posted
I organized and ran a project for collecting donations (including my own) for stuff to send to the troops. I don't remember the exact number but I collected about 200 pounds of various things as well as about 150 letters of support.
posted
I voted against Bush... I think that definitely counts. I also argued extensively on Hatrack and elsewhere to try and prevent further warfare. And I helped Blackfox get a hold of his girlfriend a couple of times...
posted
Those have been frustrating me lately. I WISH i could do more to support the troops. I'd love to send out care packages and letters and advocate that when they come home they get all the support they need to slip back into civilian life. But I can't... I don't have the money and resources right now and it drives me crazy. I so want to do more for them, but I just can't right now....
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Last time, during Desert Storm, I went to Westover Air Force Base where every soldier deployed had to pass through on his way home, and we greeted the soldiers. They had punch and snacks, and a band sometimes.....it was very powerful (for my parents particularly) to see them come home and to be there when it happened.
My parents wanted to make sure they felt welcome instead of being protested against like the crowds did during Vietnam.
Also, a lot of my family has been active duty military, so we support them because it could have been us in their place, and often has been in the past.
At present, I'm also working on setting up a fundraising program to send money to the USO for care-packages. I have a sponsor in my school now, so I just have to get it cleared with the security office and then I'll be set to start getting others involved =).
PS "And I helped Blackfox get a hold of his girlfriend a couple of times..." Thank you very much for that, by the way .
Posts: 1548 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I specifically did not enlist in the military, thus sparing countless qualified, well trained soldiers from being killed in freindly fire accidents because Matt is the most uncoordinated person in the world and couldn't hold his rifle and walk at the same time.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I believe simply expressing support qualifies as support. When Michael Moore creates a film portraying all soldiers to be blood thirsty murderers I believe simply saying that one doesn't agree with his viewpoint is a form of support. That by no means, is all you can or should do to the support the troops.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think he portrayed them like that in the film. I can't give blood... I think they said that people who have had chemo before aren't allowed to or something.... Is that true? It's been years....
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since we're counting blood donations, then that's my contribution. i'm O+ and the blood bank calls me religiously every 8 weeks to schedule. I've also given platelets a couple times but that's very time consuming and (at least for me) stressful.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You've had chemo, Syn? I didn't know. What kind of cancer did you have? Glad that it's in your past.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think characterizing the military as a cohesive entity when a sizeable chunk of them still voted against Bush isn't meaningful .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can tell you some things that are NOT supporting the troops.
Like when an American speaks out publicly, for all the world to hear, about how wrong the war is or how stupid he thinks it is. That sort of thing is just plain aiding and abetting the enemy and is a form of treason. Maybe not treason in the sense of betraying one’s country, but treason in the sense of betraying our troops. If you don’t like the word “treason” then think of it as disloyalty. At any rate, it runs the risk of encouraging the enemy to keep on pushing and of helping to get some of our troops killed as a result. We need to show a united front to the enemy, and they need to fear us.
The common wisdom now days is that the Viet Nam war was bad, a big mistake. Fine. But apparently we don’t seem to have learned from our mistakes. At least not every lesson we should have learned. I’ve heard it argued by people a lot smarted than me, like Henry Kissinger for one, that all the anti-war protests and all the reviling of Americans against American troops helped prolong the war and may be a contributing factor in us losing it. Well, there may be some room for debate there. But I don’t think there is any doubt that Jane Fonda and John Kerry and their ilk got some of our troops hurt. It is inexcusable. And to do it to get political gain is doubly despicable.
I’m all for our freedom of speech. But I also know that some things we say can hurt people. Like shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. It should be obvious that with freedom of speech comes some pretty serious responsibility. But no, there are still a bunch of public figures that seem to think that anything they say is OK. They are merely exercising their right to free expression. There is no harm in that, right?. Indeed it is their duty to speak out, right?. But they seem to take no thought of the possible consequences.
Disagreeing with our leaders is fine, even in times of war. But in times of war, those difference of opinions need to be expressed in private to our public officials through letters or voting, etc. And if the person who disagrees happens to BE a public official or celebrity, that is even better. He has even more private access to the leadership. But he ought to shut the hell up about it in public. It’s none of the rest of the world’s damn business.
posted
You're so right Mr. Bush, I couldn't have said it better. Every single war the US has embarked upon has been completely moral with no downsides warranting strong criticism whatsoever. And criticizing war is just like criticizing the government -- TREASON!!!!!!!! I mean, if people went out and actually gave honest critiques of american policy, the government might actually listen to them sometimes and change its stance.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But in times of war, those difference of opinions need to be expressed in private to our public officials through letters or voting, etc. And if the person who disagrees happens to BE a public official or celebrity, that is even better. He has even more private access to the leadership. But he ought to shut the hell up about it in public. It’s none of the rest of the world’s damn business.
posted
I disagree Samuel. Who ever is president has the fragile lives of these soldiers in their hands. They have the responsiblity to make sure that soldiers are not hastily deployed. If peopel wish to speak out against what they believe is an irresponsible war they have the right to do so as long as they are not painting our soldiers in a negative light that is undeserved. But, if it is deserved, if they are doing things that would ruin the reputation of America abroad then they should be called on that. How else will things changed? Silencing descent is never really a good thing.
Edit-Yes, I was around 2 or 3 at the time.. from 2-5, but I wonder if I can donate blood yet...
I'm not sure what could help the troops more than voting against Bush. Bush hasn't shown any willingness to change course even if the people and facts tell him to. Thus, the only method to truly help the troops is to get Bush out of office, so we can win this war on terror that they have all risked their lives upon.
quote:When Michael Moore creates a film portraying all soldiers to be blood thirsty murderers I believe simply saying that one doesn't agree with his viewpoint is a form of support.
Have you SEEN the movie? Moore goes out of his way to make the soldiers look good. He devotes a third of the movie to that.
quote:Like when an American speaks out publicly, for all the world to hear, about how wrong the war is or how stupid he thinks it is. That sort of thing is just plain aiding and abetting the enemy and is a form of treason.
Allowing the government to misuse its soldiers is one of the most terrible methods of hurting our troops. That's the ultimate crime you could perform against them - not only force them to die, not only force them to die in the act of doing something wrong, but to force them to die in an act you KNEW was wrong simply because you were unwilling to speak out against it.
"I'm sorry madam, but your son had to die so we wouldn't have to admit our mistake."
posted
"It should be obvious that with freedom of speech comes some pretty serious responsibility."
I agree. And if we were getting into responsible wars, I wouldn't have to protest 'em publicly so much.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think he has even given them sufficient body armour or resources when they come home. That's not supporting the troops. It's disrespecting them and it's one of the miriad of things that make me angry about this administration. If you don't call them on it, nothing will change.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think he has even given them sufficient body armour or resources when they come home.
Remember Syn, we the people, through our representatives, drive the funding priorities that determine what equipment soldiers will have as they risk their lives to make those priorities possible. Regardless one's opinion about whether we should be at war or not, I think it is a bit mean to blame the current Commander in Chief for the funding priorities over the last 10 years.
quote: I'm not sure what could help the troops more than voting against Bush. Bush hasn't shown any willingness to change course even if the people and facts tell him to. Thus, the only method to truly help the troops is to get Bush out of office, so we can win this war on terror that they have all risked their lives upon.
1) There is no definate proof that kerry would have been better at leading the war. There are arguments for both sides. 2) voting is like stateing your opinions, except whichever opinion is most prevalent wins. It does not directly support the troops.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Voting is not mere opinion-stating. It is the only real power we have over how those troops are usedm, unless you are going to run for office.
What would be more supporting the troops than that? Sending them food or letters is good, but it doesn't solve the biggest problems they are facing.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still trying to figure out how dissent became "Un-American."
quote:We need to show a united front to the enemy, and they need to fear us.
The problem with this is that we DON'T have a united front! Some of us are decidedly against the government's actions here, and feel morally obligated to state that.
Also, the whole "they need to fear us" bit? I despise the fact that much of America has now fully embraced the role of agressor. I know some will argue that it is necessary, but that will not stop me from hating it.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps I can show you how I feel by using metaphors. I see the military, the troops, as a bus. I see the elected officials as the driver. I see the caring public as owners.
The owners get to decide where the driver drives the bus. If they don't like the way the driver drives or if he fails to drive the bus to the correct locations they can relieve him of the duty of driving. However, all the while they must maintain the bus, regardless of what they think of the driver, or else the bus will fall into such a state of disrepair that it will be of no use in the future.
So, when I see "support the troops" above, I see the need to maintain the military because we need it now and we may need it in the future. Getting a new Commander in Chief is a start, but you have to keep maintaining the bus while you fight the union to get a new driver.
quote:I'm still trying to figure out how dissent became "Un-American."
The same way anti-legal-abortion became misogynistic, or supporting equal marriage rights became anti-family, or pro-small-government became anti-compassionate.
Because Americans do love their labels, don't they?
posted
"I see the military, the troops, as a bus. I see the elected officials as the driver. I see the caring public as owners."
How, given our electoral system, do you propose that we replace the driver without discussing it among the owners? If certain owners think the bus is being driven badly, how do they convince the other owners that this is the case -- and thus swap out the driver -- without calling a meeting?
Are you suggesting that the American people get together to discuss political issues in secret, where the other countries can't hear?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Have you SEEN the movie? Moore goes out of his way to make the soldiers look good. He devotes a third of the movie to that.
Yeah I saw it, for free thank God. There was that whole portion of the movie where he saws the soldiers in Iraq acting gung ho talking about how they're going to waste all those Iraqis. Then he switched into sympathetic mode. The soldier that was interviewed with phantom limb pain spoke out in FahrenHYPE 9/11 about how he was pissed off when he found out that Michael Moore used him in his movie. There was also the letter wrote home by the soldier who died in Iraq condemning Bush. What Moore failed to mention was that he wrote a second letter apologizing for what he said. The only people he glorified were the ones who spoke out or appeared to speak out against the war.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I tried to include examples from both ends. Counting your initial example, I think I was even-handed.
Never meant to imply that you weren't! (Though I will point out that I mentioned only one label, while you mentioned quite a few. There are many others I could have mentioned that emanate from the right-wing, but since I agreed with your basic point about labeling, I didn't.) Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm sorry that I confused the issue more by using the bus thing.
My point is that we have every right to make changes to the leadership. Tres was absolutely right that by voting we are making that decision. However "support for the troops" is an immediate, ongoing concern.
I believe from the bottom of my heart that it is the duty of the public to be greatful to the men and women who put their lives at risk to defend the nation. You really never know when you'll need that defense. Right now many people think that we don't need the "defense" of the war in Iraq. That doesn't mean that we should "abandon" those precious men and women in the trenches. They may be our only hope in the near (this is hypothtetical, I'm not trying to predict an agressor) future.
posted
Maybe we could set up a fund so they could purchase their own body/car armor. Or training bullets. Or any of the various other things they need.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I believe from the bottom of my heart that it is the duty of the public to be greatful to the men and women who put their lives at risk to defend the nation."
Oh, I agree. However, I don't see that gratitude to these men and women precludes vocal opposition to the causes for which they are being sent to die. You have indicated that you believe this sort of vocal opposition constitutes material aid to the enemy, and that we should refrain from engaging in it while a war is ongoing.
My question to you, then, is how we replace a "driver" -- and stop a series of wars we oppose -- without engaging in the vocal opposition that someone on this thread called treasonous.
Fine, let me clarify. Given that about 80% of the military votes Republican in general and Bush in particular, I think that voting against Bush would not be considered by the overwhelming majority of the military to be supporting the troops. Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If supporting the troops requires me to keep silent in public forums, I do not support the troops. I hope they all come home safely, I believe the vast majority are braver than I am, but I will not tolerate attempts to manipulate my opinions or their means of expression.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, I agree. However, I don't see that gratitude to these men and women precludes vocal opposition to the causes for which they are being sent to die. You have indicated that you believe this sort of vocal opposition constitutes material aid to the enemy, and that we should refrain from engaging in it while a war is ongoing.
I think you're confusing me with a different poster. If you think that I'm on board with
quote:Like when an American speaks out publicly, for all the world to hear, about how wrong the war is or how stupid he thinks it is. That sort of thing is just plain aiding and abetting the enemy and is a form of treason. Maybe not treason in the sense of betraying one’s country, but treason in the sense of betraying our troops.
quote:Chad, I found out a little while ago a kid who grew up down the street from me and went to the same grade and high school that I did (some years younger than me and I never actually knew him, but I sort of know the family) got a large part of his liver (among other things) blown away while patrolling over in Iraq. He wasn't outfitted with the best body armor, which to be honest may or may not protected him, but would have given him a better chance. Can you see how I would consider criticizing the person most directly responsible for sending him there without the best protection as supporting the troops?
In my mind, there is a big difference between supporting the troops as people, as trying to make their difficult job as easy as possible and supporting the President. This difference is especially pronounced when people more or less give the President a blank check in terms of uncritically supporting whatever decisions he makes with regard to the troops. In this case, I'd say that supporting the troops and supporting the President are usually opposing concerns.
I supported the war based on the overwhelming case the government made for WMDs. Time has shown that at least some parts of where intended to deceive and that many other parts were the result of poor analysis and planning. The conduct of the war has shown to me many other cases where at the very least there was both poor analysis and planning. And during all this, the Bush administration has been unwilling to be held accountable for their mistakes. I am trying to influence the public to apply pressure on the administration to accept the responsibility for the course they've put us on, the decisions that they've made, and perhaps most importantly the way they've gone about making these decisions. One of my major motivations in this is concern for the safety of our troops, so it makes me sad to see that one of the biggest forces opposing me are people who I feel have conflated supporting the troops with supporting the President.
It is possible to think that the decision to do something was a mistake and yet support the effort to get as much good out of the situation that has developed because of that mistake as possible. I still think that the U.S. had the legal right to invade Iraq, but I don't necessarily think that it was a good idea to do so. It has polarized the country and squandered a large part of the goodwill of the world on something that hasn't significantly improved America's security and may have even harmed it. It has also taken the focus off of hunting down the terrorists and, by fostering opposition and distrust of our foreign policy, lost us useful international tools and alliances.
I don't think that the choice to invade was a good one or at least te best one that could have been at that time. I don't think that the analysis and planning both pre-war and post-war have been sufficiently responsible. I wish that our troops weren't there, but, as they are there, I want them to do their best in making Iraq a good place to be and I want them to be as safe as possible while doing it. I don't believe that President and his staff have shown that they should be trusted to achieve these ends and so I criticize them in the hopes that they will be foreced to the accountabilty that they have so far dodged.
I think "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time" was a pretty stupid way to express this and I don't think I ever supported John Kerry as a candidate, but I agree with what I think was the underlying message of this, which I believe matches up pretty well with what I said above. Do you consider me someone who doesn't fully support your cousin as well as the many people I've got on the ground over there?
quote: What would be more supporting the troops than that? Sending them food or letters is good, but it doesn't solve the biggest problems they are facing
Sure about that? Some worry more about their wife and child(ren), than they do about their own welfare. Speaking about welfare... There are soldiers that are on the welfare program. Can you picture how embarassing it would be to have to use food stamps when your beloved works for the government? I hope to never have to deal with that. It's one of the reasons I haven't even come close to trying for a relationship. I would be more worried about how they are doing than I would about any situation I would be in.
edited to add: Y'all ought to get the chance to read some of the letters that get sent to us. When I was deployed during 9/11 we got letters from children. The morale of the division just jumped up. These kids were so innocent and sweet in their letters that we read every letter multiple times. We even posted one on the office door. kid - "Do you have any grenades? I don't like my sister." That got the award for best letter ever. I got sent some letters from some kids that go to my parents' church. I still have each and every one of them. I hold these kids in my prayers.
[ November 11, 2004, 04:41 AM: Message edited by: Stan the man ]
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although I have never served in the army, I do have a story from someone I know who has. When he was in the service one of his most memorable times was when he receaved a care package full of gum, and stuff, and they threw a little party with the stuff while watching movies.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
That got the award for best letter ever. I got sent some letters from some kids that go to my parents' church. I still have each and every one of them. I hold these kids in my prayers.
