'Stop saying "Support the troops"'

[old_tony]

This seems to go back to Vietnam, in which many who opposed the war there treated the returning soldiers like they were bad people.

Did they?

My only issue with some people who believe in "support the troops" think that if you oppose a war, you oppose the troops.

This seems to go back to Vietnam, in which many who opposed the war there treated the returning soldiers like they were bad people.

The myth that keeps on mything.

Yeah, it's a myth. They were spitting on the returning soldiers as a form of long-distance kiss. ::)

 

[Dick Whitman]

They were spitting on the returning soldiers.

Were they?

 

[JayFarrar]

My only issue with some people who believe in "support the troops" think that if you oppose a war, you oppose the troops.

This seems to go back to Vietnam, in which many who opposed the war there treated the returning soldiers like they were bad people.

The myth that keeps on mything.

I don't think that's a myth. I have ex-military friends who were treated shabbily during that period. I wasn't there with them, of course, but I don't think these guys would lie about it.

Shabbily by whom?

Lots of Vietnam-era veterans were treated like **** by World War II guys, who did the same thing to the Korea guys.

 

[LongTimeListener]

They were spitting on the returning soldiers.

Were they?

You can find plenty of evidence of it before Oct. 17, 1979, when all mention was wiped away by the history books.

 

[Dick Whitman]

They were spitting on the returning soldiers.

Were they?

You can find plenty of evidence of it before Oct. 17, 1979, when all mention was wiped away by the history books.

IBL

 

[old_tony]

They were spitting on the returning soldiers.

Were they?

Most definitely they were. The loser Lembke who wrote the book saying they weren't was inundated -- upon the release of his book -- with numerous veterans who told him first-hand how they were spat upon. He dismisses their claims, apparently because they didn't immediately call a newspaper when it happened. He makes his claim because he couldn't find media reports from the time period. Then, when people who actually had it happen to them come forward he dismisses them.

 

[Boom_70]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to oppose the troops, as well.

Even in Vietnam, they ultimately chose to go there in lieu of other options. Now, on my sliding scale of opposition between LBJ and Winnie Cooper's 18-year-old brother who has neither the experience nor the maturity at that point to consider world geopolitics in light of his own fully formed worldview, LBJ gets the lion's share of the wrath. But it is not unreasonable to target Winnie Cooper's brother for some criticism. It's patronizing to the troops otherwise. They are human beings with a functioning brain. Nationalism doesn't give them dispensation from using it.

There was a draft. What other legal options did the troops have at that time.
There was no choice other than to leave the country.

Now I guess you could be really cynical and say why thank the troops because
they volunteered and are being paid a handsome sum for their efforts. Your
government paycheck and benefits are our thanks.

I've seen people at shopping malls thank recruiters for their service. For what?
Sitting in a plush air conditioned mall trying to sign up 18 yr olds to go to war.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to oppose the troops, as well.

Even in Vietnam, they ultimately chose to go there in lieu of other options. Now, on my sliding scale of opposition between LBJ and Winnie Cooper's 18-year-old brother who has neither the experience nor the maturity at that point to consider world geopolitics in light of his own fully formed worldview, LBJ gets the lion's share of the wrath. But it is not unreasonable to target Winnie Cooper's brother for some criticism. It's patronizing to the troops otherwise. They are human beings with a functioning brain. Nationalism doesn't give them dispensation from using it.

There was a draft. What other legal options did the troops have at that time.
There was no choice other than to leave the country.

Or jail.

I have an immense amount of sympathy for the young men drafted into Vietnam, and would have trouble criticizing them too severely.

The current troops who signed up for this? They do not get a free pass.

 

[Boom_70]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to oppose the troops, as well.

Even in Vietnam, they ultimately chose to go there in lieu of other options. Now, on my sliding scale of opposition between LBJ and Winnie Cooper's 18-year-old brother who has neither the experience nor the maturity at that point to consider world geopolitics in light of his own fully formed worldview, LBJ gets the lion's share of the wrath. But it is not unreasonable to target Winnie Cooper's brother for some criticism. It's patronizing to the troops otherwise. They are human beings with a functioning brain. Nationalism doesn't give them dispensation from using it.

There was a draft. What other legal options did the troops have at that time.
There was no choice other than to leave the country.

Or jail.

Unless I am not understanding your point, then how would Viet Nam era troops be subject
to criticism if their only choices to avoid were illegal.

To me it seems like those who chose to go to Canada are the ones open to criticism
and not those who were drafted and sent to Viet Nam.

Anyone who went to Iraq volunteered. If there were against the war they should have
never signed up.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to oppose the troops, as well.

Even in Vietnam, they ultimately chose to go there in lieu of other options. Now, on my sliding scale of opposition between LBJ and Winnie Cooper's 18-year-old brother who has neither the experience nor the maturity at that point to consider world geopolitics in light of his own fully formed worldview, LBJ gets the lion's share of the wrath. But it is not unreasonable to target Winnie Cooper's brother for some criticism. It's patronizing to the troops otherwise. They are human beings with a functioning brain. Nationalism doesn't give them dispensation from using it.

There was a draft. What other legal options did the troops have at that time.
There was no choice other than to leave the country.

Or jail.

Unless I am not understanding your point, then how would Viet Nam era troops be subject
to criticism if their only choices to avoid were illegal.

Because civil disobedience is a valid option as a principled action.

Agree with you on Iraq, obviously. They are not bystanders to the politics.

 

[Starman]

They were spitting on the returning soldiers.

Were they?

Most definitely they were. The loser Lembke who wrote the book saying they weren't was inundated -- upon the release of his book -- with numerous veterans who told him first-hand how they were spat upon. He dismisses their claims, apparently because they didn't immediately call a newspaper when it happened. He makes his claim because he couldn't find media reports from the time period. Then, when people who actually had it happen to them come forward he dismisses them.

In other words, no evidence other than the sympathy-seekers themselves.

A teabagger spit on me in the elevator the other day. Take my word for it.

 

[Boom_70]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to oppose the troops, as well.

Even in Vietnam, they ultimately chose to go there in lieu of other options. Now, on my sliding scale of opposition between LBJ and Winnie Cooper's 18-year-old brother who has neither the experience nor the maturity at that point to consider world geopolitics in light of his own fully formed worldview, LBJ gets the lion's share of the wrath. But it is not unreasonable to target Winnie Cooper's brother for some criticism. It's patronizing to the troops otherwise. They are human beings with a functioning brain. Nationalism doesn't give them dispensation from using it.

There was a draft. What other legal options did the troops have at that time.
There was no choice other than to leave the country.

Or jail.

Unless I am not understanding your point, then how would Viet Nam era troops be subject
to criticism if their only choices to avoid were illegal.

Because civil disobedience is a valid option as a principled action.

Agree with you on Iraq, obviously. They are not bystanders to the politics.

Why many hold Ali in high regard.

 

[User 11148]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to oppose the troops, as well.

Even in Vietnam, they ultimately chose to go there in lieu of other options. Now, on my sliding scale of opposition between LBJ and Winnie Cooper's 18-year-old brother who has neither the experience nor the maturity at that point to consider world geopolitics in light of his own fully formed worldview, LBJ gets the lion's share of the wrath. But it is not unreasonable to target Winnie Cooper's brother for some criticism. It's patronizing to the troops otherwise. They are human beings with a functioning brain. Nationalism doesn't give them dispensation from using it.

There was a draft. What other legal options did the troops have at that time.
There was no choice other than to leave the country.

Or jail.

Unless I am not understanding your point, then how would Viet Nam era troops be subject
to criticism if their only choices to avoid were illegal.

Because civil disobedience is a valid option as a principled action.

Agree with you on Iraq, obviously. They are not bystanders to the politics.

That one does not avail oneself of "a valid option" does not mean one is acting without principles.

 

[User 11148]

They were spitting on the returning soldiers.

Were they?

Most definitely they were. The loser Lembke who wrote the book saying they weren't was inundated -- upon the release of his book -- with numerous veterans who told him first-hand how they were spat upon. He dismisses their claims, apparently because they didn't immediately call a newspaper when it happened. He makes his claim because he couldn't find media reports from the time period. Then, when people who actually had it happen to them come forward he dismisses them.

In other words, no evidence other than the sympathy-seekers themselves.

A teabagger spit on me in the elevator the other day. Take my word for it.

Obtuse really doesn't suit you, Starman.

 

[Boom_70]

They were spitting on the returning soldiers.

Were they?

Most definitely they were. The loser Lembke who wrote the book saying they weren't was inundated -- upon the release of his book -- with numerous veterans who told him first-hand how they were spat upon. He dismisses their claims, apparently because they didn't immediately call a newspaper when it happened. He makes his claim because he couldn't find media reports from the time period. Then, when people who actually had it happen to them come forward he dismisses them.

In other words, no evidence other than the sympathy-seekers themselves.

A teabagger spit on me in the elevator the other day. Take my word for it.

Did you swallow?

 

[Dick Whitman]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to oppose the troops, as well.

Even in Vietnam, they ultimately chose to go there in lieu of other options. Now, on my sliding scale of opposition between LBJ and Winnie Cooper's 18-year-old brother who has neither the experience nor the maturity at that point to consider world geopolitics in light of his own fully formed worldview, LBJ gets the lion's share of the wrath. But it is not unreasonable to target Winnie Cooper's brother for some criticism. It's patronizing to the troops otherwise. They are human beings with a functioning brain. Nationalism doesn't give them dispensation from using it.

There was a draft. What other legal options did the troops have at that time.
There was no choice other than to leave the country.

Or jail.

Unless I am not understanding your point, then how would Viet Nam era troops be subject
to criticism if their only choices to avoid were illegal.

Because civil disobedience is a valid option as a principled action.

Agree with you on Iraq, obviously. They are not bystanders to the politics.

That one does not avail oneself of "a valid option" does not mean one is acting without principles.

Of course.

But to say that there is no valid criticism of Vietnam veterans because of the draft is just wrong. There were other options available, including jail. They chose Vietnam. That choice can rightly be scrutinized.

 

[Boom_70]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to oppose the troops, as well.

Even in Vietnam, they ultimately chose to go there in lieu of other options. Now, on my sliding scale of opposition between LBJ and Winnie Cooper's 18-year-old brother who has neither the experience nor the maturity at that point to consider world geopolitics in light of his own fully formed worldview, LBJ gets the lion's share of the wrath. But it is not unreasonable to target Winnie Cooper's brother for some criticism. It's patronizing to the troops otherwise. They are human beings with a functioning brain. Nationalism doesn't give them dispensation from using it.

There was a draft. What other legal options did the troops have at that time.
There was no choice other than to leave the country.

Or jail.

Unless I am not understanding your point, then how would Viet Nam era troops be subject
to criticism if their only choices to avoid were illegal.

Because civil disobedience is a valid option as a principled action.

Agree with you on Iraq, obviously. They are not bystanders to the politics.

That one does not avail oneself of "a valid option" does not mean one is acting without principles.

Of course.

But to say that there is no valid criticism of Vietnam veterans because of the draft is just wrong. There were other options available, including jail. They chose Vietnam. That choice can rightly be scrutinized.

To a very very small degree. Not even sure if "rightly" fits.

 

[User 11148]

With the benefit of 45 to 50 years of hindsight, I'm not willing to judge any young man who stepped forward when called, under pain of imprisonment, to that fight. It seems awfully smug to hold Vietnam era draftees to a standard that no one here would live up to.

We are all called to do all sorts of things that, in our heart of hearts, we're not sure are correct. There has to be some leeway for the bounded rationality with which we all are burdened. Put simply, to criticize those young men for not responding then in the way we now think they should have responded is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Dick Whitman]

With the benefit of 45 to 50 years of hindsight, I'm not willing to judge any young man who stepped forward when called, under pain of imprisonment, to that fight. It seems awfully smug to hold Vietnam era draftees to a standard that no one here would live up to.

We are all called to do all sorts of things that, in our heart of hearts, we're not sure are correct. There has to be some leeway for the bounded rationality with which we all are burdened. Put simply, to criticize those young men for not responding then in the way we now think they should have responded is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

Yes, this is ultimately the answer, I think, considering their age and maturity level.

But they had a choice. They chose to go there. Others chose not to. Their choice is open to scrutiny, as well. But they all had a choice.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Also, there is a world of difference between leaving them be and "supporting" them. Too often, "support the troops" really means "support the war." Particularly nowadays, it's a distinction without much of a difference.