Don"t "Support the Troops"

Pro has brought a lot of good information to the table.There are indeed serious policy questions that need to be brought to light, and the way our elected officials, and to be more germane, how our troops are used as political leverage, as well as personal means of enrichment.Now, for the purposes of being the contender here, I am going to proffer up some points in opposition to Pro's statements, but I feel the scope of this particular debate, given how short its schedule is, altered a little in the second phase and leaves a lot more exploration to be done with regards to Pro's premise. In light of how Pro has explained the position, I will do my best to adjust my initial contention to continue a dialogue. Rebuttals: The veterans share as representative of population continues to decrease, so of course that number will also decrease in positions of elected power, and when Pro asserts that support for our fighting men and women has decreased, when looking at history, Con can't get behind that. Post Vietnam, being in the armed forces had a stigma, and we as a country came together and realized its the chuckle-heads in power that issue the marching orders of our fighting forces, which might me why those in power now are loathe to commit boots on the ground forces to conflicts abroad. We know the consequences of fighting the wrong war, the good war, and the just war. Perhaps those that -haven't- been in such a situation would be better served in deciding whether or not to commit others to that variety of an ordeal. When con brings up the Civil and Revolutionary war, Pro has no choice to but to call into question the 'closeness' of that engagement to modern day wars. Both those wars brought forth by Con were fought in our ancestor's back yards. The war literally started and ended in one man's property near Appomattox Courthouse. Support for the troops meant giving your brother another pair of boots, or father an extra powder horn. That type of intimacy, over time and population, simply cannot be felt anymore. Conclusion: Right now, the US is in a sociological divide. With other countries developing and exploiting their resources, America is no longer the only 500 lb gorilla in the room, and to be honest, we don't know how to handle that. We have long taken the lead in stamping out what we call 'evil' across the world, with no real opposition. Even worse, in our elected politicians have developed a taste for that division to ensure they stay seated. Con's premise is that even 'bumper sticker patriotism' can lead to something better. Maybe its that kind of patriotism that can influence some one to making more respectable decisions with the budget to ensure those that went off to fight for our interests and values come home to both welcoming arms, and the help they need or want. Pro states that the simple values stated originally by Con do little if anything with regards to policy. It does little if anything... right now. Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, but the first mantle of a hero. Patriotism is not something forced on a populace, but a respect earned through action. Con would like to opine that if anything, its the simple truth of 'Support the troops' that might give our divided society a common cause to rally on for the better. We have seen the pendulum swing, the tragedies that befell our servicemen of days gone by, to the sentiment that 'nothing is too good for our veterans' then swing back again to calling our armed forces 'baby killers' and murderers. Maybe now, with the mass media available, and the dedication that our fighting forces demonstrate, we can fully appreciate what that sound bite means, and the consequences that occur if we don't.