3981 Shares

Anyone out there not support the troops, and if so y?

Anyone out there not support the troops, and if so y? Topic: How to write a news story headline
June 20, 2019 / By Allene
Question: the other day while shopping, a man came by my car and ignorantly pulled my "support the troops" ribbon from the bumper and threw it to the ground, i had half a nerve to put him in his place but i reminded myself of MY common respects...how could u not support sumone who is fighting 4 ur freedom?
Best Answer

Best Answers: Anyone out there not support the troops, and if so y?

Uthai Uthai | 8 days ago
I think everybody wants our troops home. But those who want it the most seem to be the staunchest supporters of the troops, and their mission--the troops and their families. If you were to ask the moron who ripped the decoration from our car, I would guess that he would have adamantly claimed he supports the "troops but not the war." Somehow they seem to believe that you can trash a man's country as corrupt and run by business rather than by the people; a man's boss as corrupt, incompetent, and insane; a man's job as a killer of innocent women and children, a rapist, an inhuman torturer; a man's mission as illegal and immoral and based on lies; and still contend that they are supporting the troops. Why do they do that? Because they can. Why can they do that, because people in the past who are fighting in the service of their country, have made it possible. They contend the soldiers are fighting a losing war. I don't believe that. I've talked to the guys with their boots full of sand. I've talked to Special Ops, to a dude that sorted mail. I've talked to guys on the ground and a girl who flew jets. I mentioned to one infantryman that the kill ratio is against the insurgents 20 to 1 in a firefight, and a major battle, like Fallujah, it was upwards of 50 to 1. He said, "Then I'm safe. They can't find 20 guys around here dumb enough to try anything." They do good stuff. It doesn't make the media because it doesn't sell. The media isn't interested in the facts... except perhaps peripherally. It's interested in circulation and ratings. It doesn't get them by printing good stuff. Headlines have to be sensational, lurid, shocking, titillating, gory. That's what sells. Nobody hears about the troops delivering school supplies to a school that was rebuilt after a terrorist bomb leveled it. Nobody cares about a sewage-treatment plant going on line. Nobody cares how horribly the terrorists treat their prisoners, and how hideously they execute them... everybody seems to just accept it as a fact of life. So that stuff doesn't make it into the news. If I were working for the insurgents, I couldn't hope for better support they get from the media. i certainly couldn't write more favorable coverage. Think about it. Read any story about a bombing. Item 1... US casualties. Item 2... Civilian casualties. Item 3.... Damage. Item 5... Blame the Americans, the United States, military leadership, and the President. The insurgents can't lose. They're never at fault. And they hardly ever seem to lose anybody, notwithstanding the idiot(s) who carried the bomb(s) are splattered over a two block area. So these people sit back in an easy chair in the evening with a beer or a glass of wine, and watch 20 minutes of drug commercials broken occasionally by 10 minutes of predigested "news". And they think they have a grip on reality. I sat up almost all night online with a guy who heard that the out fit to which his brother was attached had come under attack and one man had been killed. I was unable to help him. I've been out of the loop for almost 25 years. All my contacts are retired and in the same boat I'm in, or they're dead. All I could do is try to comfort him while he waited. About 3:00 in the morning (here) he got word from his brother that he was fine... but the guy who was killed was a friend of both of them. You hear from these nominal Americans that the guys over there do not support the war. I've only found a couple. Both were getting out. One was being kicked out for getting drunk and sleeping on watch. The other was having family problems and she couldn't cope. But that guy who thought his brother might have been killed? He told me that he and his brother had made a pact that if anything happened to one of them, the other would not allow anybody to use the death of the other for anti-war propaganda purposes. Protesters seem to believe that when the troops over there get out, that there will be a groundswell of anti-war activity from these troops. I'll admit, there are a few. There are those for whom combat was so terrible that's all they can remember. Some seem to unable to find anything good to say about the military. I've been there. I've seen it too. And I understand their position, and I respect it. But these are in the minority. There are those who served less than honorably, like that young man who drank and slept on watch. These do not represent the military either. They are not an example of the kind of men and women in uniform anywhere in the world. Then you have the fakers... the pseudo-soldiers... the wannabes. I saw an interview with a kid who convinced the media that he had been a Ranger and had served three tours in Iraq. In fact he had never made it through Ranger training, and had never served in Iraq. I believe he had been booted out of the Army for something, but I cannot state that for a fact. This guy got more air time than any official representative of the armed forces. Why? Because, by and large, men and women in uniform are not allowed to talk to the press without getting permission. An abridgment of their freedom of speech? No. Because, if they were allowed to talk freely, the media can, and has, taken the words of any man or woman in uniform and quoted them as military policy. See, the media can't tell the difference between an E-3 and an O-8. All they know is, "uniform = official spokesperson" especially if it's sensational, shocking, lurid, or gory. This is the kind of stuff on which protesters base their case, while ignoring the other 95% of the troops who just want to be left alone to do their jobs.. I have heard the argument that, "We shouldn't be fighting them over there. I'll fight them when they're marching in our streets." If the enemy were marching up our streets, you would see the same carnage, but it would be US lives. While I don't like to see anybody killed, I dislike much more the thought that it might be my family and friends. And, if the enemy is marching in our streets, it means that he has beaten our Navy, Marines, Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, National Guard, and our police, and has circumvented our missile defenses. This enemy is marching up the street and some untrained, hater of combat is suddenly going to mount a defense? With what. He'll be dead before he can throw the first rock. It takes 8 weeks to get a person so they're of minimal danger to themselves and others. It takes several months to train somebody in one of the military specialties. Do these people think the enemy will take a break while we rebuild our army? Want to fight the enemy in your streets? Don't join the military and fight him on his. I've heard protesters say, "Congress doesn't send their kids, why should I?" Come on... in general, politicians are lazy, feckless louts who can't get honest jobs... or couldn't keep them even if they could get them. Just because they're, lazy, irresponsible, and without honor... does that mean everybody else should be? What these protesters need to do is get into uniform, spend 4 years, and then go to Congress and ask their representatives, "Did you serve? No? I did. Why didn't you? You're out of there." I've heard protesters contend that a war in the Middle East has nothing to do with the freedoms in the US. Directly, perhaps very little... if one is terribly nearsighted or terribly selfish. If one believes that only the US has the right to the freedoms one has... and often abuses, that's selfish. People complain that we seem to favor Israel. It has nothing to do with their religion, or their location. They have the only democratic government in the area. Their people enjoy many of the same freedoms we do. We removed Hussein (victory). We allowed the Iraqi people to form their own government and to begin governing themselves (victory). Granted, it's not running smoothly, but a few short years ago, such a concept would never have entered the minds of some of those people in office. We're helping them build an army and a police force capable of handling the terrorists... so the troops can come home (work in progress). We are protecting the Iraqi people as best we can from terrorists... and the average American who has never been in harm's way has no idea how tough that can be. We're also slowly helping them to build their infrastructure... faster than the terrorists can destroy it (also a work in progress). Why would one be against the people of Iraq enjoying the freedoms one has and often abuses? The Middle East is only a few hours by air. It's not an isolated part of the world. They don't need to send an army. They don't need missiles. They only need to send a few wild-eyed crazies. Heck, all they need to do is send Junk Mail to half the houses in the country each with a teaspoon of powder (anthrax). While Islam may be a popular religion... the terrorists do not represent Muslims. They don't represent any Muslim sect. They're thugs. I'm no Muslim scholar, but I have read much of the Qur'an--an English translation. I find it very similar to the Bible. The Muslims claim the Qur'an is more sacred than the Bible because, while there are a plethora of translations of the Bible, the Qur'an is still in its original Arabic. While that may be true, those who speak and read Arabic seem to have different interpretations of the Qur'an, or the Sunni and the Shia and the Taliban would be living in peace and harmony. Before the Muslims think I'm picking on them, the Christians aren't any better. They have a ton of sects condemning each other to hell. They, at least at present, just seem less inclined to send each other there. The point is that countries that were once weeks, if not months away, are now just around the corner--and it's myopic to deny it. What is going on there affects everybody else in the world. And while most civilized countries in the world seem to grasp the affects of a nuclear war, there are some countries that appear unable to do so... or they are too crazed to care... I refer to the rhetoric of the president of Iran. They need to understand that within minutes of their launch of any kind of attack, their countries will be a sheet of irradiated glass that nobody will be able to go near for decades... minutes, not weeks or months. The problem is that the leaders may skip the country allowing their people pay the price for their foolhardiness. In Iraq, we are, in a very real way, protecting the people of the United States from war. We are sending would-be attackers a message. "We don't know who you are. We don't care. We are not going to just die quietly. And, if we are to die... a whole lot of you are going to go with us... about 20 to 1." Why don't people support those who are doing the deed around the world and not at home? It's easy. It's the same mindset that kept the earth the center of the universe for thousands of years. It doesn't require thought. One just has to repeat rhetoric, dogma. Don't believe me? The slogans and speeches used by protesters today are effectively the same as those in the 1960s and early 1970s. All those Berserkeley dummies, the current "Hanoi Janes" like "Taliban Michael Moore" and the other brain-dead leaders of the "anti-everything" cults haven't had an original thought in over 40 years. They have the answers? They don't even know the questions. We are not fighting a country. We are not fighting a people. We are not fighting a religion. We are fighting the idea that terrorizing and killing your opponent is the way to convince him to believe the way you do. We are fighting the idea that "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." The terrorists chose the battleground. We didn't. Were it not for them, we would be long gone from Iraq. However, had they chosen San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle, New York, Houston, or Los Angeles, I believe the protesters might be singing a different tune. In 2001, the terrorists sent us a message that we are vulnerable. We're sending the reply... "No matter how you try to hide behind the skirts of innocent women and among their children, you are not invulnerable either." But for the protesters like that guy in the parking lot, it would be a unanimous message from the American people. And, as long as the message doesn't appear unanimous, terrorists will keep fighting.
👍 224 | 👎 8
Did you like the answer? Anyone out there not support the troops, and if so y? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: How to write a news story headline


Uthai Originally Answered: Obama is sending our troops into battle without the equipment they need to survive?
Unfortunately Obama has no military experience and neither did George Bush. that is the sort of thing that happens when you have a Commander in Chief with no military experience. That is just one of the reasons why John McCain would have been a better President than Barack Obama. And in case anyone thingks that I am a Republican because I said that John McCain would have been a better President than Barack Obama, I am a long time member of the Democratic Party for over 40 years.

Rodge Rodge
There are some crazy people out there that do not fit in with society. For example: Members of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., have outraged family members and communities alike with their antics. They say America's war casualties are God's wrath for tolerating homosexuality. Here's a site below that you should check out. The author asks the same question that you do. Here is a quote on that site: "Support our Troops." I think that you can support them if you're for the war; I think you can support them if you're indifferent, and I even think you can support them if you're against the war. But (in my OPINION)if you don't support the war and ceaselessly politic against it, you are hurting their morale, regardless of what you say. Now I'm not speaking for all vets, I'm sure, but I don't feel a whole lot of support from these particular folks. That doesn't mean I don't like them, it doesn't mean that they are bad people, I just don't really feel the love. They've appeared at military funerals across the country, armed with signs reading "God Hates You" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers." You had better restraint than I could ever have had. Nobody better pull my magnets off my car. I wonder if anybody will post that they dont support the troops!
👍 90 | 👎 7

Micky Micky
I read some of the low-rated answers, and theyr eally ticked me off. First off, my boyfriend is a soldier, and even coming from him, each car magnet, each american flag, makes military members feel appreciated. Second, people may not support the war, or agree with it, however, supprting the war and supprting the troops need to be seperated. The troops consist of human beings, the war is well, an ideal. Support the men fighting for you and protecting you, no matter where they are. Because after Iraq, it will be somewhere else, and you'll want them to fight for your freedom. So support them, even if you don't agree with the war.
👍 83 | 👎 6

Jules Jules
The American military is a mercenary force.All of those in it joined voluntarily for cash rewards and other incentives.I do not believe in supporting greedy mercenaries.They are not defending me or my freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan.They are voluntarily participating in an illegal and immoral conflict which makes them all war criminals,liable for eventual trial and punishment.So far the taxpayers have paid over a trillion dollars for this war and our supposedly valiant,patriotic military cannot even win the fight.Pitiful,just pitiful.
👍 76 | 👎 5

Harri Harri
The problem with most of the "Liberal" Support the Troops group is they say Bring them Home Now...as referenced above...but what where they saying when American Soldiers were dying in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo...they were silent because they liked that President...we had no groups that protested nor did CNN report about it daily...a good example is when I was stationed in Hawaii in 99 me and my buddies were going to a going away luncheon downtown when a group of hippie drove by and called us Pigs...unfortunate for them they got stopped by a redlight, but when they saw us coming they ran the light...brave huh? I was in a class in 05 with an anti war chick...I asked her the question where was she during the above mentioned conflicts of the 90's...her answer was, "But Bush...." These hippie groups do not support Troops, they use our deaths as talking points...to them we are a number, but to NCO, Officers, and Soldiers we have a name, a family...as NCOs we know their hopes and dreams...we know thier families...we know everything about them because we take care of them...they are like our children...it is the worse thing in the world to lose one of your Soldiers...they don't feel that pain...they just know it is a number they can use to get support with thier buddies...Liberals support the Troops when it will help them, not any other time...best way to find that out is to ask them about Clinton's conflicts...and you did show restraint with the guy and your sticker...if that would have been me he would have had to pull the sticker out of his fourth point of contact...along with my foot...
👍 69 | 👎 4

Eldon Eldon
So you are saying that some guy took the magnet off of your car and threw it on the ground and this is a reflection of his feelings for the military? I'm having a hard time seeing this play out....There's no way you didn't say anything if this actually happened and I'm wondering if you did something to antagonize this individual, perhaps you took the parking spot he was waiting for?
👍 62 | 👎 3

Carter Carter
I am reading a book called "sandbox" and it's like a peek into their lives. we are fighting an "invisible" enemy no one knows who is good or who is bad, not by a badge not by a color. We are protecting Irac (srry on spelling!!) from being taken over AGAIN from the taliban and other totalitarianistic groups. In afganistan we are still looking for Bin Laden. I would just look at them sadly shake my head and say "come talk to me when we are being invaded by terrorists. Come talk to me when you can't speak your mind. Come talk to me when our soil is tainted with the footprints of those who hate and want to kill us. Come talk to me when you no longer can walk the streets without fear. And come talk to me when your freedom means more to you than your opinions." *God bless the troops
👍 55 | 👎 2

Carter Originally Answered: Would you support a war with Iran? why or why not?
We better stick together----please read this: THE WAR Please take the time to read the essay below by Dr. Chong. It is without a doubt the most This WAR is for REAL! Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired Tuesday, July 12, 2005. To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means. First, let's examine a few basics: 1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: * Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; * Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; * Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; * Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; * First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; * Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; * Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; * Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; * Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; * New York World Trade Center 2001; * Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide). 2. Why were we attacked? Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter. 3. Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims. 4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%. 5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm... Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die? 6. So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting. So with that background, now to the two major questions: 1. Can we lose this war? 2. What does losing really mean? If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorists to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them. We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them. They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished. The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast! If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost. Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win. So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win! Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation. President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head. Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause. Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held. Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in, and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense. We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world! We can't! If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world. This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read. If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar? Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"? I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it. After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world. Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!

If you have your own answer to the question how to write a news story headline, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.