(no subject)

[oakenguy]

Sars over in this week's Tomato Nation (www.tomatonation.com) said it better than I ever could--if I focussed on the enormity of what's going on and how helpless I am to do anything about it, I would self-combust. It's no good to fling myself, moth-like, against the War. Watch for the chance to make a difference, save up strength for that moment.

Fine.

Except...

If one more person uses "support the troops" as a catchphrase I'm going to go postal!!! What the FUCK, you mindless sheep! Are you really so overloaded on Fox 'News' that you think 'anti-war' and 'support the troops' are a dichotomy?

Here's a clue: the best way to support the troops is to NOT send them into situations where they'll get bullets in them!

Every time a smug conservative calls their rally, their protest, their stance a "support the troops" stance it's an insult to the troops, it's an insult to the people who oppose the war, it's an insult to their own intelligence. It's jingoism. And worst of all, it will lead to my loud mocking.
***


And now, back to things I can actually make a difference about.

Comments

[kajivar]

Ummm. Better not read my LJ then, 'cuz I use that phrase.

It's not jingoism to me. I grew up a military brat. I've heard the story of how protesters made my dad feel while he was in Vietnam.

Apples...oranges...

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

People in the 60s and 70s calling American soldiers "baby-killers" and throwing garbage at them was wrong then.

People today calling American anti-war protestors "traitors" and trying to run them over with their trucks is wrong now.

Re:

[oakenguy.livejournal.com]

So, what about the phrase makes it meaningful to you, instead of something 99.999% of folks are doing? Give me a reason why it's any smarter than saying "support oxygen breathing".

Re:

[kajivar]

Oxygen breathing is a fact of life. It goes without saying.

Supporting the troops is not. It's something that gets taken for granted. You do have a point in that some people who protest the war do support our troops, but I think your ratios are skewed. A lot of those protesters don't give a damn about the troops. "Anti-war" and "support the troops" are not a dichotomy -- but to many people they are.

*shrug* We have different perceptions. Happens.

[prettydaisies.livejournal.com]

i, too, have a problem with the "support the troops, but not the war" phrase. i do understand that some ppl who want to support the troops, b/c they're out there and they're human and some of them are family or friends. these are the same ppl that also disagree with the fact that they hafta be out there, which i can understand.

to set that, and the overall emotional aspect aside, which is nearly impossible for many ppl right now, but anyway, the way i see it is that ppl who join the armed forces must be prepared for the possibility of going to war or protecting their country on the orders of the government. the way of the military is not democratic, you get orders, you carry them out, it's a hierarchical system, which requires full dedication, no matter the circumstance. so whether or not an officer likes what the officer does, the officer does it, because it's the officer's *job*. the officer chose that profession, and should be fully aware of what it entails, as should the family and friends of that officer.

if the officer is involved in a war situation that the american ppl don't approve of, it's like not approving of the job the officer has to do. if you don't approve of the job of an officer, which is to make war, then you are not in support of the war, but you are not in support of the troops and the job they do.

so yes, i see the dichotomy, and i'm just pointing that out. i'm not here to change anyone's mind, or to argue about who's right and wrong. i think if i hear "support the troops, not the war" one more time, it won't matter to me. the phrase already has no meaning to me, because the argument is flawed, and, by my thought process above, you can't have both.

i don't like this war. i think bush is stupid and unqualified to deal with any international situation (and most domestic ones). i'm sorry the troops are out there, but i'm not going to blanketly support all of their actions just because they're human like me. yes, it's not an easy war, the iraqi landscape for this war is difficult. i mean, there are hospitals and residences squished around presidential palaces, and ppl trying to blow through checkpoints who are unarmed but acting like suicide bombers and putting soldiers on the extreme defensive. but i don't believe in "support the troops, but not the war".

Re:

[oakenguy.livejournal.com]

Well, yes....except that your perception has the underlying principle that anti-war protesters are inherently jerks.

What could the protesters do to prove to you that they support the troops as much as people who are pro-war?

Re:

[kajivar]

I refuse to battle this out. I don't have the time or energy right now to correct your misconceptions about me.

Re:

[oakenguy.livejournal.com]

Look. It's not a battle, and I'm sorry if you perceive it that way. But when you have the time and/or energy, I'd love an answer to my question.

Re:

[kajivar]

I just didn't like being told "your perception has the underlying principle that anti-war protesters are inherently jerks" when that isn't the case. Disruptive/abusive protesters are inherently jerks is what I feel. Disaffected college students lying in the middle of a busy road does not a good war protest make.

As for the question, I honestly don't know. I have a military background, and I know first hand that the military feels that protesters are a slap in the face. A lot of it is residual backlash from the "babykiller" Vietnam protests. The sentiment now isn't the same, but the wounds remain. And it's hard to feel "supported" when people are screaming that you're wrong for being where you are.

[issendai.livejournal.com]

Salon.com ran an interesting pair of articles a day or two ago, one about military families who felt that the protests were a personal betrayal and the other about military families who were against the war. One of the points which arose was that military families feel they must support the war because it would be unbearable to lose a family member for something meaningless. Presented with a fait accompli--the war's already on--they do everything they can to make themselves believe in the war. They can't allow themselves to see the other side's point of view because that would crumble their defenses.

Another point which seems to run under a lot of these discussions--though no one's openly mentioned it yet--is the disagreement about who's in charge of the war. The military overall believes that it's in charge of the war; it identifies wholly with the government, and is offended when people suggest that the government's actions aren't right. Individual soldiers are encouraged to identify in this way because--among other things--it gives them a sense of power that they otherwise wouldn't have, and quite a number of civilians go along for the same reason. Other people, OTOH, are more likely to see the war as the government's sole doing, and see the military as the tool of the government rather than a policymaker. We're completely confused when someone equates the military with the President, because that just isn't one of our core concepts. And thus both sides miss one another's points.


And about the catcalling and insults during Vietnam...? THAT'S OVER. We've learned from that. It's not an acceptable thing to do any more. We can move on now.

And y'know why people changed their minds about whether it was acceptable to abuse vets of a war they didn't like? They stopped equating the war itself with the soldiers who had to fight it.

Ironic, innit?

Apples...Oranges...(part 2)

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

The issues are being treated as a dichotomy but they are actually orthogonal.

Unfortunately, those supporting Georgie and his war have co-opted the phrase "support the troops". And by repeating it over and over again, not only have the supporters come to believe the supporting the troops means supporting the war but those undecided or indifferent have also come to believe it. Thus, the phrase "support the troops, but not the war" sounds weird and, to some, a contradiction.

[expletive deleted]

Every American is obligated to support the men and women of our Armed Forces. They are the defense of our nation and, when times call for it, an instrument of our nation's foreign policy. Supporting the troops means seeing that they have the best uniforms, weapons, vehicles, facilities, airplanes, support services and deely-boppers that they need to maximize the success of their mission and minimize the risk of their being killed in the process. Supporting the troops means seeing to their families, their continued health care [which Georgie seems to have forgotten--but I digress] and benefits, welcoming them home with pomp and gratitude and showing respect for those who unfortunately die as a result of their service.

No American is obligated to support the decisions or the justifications for waging war. This country is not based on the mindless agreement with every action or foreign policy direction. Even the suggestion that we should agree with the person in charge is incorrect because this nation can and does allow that leader to change. Any American is permitted to speak his objections to the war, either alone or peaceably with one or one hundred thousand of his fellow citizens. [Anyone not agreeing with this statement is assigned the Constitution, Article I, for homework tonight. Study hard. There will be a test.] One cannot conclude anything about one's support for our Armed Forces from one's stated objection to the war alone.

[Comparisons of the protesters against Operation Iraqi Freedom with the growing protests against the Vietnam war are specious. Until I see Americans calling Gen. Franks the "Butcher of Nasariyah" or some other outrageous statement, they don't even come close. Vietnam veterans justifiably hurt by the protests during their time in service should listen closely to the messages from protesters this time. Throwing rocks (metaphorical or real) at current protesters reflects poorly on their oath to protect and defend the Constitution, in my opinion.]

Re: Apples...Oranges...(part 2)

[(Anonymous)]

I do think it is especially remarkable that Bush's massive tax cut coming this month will be actually removing medical benefits for American vets. So all those brave soldiers left alive but suffering from Vietnam and the last gulf war are out of luck.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0326-10.htm

Doesn't really seem to me that the current administration is supporting *them* in a proper manner. Doesn't bode well for our new soldiers when they return either. The phrase "homeless vet" is common in our cities and has to me always seemed redolent with the sin of denial.

PS. Hi to Brian from not-so-anonymous-lizardgirl in NZ! (must get LJ one day so can say hi to people properly.)
=)

off-topic heya

[oakenguy.livejournal.com]

Natasha! Hi hi!