[redmenace]

But, introduces an interesting as well as obvious question, does "supporting the troops" in some ways support the war? But should people treat the troops like ****, ie the Vietnam War? They are volunteers and usually don't join because they want to kill "innocent civilians."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001918137

[Flipside]

Anyone who hates the troops themselves is looking in completely the wrong direction. I don't deny that some of the worst atrocities in history have happened under the pretence of 'just obeying orders', but soldiers are trained to accept their superior's instruction without question, getting metaphysical on a Battlefield gets you dead.

I suppose 'supporting the troops' means 'wishing for their wellbeing', and in that respect, yes, I fully support the soldiers themselves, the less death in any respect the better. 'Not supporting the War' means yo do not agree with the reasons behind the war itself, it's perfectly possible to not support the ideals without wishing harm to the troops in my opinon.

[Ford Prefect]

I fully agree that "support the troops" is a pathetic, meaningless phrase, and I respect him for saying it publicly and then standing by it as well. But at the same time, these empty phrases are part of how a society copes with things, and I'm not sure what can be accomplished by poking holes in them, no matter how valid the effort may be.

[aldo_14]

Looking at the additional points bit at the bottom (because I don't know where the original column was & hence can't read it), I'm not sure what the fuss is about.  He's definately right that troops don't need blind support (blind support is essentially worthless), and that it's better to have material support than to assuage guilt at sending people to die by pinning ribbons to trees, etc. 

Perhaps there's something more deeply offensive in the column than is quoted or mentioned here, but from what I can tell is that he thinks blindly and blandly supporting troops doesn't mean anything except a back-handed endorsement to the war as a whole, and if people do want to support the troops and not the war, then they should be agitating for better equipment and shorter tours; on reading, it seems he's not defining that support as - materially - being not wanting them to get hurt (hence why the stuff about body armour, shorter tours is mentioned).

Certainly the guy who's quoted as comparing him to Bin Ladin appears to be an off-his-nut reactionary.

[vyper]

In other words he cut through the bull**** and people are terrified they might have to face reality.

Jingoism !FTW.

[karajorma]

Aldo's hit the nail on the head with this one. The guy is saying if you really support the troops get off your fat backsides and actually do something to support them like lobbying for body armour for them.

Saying "I support the troops" means **** all to the guys in Iraq. Getting the politicians in Washington to give them equipment that means they come home without being in a box with the flag on it means a lot.

[Janos]

Aldo's hit the nail on the head with this one. The guy is saying if you really support the troops get off your fat backsides and actually do something to support them like lobbying for body armour for them.

Saying "I support the troops" means **** all to the guys in Iraq. Getting the politicians in Washington to give them equipment that means they come home without being in a box with the flag on it means a lot.

"You go to war with the army you got, not the army you want."

[DeepSpace9er]

Speaking of better equiptment, did you see what it cost the Pentagon for kitchen supplies in 2005? $300 million. If thats what they spend on kitchen supplies then getting a new windshield for a humvee must be like $50000.

[aldo_14]

Speaking of better equiptment, did you see what it cost the Pentagon for kitchen supplies in 2005? $300 million. If thats what they spend on kitchen supplies then getting a new windshield for a humvee must be like $50000.

What a stupid expense that would be  - the Joint Chiefs of Staff can't eat their sauteed beef off a Humvee windscreen!

[Janos]

Speaking of better equiptment, did you see what it cost the Pentagon for kitchen supplies in 2005? $300 million. If thats what they spend on kitchen supplies then getting a new windshield for a humvee must be like $50000.

No-bid cost plus -contracts are the basis of a capitalist system and are great in cutting down unnecessary costs.

A new windshield for Humvee would propably be something like $3000, but a new window for a military installation could be $552903 because hey, if a contractor gets more profit by charging insane amounts for the cheapest and simpliest tasks then why the hell would he charge even remotely reasonable sum - especially when there's no competition.

[redmenace]

Not only that, there are racial set assides which drive up the price as well.

[GodisanAtheist]

I had the pleasure of reading the original article in the LA times, and I can assure you that Stein didn't say anything more or less offensive than the summary in the link.

He certainly has a unique viewpoint, one that makes quite a bit of sense actually, and I think the backlash against him goes to show that his words really hit the spot.

We do have a volunteer army. You sign up and accept the risks and responsibilities, so in the end, the responsibility for that colossal ****-up that we call Iraq has to be shared by each of the troops. You can sign up for concienscious objector status and be honorably discharged (or at least not be put in a combat position) at your own discretion as well.

[Janos]

I had the pleasure of reading the original article in the LA times, and I can assure you that Stein didn't say anything more or less offensive than the summary in the link.

He certainly has a unique viewpoint, one that makes quite a bit of sense actually, and I think the backlash against him goes to show that his words really hit the spot.

We do have a volunteer army. You sign up and accept the risks and responsibilities, so in the end, the responsibility for that colossal ****-up that we call Iraq has to be shared by each of the troops. You can sign up for concienscious objector status and be honorably discharged (or at least not be put in a combat position) at your own discretion as well.

The problem with the exact Iraq thing is that many troops who are there joined up well before it or for other reasons, and using the army is firmly in grasp of civilians. Troops themselves have no say where they're being sent (they shouldn't either), and it's a bit unfair to blame people who sometimes have nothing better for the stupendous mistakes of civilian government.

[aldo_14]

If troops were expected to use their personal judgement about obeying their orders, we'd never have any wars......

[Janos]

If troops were expected to use their personal judgement about obeying their orders, we'd never have any wars......

Until some jerk invents nationalism. Then it's inevitable. :V

In some cases - like Iraq - it's civilians forcing military to war. In some cases it's civilians keeping the military out of war - like MacArthur in Korea. Sometimes the civilian oversight is required to bring the idiots down and keep the individual soldiers in line, sometimes army oversight is required to ensure that the mission is completed without any unneccesary hazards which civilians may accidentally invoke.

[aldo_14]

If troops were expected to use their personal judgement about obeying their orders, we'd never have any wars......

Until some jerk invents nationalism. Then it's inevitable. :V

In some cases - like Iraq - it's civilians forcing military to war. In some cases it's civilians keeping the military out of war - like MacArthur in Korea. Sometimes the civilian oversight is required to bring the idiots down and keep the individual soldiers in line, sometimes army oversight is required to ensure that the mission is completed without any unneccesary hazards which civilians may accidentally invoke.

Aye, but what I mean is.... no (sane) person would choose to go and be shot at in a war, would they?

[Janos]

If troops were expected to use their personal judgement about obeying their orders, we'd never have any wars......

Until some jerk invents nationalism. Then it's inevitable. :V

In some cases - like Iraq - it's civilians forcing military to war. In some cases it's civilians keeping the military out of war - like MacArthur in Korea. Sometimes the civilian oversight is required to bring the idiots down and keep the individual soldiers in line, sometimes army oversight is required to ensure that the mission is completed without any unneccesary hazards which civilians may accidentally invoke.

Aye, but what I mean is.... no (sane) person would choose to go and be shot at in a war, would they?

Well, most people join the armies not to get shot at, but to shoot the other guy (who has joined for similar reasons). Those who want to die can join other armed groups not bound by normal oversight.

[aldo_14]

Well, most people join the armies not to get shot at, but to shoot the other guy (who has joined for similar reasons). Those who want to die can join other armed groups not bound by normal oversight.

But they can do that in Easterhouse on a Friday night!

[Janos]

Well, most people join the armies not to get shot at, but to shoot the other guy (who has joined for similar reasons). Those who want to die can join other armed groups not bound by normal oversight.

But they can do that in Easterhouse on a Friday night!

You should come to Helsinki. I know a few nice places.