I have a poster on my cars that says "Support President Bush and our Troops". And whenever I hear anybody use the phrase "I support out troops", I'm immediately suspicious and begin asking questions to determine their real motives. More often than not it's a code phrase for opposition to the war.
Ken Schram Commentary: Confusion? Hypocrisy? Or Both?
Komo News 4 Seattle ^ | March 20, 2003 | Ken Schram
Posted on 03/20/2003 5:52 PM PST by HairOfTheDog
Ken Schram Commentary: Confusion? Hypocrisy? Or Both?
March 20, 2003
By Ken Schram
SEATTLE - I find it tough to accept.
Think about all the people who claim to support the troops, but are opposed to the war.
Is that confusion, or hypocrisy?
Maybe it's both. .... (exerpt... click link above for rest.)
Carlson's mistake is that he assumes that those that oppose the war are all the same, one large, monolithic smelly mass of deranged, drug-infected and unwashed hippy-freak leftovers, moronic college students and big-mouthed "entertainers".
Don't lump me in with those freaks.
I have a hard time accepting the reason for the war; I frankly don't give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people (it's a middle eastern problem), I'm not convinced Saddam had anything to do with 11 September, and any comparisons to his Iraq and Hitler's Germany are asinine to even the most casual student of history.
I cheerfully support, however, war for economic reasons: to protect American currency and economic sovereignty. (The curious part is that when I suggest on this website that this may be the real reason behind the war, I get called un-American, apparently because in the minds of the majority of Freepers, it is more American to fight for Iraqis than American economic strength. Go figure.)
But back to the troops. Of course you can oppose a war and support the young men and women that are fighting it. I hope they all kick butt (which they are), and that they all come back alive (and most of them are, thankfully). I see no conflict here.
This is the core of the problem. These folks are psychological adolescents.
Proof of this can be found in the fact that none of these "protestors" "protested" Clinton's war in Kosovo.
If Weird Algore was President and he ordered troops into Baghdad (HA!), their panties would all still be dry and powdery.
The so-called "Peace Protestors" also are making it obvious in Oakland, CA, yesterday, that it's all about the diversion of government resources (tax dollars) away from social programs. So for them, it's a "two-fer!"
Saying one "supports the troops," while "opposing the war," is like some Republican/conservatives I know who say "I'm a fiscal conservative and a social moderate." It's pure sophistry!!!
I, eternally curious of such things, posed this very question to the 50 or so Sailors I work closely with. These are men and women of ages 20-45, of ranks from E-3 to E-8, of all possible races. I asked them, simply, "what do you think when someone tells you they Support The Troops, but oppose the war?".
Interestingly, the response was universal, and consistent.
"I think that they're bull$hitting me".
This was the usual start of the response...the rest would be equally colorful. Full disclosure: I share the same views.
Philosophically, I suppose it IS possible to be for one and not the other in this case, but I can tell you that "The Troops", in NO uncertain terms, regard those who so claim as liars and cowards at best, and as insulting to THEM at worst. As one CPO put it, "If you say that, you're essentially patting me on the head and calling me a sucker under your breath. Don't do me any favors." Kind of says it all.
Only if you keep your mouth shut and don't let anyone know you oppose the war. The time for debate was before the war started. Now that it is on, if you have nothing to say in support, say nothing at all.
That depends on how one goes about opposing the war, I suppose. First of all, I think this line is a bunch of bullsh!t double-speak intended to deflect criticism away from the anti-war types. If you oppose the war by going out and protesting while the soldiers are fighting and dying then that is not supporting the troops. Protesters in the streets and celebrities and politicians using their access to the media to criticise the war effort are giving comfort to the enemy our troops are fighting against.
Look at what happened in Vietnam: According to remarks in the book by General Vo Nguyen Giap (Commanding General of the North Vietnamese Army) and also by Bui Tin who served on the General Staff, the Tet Offensive was considered by Hanoi to have been a failure and they were considering a conditional surrender, but the news reports from the U.S. proclaiming it a loss for the U.S. forces coupled with the protests in the streets gave the North Vietnamese the belief that they could hold on and wait for the U.S. to lose the will to fight. History proved them right. Over 20,000 U.S. soldiers died from that point until the end of the war -- how many would have lived if maybe, just maybe, the U.S. at home and abroad had showed more resolve and unity behind the war effort and the North Vietnamese had agreed to a surrender in 1968?
A dirty little secret has been exposed. The core of this movement isn't anti-war; it is anti-American. And its leaders are hateful.
They hate George W. Bush, they hate free enterprise, they hate middle-America -- especially the suburbs -- they hate the cops and most of all they hate having to follow rules they don't want to follow. They have the same attitude toward America that an unruly 14-year old has toward his parents: automatic, knee jerk hostility.
You're hearing that more and more from many people who oppose the war. It's a rhetorical blanket, worn for protection lest people question their patriotism. But it doesn't always sound sincere and it occasionally sounds absurd.
That has been my contention all along. It's an absurd notion. If you support the soldier then you support his mission. Without his mission he is nothing, just some guy dressed up in a green or blue suit.