Is it okay to be patriotic?

[Marc Chevalier]

When I went to Turkey in the 80's the big thing I saw was Americans putting down the Turks because they weren't "Americanized"...one fellow Airman went as far as saying:
"How barbaric are these Turks they don't even have a McDonalds. Man I can't wait to get back to America: Red, White and Blue and McDonalds too."

And this is why I urge every American travelling or living abroad to comport himself/herself as if he/she were an ambassador representing the U.S.A.

No U.S. ambassador could get away with displaying such a pigheaded attitude as that of the airman.

Whenever you travel abroad, the peoples of those foreign countries are seeing you, hearing you, and judging you accordingly. Be a gentleman or a lady. Give them a good impression that befits your nationality.

.

 

[Fedorista]

...Many men fought and died so that this country could be what it is today, and to not be patriotic is just disgracing them and everything our country stands for.

Just beware too much "Mom's Apple Pie." It will make you very sick.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

One problem with "support the troops" is that, according to recent reports, there is quite a lot of tension in Iraq between the Special Forces, on the one hand, and the regular army, on the other.

According to defense expert Col. Patrick Lang (ret.) this tension is institutional - dating back 50 years now.

So, when it comes to supporting the troops, which troops do you support?

 

[Phil]

All of them.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

How?

All of them.

Not to be disrespectful or insolent in any way - I'm just- curious???... How?
How does one support all of our troops? They're all volunteers; does one send each one encouraging letters?.... packages?.... buy U.S. Savings Bonds?

I'm lacking comprehension when we talk about "supporting our troops" as I don't what that really means.

How does one support our troops in any meaningfull way?

Respectfully,
Dixon Cannon

 

[Pilgrim]

Good question! I suspect it means things like welcoming them home, doing what one can to help their families while the soldiers are away, and adopting business practices that are helpful to single-parent families.

In common usage, it probably also means "Don't criticize what they're doing or how they do it. And especially don't criticize the people who are telling them what to do."

I make it a point not to criticize the work that troops do, but I have plenty of criticism for the boneheads who are telling them what to do.

 

[Samsa]

Not to be disrespectful or insolent in any way - I'm just- curious???... How?
How does one support all of our troops? They're all volunteers; does one send each one encouraging letters?.... packages?.... buy U.S. Savings Bonds?

I'm lacking comprehension when we talk about "supporting our troops" as I don't what that really means.

How does one support our troops in any meaningfull way?

Respectfully,
Dixon Cannon

This is a good question. I've always assumed it to meant that one should not put down the troops, even though one might disagree with the war they are fighting. (I wasn't alive back then, but spitting in the face of vets as they came back from Vietnam was not an example of "supporting the troops.") In other words, it's a prohibitive commandment of patriotism, not an affirmative one. ("Don't do this" vs. "do this.")

I have a feeling, though, that for many people this phrase is just another example of bumper-sticker rhetoric. (I'm not accusing anyone here of that, of course.)

 

[Miss Crisplock]

Not to be disrespectful or insolent in any way - I'm just- curious???... How?
How does one support all of our troops? They're all volunteers; does one send each one encouraging letters?.... packages?.... buy U.S. Savings Bonds?

I'm lacking comprehension when we talk about "supporting our troops" as I don't what that really means.

How does one support our troops in any meaningfull way?

Dixon;

In my case it meant volunteering for the USO. As I was under 70, I was wet behind the ears and assigned to the 4am shift. I learned a lot, handed out donuts, and hoped one day they'd trust me with the coffee. One day I got a challange coin from the Lt. General of the Army reserves. They still didn't let me handle the coffee.

I also became a "Platoon Mom", sending cards letters and goodies to my adopted "Bob's" overseas. I had two that were not getting stuff from home; I took on the job, and then got a whole platoon of Private "love monkeys" for Valentines Day. Sent them all cards and letters.

The wives of servicemen were being harassed at the gate of a nearby military base when they would come in and out. We stood at the gate every weekend (mostly in the rain), so that wouldn't happen. I met a lot of people: it wasn't a an organization, just a lot of folks there for a lot of reasons.


I didn't do much, and I saw how much others did and it is very humbling. These are our sons and daughters, nephews and neighbors. I can write a couple of letters, or bake a batch of cookies.
I haven't been asked to do anything for my country, and I don't know how useful I'd be if I was. But I can do what is in front of me.

Your milage may vary.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I had two that were not getting stuff from home ...

This breaks my heart. Bless you for taking them under your wing.


.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

These are our sons and daughters, nephews and neighbors.

And, as most are silently doing their far-away job, they are too easily forgotten.


.

 

[scotrace]

Our "Correspondence" thread could really do some "Push 'Em Up!" (ala Mario Cuomo)

 

[The Mad Hatter]

All of them.

Excuse me, I really failed to make myself clear in my last post. I really did convey the impression that there was just some sort of institutional rivalry between the Special Forces and the regular army - of the sort that if often found in many organizations.

But there is more to it than that.

The Special Forces are advocating a fundmentally different sort of strategy than is the Regular Army. They are advocating a sort of Lawrence of Arabia type method of securing the alliance of Iraqi tribes and using their support to fight the insurgents. The Regular Army wants to use Bradley fighting vehicles and other conventional means to overwhelm the insurgents.

These two strategies are inconsistent. I happen to favor the Lawrence of Arabia approach; but that is not my point right now. To support "All of them," however, would be to advocate a mishmash in which neither strategy really could come into play.

It is not your fault for having said "all of them;" it is mine because I failed to have made myself clear on this point. For this, I apologize.

However, there is a deeper point for which I do not apologize. Slogans like "support the troops" promote this sort of mishmash. Clear thinking is necessary here. To put it bluntly, either the Special Forces or the Regular Army are wrong. Maybe a third stratey is needed instead - in which case both do. And all this chanting does is dig us in deeper.

No. I do not apologize in my call for clear thinking. I do not apologize at all.

 

[Miss Crisplock]

Support for all:
Ah, but they can all benefit from the restorative powers of a donut and a cup of joe. Or a kind word.

Marc - Adopt a Platoon started because one of the guys asked his cookie-baking, letter writing Mom to include an extra card or two for the guys in his platoon that stood at mail call week after week and never got anything. His Mom enlisted the help of friends, and sent cards and letters to everyone in the platoon. From there it grew. Seems there were thousands of them...

Writing unsolicited letters to service members is prohibited, and so they vet members and match them up with individuals or platoons. One doesn't choose who to support, or where. Sometimes they write back; sometimes not.

What breaks my heart is hearing how some of them didn't want to come home. They thought they would be spit on...

 

[BegintheBeguine]

It is okay to be patriotic

I'd say that even if my die-hard Democrat husband weren't going to Iraq with the Army in two weeks. p.s. Thank you, Miss Crisplock

 

[The Mad Hatter]

What breaks my heart is hearing how some of them didn't want to come home. They thought they would be spit on...

This is getting very old.

I'd say that even if my die-hard Democrat husband weren't going to Iraq with the Army in two weeks. p.s. Thank you, Miss Crisplock

The correct term is "Democratic." "Democrat" is a well known Republcan slur word.

 

[scotrace]

This is getting very old.

The sentiment? Or the action?

The correct term is "Democratic." "Democrat" is a well known Republcan slur word.

This is news.
Of course, I imagine BegintheBeguine is probably well-versed in how to refer to her own husband.

 

[Tony in Tarzana]

"I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat."

- Will Rogers

 

[carebear]

This is getting very old.


The correct term is "Democratic." "Democrat" is a well known Republican slur word.

You mean like the "War Democrats" were slurring themselves in 1862 when they opposed the "Copperhead" side of their own party? Or the "Bourbon Democrats" under Cleveland in the 1890's?

Got an actual citation for the slur angle?

From the Wiki....

The term "Democrat" was first used in the 1830s, about the time the opposition Whig party was formed by Henry Clay, who had been a devoted Jeffersonian.

...and...

In political science, a democrat is an advocate, follower, or proponent of democracy. One who advocates or practices social equality is commonly referred to as a democrat.

In politics, Democrat is used in some countries to refer to a member, delegate, or supporter of a Democratic political party such as the Democratic Party in the United States or the Australian Democrats in Australia.

It's verbal shorthand, supported and used from the beginning by those to whom it applied who apparently didn't consider it a slur.

The Democratic Party is supported by Democrats, not "Democratics". Heck, that'd be poor grammar.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Got an actual citation for the slur angle?

.

Sure, here's the Google for "Democrat Party" slur.

There are 24,000 hits; you can wade through them at your leisure.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

To clarifiy my position, consider the following from the Sept. 17 edition of The Washington Post:

After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade

Let us be clear. We are talking about Republican politics and not about genuine patriotism.