support our troops?,what does that mean?

[hoosierhiver]

here's a can of worms ,everybody is saying it,support our troops,people started saying it during the last gulf war,support our troops,started because of that nasty treatment towards g.i.'s returning from vietnam,now we all got to support our troops,does that mean in anything they do?,surely we can support our troops without necessarily agreeing with the war right?it's not their fault,right?support our troops,giving blood is obviously good,not blaming individuals for the country's policies, applies to every nation.support our troops,i think people don't even consider what they are saying,can we call for peace and support our troops if things get ugly?i hope my pondering hasn't offended anyone,just trying to provote thought.

[Michael Bush]

To me it means not making the mistakes of Viet Nam where the foot soldiers who were sent to fight a war and risk their life were treated like criminals. It means you let them know you are on THEIR side. Maybe you're not in favor of the war, but you are not against our soldiers. Maybe you disagree with the government but you don't hold the soldiers responsible for doing their job. It's all about respect.

[mark williams]

verrry nicely put Michael,God bless the U.S.A.

[Michael Bush]

I was in the arbor (a shade made of pine boughs) at the Sundance (a religious ceremony) on Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota. I saw an old biker wearing some evidence of being a Viet Nam Vet. He was a wasicu (white guy) and I asked him how he came to be there. He explained that he was with an American Indian friend once who invited him to an honoring ceremony for Viet Nam Vets. He was stunned that such a thing existed.

He went to the ceremony and he was taken into the center of the circle along with other vets and songs were song to honor them and speeches were made to thank them and prayers were said for them and then hundreds of people come by and shook his hand and thanked him for the sacrifices he had made for the people. He was in tears. He said in the 25 years he had been back from Viet Nam it was the first time anyone had thanked him and the first time anyone had shown respect for the sacrifices he and his comrades had made.

American Indians believe in respect.

It is wrong that he should have gone through the hell that he did trying to support his country and be treated by his own people as if he was evil. We should not make this mistake again.

Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

American Indians teach "Act with respect toward everyone and everything"

If you do these things, you will do right.

[dickm]

This administration promised (during the elections )to remedy a rule that does not allow veterans to collect normal retirement pay plus any allowance for disability. Anywhere else the special funds allocated for disabilities are to be in addition to normal retirement. Just not in the military.
Also, this administration just severely cut funding to the Veterans administration while upping the co-pay for drugs by veterans and making VA benefits unavailable to those beyond a certain (low) level of income.
I say to the president," 'Support the troops' should begin at home."

Dickm

[mysticbees]

I wish I knew how to express support for our men and women who are in this war without expressing support for the war!
My opinion: our president, (who himself is the leader of an "illegal regime"), has committed us to a war that was an illegal undertaking, both in terms of NATO and our own constitution, from its conception.
A dozen countries have legitimately asked for our help, yet we have ignored their plights. Why have we chosen this arena? There is only one obvious answer: oil.
I am sure that I am not alone in having difficulty grasping the connection between how we got from stopping Al-Queda terrorists to liberating Iraq's oil fields from Saddam.
The constitutional rights of privacy we have lost as a result of terrorist activity are beginning to look even more frightening. Will people who speak out against this war, or our president, people who are being called "unpatriotic", be quelled by the new authority our "illegal regime" has given itself under the guise of "homeland security"?
I pray for our country, too!

[BjornBee]

For or against, the subject is broad and varied. For the last comment by mysticbees however, please let me know which constitutional rights of privacy have been lost.

[Michael Bush]

First, let me say I am not clearly for or against the war. I’m afraid it’s too complicated and we only have part of the picture. The justification could be more real than we can tell or it could be more selfish than we have been led to believe. We only get what the government gives to the News Media. I hate to see a war ever, but I can’t say that war is never justified.

>I wish I knew how to express support for our men and women who are in this war without expressing support for the war!

I think several people did just that at the Oscars last night. It's quite simple; you express your concern for the welfare of everyone, our troops and the Iraqi people and your hope for peace. Not too many people are offended by any of this as evidenced by the several standing ovations to people expressing exactly those sentiments. There is nothing controversial in praying for the welfare of everyone.

>My opinion: our president, (who himself is the leader of an "illegal regime")

I'm not certain of the origin of this remark, but if it is to do with the last election all due process was followed and by the system of laws and the Constitution we have in place, he was legally elected as determined by our highest court.

>... has committed us to a war that was an illegal undertaking, both in terms of NATO and our own constitution, from its conception.

The Constitution grants the president the right to call out troops. Article II Section 2. "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

This is a rather vague description but it has historically been interpreted to mean that the President can call out troops and send them to battle anytime and anywhere unless Congress steps in and says otherwise. This is so that the President can respond to a threat in a timely manner.

In the 1970's congress passed a law limiting (or maybe just defining) this power both in time frame and number of troops. But the power still belongs to the President.

However in this case the President got the approval of Congress before sending any troops, so this limitation does not apply.

What he has done is legal and constitutional.

The issues of NATO and the UN are much more complicated, but not as clear as to the Presidents rights in that respect.

I believe your real concern is whether or not it is right, which is irrelevant to it being legal. Legal and right are seldom related.

>A dozen countries have legitimately asked for our help, yet we have ignored their plights. Why have we chosen this arena? There is only one obvious answer: oil.

As to the countries that we have ignored, I’m sure there are practical and political reasons. For instance, we ignore the plight of the people of Tibet because we don’t want to have a war with China and we don’t want to cut off trade with them either.

>I am sure that I am not alone in having difficulty grasping the connection between how we got from stopping Al-Queda terrorists to liberating Iraq's oil fields from Saddam.

The link between Saddam and terrorism is clear. First of all, he terrorizes his own country. This has been documented by many organizations including independent human rights organizations. He also has openly offered rewards to terrorist suicide bombers. Whether or not this is linked to Al-Queda is another issue, but a link between Saddam and terrorism is irrefutable.

>The constitutional rights of privacy we have lost as a result of terrorist activity are beginning to look even more frightening. Will people who speak out against this war, or our president, people who are being called "unpatriotic", be quelled by the new authority our "illegal regime" has given itself under the guise of "homeland security"?

I agree. Thomas Jefferson said "He who would trade freedom for security will have neither." Benjamin Franklin said something similar. The searches at airports of not only passengers but also cars are really only for show. Helen Keller said "Security is an illusion. All animals and children know this. Life is either an adventure or it’s nothing at all." I worry about how much of our civil liberties Americans will be willing to surrender.

>I pray for our country, too!
So do I.

[Brandon Shaw]

The connection? Money! Give me a break, you know Iraq (Saddam) has supported terrorist network activities. That's reason enough for me, and it should be for you too!

As far as supporting the troops:
Everyone in here probably has neighbors in their community that are over there, how about offering to mow the lawn a couple of times, or babysitting for one night, or removing fallen tree limbs, ect. I'm sure almost all of any offers will be turned down due to pride, but the simple act of showing you care and are there to help if needed goes a long ways.

[dickm]

Heres a good way to support the troops. Go to any VA hospital and volunteer some time. In mine there's a sign that one sees at the entrance: "The price of freedom is visible here." It's true that you'll see different vets (from other wars) but the spirit is the same.

Dickm

[Bigearl]

WAY TO GO MICHAEL. Mysticbees is just a sore loser. Would he like to have Al Gore in office now? How about the rest of you?
Earl

[Karl]

I hope no one gets me started on Michael Moore's awards show tirade!! The election is past and I think even Al Gore has moved on. For my 2 cents, in the days post 9/11 I was so glad that "W" was holding down the seat in Washington. I think he has done an admirable job. Not perfect , but no one is.