What Does it mean "To Support the Troops"?

Burning Giraffe

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
47
There is a poll that asks, is it possible to "support the troops" and not support the war. There was a lot of debate that went no where, so I think maybe if we could define what it meant "to support the troops" we could have a more productive discussion.

So what does it mean "To Support the Troops"?
 
Werbung:
There is just to many ways to support the troops to hold a definite discussion over one topic~
We would just change the topic and this would have gone nowhere...
 
There is just to many ways to support the troops to hold a definite discussion over one topic~
We would just change the topic and this would have gone nowhere...

In order to "support the troops" we must have something the troops need. They need funds, but they get those from Congress. They need emotional support and they can get that from their friends and families. So what is it that we are supposed to be doing to support the troops?

We can volunteer and give money, but is that what people really mean by supporting the troops?
 
I give my support to the troops that are involved in a war they don't wish to fight because they realise that something is wrong. I don't support the ones that are all about "bombing those A-rabs!" (as I've heard come from the mouths of many current and former military personnel).

Support? I'd give money if I had it. I think its more about knowing they'll be welcomed when they come home, assuming they do come home.
 
In order to "support the troops" we must have something the troops need. They need funds, but they get those from Congress. They need emotional support and they can get that from their friends and families. So what is it that we are supposed to be doing to support the troops?

We can volunteer and give money, but is that what people really mean by supporting the troops?

Supporting the troops means one thing and one thing only. Supporting what is best for them in terms of what we allow our leaders to have them do.

In going into Afghanistan to search for Bin Laden after 911 it was supporting the troops to encourage them & their mission. That was an honorable and necessary mission to go after those who attacked us.

On the other hand going into Iraq was an invasion based on lies & deception with no exit strategy. That was then spun into a full blown occupation and now over 4 years later (longer than the whole length of WW2) they're still being killed trying to referee in the middle of a religious Civil War.

Supporting our top notch troops now means doing everything we can as citizens to bring them home. It appears with the "stuck on stupid" game plan of George Bush that means we need to elect a whole lot more Democrats!
 
There is a poll that asks, is it possible to "support the troops" and not support the war. There was a lot of debate that went no where, so I think maybe if we could define what it meant "to support the troops" we could have a more productive discussion.

So what does it mean "To Support the Troops"?

If you support the war, supporting the troops means going down to your local recruiter and signing up.

If you oppose the war, it ,means doing everything you can to bring them home.
 
That was then spun into a full blown occupation and now over 4 years later (longer than the whole length of WW2) they're still being killed trying to referee in the middle of a religious Civil War.

WW2 lasted from 1939-1945. Iraq has been going on from 2003-beginning of 2007.

Simple subtraction.
 
If you support the war, supporting the troops means going down to your local recruiter and signing up.

That's not true at all. To say something like this is to assume that anyone can be in the military which is certainly untrue.

I have a question for you. If you're girlfriend/wife/daughter/sister was having brain surgery, would you support the surgeon? Under your logic you could not support the surgeon because you yourself are not a brain surgeon.
 
Werbung:
WW2 lasted from 1939-1945. Iraq has been going on from 2003-beginning of 2007.

Simple subtraction.

Yes, but we were only involved in WW2 from 1941 to 1945. I agree with your assessment; his quote about "the whole length" of WW2 was obviously erroneous, but I think he was attempting to inference our involvement.

Or perhaps he simply didn't know that the war started in 1939. I've met a woeful number of Americans who don't know that. Even worse are the ones who think WW1 started in 1917 - or that we were involved in the fighting from the beginning.
 
Back
Top