The "We Support the Troops, but not the War" Truth

How do you express your dissatisfaction with Administration policies?

Write letters?

Attend rallies?

How about burning a US soldier in effigy?

Here are the pictures of the Portland, Oregon, "peace" rally.

www.floppingaces.net

So much for "patriotic dissent."


[edit on 2007/3/21 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
So much for "patriotic dissent."

Classless filth, every single one of them.

Un-patriotic? Only the first.

Patriotism is (not that any of those people were or were not patriotic) standing up to rulers you believe to be ruining your nation.

Patriotism for an American is standing behind your constitution no matter what your leaders pass as "law."

Agree with those protesters or not, calling them un patriotic calls attention to your nationalist ideals.

Grady, hello.

I think it is a shame the way these humans are behaving. There is an understanding within all the chaos that may be too deep in smoke to see by some. There are two types of people. Each type has their own two types. And so on and so on.

TWO TYPES: People for the war - People against the war

TWO TYPES OF: People for the war
1). Calm activists
a). Vocal
b). Silent
2). Extremist Activists
a). Violent
b). Subversive

TWO TYPES OF: People against the war
1). Calm Protestors
a). Hold signs
b). Discuss
2). Extremist Protestors
a). Burn Hummers
b). Throw paint on models

Okay, and those types have two types and so on...

The point is that I believe the two fundament differences (for the war - against the war) spend too much time comparing them to the undesirable TYPES so that they can more easily discredit their views, rather than discuss the issues.

I do however like this thread, I think it is important for people to see how extreme people can get when they are not doing enough to make a visible difference.

Everyone is different and handle situations differently, so instead of focusing on how people respond to an "issue," let's just spend the time talking about the "issue."

Thanks for the info.

AAC

.

[edit on 21-3-2007 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

I support the troops. I don't support the war. The war did not come from, or at the urging of, the troops but from Cheney and his neocons.
I am confident that this reprehensible flag burning incident was not done on behalf of the anti-war movement and does not reflect the views of the overwhelming majority of those protesting the Iraq war. It looks to me like a piece agit-prop and the place I would look for the culprits would be area College Republican clubs.

I don't think they .. like "America" .. they like.. what "America could be" .. in their image.

They are just as bad if not worse then the "neo cons" the liberals fear..

Those pictures truly ruined my night. Disgusting. Just disgusting. Hippies.

Originally posted by cavscout
...calling [the protesters] un patriotic calls attention to your nationalist ideals.

Is there something wrong with nationalistic ideals?

Are my ideals less desirable than those who call our leaders criminals and worse and burn our soldiers in effigy?

I think not.

Do I call those actions unpatriotic?

You betcha!

I almost might understand a young, idealistic college student doing this. But some of those guys holding the signs should know better than that.

And the ones burning the soldier in effigy and carrying the "F* the troops" banner are hiding their faces behind bandanas and masks. Real patriots, they are.

Wait. What does the title of the thread have to do with the content of the first post? I don't see the connection.


I don't support the war or the troops because I am no hypocrite. The soldiers knew what they were getting into when they signed up. If they were draftees it would be a different matter.

As distasteful as some of the dissenters actions and signs were....

The treatment that the wounded, maimed returning vets of this war receive at the hands of the VA is the real shame.

All the flagwaving and patriotic speeches will never erase the shame of Walter Reed. The true attitude of this administrations "support the troops"
chant. Cutting vet benefits, poor health care, families of military personnel on food stamps. Yeah, support the troops, what a crock.

If you are not appalled at this administration's "support of the Troops"
your ideology has clouded your ability to deny ignorance.

Excuses like it was a snafu at the pentagon won't fly here. Remember the "decider" "commander in chief"......

Patriotism is so hollow sounding when it just boils down to whining.

Overall, treatment of the returning wounded vets is excellent.

Walter Reed is only one hospital and the conditions cited regarded only on outpatient facility and no one can say that heads did not roll.

The VA Medical Centers are currently far better than they were for returning Vietnam vets and I know this because I have been in nearly continuous treatment and have seen the improvements first hand.

However, as with all government bureaucracies, there are always problems and room for improvement.

What happened at Walter Reed, while unfortunate, is likely to reverberate throughout the entire system with very positive results.

Originally posted by Frith
Wait. What does the title of the thread have to do with the content of the first post? I don't see the connection.

The connection is that the left has been screaming support for the troops while railing against the effort these troops are engaged in, a paradox of stupefying proportions.

If the shoe does not fit, don't wear it.

patriotic: en.wikipedia.org...
Unpatriotic being the OPPOSITE of the first.

First off I do not condone the protesters, supposedly, they have the right to protest however that is now in question due to the patriot act and the like. Secondly, the ones in the black as I recall are part of a "anarchy" group that has done nothing but cause trouble ALL OVER the USA. I have a VHS here at home of a protest where they went around burning vehicles, torching businesses, looting, starting fights, pepperspraying people in the protest and what not. The police busted the protestors but DID NOT touch a SINGLE of the anarchists. They call themselves "black fist" something.
Flag burning, been done as long as anyone can remember. Shows just how angry people have become. It also shows a turning point for when people have lost all hope in the system, such as dragging the flag on the ground. Second picture down, people have lost hope in the soldiers changing their hearts since they have had 5 years and counting of truth being pumped out and they still WILL NOT listen. So yes at this point the wheat has been separated from the chaff for as to who wants to fight for the government and their illegal wars and who does not.
Below the flag being dragged: yeah I agree, they need to be impeached, and yes they are gringos and I do like Chavez because he gives the US government the finger and works to help the poor in his nation. Below the impeach pictues, the "death too" ones: The first and second are of the same guy, sad, not diversity but none the less yes these guys have to go and their supporters too or else we can never be rid of them. I wonder why they only took those two and of course being the same guy... no diversity...
The last guy has it right on: the imperialism from America to be specific: US government and its corporations has raped the planet and still does. Not to mention doing the same to people here in the USA.
That site is beyond pro-government, just look at what they call people without looking or thinking. First off they called the people in black communists: WRONG! I know communists in my state and they are not anarchists but strongly for humanitarian laws. Those people in black are the opposite if you look at what they do.
I would like all of you to read this link which is the indymedia talk about the same thing:
portland.indymedia.org...

You get one story from the pro-government site and a whole other from the indymedia. That first website reads like propaganda, sick.


Anyway, let me be to the point:
Excluding those nutcase anarchists (being polite because there is not word to sum up how worthless and degrading they are) those pictures show just how hopeless the people are. People are loosing all hope in the system (I cannot blame them) and are venting it out however they can. Not to mention they are getting more and more hostile with the people who offer themselves up to fight for the government. This is NOT I repeat, NOT Vietnam, they are NOT drafted, they WANTED to be there because they have had over 5 years to get out or make it known they do NOT want to be there. Because of this I cannot blame people getting hostile with the military, they after all ARE serving the peoples enemies!

Oh and this is one protest, not the other protests we have across the country, someone find some pictures of them will you? Here is a link to a video of one:
www.bushflash.com...
The movie is on the right side and labeled: PROTEST AT THE PENTAGON
Edit: added above^

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Vekar]

Have you ever stopped to think, it's Bush Co. burning the effigy to make the protesters look bad.... You know they do this.... RIGHT ?

Look at the second picture, it's soooo COINTELPRO

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by cavscout
...calling [the protesters] un patriotic calls attention to your nationalist ideals.

Is there something wrong with nationalistic ideals?

Are my ideals less desirable than those who call our leaders criminals and worse and burn our soldiers in effigy?

I think not.

Do I call those actions unpatriotic?

You betcha!

Your ideals are less desirable than those who call our leaders criminals because it is people like you, with your blind support for the status quo that is supporting an illegal occupation of a sovereign country, and demonizing anyone who protests.

I know from personal experience that supporting the troops does not necessarily include supporting the war and the people who are running it. I have several very good friends in the service, and I want them home. However, I recognize the fact that while they are over there, they need to know that we all care about them and want them to do a good job so they can come home.

As far as, "is there something wrong with nationalistic ideals"... well, if you don't realize how we aren't the only country in the world, than I don't really know what to say to you.

Burning effigies of soldiers is wrong, I think anyone with half a brain realizes this. But just because someone's form of protest is either different than your own, or your politics clash, that does not make someone unpatriotic.

People protest because they think that America can be (any maybe still is), the greatest country in the world, and they want to see it continue to be a beacon of hope for the world. Not an occupational imperialistic force.

Dissent is not unpatriotic. The only thing that is unpatriotic that has been discussed in this thread is the blind support of the government (any government, not just this one).

I see you have Voltaire quoted in your signature. Did you forget the other one that he said, the one that most people remember?

If I recall correctly, I think it went a little something like this: "I do not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend your right to say it to the death."

Edit to add stuff.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Mezzanine]

This report, if accurate, saddens me. Do I support the war? Do I support the troops?

I think it depends on what we define as "support." When we say we "support" something, do we intend to imply that we stand behind it fully and would be willing to aid in its cause? Do we indicate instead that we simply ethically agree with it? I think these are two different things. There is such a thing, in my opinion, as "moral support," but I feel it is important to distinguish that if it is the case. To that end, I ask that anyone reading this post read the words I choose carefully, and not make assumptions or judgments (if possible) about my views, as I strive to hold respect for all.

Things I most certainly do not agree with or "morally support" include: violent dissent, vandalism, destruction of property or person, vitriolic speech in the place of civil discussion and dialogue, disrespect (however I define respect as a personally held emotional and rational regard for someone or something's intrinsic value, opinions, nature, rights, and wellbeing, and disrespect as the absence of these things and the vocal demonstration of that lack,) and hate. Too often, in my opinion, I see anti-war protesters give in to these things as well. This is a critical point, in my opinion. For this reason, I often find myself unable to "morally support" certain anti-war efforts.

That said, other things I do not agree with or "morally support" include: the taking of sentient life (for any reason or justification whatsoever,) the conscious infliction of suffering on sentient beings (for any reason or justification whatsoever,) and violence in which death or permanent injury are likely to occur or viewed as permissible (for any reason or justification whatsoever.) Some or all of those things are part of war, and so I cannot support or agree with the war.

So, do I support the war? I do not support it literally, or morally. Do I support the troops? I don't think that I could say that I support them in any literal, material sense, other than my favorable view of funding and equipment being provided to them in sufficient quantities. If I knew how to support them more directly in a way that would not conflict with my beliefs, I would do so. Do I support them morally though (by my definition as described above)? In my opinion, I do. Here is why I feel that way.

I feel enormous admiration, respect, and pride in their call to duty, and I honor the spirit which calls them to it. I disagree with the way that calling and that spirit manifest themselves, however. These two views are not mutually exclusive for me. Even if they appear to be to others, they are not for me. Others are themselves; I am me. I feel and think what I feel and think. I care whether they live or die. I want them to be safe. I want them to have what they need in order to be healthy, protected, and kept from harm. I suffer emotional sorrow when I hear news of their suffering, injury, or death. I have concern for their wellbeing. I vocally express my belief that they should receive the funding and equipment necessary to achieve those things. I feel that those who oppose the war vocally (including myself) have a responsibility to let the soldiers know that they are not their adversary, and that they honor and care for them. I have said it before, and I will say it again: too many soldiers return home only to say that they often wondered while overseas whether those protesting at home cared whether they lived or died. This is something we should feel more responsibility for than I think many of us do, in my humble opinion.

At the same time, however, I do not regard other human beings as my enemies. I feel emotional sorrow when they suffer, are injured, or perish as well. I have compassion even for those who would gladly destroy me if given the opportunity. That it is simply how I'm made.

So, it is my belief that human beings are not fundamentally black-and-white-minded. We are complex creatures capable of feeling emotions and holding views which may seem mutually exclusive, but which may nonetheless not only coexist, but mutually reinforce one another in certain cases.

These are my beliefs. I respect the views and feelings of those who disagree, and ask only the same in return.

(EDITED FOR CLARITY OF INTENDED IMPLICATIONS.)

[edit on 3/22/2007 by AceWombat04]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Overall, treatment of the returning wounded vets is excellent.

I gotta SCREAM BS here sry. As a returning vet myself, first GW, I am one of many with what is known as Gulf War Illness. Where is our support?

The government won't even admit to what they did to us. Using troops as Guinea Pigs, and then not helping those that now suffer from the effects is not supporting the troops. We don't need your oral empty support, we need help.

But having said that I think it's also bad, but typical, that you paint all 'lefties' or 'liberals' as being unpatriotic from just pics of a few people.
Patriotism to me isn't the flag, that represents the state that creates war in the first place, no it's the PEOPLE and the government are not the people. They are a front for corporations and used to control the population to do the bidding of big business. Who's side are you on?

What are you doing to support the troops? Are you demanding they been bought home? Are you demanding that the gov addresses the problems a lot of use 'troops' are now suffering from? No, it's all just empty words to make yourself feel good.

What is wrong with 'nationalism'? Nationalism is just another word for fascism, and the 'right' is also in it's extreme fascism. Nationalism almost always in practice is racist. Most Europeans understand this, why don't the Americans?

The National Front is nationalistic and extremely rascist.
The British Movement is national socialist (like Hitler) and extremely racist.

There are many more, you need to understand what it is your are really supporting.

I keep seeing all these reports about these protests by anti war, liberal, sometimes anti American, sometimes anti Military, and various other anti this or that groups.

I'm tired of it. I'm tired of them. I'm tired of armchair pundits and griping about these protests as well.

We the people who support this nation and its way of life need to stand up.
We need to organize and rally our own counter protests. If the Conservatives would get up and be as loud and as vocal as the liberals this would change. We need to let our leaders know and the world know that there are people in this nation that care about its future, its military, and its way of life. It is time for those of us who Care to make a stand for what we believe.



[edit on 22/3/07 by MikeboydUS]

[edit on 22/3/07 by MikeboydUS]

Originally posted by Vekar
The police busted the protesters but DID NOT touch a SINGLE of the anarchists.

I wonder why?

I know from experience that a lot of the people that cause trouble at protests are cops posing as protesters. They want to incite trouble so they can arrest as many as they can, to get your name info etc. Remember the cops are working for the people who the protesters are protesting.

Hard infiltration is different. Agents provocateurs are hard infiltrators. So too are cops who, posing as protesters, commit federal offenses by tagging anarchist symbols on abandoned federal property. Hard infiltration is the attempt to disrupt, subvert, provoke, prevent or otherwise interfere with a citizen's right to protest, including nonviolent civil disobedience.

Source

You have voted whaaa for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

GradyPhilpott give it up or haven't woken up from the American rights propaganda yet ?
As for the argument that Walter Reed is only a single incident how can only one be that naive ?

Nothing will change while the current admin is in office there is to much at stake politically.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by xpert11]

SOME of them are pretty wrong.
Regardless of what your beliefs are to the actions of America.. some of those people holding certain signs deserve a kick up the ass.

BUT

some of them are spot on correct

Ie


" Imperialistic America is humanity's number 1 enemy ''
'' Death to worlds #1 terrorist PIG ''


the hippie chicks cute too

but burning effigies of soliders, and the flag.. thats pretty low.