Thread: "support the troops"

it was recently exposed that injured vets from iraq were living in relative squalor at walter reed medical facility.

vets in general make up 1/3 of the US homeless population.

military personnel actually on the ground in iraq STILL don't have the armour they were promised..... and their lives, quite obviously, are more at risk.

lots of americans say that they 'support the troops', but what does that even mean?

for the last four years, opponents of the invasion and occupation were accused of NOT supporting the troops. when asked to explain this alleged correlation, the accusers claimed that by not standing behind the president and his war, it was sending a message to the military in iraq that the american public did not support them.

of course this is patently absurd. in fact, it could even be argued (and has been) that by advocating an immediate withdrawal, opponents to the occupation are attempting to extricate the troops from an ever deepening morass.

none of the supporters of the invasion or occupation on this board went to fight in the 'battle of civilizations' in iraq, (or even encouraged their and relatives to enlist), but perhaps they can take this opportunity to detail what they are doing to 'support the troops'. have you sent donations to walter reed or veterans agencies? have you not taken deductions on your taxes?

if it's just putting a bumper sticker on your SUV, i guess that will have to do.


links:
Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility - washingtonpost.com
Thousands of Army Humvees Lack Armor Upgrade - washingtonpost.com
Overview of Homelessness - Homeless Veterans
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
oh and by the way, here's haliburton's chart since '03. let there be no doubt that they're profiting nicely in iraq.




HAL: Basic Chart for HALLIBURTON CO - Yahoo! Finance

Som Nam Nar

I don't support them.

at times i pity them.

Sura:

I don't support them.

Ray:

at times i pity them.

I think they have a very tough set of circumstances. Separation from families, spouse, children.

Drinking alchohol in Iraq is forbidden, so the troops often drink Iraqi moonshine (not healthy).

As for the Reserves:

There have also been problems getting quality work, even at the same company that is required by law to give them their job back. The people once below them, are now above them.

And financially, it's been hard on mortgage payments, etc.

I have seen the rate of pay by rank in Iraq w/ hazard pay, and it's very low.

Really, really, low.

INTERESTING STATISTIC


Regardless of where you stand on the issue of the U.S.

involvement in Iraq, here's a sobering statistic:

There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops
in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months,
and a total of 2,112 deaths. That gives a firearm death rate of
60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6
per 100,000 persons for the same period.

That means that you are about 25% more likely to

be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington

Originally Posted by Rigger

There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths. That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers. The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq. Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington

here's why rigger's post is pure, unadulterated bullshit.....

1) The King report uses 2002 data for Washington, D.C., finding a violent casualty rate of 45.9 deaths per 100,000 people. That number is badly outdated. Using the most recent 2004 data, the violent casualty rate in D.C. is 35.8 deaths per 100,000. There were 198 homicides total in D.C. for the entire year.
2) According to Pentagon’s own data released today, there have been 94 violent casualties per day in Iraq between February and May of 2006. (see p.33). That translates into 34,310 deaths per year in Iraq. For an Iraqi population of about 26.7 million, plus another 150,000 coalition forces, the violent casualty rate in Iraq is 128 deaths per 100,000. UPDATE: The Pentagon data includes injuries as well as deaths so is not directly comparable. The Brookings Institute, however, estimates an annualized murder rate of 95 per 100,000 Iraqis in Bagdad. Brookings notes this number may be “too low since many murder victims are never taken to the morgue, but buried quickly and privately and therefore never recorded in official tallies.”
3) Lastly, the King report is trying to conflate the data for one urban area in the U.S. with the entire country of Iraq. As OpinionJournal writes, “The comparison with U.S. cities poses a problem of scale. Just as some municipalities here have high concentrations of crime, Baghdad and some other Iraqi cities have high concentrations of military, guerrilla and terrorist activity. A comparison of Baghdad with Los Angeles or a similarly sprawling U.S. city would be more enlightening than a comparison of Iraq as a whole with cities of well under a million people.”

Think Progress » FACT CHECK: Right Wing Falsely Claims Iraq Is Safer Than Washington, D.C.

^
Thanks. Sigh, that's the problem with uncritical minds, they take everything they hear or read at face value.

But even at that, Careys post was for the whole population of IRAQ, and Riggers was only for the troops in IRAQ and for the killings in Wash.DC, and at 39% for the capitol city of the USA it is still god damn heavy.
So if you added in the killings in LA you might come up plumb.

Yeh I didnt know if it was true or not it was in a e mail that was sent to me. So I guess now I know
thank you

Originally Posted by Milkman

Sura:

I don't support them.

Ray:

at times i pity them.

I think they have a very tough set of circumstances. Separation from families, spouse, children.

Drinking alchohol in Iraq is forbidden, so the troops often drink Iraqi moonshine (not healthy).

As for the Reserves:

There have also been problems getting quality work, even at the same company that is required by law to give them their job back. The people once below them, are now above them.

And financially, it's been hard on mortgage payments, etc.

I have seen the rate of pay by rank in Iraq w/ hazard pay, and it's very low.

Really, really, low.

I don't have sympathy for any of them because they are all volunteers.

It's not as if they are somewhere defending the homeland. They are part of an illegal occupation, and, as such I give them no quarter when it comes to supporting what they do.

Originally Posted by surasak

I don't have sympathy for any of them because they are all volunteers.

yeah, but the vast majority probably never realized this is what they were in for. and many of them wouldn't have enlisted in the first place if they weren't 'poor'.

My take is that they are there.


I don't think they should be there.

They overthrew a government, disbanded the Baath party, fired every kindergarten teacher in the country, f*cked things up, and now, after 4 full years, entering our fifth year, they are still there..


The Iraqis are not in America; Americans are in Iraq.


Taxpayers should not be paying for this. The Iraqi casualties are far worse than the Americans.


And no, I don't support the troops.

The troops are not a part of this, really.

It's political and sectarian.


The troops are small pawns in a big chess game.

Originally Posted by raycarey

at times i pity them.

I'm sure they in turn pity you as well...

Buying votes against the War in Congress. But don't question their patriotism -- they're just for sale on this subject like they are on everything else!

Gives new meaning to the expression - Coalition of the bribed...

their only fault is when they choose to kill women and children for their own protection or lack the skills to protect themselves without shooting everything that moves.

They are weak and incompetent, that's their only fault.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by raycarey

at times i pity them.

I'm sure they in turn pity you as well...

Can you prove this, Boon Me.

They "pity" Ray?

Why would they?


The "support the troops" slogan is for the lowest common denominator of society.

The troops are not a part of this. It's not military. It's political.


If you support the troops then you support Sayyid Abdul Azziz Al-Hakim of the SCIRI party.

I don't support Al-Hakim and SCIRI, therefore I cannot support the troops.

Because it's the troops job to solidy SCIRI and the Dawa party, and Al-Sadr in power.

"Support the troops" is quasi-nationalist bullshit designed to dispel dissent as a way of making those who oppose the war to appear to also be against those in the military (a favorite tactic when the war is going badly or falling out of favor).

I wonder why I see plenty of able-bodied people around with yellow ribbons who refuse to serve alongside the troops they supposedly support.

It's easy to support something if you don't have to risk life or limb for the cause.

It's irrelevant. All prior wars had a draft. The Iraq war does not.

If they joined the military with the expectation of never serving in a war then perhaps they are dumber than I give them credit for.

If Mexico invaded the U.S. and U.S. troops went to war to defend the country then the troops should get support.

If, on the other hand, U.S. troops entered and occupied Mexico unilaterally (with no initial war started by Mexico attacking the United States) then, no, they would deserve no support.

Originally Posted by RandomChances

Originally Posted by surasak

It's not as if they are somewhere defending the homeland.

They would still be the same people, just fighting in a different place

They wouldn't be fighting anywhere.

Because the United States would not have been attacked.


This (war) is just a continuation of American foreign policy over the last 150 years.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by raycarey

at times i pity them.

I'm sure they in turn pity you as well...

Can you prove this, Boon Me.

They "pity" Ray?

Why would they?

Can I 'prove' this?
Of course I cannot but if they were to be aware of specifically yours and ray's attitude towards them as low income, supposedly poor educated chumps who's only option was to join the military (plus advocate killing of officers) they would indeed express an opinion stronger than 'pity' for yourselves.

Mr. Boon Mee,

I do not think they are low income.

But I do think their parents were of lower income and lessor education than others who opted out of military service after high school.

Well, Khun Milkman, (as long as we're being civil here)lol - for every stroke of the broad brush there are exceptions. As I've posted before, my wife & I have friends who are solidly middle-class with a son attending West Point & who's goal upon graduation is Iraq and the War on Terror.

Concur that the majority of military are most probably from the less-advantaged in terms of monetary means but the point remains - they all deserve dignity and respect which seems to be lacking in yours and especially surasak's posts.