit like this:

 

[daveman]

I didn't fall silent!

I've been protesting Obama's policies as much as I protested Bush's.

Okay, that's one...

There's a lot more of us than you might think. Still, we are massively outnumbered by the partisan fanboys.

And of course, Obama's water-carrying media isn't going to show you guys.

 

[daveman]

Not as fucked as someone who claims Bush is Hitler.

I didn't say he was Hitler, but I did mention their similarities.

As I often say: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

 

[daveman]

Oh joy. More partisan excuse-making. "B-b-b-but the other guys do it too!!!"

Can you point to a similar inform-on-and-denounce-your-neighbor thing by the Bush Admin?

Kthnxbai.

Find anything yet?

 

[Billo_Really]

As I often say: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

Let's put that to the test and see if we come up with the same conclusion, shall we?

The "...from history..." part:

In 1939, the leader (Hitler) of a nation (Germany), scapegoated an entire race of people (jews), for all the problems in their country, then used a national tragedy (Rheistag Fire) and lied to his country, in order to drum up support to launch an un-provoked, war of aggression, against a sovereign nation (Poland).

Needless to say, things didn't work out to well for him, or his country.​

The "...fail to learn..." part:

In 2003, the leader (Bush43) of a nation (US), scapegoated an entire race of people (muslims), for all the problems in their country, then used a national tragedy (9/11) and lied to his country, in order to drum up support to launch an un-provoked, war of aggression, against a sovereign nation (Iraq).​

The "...doomed to vote democrat..." part:

Bush was not a democrat and I don't think he voted for either Gore or Kerry.​

Verdict: Your conclusion didn't pass the test!
(However, I will agree there are a lot of dems that have failed to learn as well)

 

[daveman]

As I often say: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

Let's put that to the test and see if we come up with the same conclusion, shall we?

The "...from history..." part:

In 1939, the leader (Hitler) of a nation (Germany), scapegoated an entire race of people (jews), for all the problems in their country, then used a national tragedy (Rheistag Fire) and lied to his country, in order to drum up support to launch an un-provoked, war of aggression, against a sovereign nation (Poland).

Needless to say, things didn't work out to well for him, or his country.​

The "...fail to learn..." part:

In 2003, the leader (Bush43) of a nation (US), scapegoated an entire race of people (muslims), for all the problems in their country, then used a national tragedy (9/11) and lied to his country, in order to drum up support to launch an un-provoked, war of aggression, against a sovereign nation (Iraq).​

The "...doomed to vote democrat..." part:

Bush was not a democrat and I don't think he voted for either Gore or Kerry.​

Verdict: Your conclusion didn't pass the test!
(However, I will agree there are a lot of dems that have failed to learn as well)

Your "fail to learn" part is absolutely wrong. Bush did not demonize all Muslims (which isn't a race, retard), nor did he lie, nor was the invasion unprovoked.

Thanks for proving me correct!

 

[Billo_Really]

Your "fail to learn" part is absolutely wrong. Bush did not demonize all Muslims (which isn't a race, retard),

Not demonizing "all" muslims, infers some muslim's were demonized. Which, in turn, blows your "absolutely wrong" theory out the window. At best, he was partially wrong.

nor did he lie,

When he said, one of the reasons for going into Iraq was because Hussein wouldn't allow UN inspectors back into the country, at a time when UN inspectors were driving all around that country in white vans, wasn't a lie?

nor was the invasion unprovoked.

Thanks for proving me correct!

What do you mean it wasn't un-provoked? You need to explain this point in more detail. How did Hussein provoke Bush, when Bush already had told the British he was going to attack Iraq in the first place?

 

[MaryL]

The original post on this thread makes a valid point. Did this phrase come up during Valley Forge or the Battle of the bulge? This phrase only pops up during an unpopular war, say Vietnam or Iraq. It's a phrase politicians use to garner support for their cause, not the troops.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

The fighting the ME is no more or less immoral than our war against Japan for exactly the same reasons.

You probably have based this conclusion on the notion that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center is analogous to the attack on Pearl Harbor. But the following circumstances declare that reasoning to be flawed.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of war by the military forces of a recognized nation. The attack on the World Trade Center was a monumental criminal act, not an act of war. If in his 1993 sabotage effort Ramseh Yousef had positioned his van in front of rather then behind a support column of World Trade Center Tower One the huge bomb inside would successfully have toppled that building onto several blocks of downtown Manhattan, which would have done more damage and caused more deaths than did the 9/11/2001 attack.

The 9/11 attack was not an act of war any more than was Ramseh Yousef's failed attempt to bring down Tower One, mainly because it was not implemented by the government of any recognized nation. It was a crime. A well-planned, well-executed criminal act, perpetrated by a loosely organized group of fanatical Islamists in response to America's support of Israel and our military presence on the holy ground of Mecca.

The Pearl Harbor bombing was effected by the air force of the Japanese Empire, a nation with the military capability to invade and occupy the United States. Our conflict with Japan was a war in every sense of the word. Our actions in the Middle East are, without exception, unnecessary military aggressions occurring far in excess of the need to retaliate for a crime committed by an elusive cult of religious fanatics.

 

[RoccoR]

MikeK, 9thIDdoc, et al,

This is too funny.

[...]

The fighting the ME is no more or less immoral than our war against Japan for exactly the same reasons.

You probably have based this conclusion on the notion that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center is analogous to the attack on Pearl Harbor. But the following circumstances declare that reasoning to be flawed.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of war by the military forces of a recognized nation. The attack on the World Trade Center was a monumental criminal act, not an act of war. If in his 1993 sabotage effort Ramseh Yousef had positioned his van in front of rather then behind a support column of World Trade Center Tower One the huge bomb inside would successfully have toppled that building onto several blocks of downtown Manhattan, which would have done more damage and caused more deaths than did the 9/11/2001 attack.

The 9/11 attack was not an act of war any more than was Ramseh Yousef's failed attempt to bring down Tower One, mainly because it was not implemented by the government of any recognized nation. It was a crime. A well-planned, well-executed criminal act, perpetrated by a loosely organized group of fanatical Islamists in response to America's support of Israel and our military presence on the holy ground of Mecca.

The Pearl Harbor bombing was effected by the air force of the Japanese Empire, a nation with the military capability to invade and occupy the United States. Our conflict with Japan was a war in every sense of the word. Our actions in the Middle East are, without exception, unnecessary military aggressions occurring far in excess of the need to retaliate for a crime committed by an elusive cult of religious fanatics.

(COMMENT)

US troops never went to Mecca or anywhere near it that I am aware.

This is a case of someone trying to make a justification where none is to be made. We are taking about barbaric Arab Islamic fundamentalist.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[9thIDdoc]

[...]

The fighting the ME is no more or less immoral than our war against Japan for exactly the same reasons.

You probably have based this conclusion on the notion that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center is analogous to the attack on Pearl Harbor. But the following circumstances declare that reasoning to be flawed.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of war by the military forces of a recognized nation. The attack on the World Trade Center was a monumental criminal act, not an act of war. If in his 1993 sabotage effort Ramseh Yousef had positioned his van in front of rather then behind a support column of World Trade Center Tower One the huge bomb inside would successfully have toppled that building onto several blocks of downtown Manhattan, which would have done more damage and caused more deaths than did the 9/11/2001 attack.

The 9/11 attack was not an act of war any more than was Ramseh Yousef's failed attempt to bring down Tower One, mainly because it was not implemented by the government of any recognized nation. It was a crime. A well-planned, well-executed criminal act, perpetrated by a loosely organized group of fanatical Islamists in response to America's support of Israel and our military presence on the holy ground of Mecca.

The Pearl Harbor bombing was effected by the air force of the Japanese Empire, a nation with the military capability to invade and occupy the United States. Our conflict with Japan was a war in every sense of the word. Our actions in the Middle East are, without exception, unnecessary military aggressions occurring far in excess of the need to retaliate for a crime committed by an elusive cult of religious fanatics.

Nope. My statement was/is correct as written. Religious factions have been wageing war throughout history. Jihad? Crusades?

 

[Wicked Jester]

MikeK, 9thIDdoc, et al,

This is too funny.

[...]

The fighting the ME is no more or less immoral than our war against Japan for exactly the same reasons.

You probably have based this conclusion on the notion that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center is analogous to the attack on Pearl Harbor. But the following circumstances declare that reasoning to be flawed.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of war by the military forces of a recognized nation. The attack on the World Trade Center was a monumental criminal act, not an act of war. If in his 1993 sabotage effort Ramseh Yousef had positioned his van in front of rather then behind a support column of World Trade Center Tower One the huge bomb inside would successfully have toppled that building onto several blocks of downtown Manhattan, which would have done more damage and caused more deaths than did the 9/11/2001 attack.

The 9/11 attack was not an act of war any more than was Ramseh Yousef's failed attempt to bring down Tower One, mainly because it was not implemented by the government of any recognized nation. It was a crime. A well-planned, well-executed criminal act, perpetrated by a loosely organized group of fanatical Islamists in response to America's support of Israel and our military presence on the holy ground of Mecca.

The Pearl Harbor bombing was effected by the air force of the Japanese Empire, a nation with the military capability to invade and occupy the United States. Our conflict with Japan was a war in every sense of the word. Our actions in the Middle East are, without exception, unnecessary military aggressions occurring far in excess of the need to retaliate for a crime committed by an elusive cult of religious fanatics.

(COMMENT)

US troops never went to Mecca or anywhere near it that I am aware.

This is a case of someone trying to make a justification where none is to be made. We are taking about barbaric Arab Islamic fundamentalist.

Most Respectfully,
R

You have to understand something about that whackjob....He stated back when Wisconsin Governor Walker was going up against the unions, that every Republican state senator should have been dragged from their homes in front of their families, and beaten and tortured....And he wasn't kidding.

He's a far left wing anti-american scumbag, nothing more....Never forget that when running across him on this board.

Seriously.