Bras provide support, I don't.

Postby **Jayelle** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:07 am

So I've been thinking lately about the whole "Support our Troops" thing. (It's alive and well here in Canada as well as in the States, so I'm not just talking about the American Troops, kay?)

My question is this: Why should I support the troops if I don't support the war?

It seems like I keep hearing "Okay, fine, hate the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, but you still have to support the troops."

Why? The men and women who join the armed forces are adults who were not drafted and aware of what the army means. Why should I support them when I don't support the war they're fighting?

daPyr0x · Postby **daPyr0x** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:15 am

Damnit, I thought this was going to be a serious discussion about breasts...

Anyways, I say support the troops because regardless of what they're doing there, they're still people. As far as I'm concerned, they signed up to protect our country and regardless of where our stupid government decides to send them, I respect them and support them for doing that. I support those who are proud enough to give their lives for their country, despite how the government decides to waste their effort.

eriador · Postby **eriador** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:38 am

Support the troops: BRING THEM HOME!

But seriously, that really sums up what I feel. I have an opinion of the war, and I'm working towards realizing that vision. I believe that my work is supporting the troops, and in that way I do support the troops. The only people who aren't "supporting the troops" are those who aren't DOING anything, who slap a magnet (come on, a magnet? Get a sticker PLEEEAASE) on their car and absolve themselves of all responsibility to actually DO anything. I say that if you are doing something that actually helps the soldiers, you're supporting the troops. However, one has to realize that it's not helping them to leave them in a dangerous situation that they never should have gotten into.

P.S. This is just my view. I don't want to debate the war, but my belief on this specific subject is best presented in context.

Postby **Dr. Mobius** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:05 pm

Canada has a military?

Syphon the Sun · Postby **Syphon the Sun** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:10 pm

Canada has a military?

Two men, a canoe, and a slingshot...

neo-dragon · Postby **neo-dragon** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:15 pm

So...

You're suggesting that we send the troops bras?

Gravity Defier · Postby **Gravity Defier** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:55 pm

On top of what Cameron said, I'd like to add the fact that sometimes people join the military because they just don't have other options that are as 'good,' good being a somewhat subjective term, or better. Or at the very least, are made to think they don't.

Someone very close to me joined years ago because it was the only way to get out of the town (population ~800) and see there was a world outside his home. His parents couldn't afford college (5 brothers and sisters) and no one told him about (and so he didn't know to look for) scholarships for college. That would have left him with a job in mining, fast food, or retail. Dead end jobs.

That's not nearly the case for everyone, but I'd say it is for enough in the military that it would be unfair to not offer them moral support for being forced into a war they may not agree with because the lot they were handed in life didn't lead to many other options.

Feel free to disagree with my overly biased and specific example.

Claire · Postby **Claire** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:02 pm

Anyways, I say support the troops because regardless of what they're doing there, they're still people. As far as I'm concerned, they signed up to protect our country and regardless of where our stupid government decides to send them, I respect them and support them for doing that. I support those who are proud enough to give their lives for their country, despite how the government decides to waste their effort.

I agree!

eriador · Postby **eriador** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:03 pm

Of course there are people who are pushed into the military. However, that's an entirely different problem that's only tangentially related to the one we're talking about here. That's all about economics and elitism.

Wil · Postby **Wil** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:26 pm

The only people who aren't "supporting the troops" are those who aren't DOING anything, who slap a magnet (come on, a magnet? Get a sticker PLEEEAASE) on their car and absolve themselves of all responsibility to actually DO anything.

*bites tongue and drowns in blood*

Oh, yeah, I actually wanted to post to say: Lawyers/Attorneys often times actually specifically ASK if you have bumper stickers on your car as those who do are often:
1) Usually TOO opinionated (yes, it's possible)
2) Stuck in their ways and opinions (lawl, sticker.. stuck.. get it? no?

)
3) Tacky as hell. Does the term "trailer trash" mean ANYTHING to you?

Honestly, if you HAVE to do it why stick it to the paint? Tacky TACKY TEHHACKEY! At the very least stick it to the windshield, or better yet, just tape it facing out on the inside with some scotch tape.

*My other car is a Warthog.*

Oh, and to not be too OT: I agree with daPyr0x: support them because they're people, despite your own sticky opinions.

eriador · Postby **eriador** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:57 pm

Ummm... at least people with stickers HAVE conviction. Magnets are the ultimate flip-flopper statement: "I can change my beliefs at any moment AND YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO TELL! ZINGGG!"

Postby **Eaquae Legit** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:11 pm

Or it's because they hate stickers. Just because they're sticky and gross. I know people like that.

anonshadow · Postby **anonshadow** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:25 pm

Of course there are people who are pushed into the military. However, that's an entirely different problem that's only tangentially related to the one we're talking about here. That's all about economics and elitism.

It isn't an entirely different problem. It is a different problem, but that the two are certainly connected. If a good number of people in the military are there for reasons other than that they really, really wanted to fight in Iraq, then that should be taken into account.

Beyond that, and in response to the original question: it is important to support our troops because they need support. Whether you agree with the cause they were sent to fight for or not, the troops had no part in the decision. Hell, a lot of National Guard got shipped over, and it's not like you join the National Guard to go fight foreign wars.

Gravity Defier · Postby **Gravity Defier** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:37 pm

Good, Elena saw what I was getting at.

As she said, a different problem, but related nonetheless. You have to consider those who join for financial reasons just as much as you consider those who join for patriotic reasons.

Slim · Postby **Slim** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:49 pm

To me, the reason we are supposed to support the troops is because few supported the troops in Vietnam. When they came home, it was to a country where the majority hated them.

Sure, we don't have the draft anymore, but that's no excuse to give them the same treatment again.

It's kind of like, these men and women that make up our military, they are just trying to do their job. Like any other job, (for example, McDonald's, Wal-Mart, etc.) just because you don't like who they work for, you shouldn't treat the employee as any less of a person.

I think the real question is, How exactly does one support the troops? ...Pay taxes? Or what?

eriador · Postby **eriador** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:25 pm

When they came home, it was to a country where the majority hated them.

This statement has some truth to it, but really the majority didn't hate them, the majority hated WHAT THEY HAD DONE.

I think the real question is, How exactly does one support the troops? ...Pay taxes? Or what?

I went over this...

anonshadow · Postby **anonshadow** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:31 pm

When they came home, it was to a country where the majority hated them.
This statement has some truth to it, but really the majority didn't hate them, the majority hated WHAT THEY HAD DONE.

For all intents and purposes, it's the same thing. And what they'd done was get drafted, go, and not get killed. They suffered extreme health problems, and the country just didn't f****** care.

zeroguy · Postby **zeroguy** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:05 pm

I think the real question is, How exactly does one support the troops? ...Pay taxes? Or what?

Not spitting on them when they come home is probably a good start.

eriador · Postby **eriador** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:03 am

You have to recognize that when somebody accepts the role of a soldier, they are also accepting the role of a symbol. They need to understand that this is what they accepted, and so yada yada what people have said.

I can argue about the whole Vitetnam vet thing 'til I'm blue in the face. What matters though is that this has no bearing on Iraq. Who cares what happened, that was 35 years ago. I have no responsibility to the 18 yr old kids in Iraq who can't even point out Vietnam on a map that stems from my grandparent's and parent's treatment of soldiers returning from Vitenam. None at all.

anonshadow · Postby **anonshadow** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:34 am

eriador, you have no idea what the soldiers in Iraq can or can't do, and whether they can point at Vietnam on a map. You're assuming they can't and have absolutely no reason to support that claim. Beyond that--

If someone invades the US, it would be such poetic justice if you were the first person they killed.

Getting pissy at the soldiers is like getting pissy at a sales rep because they can't refund you for something you bought. You're getting pissy at the wrong person. Many of the soldiers in Iraq didn't even join to go to Iraq--they joined at some other point, to protect our country. Then the administration decided to send them to Iraq. What, is it stupid for people to join the military, too?

Postby **Luet** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:46 am

For all intensive purposes

Sorry to go OT, but I always thought the phrase was "for all intents and purposes", am I wrong?

Postby **Dr. Mobius** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:12 am

I could care less.

starlooker · Postby **starlooker** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:48 am

Beyond that, and in response to the original question: it is important to support our troops because they need support. Whether you agree with the cause they were sent to fight for or not, the troops had no part in the decision. Hell, a lot of National Guard got shipped over, and it's not like you join the National Guard to go fight foreign wars.

I'm too angry at the world to day to go off about that topic.

However.

The purpose of the National Guard is not to fight foreign wars. And it is especially ridiculous when they get shafted on benefits when they come home.

f****** hell.

anonshadow · Postby **anonshadow** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:49 am

For all intensive purposes
Sorry to go OT, but I always thought the phrase was "for all intents and purposes", am I wrong?

You're right. I was sleepy, and sometimes mistype like that when I am. *edits*

Slim · Postby **Slim** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:51 pm

I think the real question is, How exactly does one support the troops? ...Pay taxes? Or what?
I went over this...

Okay, I assume you mean this post?

Support the troops: BRING THEM HOME!

But seriously, that really sums up what I feel. I have an opinion of the war, and I'm working towards realizing that vision. I believe that my work is supporting the troops, and in that way I do support the troops. The only people who aren't "supporting the troops" are those who aren't DOING anything, who slap a magnet (come on, a magnet? Get a sticker PLEEEAASE) on their car and absolve themselves of all responsibility to actually DO anything. I say that if you are doing something that actually helps the soldiers, you're supporting the troops. However, one has to realize that it's not helping them to leave them in a dangerous situation that they never should have gotten into.

P.S. This is just my view. I don't want to debate the war, but my belief on this specific subject is best presented in context.

Okay, I agree that a magnet isn't going to support the troops. (in fact, don't they normally say "support our troops" and not "I support our troops?" now that's absolving responsibility! )

Alright, I'm going to talk seriously about your suggestion, "Bring them home"

Actually, that might be the best suggestion as to how to support them, if we are going to agree that most soldiers over there, although chose to be in the military, didn't choose to fight in Iraq, so they probably don't want to stay there. In fact, I'm sure most people who want to fight in Iraq don't want to stay there forever.

But, we come back to the question again, what can I do to support the troops? Buy a private jet and go and fly them all home?

Okay, maybe not.

So, that leads it into the question as to how do we get them home? That's the question that grips America (and apparently Canada) today. Answers come from everything from getting the President to withdraw all troops immediately, to leaving them there until the "job is done" and then bring them home. And all non-binding resolutions in between.

I don't want to debate the war, either, but it seems to me that the only "real" thing we can do is participate in our government, especially by electing the people that (in our opinion) do support the troops.

Oh, and to not spit on them when they get home.

eriador · Postby **eriador** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:46 am

eriador, you have no idea what the soldiers in Iraq can or can't do, and whether they can point at Vietnam on a map. You're assuming they can't and have absolutely no reason to support that claim. Beyond that--

If someone invades the US, it would be such poetic justice if you were the first person they killed.

Getting pissy at the soldiers is like getting pissy at a sales rep because they can't refund you for something you bought. You're getting pissy at the wrong person. Many of the soldiers in Iraq didn't even join to go to Iraq--they joined at some other point, to protect our country. Then the administration decided to send them to Iraq. What, is it stupid for people to join the military, too?

Sorry, but they joined to do something that I whole-heartedly am opposed to. Sure, their commanders have made bad decisions, but they still have made bad decisions that they should be held accountable for.

Young Val · Postby **Young Val** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:50 am

eriador, you have no idea what the soldiers in Iraq can or can't do, and whether they can point at Vietnam on a map. You're assuming they can't and have absolutely no reason to support that claim. Beyond that--

If someone invades the US, it would be such poetic justice if you were the first person they killed.

Getting pissy at the soldiers is like getting pissy at a sales rep because they can't refund you for something you bought. You're getting pissy at the wrong person. Many of the soldiers in Iraq didn't even join to go to Iraq--they joined at some other point, to protect our country. Then the administration decided to send them to Iraq. What, is it stupid for people to join the military, too?
Sorry, but they joined to do something that I whole-heartedly am opposed to. Sure, their commanders have made bad decisions, but they still have made bad decisions that they should be held accountable for.

What is it that they joined to do that you are opposed to?

eriador · Postby **eriador** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:52 am

Kill people

Jebus · Postby **Jebus** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:58 am

Yep, that's why they joined, to gun them some ay-rabs.

I hear US soldiers keep the skulls of their kills in war as trophies and use them to decorate their homes.

I hear Canadian soldiers wanted to do it too but got squeamish from all the blood involved.

eriador · Postby **eriador** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:28 am

I'm not saying it's the only reason, but when they signed up, they agreed to kill people. I don't support that.

Jebus · Postby **Jebus** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:34 am

Do you have the same problem with police?

eriador · Postby **eriador** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:59 am

No, but the police aren't supposed to kill people.

Jebus · Postby **Jebus** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:29 pm

In some cases they are, or at least they're supposed to inflict life-threatening wounds on people using dangerous weapons.

anonshadow · Postby **anonshadow** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:55 pm

I'm not saying it's the only reason, but when they signed up, they agreed to kill people. I don't support that.

The National Guard didn't, eriador. That's not what the National Guard is for.

neo-dragon · Postby **neo-dragon** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:33 pm

I'm not saying it's the only reason, but when they signed up, they agreed to kill people. I don't support that.

So you'd prefer that the U.S. had no military then? Or maybe they should defend the country with harsh words and stern looks?

Bras provide support, I don't.

Bras provide support, I don't.

Who is online