It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Finally, an Honest Liberal Admits To Not Supporting The Troops

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Joel Stein wrote a column explaining that he does not support the troops. He writes a very convincing argument that I agree completely with. You can't condemn the war in Iraq, but claim to support the troops. If the troops are in an amoral, unjust war, then they are just as bad as the Nazis were in the 40s. They're pulling the trigger, killing these innocent Iraqis in an imperialistic action by the Great Satan.


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.

...

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.

...

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.


Obviously, I support the war in Iraq, and as such support the troops. So tell me, do you condemn the war in Iraq but still support the troops? If so, how do you justify rooting for the bad guys?

EDIT: Suppose I should provide a link to the article, no?


[edit on 1/25/06/25 by junglejake]




posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
That question is soooo loaded.

I didn't support the war, and still don't. The troops are there because it is their job. Those that say they support the troops not the war are just saying that they don't agree with the choices of the president and congress but it has nothing to do with the troops because the troops have given up their right to dissent. They have to go where they are sent or face jail. Basically, the troops don't get to decide so blaming them would be futile.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I agree it is a loaded question, but that's because I don't see it as being any other way...And this is the slug fest


How would you reply to Stein's comment about the role of the military, though? When you sign up for the military, you're pretty darn sure you're not doing so to protect America from invading forces from Canada and Mexico. The US's military has operated abroad ever since the Civil War. If you join up, you will not be protecting the country by fighting on this land, you will be protecting the country by battling enemies abroad, outside of our nation, such as Iraq. If joining the Nazis was voluntary (it wasn’t, really) in the 40s, and you did, aren’t you accountable for your actions, as you knew what your nation was doing and you volunteered to fight for it?



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
You're asking for my personal opinion, right?

Well to me, many folk that choose to go into the military don't have a clear view of what the job entails.

"See the world" they tell you
"get a free education"
"do more by 6 am than most do all day"

Why don't they add kill people? Don't ask questions? Be a puppet. That's why I don't think it is the soldiers fault when all of sudden they are thrown into the middle of a war zone. These are policy decisions that are made at the highest levels of government. The lil 18 year old kid signing that paper to "see the world" or "get a free education" was barely taught anything about how the government operates let alone how the policies that will eventually cause him/her to take a life or give up their own were drafted.

So, no. I don't agree with the writer. I believe you can disagree with a policy and recognize that the troops have a job to do just like you do only difference is the worst you can get for insubordination is fired. If a solider does the job that is required of him/her to the best of their ability then that's a good solider and whether I agree with the war being fought ... there is a sort of pride in knowing there are men and women that will put their life on the line for you and our country even when the objectives aren't clear and it's not what they signed up for. The first thing the guy says in the article is it's hard to say you don't support the troops. I think it's hard because its a dumb idea and based on his reasoning I believe he really supports and admires these men and women just like the rest of us. Maybe its a slow news week and he couldn't find anything else to write about.


My personal opinion.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I don't support Hollywood, but I support the actors!

That makes as much sense as "I don't support the war, but I support the troops."



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   


Finally, an Honest Liberal Admits To Not Supporting The Troops


Let's get something REAL CLEAR. There is a difference between not supporting the troops and not supporting the people that have decided to involve our troops in another Vietnam. There is not an American or politician out there that does not support the troops. The troops are doing their job. They are following orders.

The people that aren't supporting "something" are not supporting the people that have put our troops in harms way for the wrong reasons. They aren't supporting the politicians and big businesses that are making billions of dollars off this war and could care less how many of our troops die. That's what they don't support.

Get it straight!



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   


I don't support Hollywood, but I support the actors!


That doesn't make since. You can love an actor and hate a movie. Love a movie hate the director. Love a writer hate the publisher. No, I don't think your analogy works here.

[edit]: to add the quote.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Saphronia]



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   

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.



Or are you just in it for funnel cake & label wars?



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saphronia
You're asking for my personal opinion, right?


Yes, and thank you. I can understand that, while maintaining that mentality, you could do both. What I don't understand, though, is this whole rooting for our side to win on the side of injustice.

For example, can you support the Packer players, but not the team (American football team, rival of



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Except if, from a basic nero/synaptical level, ones brain hasn't yet mapped/realized that human events are hardly ever black or white, but shades of both.
"Support our Troops" always has been a complete non sequitur, needed to fill the airwaves, and thus the deep fried McAttention Span ( the six piece -O-seconds size off the dollar menu) so that reason & actual accounting of actions never entered the public debate.
THe author is engaged in shock & awe intervention prose to disable the non sequitur.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
[I don't see why anyone would be confused]
Except if, from a basic nero/synaptical level, ones brain hasn't yet mapped/realized that human events are hardly ever black or white, but shades of both.



I know. While I haven't evolved to the mental level of perfection you have, I've read that evolution takes quite a bit of time. Rather than wait for my brain to become perfected , I figured I'd pose the question for an answer.

Thanks, though, for the explanation. It was very helpful.

EDIT: added a link, took out something unneccessary.

[edit on 1/26/06/26 by junglejake]



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
there are no good guys in war, i abhor war, in all forms, and i don't support either side.

saying that if i don't support the troops i support the enemy is bull, because i don't support anyone in any war except the injured.

war gets shady, because we see it through the lense of our side, so we can't label good guy and bad guy in MOST cases, i repeat MOST cases, not all.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Just because this Mr. Stein (and others) cannot comprehend a certain position or opinion, does not mean it doesn't exist. It does. He apparently just doesn't have the capacity to understand it and therefore resorts to calling everyone 'wussies'.

Don't get me wrong, I've entertained the question about supporting the troops when I am so vehemently against this war, but I have figured it out to my satisfaction. I hope Mr. Stein will one day be able to comprehend.

I asked the question here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I suggest you read this thread. Very enlightening.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I know this opinion is going to be unpopular, but how do you separate the troops from the war when the troops are joining to fight in the war and the military is not measuring up to its own standards of decency and respectability?

I know there are many individual soldiers who do behave in an honorable manner and deserve the respect of the civilians. I also know that there are many in the military who were in there before the war in Iraq. But the line between war and troops has always been so clear to me before, and these days, it’s might fuzzy…


dgtempe provided the insight I was looking for, in bold, below.


Originally posted by dgtempe
There are lots of soldiers who support Bush's war. There are some, who do not. In either case, i wish them well and hope they come home safely.

I have no idea what would make someone enlist in this war. If they wish to do so, i wish them all the best. In their hearts, this group is fighting for our freedom. They have the best intentions at heart. Do i think this is an unecessary war? Yes.


So, even though I disagree with the choices the troops are making, even though I think they're doing something VERY wrong, I believe that in their hearts, they have every intention of fighting for MY freedom and for that, I am grateful to them and I support their INTENT, if not their actions and I support them as brave defenders of this country.

It seems to me that Mr. Stein is more interested in corralling support for how he feels than actually understanding the paradigm of supporting the troops without supporting the war.



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.


I don't lend soft, hard or medium support to the hawks who sent them there. That's an incorrect assumption that Mr. Stein (and MANY others) make.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by Bout Time
[I don't see why anyone would be confused]
Except if, from a basic nero/synaptical level, ones brain hasn't yet mapped/realized that human events are hardly ever black or white, but shades of both.



I know. While I haven't evolved to the mental level of perfection you have, I've read that evolution takes quite a bit of time. Rather than wait for my brain to become perfected , I figured I'd pose the question for an answer.

Thanks, though, for the explanation. It was very helpful.

EDIT: added a link, took out something unneccessary.

[edit on 1/26/06/26 by junglejake]


Jake - above was directed to the author, but I can see why you'd try to own it, based on some of the opinions you've thrown out there!



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
Jake - above was directed to the author, but I can see why you'd try to own it, based on some of the opinions you've thrown out there!


I find that interesting, as I had said in a post, " I have been confused as to how someone can support the troops, but not the war." Shortly after, you posted, right after my post, explaining, "I don't see why anyone would be confused
Except if, from a basic nero/synaptical level, ones brain hasn't yet mapped/realized"

Call me underdeveloped, but I figured you were addressing me. The author of the story doesn't exhibit much confusion, he has theories as to why this is. "I'm confused" is followed 27 minutes later with "You shouldn't be confused unless your brain's underdeveloped".

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I don't believe you.

Check out that link, by the way, if you haven't. That has to be one of the most terrifyingly funny articles I've ever read.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   
That's the biggest load of republican crap I have seen in awhile. Our troops have no responsibility for this war or any other war. Troops do not decide to make war on anyone. The fleabag politicians who wanted this war are to blame and the troops are innocent of any wrong doing.
The repeated republican attempts to align themselves and their incompetent party blinders with out military are sickening and unsuccessful.
One more thing, you might want to look up the term liberal before you associate your self with people who condemn them. Those people are, shall we say...stup...uh, not well informed.
Our military has the support of every US citizen. The abuse to which it is current subjected does not.
skep



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I'll be amazed when that happens.
But as Bush Republicans are apt to do these days, they sing ( to the old Dr.Pepper jingle) " Mia Culpa, tu a Culpa, we're a Culpa too!"
You're link to the FoxNews posted study is pretty spot on to that mentality: excuse our predetermined bias because, studies show you're guilty of it too.
But I can't swing at both poles, huh?
Given our exchanges and the personal history I've shared, you don't think I would be derisive towards an Ivory Tower candy azz poison pen Liberal whom I think hurts the cause more than helps it?

Y'all haven't been paying attention then, but cool, I'll keep the lion to your Coliseum Christian dynamic going!



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by skep
That's the biggest load of republican crap I have seen in awhile.


Except it wasn't a Republican who wrote it. It was a conservative (myself) who interpreted it as such, though, and agreed with some of the author's points.

The Republican commentary on this article has not been very friendly. Hannity, Ingram, Prager and Savage have all condemned this as awful, terrible, and a throwback to the Vietnam era. I don't see it as such. When I hear Kerry say he supports our troops, but then calls them terrorists, I think the "I support the troops" is just lip service. That, or his belief of them being terrorists is lip service.

So if it's a load of Republican crap, it's Republican crap the Republicans aren't mentioning.

On the article, Bout, I don't see myself as a political hack, and saw that as very telling of politicians. If I were a political hack, following the party and striving to further the party's agenda regardless of the facts, I probably couldn't rage against hypocrites as I have on so many threads without being quoted as being on myself. Have fun looking, I know I would if someone said that



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join