8/31/2005
U.S. Army Soldiers build playground equipment at a local school in Baghdad, Iraq, on Aug. 26, 2005. The Soldiers are from 1st Battalion, 41st Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 1st Armored Division. DoD photo by Tech. Sgt. Russell E. Cooley IV, U.S. Air Force. (Released)Photo by: TSGT RUSSELL COOLEY, 1ST COMBAT CAMERA SQ.
Record ID No. (VIRIN): 050826-F-9712C-095
Kind of makes you wonder if people support the troops and not the mission - or if they support only “select” missions.
Remember, “Support for the troops” is not about intentions. It is about the result.
Said jcrue @ 3:35 pm | Permalink
10 Comments
»
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Now that’s poor logic to use this propaganda to imply that just because they are doing some good in this picture, that every action taken in IRAQ is for good.
This goes for moonbats like me and all their negative commentry on the war.
Comment by ticklebug — 8/31/2005 @ 9:38 pm
What I meant to say was that the contrary is also true.
Comment by ticklebug — 8/31/2005 @ 9:40 pm
i never implied that every action in Iraq has been a good one. that is something you bring to the post. i am implying what good we do there produces good will, trust, and works toward repairing any ill will that some might harbor against us.
it is a matter of moving on and putting violence and killing in its place. and making sure good deeds not only are recognized but also reported.
i can guarantee you more good is done by those in uniform than not. for every combat role in the military, there are eight to tweleve non-combat roles supporting the one in combat depending on the service.
when it comes to our enemies, remember, only a tiny percentage actively oppose our presence in Iraq and for the most part it is easy to see they are not all Iraqis. the Iraqi majority wants to get on with their lives - lives with promise for the first time in decades.
you can see the fruits of our labor in Iraq, Afghanistan, historically in Germany, Japan, Italy, France, and even in places like the tsunami regions of the Indian Ocean and the hurricane effected areas of our Gulf Coast.
the heaviest lifting and the most effective work will always be done by our servicemembers.
just remember, we do not have to rebuild a thing in these countries. we choose to do so.
Comment by jcrue — 9/1/2005 @ 7:35 am
You said it best, jcrue:
It’s the hypocrisy that gets me: of the Cindy Sheehans and other cretins who hate America first and despise our military, but who squint real hard and cringe to pretend respect for these servicemen and servicewomen, even as their bowels bilge forth filth and hate against our nation.
Nevermind “support the troops not the war” — that’s a specious but falacious attempt at redemption for their sins during the Vietnam era — which they don’t even consider as sins. Makes me sick.
Comment by The MaryHunter — 9/1/2005 @ 8:47 am
There is a huge difference in supporting the troops and not the war. And please stop lumping all liberals in the same boat. There is a difference between a loony liberal and a rational liberal.
Comment by ticklebug — 9/1/2005 @ 8:41 pm
Oh and jcrue, thanks for your kind clarification. I understand the meaning of your post now.
It is people like you who can get us Moonbats to understand some things.
Comment by ticklebug — 9/1/2005 @ 8:42 pm
ticklebug-
From the personal experience of serving during Desert Storm in the Marines and having a sister march to oppose our involvement in Middle Eastern affairs while claiming to “support the troops”, I can tell you this, it does not feel supportive to hear words like that.
I have never met a fellow servicemember who felt lifted by the supporters of our troops and not the fight.
And is not that what support is? An action with the result of making those receiving the action feel better, more confident, loved even?
My opinion is only based on the experience I lived in the early ’90s while stuck in Saudi Arabia getting letters telling of my sister’s opposition to helping the Kuwaitis and her support for me and my Marines.
It just doesn’t wash when you are thousands of miles away in a tent with sand in everything you own and without the unconditional support of your loved ones and country back home.
The mistake people make in supporting the troops and not the fight, is forgetting to think about the troops. There is no proof I am aware of qualifying your support in this manner does the troops any good. It might make you feel better, but it does little for them.
And who said you were a moonbat??? Come on now….
Comment by jcrue — 9/2/2005 @ 7:28 am
I thought all libs were “moonbats”.
Anyway, I think it would have been better for your sister to perhaps feel the way she felt, but not let her feelings become known to you. And it would have helped if she weren’t marching publicly either.
I think that when you have a service member in the family, that it be fair to resent the person who decided to go to war, but not those in uniform (especially loved ones)that are taking orders and doing their duty.
While we can agree to disagree on the “support the troops and not the war” issue, I agree that it’s best to show feelings of love and support when your loved one is out there risking his life for whatever reason they are out there: just or not just.
No matter what I say about Bush or any other presidents before him, I feel grateful that you are serving our county. And I appreciate the fact that even though you may be a staunch Repbulican/Conservative that you don’t resort to insults to get your point across.
Comment by ticklebug — 9/2/2005 @ 9:36 am
Thanks, ticklebug,
Although I consider myself a staunch American before taking on any political tag. I simply weigh what I believe is in my best interest and that of my country and vote accordingly.
I would ask you to consider something beyond the family member serving scenario. That scenario is the easiest to understand because the individuals are intimately acquainted with each other and therefore may possess an understanding others do not. I was able to compartmentalize her attitude and her actions because I knew her and understood her environment.
But when an individual, my sister for example, is surrounded by the like-minded, and their messages vary from cause to cause but concentrated on the general opinion that “war/military/capitalism/US/Israel/UK/Australia = bad…….but we support the troops.” It is much harder to compartmentalize that message from the other side of the globe - especially given the glee with which that is covered in the press today.
Consider this; do you think a single service member feels Cindy Sheehan supports them even though she says she does? Would it make sense her words seem hollow to a kid in Bagram, or Lot, or Kabul, or Mosul, or Baghdad, or Fallujah? Would it make sense that the volume of her vicious criticisms of Bush and America may drowned out anything positive she might have to say? When every sentence we hear begins, “We support the troops, but….” all of the words tend to become the same - support and derision become muddled.
Along the same lines, we have to consider the nature of the military force now. It has been four years since we began fighting back against our enemies. The typical tour of duty in the military is four to six years. Therefore, almost every member has joined, re-enlisted, or left the military in that same four years. Re-enlistments are through the roof and the enlistment rate is acceptable for the time being. We are in no danger of the draft and we are making progress against our enemies. Given all of this, would it not stand to reason that the people in the military not only believe in themselves, their country, their Commander-in-Chief, but also the mission?
Because so many of our service members obviously believe in the mission given the evidence just provided, would it not make sense that if someone says they support the troops but not the war/mission, then they are not “on the same page” with our military and therefore not working towards a common goal with those serving today?
The trooper or Marine’s goal is to accomplish the mission - something he is being told someone back at home doesn’t support. I can’t imagine that helps the trooper or Marine feel any better about what he believes and for what he is sacrificing.
How can anyone be called a supporter of their favorite football or baseball team but not want them to win on every game to include the championship?
It is my humble opinion; you cannot fully support the troops if you do not support their mission. The mission is something they believe in or else they would not be there.
Comment by jcrue — 9/2/2005 @ 11:18 am
Ticklebug,
As the photographer of this photo, i’m having a hard time with the use of the word “propaganda.” That would imply that this was a staged event. I have documented the good, bad and the ugly in Iraq and as my last mission I chose to cover this mission. The soldiers were glad to have me along because they wanted photos to send to their true supporters, their family. these types of missions happen everyday and if the mainstream media wanted, they could fill every minute of everday with positive “propaganda” events! I can tell you first hand these soldiers would not appreciate your description of their hard work as propaganda.
combat photog
Comment by combat photog — 9/7/2005 @ 10:15 am