What does Support the Troops mean? by Succatash

If that's what support the troops means to you Hero, then why do you vote Republican?

.....................................

From the refusal to allow service members immunity to the new bankruptcy laws,

from the reduction of all things to do with veterans assistance, including slashing the budget dealing brain injuries by half, which would effect over 100,000 soldiers. Why do the rich need a tax cut again?

from the unwillingness to get service men the best equipment and best living conditions that can be given, contracting companies like haliburton that somehow managed to give our soldiers water contaminated with fecal matter.

from the constant and absolutely heinous stop-lossing of soldiers and recalls that attempts to minimize the burden on the population as a whole by avoiding the unpopular draft,and instead putting the entire burden on these few people who have already served, who have already sacrificed, and should get to come home as heroes already, "Hero."

- to the insistance that we need to mischaracterize this war for the american people, miscaracterize the danger, and so, underplay the sacrifice of these soldiers, outright dishonor their names by lying even about how they died,

that we need to obscure how many died, and should get angry and call it aiding the terrorists when somebody points out the number of american sacrifices...

there's a lot more

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 1, 2006 6:13 AM

EVILDINOSAUR

It's quite simple, Support the Troops means never ever disagreeing with anything that the military is doing, because doing so insults the people that are fighting for our freedom (even when they're not fighting for our freedom at the present time)

OOOH, and sometimes, it means putting a pretty ribbon shaped bumper sticker on your car, yay!

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 1, 2006 6:29 AM

And that 'root for the home team' argument is
really sad, Hero. Root or be silent? really? Isn't THAT how fascism happens? Weren't all the Germans good 'supporters' during WWII? If nobody is supposed to speak out, then we just have to wait until foreign countries put us in check, because to do so ourselves would be unpatriotic? Carazy, man.

We honor our soldiers by continuing to ask whether we are asking them to sacrifice in vain, we honor them by laboring over whether our cause is good enough that we should be putting our bravest in harms way -- we honor them by treating them like a precious American resource that should not be risked lightly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 1, 2006 7:28 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I would hope supporting the troops means NOT using them as bait 'over there' so the US can party-on 'over here'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 1, 2006 9:48 AM

DREAMTROVE

It means: "Don't let your troops droop."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 1, 2006 9:48 AM

DREAMTROVE

It means: "Don't let your troops droop."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 1, 2006 10:00 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

It means - Understand that the troops have a crappyass job to do. One that they did not create, one that they would rather not do, but one that they agreed to do. Appreciate that they get paid no money to do this job and that they leave their loved ones for months and years to go to a country where they are being targeted, where they live in substandard conditions and where they would rather not be.

Support the troops is not and should not be a politcal thing. And George should be ashamed of himself EVERYTIME he tries to politicize the American Soldier and the American military family.

Sorry Military and the quality of life for the Military member and their families is a particular hot button of mine.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 1, 2006 10:35 AM

This might upset a few folk, but that's ok..

The only troops I directly* support are the ones who said "Up yours, Sir."

No matter how you wanna wrangle it in legalese, Congress did not issue a formal declaration of war against Iraq, and truthfully had neither cause nor reason to do so, because regardless of what Faux news tells the ignorant hicks, Saddam had nothing whatever to do with 9-11.

Congress can NOT legally abdicate this responsibility, at least not without a full-on Constitutional Amendment to modify the procedure for declaring war, and there's a reason for that, and we're staring it in the face right now.

IF Congress had declared war, THEN they would have to face the angry constituents they pissed off by doing so, and thus in cowardly fashion just rolled over like a whipped puppy and let the Executive Branch do whatever the hell it pleased.

Sorry for the background, but it's needful for complete understanding of the position some are taking.

No, I don't support someone who was told to do something illegal, that violated their Oath of Service, who then did it out of fear of the consequences of obeying that Oath.

It's like the military played on the Milgram Experiment, with a side order of fear - no matter what they mumble quietly about illegal orders in orientation, anyone unwilling to obey even the most ludicrous of orders is either quickly run out, or conditioned to do so.

Think on this, if the bastards sending out kids into this meatgrinder while polishing chairs in washington could not get them to GO - would this have happened ?

No, sorry, I don't support em.

-Frem

*As is well known, that being said, I do indirectly support them via care packages, post-discharge counselling, and the like, just because I disagree with and do not support someone else's decisions, I am not going to cease regarding them as a human being.
After all, I'm not a republican.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 1, 2006 1:29 PM

PHOENIXSHIP

I was in the Army for three years.

I guarantee you that absent a reporter's camera in their face, 99 out of 100 GIs will tell you that Support the Troops means:

Send me into battle to protect my country when necessary.
Give me a clear goal.
Bring me home the second I'm done.
Don't mess with my mail or my chow or my paycheck.

That's it.

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 1, 2006 1:31 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

Shiny sig, there, FMF!

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 1, 2006 1:36 PM

SASSALICIOUS

Quote:
I have personally witnessed protesters at military funerals celebrating the death of American marines.

I was under the impression that the main people doing that were those wacky religious people that thought our soldier's dying was a message from god. Even if the people you saw weren't part of that group, it's safe to say that they aren't the norm, that they aren't representative of most anti-war people.

For me, it basically means I can hate on the government for sending them on a mission that I deem worthless, useless, unsuccessful, and unending (this is not up for debate right now). I can hate on the government for sending them out unprepared, without adequate equipment (ie body armor and COMPASSES for god's sake!). But at the same time, I'm not going to shit on the soldier when he comes back. I'm not opposed to trying to boost morale or make life more comfortable for them in whatever hellhole they're stationed at. He has to do what his superiors tell him to. It's not his fault he was sent there. Chances are he doesn't want to be there.

People who treat the armed forces as sub human when they come back make me sick. A lot of people in my family have been in the military though, so I'm sometimes slightly biased.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.

~Forsaken Forever

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 1, 2006 1:40 PM

SASSALICIOUS

Have you seen the movie "Sir, Yes Sir"? It was playing when I was in Hawaii, but I didn't get a chance to see it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.

~Forsaken Forever

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 1, 2006 6:53 PM

DREAMTROVE

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 2:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hereo- Mostly with you up to here....

Quote:
It is ok, however, to support the idea that the game should not be played, but that is an argument that should be tabled while the ball is in play. Just remember war, like football has two sides. If you convince your side not to show up, but the other side does show up...you and your side automatically lose.

I think one can support the troops AND protest the policy at the same time. Because what your reasoning does is provide incentive for our corrupt administration to simply keep war... ANY war... going in the interests of quashing dissent.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 6:26 AM

Fremdfirma -

I know where you are coming from, but you should consider where a lot of our service men and women are coming from. They are young and impressionable, often poor, and with poverty comes poor education as well. In order to make them effective soldiers the military does a number on them with its propaganda.

Many are disillusioned about this occupation, I'm sure of it, but like most Americans, they don't access to good information on the subject, and the people they have to look up to in the executive office are crooks and liars painting a constant race bating picture of our enemy, a constant appeal to a 'the means justify the ends' mentality. The current administration and everyone it props up have been horrible role-models. Soldiers are not being shown integrity and honorable service from the top.

It is a weighty decision these soldiers have to make. The issue has been greatly confused, muddied, bloodied, etc. Heck, the administration outright lied to us about Iraq's involvement in 911. at the time, most couldn't have known that it would be so dishonest about something like this. What kind of BS do you think still bombards the troops about Iraq from their 'betters' today?

And faced with an absolutely confusing and frightening issue, uncertain of where the higher moral choice lies, I think most soldiers have not rebelled or objected not out of fear, but out of a lack of certainty as to whether this war is illegal, or else, out of a steadfast certainty that it is legal, and that the cause they are fighting for is good.

For those who are uncertain though, the weight of the world is on their shoulders. Choose against country?(as it is framed). Choose to abandon the fellow soldiers you trained with and bonded with, to some horrible fate on the battlefield? In the absence of the information to make an absolute decision, they choose not to abandon their posts -they choose to risk their lives for their fellow soldiers on the ground.

War crimes are war crimes, and I do not excuse soldiers for their part in obvious illegal activity, but I blame the top more for their lapses. It's the top that is failing them, and it is the top that is not leading them as our soldiers should be led. With good leadership that touted a responsibility to truth and the rule of law, we would have soldiers with a stronger sense of what it meant to be a good American serviceman.

Instead, whistleblowing is called treason, the administration refuses to condemn torture of prisoners, and all prisoners are called terrorists, even if they get let out with no charges tomorrow. Our president says 'bring em on' like this is not a battle for hearts and minds, but a grudge match, and finally we have a working example of trickle down theory.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 8:00 AM

ROCKETJOCK

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

I read a story out of Washington or Oregon that involved several persons accusing a uniformed National Guardsman of being a baby killer before beating him to death on the street in broad daylight.

Whoa. Does anyone have a reference/documentation for this? Somehow I can't see something of this nature happening without getting major headlines accross the nation. If nothing else, the Bush administration would certainly have siezed upon it as a PR weapon to discredit the anti-war movement. Heck, I couldn't even blame 'em. It'd be a propaganda slam-dunk!

But--minus that documentation--I'm going to have to categorize this one with the tales of returning Vietnam veterans being spat upon by hippies at the airport, or the massive nationwide flag-burnings that apparently are wide-spread enough to affect local air quality reports.

In all seriousness, however--if there is documentation behind this incident, I'd like to see it. Anyone?

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 10:27 AM

Righteous, you've essentially nailed the reason why I do not discuss the matter with those who have been deployed - whether I agree with their decision or not, ain't NO point discussin it in a situation where they'll need full focus to stay alive - I just send em what I can manage of their Reqs and wait for them to get back alive.

We can discuss it between us at that point.

I think also, that in quite reprehensible fashion, the army is DELIBERATELY playing on that ignorance and ambiguity within the troops, with propaganda and selective reporting of key information - they really always have, and it's exactly because of this that the situation is what it is.

I also fault our tactics, badly, but that's another whole discussion - just that it rooks me to see heavily 'indoctrinated' troops taught to despise "them dirty ay-rabs" sent into a 4GWar with the same civil-war era tactical doctrine taught in basic even to this day...
You tell me, when was the last time our troops had to dress left to firm up the musket-line, eh ?

Anyhows, the blame lies explicitly with Congress, for abdicating a power they have no legal ability TO abdicate, and with the Executive, for Usurpation of a power they do not legally have.

And my greatest respect goes to the rare few who understood that, and told em to piss off.

I don't believe that 'ignorance is no excuse' - a troop who does not KNOW this, who's been fed propaganda and misinformation and has no way TO know this - hell no, i'm not going to fault the guy, we can discuss THAT if and when he gets back, and in the meantime, I find him batteries for his gameboy, sure.

But there's no way I can support blind unthinking obediance of orders without question.... look where it's lead us.

I support them as people, but as soldiers, I consider it a bit of a dereliction (for those who DO know) when they're given an order that defies their Oath of service, and they obey it.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 10:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I tried googling Hero's story. Nothing turned up except this, and it is the exact opposite of what Hero suggests:

Quote:
Plight of Specialist Sean Baker, member of Kentucky National Guard and military policeman in Guantanamo Bay who received traumatic brain injury during training exercise; contends that in Jan 2003, Baker was asked to play role of non-cooperative prisoner, but soldiers who were to extract him from detention cell were told that he was genuine detainee who had assaulted sergeant; holds that Baker was choked and his head slammed against floor; says military investigation concluded that there had been no misconduct involved in Baker's injury, and when he told his story to Kentucky reporter, military lied in disgraceful effort to undermine his credibility; notes that Baker finally received medical discharge, but still suffers from frequent seizures

Perhaps he will come through with a link.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 9:34 PM

ROCKETJOCK

Thanks, Signym. I'm going to think on that narrative a while before I post anything about it.

But I just realized that I never commented on the original question of this thread.

What does Support the Troops mean?

To me, it is something entirely different from supporting the war. As Hero aptly put it earlier on this thread supporting the troops is like maintaining your car; supporting the war means approving of where that car's being driven. Two entirely different propositions.

Part of "Supporting the Troops" to me means giving them what they need to complete their mission; sufficient supplies and support to give them a fighting chance to achieve their goals.

Incument to this is the responsibility of those in charge not to stretch our resources too far, unless circumstances absolutely demand it.

In my opinion, the current administration failed at these tasks the day they turned this into a two-front war, without a driving and immediate need to. And please, don't mention WMDs; even if Sadam had them, they posed less of a threat to American interests than the act of spliting our forces and focus.

"Supporting the Troops" includes picking your battles wisely, and admitting errors once they have been made. The generation of Chicken Hawks we laughingly call our leadership has shown very little skill or talent at either, so far.

But our troops, have, for the most part been incredible. Give 'em a lemon, they'll make lemonade. They have my support, in full.

"The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory." -- Sun Tzu

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 9:49 PM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER

Well, as a veteran I have my own thoughts on this issue, most of which the extreme liberals here will not want to hear.

Now that being said, I will assume that you have jumped to the conclusion that I am a conservative, and I am to a point. I don't like political groups, because too many people feel that to be a democrat or a republican means they have to agree with everything that party says. That's bullshit, we're all free thinkers. But if I had to classify myself, I'd say I'm Libertarian.

To me, having served in the military and lived a life most of you couldn't comprehend, 'Support the Troops' is a very literal saying. Supporting the troops means shutting your mouth the minute boots hit the ground. You have no idea what it did to me and my fellow soldiers when we would hear that 80% of the country supported the troops but only 20% supported the war. It was like getting punched in the gut every time we read about another protest. If you don't support the job the troops are doing, you do not support the troops. End of story.

Vietnam was a horrible time to be a soldier, but at least the people back then were honest. They didn't lie to the soldiers or lie to themselves by hiding behind a concept of 'support our troops'.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 10:26 PM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER

Frem, as a veteran and having lived it, I can honestly say you have got your head so far up your ass your body is a hat. You can't just tell your commanders to 'piss off' when they send you to war. Going to Iraq and Afganistan are not 'illegal orders' regardless of what your Liberal Arts professor may have said. Your ignorance knows no bounds apparently, and I am glad that there aren't more people like you in any positions of power.

That being said, I also commend you. You're not afraid to say exactly what you mean, and that's a rare quality nowadays. And I'm not patronising you at all. I may not agree with you, and may think you're an ignorant ass, but at least you were honest, and I felt it was only fair to give you the same.

In response to:

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I also fault our tactics, badly, but that's another whole discussion - just that it rooks me to see heavily 'indoctrinated' troops taught to despise "them dirty ay-rabs" sent into a 4GWar with the same civil-war era tactical doctrine taught in basic even to this day...
You tell me, when was the last time our troops had to dress left to firm up the musket-line, eh ?

We don't and we never do. Most of what you are taught at Basic (aside from weapons and first aid training) is to break you of bad habits and teach you discipline. No commander in his right mind would ever expect his troops to 'hold the line' in it's traditional sense.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 10:36 PM

Thanks for you response Babywiththepower -

I can understand how you felt. Do you think it is better to keep the populace inundated with unchecked propaganda then? Taking your model of good support of the troops to its extreme, couldn't it lead to horrible results?

where in your ideal, would there be a window to question whether a war should be waged? Please don't say after the war is over, because its doubful whether the war on terror will ever be over, it being waged against an emotion rather than a country. And if we did start doing things that actually were reminiscent of NAZI Germany, would that still not be an acceptable time to criticize the direction we are going?

The price of freedom is that we have a duty to keep ourselves educated with facts.If we are to defend the tenets of the Constitution, we don't have the luxury of being soothed by words that would make us feel better. We need to know the truth. Our troops need to know the truth. If that truth is hard to look at, so be it. Democracy does not come easy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 11:47 PM

FellowTraveler, You hit it right on the nail. The media will get 20 people behind the camrea and say that they all belive in one thing. Making it look like the whole area belives in that one thing, when in fact they don't. After 9/11 there was protesters on the streets of NY. How or why is far from my understanding. The truth is, not everyone belived in what the protesters were talking about. The media does take portions of things and twist the truth, even if they don't have to change the wording of someones sentences to do so. Take Iraq as an exsample. The Iraq people LOVE us there. The troops who are over there understand what their "job" is. May not agree on it, but some of them do. The media makes it look like we don't have a clue why we are over there, and when we try to tell them, they don't show it. I have a complete understanding why I was over there and what my job did for the area that I was in. I know when you put all of the I's together what is the main focus of why we are over there, our main goal. The media's job is to show the people what is going on. Like a fight in a high school, everyone runs to it because of the drama it brings, which brings ratings. They are NOT giving accurate information, only to keep the peoples TV on for their own ratings.

Everything you said was and is true. The whole support your troops thing is just another way of saying support our war. Support our war is something totally different from support our troops and the media along with other people are abusing that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 11:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
What does that even mean, to support the troops? Blindy cheering whenever we go to war?

Since the troops are the folk who have volunteered to fight for us, I think they deserve our support regardless of our belief in the war. Its like your car. Would you refuse fuel, fluids, and maintenence to your car just because you don't support the direction its going? Of course not, because someday you might just need that car to get you were you need to be.

So specifically what does "support" mean. It means honoring their sacrifice by paying our respects to the returning veterans, the wounded, the dead, and their families. For me it means contributing to the families of the fallen, helping soldiers when I can, cutting them a bit more slack, making sure they are fairly treated, anything I can think of really and certainly no less then the contributions and volunteering I did for Katrina victims and other worthy causes.

I think one legacy of Vietnam was that we at least acknowledge the need to seperate the soldiers from the policy and accord them the respect as individuals that we all deserve. They are too often caught up in events out of their control and most often out of a true desire to make a life for themselves in honorable service to their nation.
Quote:

What does it mean to NOT support the troops? Does that automatically mean you want to spit on soldiers and treat them like dirt?

Unfortunately it does. I read a story out of Washington or Oregon that involved several persons accusing a uniformed National Guardsman of being a baby killer before beating him to death on the street in broad daylight.

I have personally witnessed protesters at military funerals celebrating the death of American marines.

I say hate Bush all you want, you will anyway, so enjoy it. But how can you hate Joe Private from Nowwhere Mississippi who joined the army to pay for college his parents can't afford cause Katrina destroyed their town and got killed in Iraq in service to his nation? Or Jill Private from South Central LA who joined to get out of the cycle of drugs, sex, and violence that destroyed her whole family an is now in college to get a teaching degree (the first member of her family ever to go) using the GI Bill? Or Antonio Private seeking a legal path to citizenship by volunteering service to the nation he so hopes to make his own? Or Sgt Dan a police officer and Marine reservist who has dedicated his entire adult life to service to his family and community only to die in Iraq?
Quote:

I fail to see what "Support the Troops" even means.

That is unfortunate.
Quote:

Is war a football game, as simple as rooting for the home team?

This is an entirely different issue and the answer is an absolute YES.

In war a person MUST root for the home team or at least keep silent. Like football, rooting against one team is the same as rooting in favor of the other...in war such is treason.

It is ok, however, to support the idea that the game should not be played, but that is an argument that should be tabled while the ball is in play. Just remember war, like football has two sides. If you convince your side not to show up, but the other side does show up...you and your side automatically lose.

Note for the record, I just got my season tickets to watch the Browns in Cleveland. While I will tolerate some non-Browns fans at the games, there better not be any of you liberal, tree-hugging, terrorist-loving, pansy Pittsburg Steeler fans cheering in my section. I'm just sayin...GO BROWNIES (yes its a blind faith one has at the start of the season)!

H

Hero, I am relive that there are still people out there who think like you do. Thank you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 12:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
It means - Understand that the troops have a crappyass job to do. One that they did not create, one that they would rather not do, but one that they agreed to do. Appreciate that they get paid no money to do this job and that they leave their loved ones for months and years to go to a country where they are being targeted, where they live in substandard conditions and where they would rather not be.

Support the troops is not and should not be a politcal thing. And George should be ashamed of himself EVERYTIME he tries to politicize the American Soldier and the American military family.

Sorry Military and the quality of life for the Military member and their families is a particular hot button of mine.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FutureMrsFillion, its very sad...but your right.
When I joined, it was for many reasons. Not everyone can support a family with their income. Therefore, they can not hope to ever go to college because they are too busy making sure their family has something to eat. Which means they will never be able to help themselfs improve their means. The military gives you an Honorable condition after your service. It's supposed to mean something, but only to the law inforcement positions. If I spend four years and never have any problems in the military and I get out with a honorable condtion, would it have the same weight of someone who has a degree in the same MOS I have been doing for four years? No...

We can go to college while we are in the service but remember your job is more importain so if you have to go out for a training exercise at any moment your schooling will have to just "stand the fuck by". Doesn't matter if you have already informed them and bought your books.

You do get a little bit of money to go to college after your service. Meanwhile, you are "doing a crappyass job". If for say, you are a senior Lcpl of the United States Marines who has a family, a wife a son and lets just say...one on the way. How does your service compare to keeping your family fed? Well, you only get paid 850 biweekly. You live in Cailforina which is a little more on the expencive side. Yes you still have bills to pay.
Throw in that your deployed and you have to buy your own cleaning suppiles so that you can have "field day" (think about taking everything out of your house cleaning everything and then putting everything back in, stupid style).

Lets say that when you go to train you are given something called "Meal Ready To Eat" (MRE) and they are bad. Yes as in you can't eat them unless you want to get really sick. Furthermore, you can't always get to chow when you are not in the field, because your job is more importain then chow and "chow is a cruch". So when the chow hall if close, you don't eat.

No you don't get extra money incase all of this happens (and it does serveal times a week). Now you have to pay for not only your families food but for your own when you don't get fed by the military. Which means you don't get to buy phone cards to talk to your family for seven months, well because you can not afford it.

Theres a hell of a lot more then what I am trying to get across to you. Bottom line, we do a lot, we go without. We do it for two reasons: One to hope that we maybe able to take care of our familes. The other, to protect our familes and our friends. So when I go into Cingular to talk to them about my services (when I am not depoloyed) and I get told "We do not serve your kind" (I went in while in uniform because I was pressed for time). Let's just say, its not very nice.

When a women who is a total stranger comes up to you and gives your mother 20 dollars so that "she can take out her son". That is pretty nice. I am not saying that you should give us money and thats what it means to support our troops. I am saying that we do not decide what we can and can not do. We do not decide if we want to go to war or not. We only decided that we are going to give our commanders are faith that they are going to do what is right, and that we are going to make a diffence that others were not able to make.

We only want to help. Do you really think that we joined the service because we wanted to go and kill children? Really? We don't go around killing them you know...

The next time you see a service men, just don't say we do not serve your kind. When I die, don't make my mother even more upset by going to my grave and protesting the war (no it wasn't just that one church). Just understand that when you get home after your long day of 13 hours, know that when we are deployed (and usally when we aren't) we worked more hours in the day then you did. Understand when we were in Iraq for 7 monthes that we had...0...days off. We may or may not agree with the war. But we do the best we can to make sure that you can live the life style that you do, and we hope that we can better our selfs and our familes position as well. Not everyone comes into the service in need of help. A lot of people join, just to servce their country. We hope that we make you proud. I know its hard to do so, when you really don't see our faces as we go through the things we do. Just understand that we do it for you, and for our loved ones. There is a big chain, where my loved ones have their own loved ones who have their own loved ones. When my loved ones, loved ones are upset, its going to effect my loved ones (if that makes since). Meaning that we are not just doing it for the people closes to us, but for everyone. I hope this makes since, I'm tried. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. Support us and support the war is two different things. Just as white and black are. If you support your troops then you say thank you for the SACRAFICES THAT YOU ARE MAKING FOR ME AND MY LOVED ONES. Because, it really is for you. And we get treated like shit for it, with some really poor feed back. Then we get to go hungry. I just started typing, sorry if I repeated my self.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 2:49 AM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER

Quote:
Originally posted by Marine:
[BLets say that when you go to train you are given something called "Meal Ready To Eat" (MRE) and they are bad. Yes as in you can't eat them unless you want to get really sick. Furthermore, you can't always get to chow when you are not in the field, because your job is more importain then chow and "chow is a cruch". So when the chow hall if close, you don't eat.

Alot of what you say has heart, but I take issue with this paragraph. MREs weren't that bad and if you got sick, then you have a piss poor constitution. In the field we got three of them a day and not one of my soldiers got sick, and we were in the field once a month for at least a week at a time. In the military you are garunteed three meals a day, regardless of if the chow hall is open or not. The military will never deny you a meal. If you missed chow because of work, you could have requested an MRE or gotten food and submitted a request to be comped the meals value based on the allowed per diem of your paygrade. If you failed to do either of those things, it was a failure on your part, not your command's.

For those that don't know, a per diem is a daily allowence given to troops for clothing and supplies if they are deployed or on TDY. Breakfast, lunch and dinner all have different dollar values and can be requested if your job prevents you from getting a meal at the chow hall.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 5:20 AM

Baby, you apparently fail to realize you're not talking to some college student who's entire concept of the matter comes from too many movies.

Dude, you're talking to a former 76X10 Subsist.Supply/E3 PFC who *DID* in fact tell his CO to perform certain "anatomically improbable acts" over two rather infamous illegal orders - and who wound up trying to do an 11B10's job on a 76x10's training because the unit I was with was in really bad shape for personnel, equipment and morale, as well as being at the bottom of the feeder chain on supplies and personnel, which meant we made do with whatever we had.

Basic may have changed since my days, I sincerely hope to hell so, because they USED those dumbass tactics in every exercise we had, and that hey-diddle-diddle-straight-up-the-middle shit SHOULD have gone out with the advent of the machinegun back in the early 1900's, but too damn many former and current officers don't seem to realize that.

Most of what was learned in basic then was pretty useless in the field, still is, and overemphasis on physical ability at the EXPENSE of marksmanship training was a huge flaw.. yes, you do need fit troops, but unless you're swinging swords, if they can't even fekkin QUALIFY 23/30, it doesn't matter how tough they are.

And don't even get me started on the M16A1... I've heard the M4 is a helluva lot better and I hope to hell so, but many of the supply units sent out took those bastard A1/A2's with em, and I *know* they are unreliable.

The M60 wasn't much better, with the overheating barrel and fragile internal parts, but damn it was a nice weapon in the hands of someone disciplined enough to not overheat the bastard.. I carried that one myself.

So speaking of ignorance and head-up-ass, let's talk about that - didn't they teach you in Basic what ASS-U-ME means ?

You need to read your UCMJ mister, if you think an order to deploy to a country we are not (constitutionally) at war with is legal - if your CO ordered you to attack the state of Oregon, would you do that ?

I've shovelled my share of sand outta jackson too, guy - don't think for a minute I don't understand your annoyance, but if you're gonna be annoyed, be annoyed for better reasons than an assumption of who I might be.

Quote:
In the military you are garunteed three meals a day, regardless of if the chow hall is open or not. The military will never deny you a meal.

Truer words were never spoken, if you can reach a chow hall, they WILL feed you - and if you can't, we'll bring it to you any way we can, be it mermite cans or MREs... we will GET the food to you.

Part of my exercise training involved the best method of getting a deuce full of MREs through enemy territory without drawing attention or notice if at all possible, and although not specifically trained to fight as well as blue-stripe infantry, us Subsist.Supply folks were perfectly willing to do what it took to GET that food to you, any way it takes.

Anyhow, make no mistake about it, I do not believe that you're legally deployed, and I accept that you may disagree with me about it, but don't think for a minute that means the same thing as not supporting you, far far from it.

I want you to have a clearly defined mission, or at least a timetable to GTFO and I want it yester-fuckin-day, and that isn't up to us grunts - that one lies with the pissants cutting the orders, whom I think we're both kinda pissed at.

Just so ya know,

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 8:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I realized that I never answered this question. To me, it means sending a "care package" to a soldier- ANY solder: wet wipes, a Game Boy and batteries, beef jerky, and whatever else seems handy. Giving blood. Calling my Senators and Representative and the WH (not that they care) protesting every time they take away yet more $$$ from the VA, or stiff soldiers in the new bankruptcy laws, and arguing until I'm blue in the face against the Iraq war and against nascent war in Iran. I won't lie to "the troops" and tell them I support their mission. How could I? But I'll be glad when they come home.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 6:24 PM

Baby, when I said the MRE's are bad. I ment as in no good. As in don't eat them that they are ruined. For the last 4 monthes my unit has been getting MRE's that were bad for them. This is current mind you. The cheese looks like Peanutbutter. So when I said the MRE's are "bad" I ment that you can not eat them, unless you wanted to eat "ruined food" You were in the military so you understand, everyone else, think of canned goods that went "bad" and were no longer heathly for you to eat.

No you can not go to the chow hall, and no we do not get Per Diem. That would normally be the case if you were given comrats (which is money for you to buy your own food so that you did not have to go to the chow hall to eat every time, usally this is given to married marines, the rate by the way changes only sightly and is around 250 a month regardless of rank). We do not have MRE's on hand incase you are unable to go to chow for whatever reason. MRE's are ordered to fill the need for Marines who go to the field. Not to have on hand. Your right, until the last four months. I did not even think MRE's could go bad, they are expected to last up to ten years. The problem was (I am told) that the MRE's were sat out in the sun for over a week long, they are supposed to be stored. Then a half an hour of story telling you get the full picture. Thats the major point though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 6:47 PM

Frem,

You were in the Army then?
If any personal can not effectivly fire a weapon, then your right they are usless in combat (omitting medics and corpsmen).

In basic training, we learn how to march, take orders and we do a little PT. Along with a the history of our branch if you are apart of the Marines.

M16A1, was and will always be a joke. M16A2 was a big improvement over the A1. However, M16A3 is better then both of them, a pound heavier, with the ablitity to attach more things to it, a slightly different barrel as well. Same functions though. Sounds like you would like the AK-47, less maintance needed to operate the weapon. Both could go into the water and still fire, but the 16 will start to jam much quicker if you don't clean the weapon. Remember the springfield? Everyone loved that one as I understand it. The M60 is outdated. We have better weapons now. Heavy weapons, now there isn't much better then the M240G and the .50 Cal. But you already know about the .50 Cal. The only changes to that weapon from WW2 is the handles are no longer wooden. I hope this informs you a little more about the weapons that we use now-a-days.

In war, your right, chow is provided and the logistic's side of the house will go through hell to make sure the troops are fed. When you are in deployment, you are not in war. When you are in the rear, you are not in war. Don't count on the 3 meals a day thing anylonger. A clear cut mission is given to us even when we are in Iraq. We and everyone else in the world may disagree with it, but we know what our mission is. Furthermore, we know when we are going to leave as well (unless someone else takes office or is able to pri us from Iraq some how). We also know why we went into Iraq in the first place, sorry the Media doesn't want to explain it. AGAIN not everyone will agree why we went their in the first place, or the actions we are doing now that our first mission there is completed. We have one more mission, when its done, we'll come home.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 7:26 PM

REAVERMAN

Aww, man, I hear ya about the MREs.

Those little peanut butter packets should have "WARNING: This vaguely peanut butter-like substance is guaranteed to clog your colon for up to 5 months" stamped on the side. Don't even get me started on the mashed "potatoes". Its probably healthier AND tastier AFTER you puke it up

. I feel genuinely sorry for you folks that have to eat that crap all the time. Even if you didn't make your living gettin' shot at, I'd respect you guys just for that.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 4, 2006 3:16 AM

Once upon a long damn time ago, yah.

Quote:
hope this informs you a little more about the weapons that we use now-a-days.

Damn i'm such a geezer.. so they finally got a medium-heavy MG that can do the job, good freakin deal.

The reason for my Beloved M60 was simple, I humped the big nasty heavy one too, not that short barrel E-8 crap, cause the shorter barrel resulted in less punch and even MORE overheating, bleh.

Our primary infantry "threat" at the time would have been from Sov-Bloc BMPs, and the M72A2 LAW rocket being more of a forget-to-fire than fire-and-forget, we carried a case of M61 black molly, and if one of those bastards got within 150m of us, we were gonna make it swiss cheese...

The M249 SAW that replaced it cannot serve as a dual-purpose weapon because it has ZERO capability against light armor, so i'm glad to see something with a little punch back in the field as a squad weapon.

The M203 with 40mmGL was still (and we only found this out YEARS later) hanging the firing pin extended, causing slamfire when you loaded it, and in rare cases before the breech was fully closed, so nobody in their right mind carried it at that time.

The AK's a pretty nice toy, a bit less accurate due to looser tolerances, and slightly lower range, but the Finnish Sako variant of it is everything a troop could ever want in a combat rifle - especially since the XM8 project didn't come through.

As for food supply, some of those MRE's were never properly tested to stay decent in desert heat conditions, and thus should not be issued in said environs.

If you have a food supply issue that the chain of command is unwilling to rectify, what you need to do is find out from your 94B's exactly who the 76X in charge of your unit's direct supply is and explain the matter to them, they WILL find you a workaround, if for no other reason than a matter of pride.

The MOS numbers might have changed, mind, but 76X is food supply, or used to be.

My primary concern is that your position, and mission is likely to become... umm...
Untenable.

And you know what that means as much as I do.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 5:29 PM