Talk:Support our troops

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment[edit]

This drive, Support the Troops was originally dedicatted to Captain Grimes who was killed in action as an Assistant Physician and was killed with three other soldiers by an IED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.94.153 (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No do not advertise your userbox for supporting the troops. It does not belong here and has nothing to do with the article. This is a forum for discussion about the article, not a venue for you to advertise your imperialist world views. MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- there's nothing here about this being an appeal to emotion 132.205.7.225 (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very old sentiment, much discussed in the past[edit]

This page could be expanded with some historical precedents. Here's a beautiful quote from Thoreau, for example:

A common and natural result of an undue respect for the law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts -- a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniment, though it may be, --

"Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
As his corse to the rampart we hurried;
Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
O'er the grave where our hero was buried."

The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens.

There should at least be some reference to the Vietnam War -- whose peace movement made the general sentiment of Thoreau somewhat popular -- which probably prompted the focus of the propaganda of later wars on "support" for the troops.

Just a couple suggestions. Maybe I'll put some work in later. —Jemmytc 09:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Just as long as it isn't extemporaneous speculation -- source it as well as you can.--Father Goose (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it beautiful. On the one hand there is the wanton disregard for honor, diligence and sacrifice, but on the other hand what Thoreau sees in the human heart gives is an idea why many societies are prone to statism and militarism. I will echo the claim that this should not be in the article without some secondary comment on the subject. Protonk (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Beginning of Red Friday move
Red Friday talk page history

Changed Pro-Military back to Pro-War. "Pro-Military" implies that those who don't support the war are against the military.--TheRealdeal

Agreed.[edit]

Also removed redundant statements as well as assumptive remark that some sites support our troops "meaning the war in Iraq". These sites show support for American Soldiers regardless where they may be deplted

Reverted some Changes[edit]

Smackycat added some changes that violated the NPOV rule, so I reverted them.

Bad Article[edit]

this article is one of the worst ive seen ever, it has so many unsourced statments and it looks like it is all just adding useless comments like a blog, this make me ashamed when i advocate to my teachers that wikipedia is good and is monitored by administrated by people who are responsible

BURMA oversight[edit]

There is no reference here of Red Friday for the Burmese People. Sept 28th is a designated red friday day to show support for the monks, students, and other victims of Burma's violent regime. More can be found via google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.212.201 (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Heart Association[edit]

The AHA does not sponsor a wear red on every Friday campaign. It does support Go Red for Women to raise awareness of heart disease. The citation provided (see below) is a dead link and does not support the statement made in the article.

End of Red Friday move .... J. D. Redding 17:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality of this article is disputed[edit]

Why is the neutrality of this article is disputed? J. D. Redding 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Irony#.22Support_Our_Troops.22_sign ... the image should not be placed at the top of the article! J. D. Redding 15:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide view of the subject[edit]

Can anyone provide examples and perspective in this article to represent a worldwide view of the subject? J. D. Redding 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed. {{globalize}} ... J. D. Redding 19:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cemetery image[edit]

Despite it being a cemetery, I don't find the image to be all that ironic. It may have some underlying social commentary, but the commentary is very subtle, especially if you don't point out that it's a cemetery. It's a good image illustrating the subject, cemetery or no, and putting it at the top of the article (unless something better becomes available) strikes me as the best choice.

And I also think the "awareness ribbons" should go in the section describing the awareness ribbons; I find it confusing to see them at the top of an article that is not about awareness ribbons per se.--Father Goose (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critics and Opposition section[edit]

I'm removing this section:

Extreme opposition to this slogan would included advocating treating veterans like they did after the Vietnam War.[7] Moderate opposition do not receive gladly the people for doing something the opposition doesn't think was a good idea, while giving the soldiers what they need.[7]

Partly because it makes no sense; mainly because it is clearly biased, and quotes an opinion newspaper piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.117.2 (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Shouldn't There Be Disambiguation Here?[edit]

While I'm sure "Remember Our Troops" is important, there's a number of other historically important Red Fridays (e.g. Red Friday 1925) that should link from here. I'm new to wiki and far from savvy enough to do it, but is it possible for someone to do that?

--Grumblystuff (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

issue[edit]

Hey everyone, just a little thing I'd like to point out here. In that box at the top of the page it says that yellow ribbons mean "troops return" this may be true in the united states but it is not true in Canada unless "troops return" means wishing for the safe return of each solider at the end of his tour. Regards, Ian 99.249.104.16 (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Support_our_troops&oldid=1201529556"