Support our troops? (1918 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: -1.1 on 106 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by sword (View user info) at 2007-03-26 19:47:14 EDT
The idea that we need to "support our troops" has gained an almost ubiquitous presence in American politics these days. Regardless of how a politician or legislator stands on matters of policy these individuals always stress their personal devotion to our troops, their personal support of the American military. This concept is present in almost every debate on subjects like the war in Iraq or foreign policy relating to Iran or North Korea and it is this concept I would like to challenge. I do not support our troops; I don't think you should either.
Consider the volunteer military of America, I should support these individuals? Why? Because they are willing to kill other human beings for money? Our soldiers are mercenaries pure and simple, for a small payment they death and violence against whomever their superiors direct them to, and these are the people I should be supporting?
Support our troops? They invaded a sovereign geo-political entity in order to impose a foreign and unwanted ideology on the population of that entity. What, exactly, am I supposed to be supporting?
Connected to the idea that our troops deserve unconditional support is that somehow they are fighting to defend our rights or liberties. This is a misconception. Iraq was not endangering our rights, liberties or our safety and none of these aspects are improved by the destruction of their government and enslavement of their people. How are the troops protecting our rights? Supporting police officers, judges or lawyers makes much more sense; these people actually do struggle to defend our rights and freedoms while our troops just take away the rights of others.
User Reviews
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2007-04-01 00:15:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by BeaverDamn (user info) at 2007-04-01 00:10:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You don't understand shit.
-2 FRY
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-03-31 23:57:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
when we talk about supporting the troops, just to put things into context, what about those who refuse to fight because of conscience reasons? do we berate them? it's all good helping you country and your buddies, but what about the iraqis? they did not initiate the violence with america, most of the people fighting the americans now are the same people who were oppressed by saddam. i don't hate the troops and i know it is a slipperry slope, but there's more to the world than just americans, and it really isn't as clear cut as 'support the troops, oppose the government'.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-03-31 23:24:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i don't doubt people are trying to kill americans, but when you say 'how can you exists...' it makes it sound like they are trying to kill all 300million of americans, and even osama ain't dumb enough to think that that will happen.
following your argument, which i don;t disagree with, the existence of an army is essential for every country, not just western civilisation.
oh, and to say saddam initiated the violence, i think you will find it depends on how far back you want to look. americans got saddam into power, gave him weapons and helped overthrow a democratically elected iranian government and so on.
has the us government done wrong by the civilians of its enemies? i think you really wouldn't want to get into THAT argument.
its not to say that saddam was right and that if americans leave there will be no civil war. but iraqis won't accept a government that has strong links with the americans, they've showed that through the many opinion polls methinks. they have the right and the responsibility to form their own government by themselves. and its about time they get the chance to do it
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-03-31 22:49:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
*P_M.
I have no regrets for my four straight comments =)
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-03-31 22:48:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
P_C, there's a good chance you're a douche somewhere making that up, or that you won't ever read my responce. But just in case you aren't, and just in case you do: allow me to personally thank you.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-03-31 22:46:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
...and actually, enemy dictators and terrorists have initiated violence. Not necessarily against the United States (though sometimes,) but against other people in their own region. Saddam took the first strike when he ruled a geographical area and its people at the point of a gun. Distance does not matter.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-03-31 22:44:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/100073#2364591
The war in Iraq and Bush's foreign policy are a non-issue. The much less moronic belief that the war Iraq was wrong (which I also disagree with, just not with hatred) does not entail that one shouldn't support the troops. "Support the troops" does not mean "sanction every action taken by the American government." Again, it means support them for choosing a career that is necessary for our civilization to exist, whether or not the specific actions current administrations are taking are also necessary.
Yes, those are the IDEAS that the western world is based on. Do you think we could impliment those ideas without the existence of the American military? Are you telling me that the country's enemies wouldn't take greater action against it if they could?
"Just soundbytes." So if someone in your city called you and told you they wanted to kill your family, would that just be a soundbyte? Or on the other side of the state? Or on the opposite side of the country? Or in Canada? Or where? How far away does someone threatening to kill you have to be for you to not take it seriously? Or is it the fact that it's a "soundbyte" recorded on the TV that makes it invalid?
"Revenge." Has America acted wrongly against civilians in enemy countries? Again, like Iraq, a more complicated issue than this. But it does not change the fact that western civilization could not exist without the American military, and that literally not supporting the troops contradicts a precondition of our society.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-03-31 14:21:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Man, I've been working too many hours. I missed this post.
Most everything has been said, but I will state that anyone who wants to "outlaw" the Military knows nothing about humans. Man is a war-like beast, and history proves that beyond a doubt.
Of course I support the troops. Again, it has already been said, the troops didn't start the war and many of them disagree with it.
Sword, learn the difference between reality and Idealism.
Also, any intellect you think you may possess cannot shine past your grammatical ineptitude...
Submitted by particle_man58 (user info) at 2007-03-31 12:42:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You Sir are an ignorant douche. If it wasn't for the America Military there is a good chance we would all be speaking fuckin German right. The military exists, as it always has to protect and further the interests of its home nation. In ancient civilizations it was a great honor to serve in the military.
The reasoning behind being paid is because it's pretty hard to hold down a fuckin day job when you're training and going about the daily duties required of a military unit.
I'm in the Army, and I'm in Iraq. Right now, as we speak. And I personally don't agree with this war, I think it's fucking stupid. But it wasn't my choice to come out here, nor was it my commanders, or any of my supervisors. It was the choice of the President and Congress.
Our job is to defend the rights of America citizens and our allies; if another entity poses a threat to either of us then we will put a stop to us. Our elected officials said that Iraq posed a real and imminent threat to us and our allies, so we where ordered to dismantle the Iraqi government.
You should be fuckin glad there are people like me willing to risk my ass so that your dumbass can wear the clothes you want and listen to the music you want to. If it weren't for people like me, other guys on this site, and those who came before me then the south would have won, Hitler would have won, Saddamn would have won, they're be nukes in Cuba, and so many other things.
Bottom line you wouldn't enjoy the same quality of life you do right now if it weren't for the military, so shut you're fucking dick sucker.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-03-31 02:40:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-03-30 22:07:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
When large groups of people around the world openly admit that they want the people of your country dead and plan to act to make this happen, how do you expect to exist without a group of men and women out there physically defending you, i.e. the American military and NATO? Whether or not Iraq specifically was a threat is a non-issue here; you'd have to be a complete retard to beleive that the American military is not necessary to western civilization. Anyone who actually does not support American soldiers - and that catch phrase does have a meaning, which is morally supports their decision to become a soldier - really should not be living in the western world, as they do not ideologically support a prerequisite to the existence of civilization.
---------------------------------------
i disagree, firstly people like osama saying that they want to completely destroy america, those are just soundbites, i would imagine that they are more interested in revenge for the killings of muslims in palestine and elsewhere.
secondly,most of western civilisation was built on the theories like 'innocent untill proven guilty', this 'first strike initiative' that the american army is adopting is the complete opposite of what western civilisation is about. in the past many people have given their lives to protect this belief, now we are afraid to risk our lives, and instead send out troops to make sure it doesn't happen.
Submitted by Dolson (user info) at 2007-03-30 22:41:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-03-30 19:54:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
We need to bring back the draft, that'll settle your hash.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, Mr. X.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-03-30 22:07:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
When large groups of people around the world openly admit that they want the people of your country dead and plan to act to make this happen, how do you expect to exist without a group of men and women out there physically defending you, i.e. the American military and NATO? Whether or not Iraq specifically was a threat is a non-issue here; you'd have to be a complete retard to beleive that the American military is not necessary to western civilization. Anyone who actually does not support American soldiers - and that catch phrase does have a meaning, which is morally supports their decision to become a soldier - really should not be living in the western world, as they do not ideologically support a prerequisite to the existence of civilization.
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-03-30 20:51:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/100208
Submitted by Flack (user info) at 2007-03-30 20:16:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
The Army would definately chew you up and spit you out, pussy.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-03-30 19:54:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
We need to bring back the draft, that'll settle your hash.
Submitted by DarthFaded (user info) at 2007-03-30 03:44:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I dare you to go anywhere in San Diego and declare that sentiment. in fact I recommend omewhere in the vicinity of Miramar and the 15 freeway....
Or better yet, how about at the gate to MCRD, or in the naval shipyards on the deck of the Midway.
Fuck you.
Submitted by DarthFaded (user info) at 2007-03-30 03:39:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
A military is a necessity to support our way of life.
Americans are the most hated culture on this planet. Some say due to our arrogance, some say because the power that we posess. I say probably a litlte of both. Regardless we are hated and would be obliterated without the protection of the U.S Military, if by nothing more than by the knowledge of their existence.
The Military protects our way of life, the liberties that the Constitution stands for, the military is responsible for allowing our country to THRIVE, and thusly preventing it from being overrun by another nation. They uphold a government that as corrupt as it can be criticized as being, has laid the foundation and upheld the rights of individuals, namely YOU and your right to voice this INANE and incredibly sophmoric viewpoint of the the Military as a bunch of mercenaries.
The members of the branches of the U.S Military are individuals that felt a duty to pay thier dues for the liberties they were granted by being born, or becoming a U.S. Citizen. Unfortunately when one joins the Military, you are bound to following the orders of those above you, and sadly sometimes the decisions made by those people in command that are questionable. IE: Vietnam, IRAQ, the war on Terror ETC.
I am not quite sure where you live or how old you are. But if you get the opportunity to drive on a Military base, look around.... No one is making Lexus or Maserati payments on a Military salary. Fuck when I was in the most I made working more than 40 hours a week was a base pay grade of 1488 a month. I could have made more working part time as a burger jockey at fucking In-N-Out. You are a Total fucking Moron.
The reason that everyone makes it a point to "SUPPORT THE TROOPS" is a subtle message being sent that aside from foreign policy, implementation of Military Might, and general Malaise for the powers that be, One is aware that in the simplest purpose those serving in the U.S. Military are serving is fulfilling an unspoken obligation to contribute to protecting the liberties that the CONSTITUTION upholds, and recognizing that they are simply questioning their use, not their existence.
Oh yeah and fuck you. In all honesty, given the opportunity, I will in all honesty knock you the fuck out. If you find yourself in Southern California, namely the Los Angeles area, and you feel that you are so high an mighty, let me know and I will gladly meet you anywhere and promptly knock you off that soapbox you are standing on.
How fucking dare you use a right granted you by the bloodshed of patriots and then defame those same patriots that protect uphold it.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2007-03-29 16:47:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Sword...
Your arguement is not a logical one, it is an ethical one.
Ethics are irrelevant; they are a matter of personal & communal taste.
Essentially, this arguement is flawed due to that.
Submitted by DudeThatsBOSH (user info) at 2007-03-29 15:51:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
what're you some kind of commie?
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-03-29 09:08:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The real criminals are the bankers and those that run the miltary industrial complex. The rest of us are just pawns in the game. At least the troops have allegiance to the US and it's citizens.
Submitted by CaptainObvious (user info) at 2007-03-28 23:11:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
midnighttosix- do you honestly think we give up our citizenship in order to join the military? Or was that just a horrendously poor choice of wording?
Personally, sword, I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut if you support our troops, or support legalized heroin, or support Hez'b Allah with a monthly tithing from your obviously inherited old money fortune (since you obviously aren't gainfully employed- by your definition, anyone who gets paid for doing anything is a bloodthirsty mercenary and thus deserves only sidelong glances and a haughty sneer), or if you just support your head with your neck muscles. People make choices. Then they live with them. Sometimes the choices are good. Ask the average Iraqi on the street if they'd like Saddam Hussein and the Mukhabarat to come back. That is, if you can speak Iraqi dialect. Ask the Shi'as if they want the old Ba'ath regime back. Probably not. Ask the Sunnis if they do- well, maybe. They were more in charge than any other group then. That country is tribal. Which is why they won't get along like say, Republicans and Democrats in the USA- they might not agree, but rarely shoot eachother over it. Rarely, anyway. The tribes and sects over there are more like the people outside abortion clinics, and people inside abortion clinics. They just aren't ever going to get along.
To say the troops deserve no support is just plain ignorant, or genius- depending what your aim was in this post. If you wanted to make most heated- then good work. Otherwise, I say meh.
Oh, and I don't personally need your support to sleep well at night in my base house, which is part of my non-cash rewards for finding bad guys for others to kill. When I'm done in the military, I'll go to college with some more of the cash rewards I have earned, called the GI Bill, and move on to the next phase of my life. Come the weekend, I won't ever give this post another thought in my life.
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-03-28 10:58:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-03-28 10:18:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Did I kill women, children, or the unarmed? Fuck no. I'm not some monster. """
but the question is...DID YOU RAPE ANYONE?!?
---------
Just you that one time.
Sorry about the herpes!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-03-28 10:18:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Did I kill women, children, or the unarmed? Fuck no. I'm not some monster. """
but the question is...DID YOU RAPE ANYONE?!?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-03-28 10:17:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by no1hasdis (user info) at 2007-03-27 15:29:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-03-26 21:13:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
there seems to be an obligation to take a side on this useless debate. you either have to support the troops no matter what or if not, morally condemn them.
what happened to not giving a shit about troops? why can't we get back to that?
can't we all agree on something like hating people who hand out parking tickets and loving nurses?
_____________________________________
Yes, take Canada's lead of absolute apathy.
We totally ignore the troops.
===
that's not true. i see plenty of 'Support the troops' bumper stickers near bases like Val-Cartier. the only difference is that no one makes an argument about it.
"Do you support the troops?"
"Yes/No"
"Ah."
in the US instead of 'ah', you get "OMG! HOW CAN YOU! OMIGAWDOMIGAWD! YOU'RE SO...BLAH BLA"
probably cuz the media made such a big deal out of it.
ZZzzzzZZzzzz
Submitted by DirtyHarry (user info) at 2007-03-28 09:07:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Sword:
The logic you used in your post was shaky to begin with, but with every reply you made it has deteriorated further and further. You make the argument that soldiers are nothing more than paid killers and you comapre them to hitmen and contract killers. First thing, if our soldiers are paid killers who pays them? The government. Who pays the government? YOU. You are just as responsible as the GI on the frontline pulling the trigger.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2007-03-28 08:44:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You're obvioulsy a fucking retard.
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-03-28 08:29:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-03-26 21:13:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
there seems to be an obligation to take a side on this useless debate. you either have to support the troops no matter what or if not, morally condemn them.
what happened to not giving a shit about troops? why can't we get back to that?
can't we all agree on something like hating people who hand out parking tickets and loving nurses?
-----------------
Absolutely. Just leave us be unless you wanna give us free shit.
I didn't protect a single American's "freedom" while in the Army. I went to other countries and did what I needed to do.
Did I kill women, children, or the unarmed? Fuck no. I'm not some monster.
Are there Soldiers that do? Yes, absolutely. War i shell on the mind./
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2007-03-27 23:22:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's a pretty simple concept:
The troops signed up to support their country, and make money while doing it. Some because they thought it was the right thing to do. Some because they needed the money. Some because they were bored. And pretty much a combination of those things. Most of them probably still thought it was the right thing to do.
Their country owns them.
Their country decided to use the troops for a ridiculous war.
If the troops refused to go to war, the troops went to jail.
Most people don't want to go to jail.
Would you go to jail?
Personally, I would go to jail before I would allow myself to be in a position to have to kill someone. I wouldn't expect that from other people, and I don't think less of them for it. Neither should you.
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2007-03-27 16:24:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/37034
Submitted by no1hasdis (user info) at 2007-03-27 15:29:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-03-26 21:13:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
there seems to be an obligation to take a side on this useless debate. you either have to support the troops no matter what or if not, morally condemn them.
what happened to not giving a shit about troops? why can't we get back to that?
can't we all agree on something like hating people who hand out parking tickets and loving nurses?
_____________________________________
Yes, take Canada's lead of absolute apathy.
We totally ignore the troops.
And try to agree on something like hating the francophones who look for hand outs and loving Albertan Oil
WTF?
;)
Submitted by no1hasdis (user info) at 2007-03-27 15:28:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Shitfuck:
Good points, but there is far more then Bush & company to blame. The unfortunate thing about "superpower" states is that they tend to take on a life of their own, and carry forward in ingrained ways by sheer social inertia. In the case of the US continuing military aggression is the result of both the militray industrial complex that developed in the aftermath of WWII as well as the needs and demands of an imperial colonial state. I realize that some people will take issue with this definition of the geopolitical state of the USA, but if you take a closer look at the old world colonial empires (France, Britain, Spain, Portugal, Italy etc.) you will find it is strikingly similiar at the core. The only significant difference is in the way the empire is maintained. While the old world relied on boots on the ground to hold control of their territories and maintain the biased trades and insure the flow of raw goods out, the advent of globalization allows the domination of weaker nations through corporate economic control of industry within the country, with minimal direct control of internal social policy and governance. However, in order to maintain control of a clearly biased system, periodically examples must be set to keep the "independent" nations toeing the desired line by punishing "rogue" nation states for violation of "international" law as dictated by force of arms to maintain the current state of the global economy. The reality is that so called "international law" has nothing to do with human rights, fair democratic process, or non-interference and agression against other nations. It has everything to do with maintaining corporate law that allows the capitalist global system to operate efficiently. Sorry if this isn't clear, trying to type at work with constant interruptions, but I think you get the point. There is alot more at work then any given administration, although that isn't to say that Bush&co. is one of the most morally bankrupt administrations in US history.
Bart pretty muched hit this topic right on the head.
Submitted by awesome_face (user info) at 2007-03-27 14:29:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Do I think the military should be disbanded? Yes. "
And you lost all credibility (if any) with that statement.
Submitted by awesome_face (user info) at 2007-03-27 14:25:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You live in San francisco right?
Submitted by MidnightToSix (user info) at 2007-03-27 11:08:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
> The reason why you can rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in import debt against other countries via multinational corporations is because of the strength of the US military.
If I remember history wasn't the US deficit first introduced when the US forgave war debts from WWII to the other Allies. Billions of dollars loaned to keep the collective alive, and then brushed aside casually in the aftermath so the other countries could rebuild from the devastation caused by war. The debt has never disappeared since. Maybe those old loans should be called in.
As for the soldiers, well that is just a simple decision one makes. If you choose to relinquish your citizenship to become a cog in the machine, that is your choice. Whatever your reasons or motivations. Everyone knows full well what is apart of that job description. Should I feel guilty that I live in a wealthy nation that can stay there using strong-arm tactics? Do I care that one day I may not be able to have super-high-def-spectacular-wondervision-tv beamed into my house from the super-satellites of the future? Am I rambling incoherently now... probably, but it doesn't matter because I'm an American.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-03-27 09:57:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-03-27 04:14:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's just a slogan dude. You get a lot of them in political circles.
===
BUT WHAT IS YOUR POSITION! YOU MUST TAKE A STANCE!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!
Submitted by spyder882001 (user info) at 2007-03-27 08:59:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Zebra (user info) at 2007-03-27 02:40:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-03-27 00:52:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Zebra (user info) at 2007-03-27 00:24:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
btw
If the best trained, best equipped, best funded army in the world can't get a lid on things in 4 years, why does anyone expect the Iraqi army will be able to do it whenever the U.S. leaves?
----------
um because the main reason there is an insurgancy is because they don't want to be occupied?
why does americans think anyone not americans are retards who can't look after themselves?
iraqis were inventing paper when americans were still living in caves
==========
No one wants to be occupied, granted. But Iraq was only thrown together as a country about 80 years ago, and there are numerous factions who all want power and don't want to share it. As soon as the U.S. leaves, they will fight each other for control
------------
No offense to anyone is who is British, but this is technically their fault in a sense. Back at the end of WWII they should have let the Middle East to figure itself out like it had. All the religious nations had set themselves up in such a way that there would be minimal conflict. Then the British said nope and put in place poor governments and boarders that suited their needs. This is a large part of the reason for conflict in the Middle East. Also as far as American imperialism goes, it is nothing compared to the Greeks, Romans, French, British, Dutch, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, and whom ever else has ever been imperialistic. It is somthing most nations go through. in the end the US will get a beating like the Brits did in the Revolution and we will settle for second place and complain about the next imperialistic power. Probably China, or Russa. Maybe Sweden.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2007-03-27 08:44:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
The troops were not the ones to declare war.
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2007-03-27 07:49:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I eat shellfish....look at me, LOOK AT ME, DAMNIT!
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-03-27 05:35:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Yep, I kill for money.
Dream come true, pal, dream come true.
Submitted by Ed_0150 (user info) at 2007-03-27 05:20:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Fuck you
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-03-27 04:14:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's just a slogan dude. You get a lot of them in political circles.
Submitted by ameelius (user info) at 2007-03-27 04:14:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Screw the US, and your fascist move towards world domination through 'so called diplomacy' and most of all screw your poor troops who are brain washed into thinking they fight for a good cause.
I hate these posts, you are not intelligent or informed enough to have an opinion on this topic.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-03-27 03:01:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah...that's what I meant to say.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-03-27 02:54:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Other than the disastrous grammar, the point you're trying to make is one of inconsideration.
The reason why you should "support the troops" is that they are the sole thing keeping the US afloat in the global ecosystem. The reason why you can rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in import debt against other countries via multinational corporations is because of the strength of the US military. The military does not and cannot "defend our civil liberties" because our civil liberties are not and have never been threatened by external forces, at least not since WWII. The military currently serve as a forward area wrecking crew leveling third world countries for occupation by American corporations to profit from the wrought devastation.
This is the unfortunate part of being the world's largest superpower in a state of rapid decline. There are no more enemies to conquer, so enemies need to be fabricated, beaten, and rebuilt so that the military industrial machine has something to use for fuel.
Plus, the soldiers don't get to decide what roles they take on. Whether it's because they're being sent to maximize oil profits in Iraq or because they're defending the high seas from a Chinese invasion of California, the soldiers are there to carry out orders that ultimately come from the President. If you don't like the war, blame the President, not the soldiers.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-03-27 02:45:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
As soon as the U.S. leaves, they will fight each other for control."""
aren't they doing that right now? just asking. :-)
Submitted by Zebra (user info) at 2007-03-27 02:40:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-03-27 00:52:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Zebra (user info) at 2007-03-27 00:24:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
btw
If the best trained, best equipped, best funded army in the world can't get a lid on things in 4 years, why does anyone expect the Iraqi army will be able to do it whenever the U.S. leaves?
----------
um because the main reason there is an insurgancy is because they don't want to be occupied?
why does americans think anyone not americans are retards who can't look after themselves?
iraqis were inventing paper when americans were still living in caves
==========
No one wants to be occupied, granted. But Iraq was only thrown together as a country about 80 years ago, and there are numerous factions who all want power and don't want to share it. As soon as the U.S. leaves, they will fight each other for control.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-03-27 02:13:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i support porn
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-03-27 01:32:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
wow realpolitik that really is something,
but your 'facts' are merely point of views,
and the gist of it is mostly that it benifits the country,
is the iraq war really benifitting america?
even if most of the money spent are stolen iraqi money,
only a few companies benifit,
the trickle down to the nation is small,
but the price you are paying are lives..
Submitted by Still-Life (user info) at 2007-03-27 01:23:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2007-03-26 23:17:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
lungfish
I might not attribute the blame for all the Nazi's war crimes to your Uncle, but I wouldn't support him or respect him for his contributions to Hitler's army either. I don't think the individual soldier is responsible for setting up the plan to invade Iraq, just for executing it.
------------
So, do you pay your taxes?
If so, you'd better kill yourself for funding a warmonger and his death machine.
Hate to say it, buddy, but your logic is pretty shitty.
Submitted by Realpolitik (user info) at 2007-03-27 01:21:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Ignorant douche who calls himself sword,
Unfortunately, you, among many others, function under the assumption that there is no difference between individual morality and state morality. This notion is not only foolhardy, but dangerous as it necessitates moral, Wilsonian crusades in defense of discursive and vague principles. However, as individuals we are not amoral (or even immoral). Therefore, in order to ensure the survival of the nation-state whilst upholding personal convictions, we must recognize that there is a distinct difference between individual and state morality. Cardinal Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu summed it up eloquently when he said - "man is immortal, his salvation hereafter. The state is mortal, its salvation now or never." So, since we now have established these very elementary facts, let us examine military force. If the state is inherently good, and if a military is needed to preserve the state by expanding its interests (no matter what you say, American Imperialism is an extremely good thing), then ergo, military service is a right and honorable duty. The Romans were not too off base when they said, "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori." Which brings me back to my basic premise - you not only misunderstand geopolitical thought, but think that you are educated enough to have an opinion on it. You are sadly misguided.
I would refer you to the works of Maj. General Carl von Clausewitz - who is the foremost authority on war theory. He states that War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will. So what you have to ask yourself is this - are embargos bad? No? Well what about the fact that the U.S. embargo of Iraq resulted in the thousands, if not millions of preventable deaths because we would not even provide them with basic medical necessities? Ok, well that is a bit harsh. How about diplomacy? Is that bad? Diplomacy without repercussions is impotent and therefore is unable to do its job: constrain power. (I will refer you to A WORLD RESTORED: METTERNICH, CASTLEREAGH, AND THE PROBLEMS OF PEACE 1812-1822 by Henry Kissinger which has a much better discussion of such topics) So my question is this - can a rake be evil? How bout a lawnmower? Of course not! As Clausewitz said, "War is a mere continuation of policy by other means. We see, therefore, that war is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means." Therefore, it is no more evil than any other tool in the diplomatic pouch. Just more misunderstood.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-03-27 01:09:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
sypder should get real..
if most of the world supported the initial invasion,
where was the un backing?
and nobody really wanted the us to invade north korea,
people just used north korea as an example when bush was spewing all that shit
about getting rid of saddams nuclear weapons
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-03-27 01:07:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Jesus...I'm getting fat.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-03-27 00:55:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Mesopotamians were the first to pickle cucumbers, too.
Sorry, I just got my new scanner to work and I'm quite pleased with myself.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-03-27 00:52:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Zebra (user info) at 2007-03-27 00:24:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
btw
If the best trained, best equipped, best funded army in the world can't get a lid on things in 4 years, why does anyone expect the Iraqi army will be able to do it whenever the U.S. leaves?
----------
um because the main reason there is an insurgancy is because they don't want to be occupied?
why does americans think anyone not americans are retards who can't look after themselves?
iraqis were inventing paper when americans were still living in caves
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-03-27 00:37:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-03-26 23:50:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ps, I agree completely with zebra.
I'm done now.
Submitted by Zebra (user info) at 2007-03-27 00:24:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
btw
If the best trained, best equipped, best funded army in the world can't get a lid on things in 4 years, why does anyone expect the Iraqi army will be able to do it whenever the U.S. leaves?
No matter how well we fund and train them, no matter how long we stay, there will be chaos when we leave.
The U.S. provided funds and training to the Muslim holy warriors in Afghanistan in the 80's and they kept the mighty Russian army tied up for 10 years, after which they 'cut and ran' back to Moscow.
If the U.S. leaves in a month, there will be enormous problems.
If the U.S. leaves in 5 years, there will be enormous problems.
We broke it.
The world owns it.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-03-26 23:50:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ps, I agree completely with shitfuck.
I'm done now.
Submitted by spyder882001 (user info) at 2007-03-26 23:39:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
well as for those who think America is the bad guy in this matter, the world uses the US as a police force also then blames them when things get a fuckered up. most of the world supported the Initial iraqui invasion. (although later didnt support it wen they found out Bush lied, cant blame them, but they helped instigate it and left the US with all the blame.) The US was criticized for not invading North Korea a few months ago wen they were doing nuke testing. We woulda went in and started a world war and we woulda ended up on bottom in the end. this might happen in the future but i think we will be smart enough to stay out of it. I say Fuk NK, Iran and all those other "problem nations" let them kill themselves and as long as they dont bother me we shouldnt bother them. let the world see wat happens wen preventive measures arent taken. I guess WWII has been forgotten in many peoples minds and they need a reminder.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-03-26 23:38:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The Nuremberg Defense is not a supportable defense against *war crimes*, but I have no problem with it when used by the common grunt on the ground. Just following orders...sure...until you commit a war crime.
Of course then you get into the argument over what constitutes a war crime. I'm not even going there, except that the common soldier doesn't generally commit (strictly defined) "war crimes."
I think your argument is that the whole war is a crime. I agree. But the common soldier is not the criminal (although, some of them, sure...).
I really don't like getting political here. Damn you. I'll be shutting up, now. Thank you.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-03-26 23:29:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
nuremburg defense and all that.
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2007-03-26 23:27:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
spyder882001
While I am sure you didn't vote on invading Iraq you are still "over there" (hypothetically you are over there, I have no idea if you are or not) and going there was your decision. When it came down to it you could make a choice between refusing to fight for a cause that you admit you don't believe in and going to jail, or fighting and killing for that cause. You, along with everyone else over there, made that choice and it wasn't exactly the heroic one. Forgive me for not supporting your "bravery" or whatever the fuck.
Someone who said something that made this link relevant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-03-26 23:26:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It was my wife's uncle. She's old. She never met him. She's not that old.
I'm just oldish.
Submitted by spyder882001 (user info) at 2007-03-26 23:26:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
just for the record,
personally i am against violence. i dont like killing of the innocense but i would gladly kill one man inorder to free a thousand and i would be quicker to jump infront of a bullet to save another. if in the end this war leads to somthing good then i proudly support it. all things in our world happen for a reason. as long as these things are happening i will roll with the punches and do my best to do what i feel is right. joining is what i felt was right. dont penalize me or other soldiers for that. mercs for hire not quite, for most soldiers it is just another job. most soldiers dont even fight. they cook, stock, and do paperwork. dont talk about somthing you dont know.
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2007-03-26 23:17:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
lungfish
I might not attribute the blame for all the Nazi's war crimes to your Uncle, but I wouldn't support him or respect him for his contributions to Hitler's army either. I don't think the individual soldier is responsible for setting up the plan to invade Iraq, just for executing it.
Realpolitik
Really, I wasn't aware that was my soundbite at all. Forgive me for making it please, as it was never my intention. As for the Great Satan business or the idea that "America is the REAL terrorist" I must protest that you think I include those ideas in my post.
The REAL terrorist's I'll gladly admit were like the people who flew planes into buildings on September 11. People who target civilians over military targets and who try to use fear to advance a cause. The army of the United States is not an army of terrorists, its an occupation army that invaded a sovereign state. The average American soldier isn't a terrorist, he or she is a killer for hire, someone who agreed to deliver up to lethal level of violence against other humans in exchange for money.
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2007-03-26 23:12:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Pulling the troops out of Iraq will undoubtedly go down as one of the worst operational mistakes ever made in the history of modern warfare. The bloodshed has been tragic this far, but without American boots on the ground, it will get unimaginably worse.
Not that this matters to most Americans, or the rest of the world--as a species we have already begun washing our hands of the whole bloody mess.
The real shame is the instigators of the Iraq war, namely Bush & Company Inc., will never have to face the consequences of their bold lies and patriotic rhetoric. They'll never know the suffering that must come from losing a son or daughter to an IED. They'll never understand what it must be like to be a twenty something veteran missing an arm or a leg, maybe both, maybe blind, definitley scarred. They'll never have to support these people, help them get through the nightmare.
Bush & Company Inc. has fucked the American people deeper in the ass more than any other group in any other time and they still get to go on enjoying a life of luxury and immunity. Disgusting. Absolutley, utterly disgusting that these 'men' will go unpunished.
The American public should remember that--they should remember these years, the lies, the constant deception, the spin of war spun by the most cowardly of cowards. Remember how the entire world was at your side on September 12th, 2001, and a few years later, is hard pressed to be anywhere near your government, for any price. That should say it all.
Years from now the historians won't refer to it as the bush presidency, but the bush disaster.
Submitted by spyder882001 (user info) at 2007-03-26 23:12:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Listen Fuck wad. I am in this military you dont support. It isnt my fault Bush and his right wing congress decided to be assholes and send everyone over to Iraq. Before that the military did its thing and kept the peace. Didnt kill unless it had a good reason(mass genocide of a populace, or killing of American citizens). (Now the reason is because some one is shooting at us because a couple assholes decided that we would be better off getting them some oil and "liberating" an opressed society.) anyhow, as we may have chosen to go into the military, most of us joined because we were too poor to pay for college and financial aid wasnt enough. Also without a military your dumb ass wouldnt live in a free country. Even though you might not support WHAT the soldiers do and WHY they do it, you should support them because without them your ass would be living as a Nazi, communist, Brit, or Mexcan. Instead you are an American. so show some respect. Support our Troops.
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2007-03-26 23:08:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
inion_de_trua
To paraphrase the first part of your statement.
"You are an unfortunately poor person without a lot of options who needs to support a family. What do you do?"
Well fuck, if I need money bad enough maybe I'll become a killer-for-hire. I'll just be a hit man, give me a call and for five hundred bucks I'll kill anyone you want. The best part is, my actions are not morally reprehensible because I sure needed that money.
If you think a hitman, a drug dealer, a burglar or a conman act immorally when they commit their respective crimes, like I do, even if they have a justification for those crimes then you are committed to the idea that the circumstances which drive them to crime are irrelevant. That burglar really needed a new TV, thats why he stole yours, otherwise his kids wouldn't have one to watch!
By the same token I think the act of killing people for money is morally bad. Soldiers of the U.S. army kill people for money. Thats a simplification, I could make it more complex, soldiers of the U.S. army invade a foreign country, interfere with their way of life, destroy their government, then kill their people for money.
"you have no idea what you're talking about if you use the term "cash rewards" as if an enlistment bonus is equal to winning the lottery. bootcamp is not a game show. this isn't $30k and a trip to tahiti upon completion of 8-13 weeks of hell."
Cash reward - they get money for services rendered. Do they get money for providing a service? Yes? Then cash rewards was an accurate description.
"so when you say mindless automaton you're not completely off. survival instincts kick in if there's a gun in your hands and you're being shot at yourself"
So, if I join the military, they train me as to how to shoot people and fight and so on I now have lost the ability to make decisions for myself? When I am sitting at home or on the base or whatever and someone calls me up and says "Time to go invade a country!" Does my army training make it impossible for me to say something like "Fuck you, no"?
I'm not talking about conditioned responses when I say soldiers do not become mindless. I am talking about choices they make away from the heat of battle. I am talking about when they decide to participate an invasion, when they decide to go out on a mission or whatever. These are activities where their willful compliance results in them killing people for pay.
"why aren't you..."
I doubt my keyboard could withstand the wear if I tried to write my feelings about every situation facing the world today, moreover I don't have the expertise to comment on every situation, and I doubt people would bother to read a huge list of things I take issue with. This argument is representative of a belief, I'll allow you, the reader, to extract the essence and apply it to other situations if you wish.
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2007-03-26 23:02:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-03-26 22:53:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
although i've done this better and 3 years before you.
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2007-03-26 22:51:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Look pal, I'm active in the political system of America. I'm an activist, I'm running for governor, and I'm better than you so choke to death please.
And also vote for me if you live in Colorado.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-03-26 22:49:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
everyone just shut up
Submitted by Zebra (user info) at 2007-03-26 22:40:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
While technically a mercenary is a paid soldier, the traditional understanding is of one who serves a foreign master or fights to satisfy venal motives.
You make a good argument against the Iraq war (which is not new; most people understand this by now) but a highly unrealistic one against military service in general.
While it is unfortunate that any society needs an army, reality dictates its necessity.
Anarchy looks good on paper; throw human beings into the mix and it fucks everything up.
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2007-03-26 22:15:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You sir, I believe, have just been IniOwned.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-03-26 22:07:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2007-03-26 20:44:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sacrilicious
Almost all of my previous posts are about the justification for violence or how violence effects things. Am I a pacifist? No, I just think their is something wrong with the idea of invading other countries and remaking them in our image, I think violence is a last resort. Do I think the military should be disbanded? Yes
-------
you better damn well mean globally. and it's great that you personally think violence is a last resort, but humans as an animal generally go towards easiest means even if that means clubbing someone else's head in.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-03-26 22:04:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2007-03-26 20:26:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sacrilicious
The point I am trying to express is that the troops are responsible. When you join an army you don't become a mindless automaton. You still have intelligence, sentience and on a real level freedom of action.
Why I don't support our troops is because they have willingly joined an organization, for cash rewards,
-------------
so what do you mean by that? what would you do to survive? if you had a family, your factory got closed, you were of reasonable physical capability, couldn't afford a postsecondary education and were worried about your future what would you do?
have you seen the federal student loan interest rates? the years it takes to pay them back? what do you do there too? 2-4 active, and 8 mandatory years but you are out of debt for school at least.
you're from a small town in the middle of kansas. your family has no money, you are not division 1 athlete material. you want job training what do you do?
you are an immigrant from another nation trying to establish themselves legally in this country. you have nothing to offer otherwise, so you enlist.
mercenaries i think is the wrong term for a soldier in any nation's army. mercenaries take higher prices and generally enjoy killing. our enlisted military is actually underpaid for what they do, what they're put through and what their families put up with.
you have no idea what you're talking about if you use the term "cash rewards" as if an enlistment bonus is equal to winning the lottery. bootcamp is not a game show. this isn't $30k and a trip to tahiti upon completion of 8-13 weeks of hell.
and you'd be surprised what exactly the military can train into and out of you. so when you say mindless automaton you're not completely off. survival instincts kick in if there's a gun in your hands and you're being shot at yourself. who are you to say what is and isn't reflex by then? ask a soldier in any army about. ask the kids who are willing to shoot people for their parents' religious beliefs. ask palestinians about the evacuation. survival mode IS an automatic response.
and your level of freedom of action is pretty low. because if you don't react you die or maybe someone else dies. there are things you do to minimize damage, learning to think and act quickly without having more than a few seconds to evaluate a situation is the majority of that.
why aren't you knocking the israeli army about lebanon? they launched rockets over the border and declared that they were defending themselves.
how about the british army for helping america in this iraq thing? what about the chinese army that invaded tibet and is taking a gander at taiwan?
what about bosnia? north korea? russia? uganda?
what about pakistan and afganistan and iran?
what about cuba?
you have to be a real idiot and an asshole to think supporting troops automatically makes you a supporter of any war. and that goes for any country.
you have basically tried to do to the grunts in the military what the nutjobs responsible for this whole mess have done. you tried to make them less than human, and in that you've basically proven that you deserve the same cold treatment you apparently believe they warrant.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-03-26 21:57:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I'd say, "Don't support them, then."
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-03-26 21:51:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
it is the Imperialistic Americans who are the real terrorists to the world.
-----------
sounds fair to me..
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-03-26 21:46:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Almost all of our discussions are pointless, really.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-03-26 21:44:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
All I know is I don't get how people sermonize about supporting troops from the safety of their living rooms having no idea what the troops actually think and how others are so quick to condem while filling up their gas tanks, wearing nike shoes and cheap clothes from bengladesh.
It's pointless.
------------
if you put it that way, almost all our discussions are pointless really..
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2007-03-26 21:38:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Suck it, dumbass.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-03-26 21:35:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Stick that sword up your ass.
Submitted by Realpolitik (user info) at 2007-03-26 21:31:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Dumbass,
Your basic premise is "rethink terrorism and military." That is a sound bite - primarily one from Al Jazeera. You almost directly echo Ahmadinejad when he calls America "the great Satan" and asserts that it is the Imperialistic Americans who are the real terrorists to the world. Your proposal at foreign policy and your basic premise vis-à-vis conflict is one of ignorance. I am afraid that you should first buy a book entitled "foreign policy for retards" and then work on your conversation skills.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-03-26 21:26:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Support our Troops" is a vacuous statement. Still, I don't blame the troops. I rather sympathize with their plight. Blame the dickheaded leaders.
My wife's uncle fought in Hitler's army, and was killed while doing so...as a tank commander. By all accounts, he was a decent guy. A talented artist, too. He got paid to serve, too. Would you blame him for Auschwitz?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-03-26 21:25:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
NO we don't want to talk about canada again!!"""
I have no idea what that means.
All I know is I don't get how people sermonize about supporting troops from the safety of their living rooms having no idea what the troops actually think and how others are so quick to condem while filling up their gas tanks, wearing nike shoes and cheap clothes from bengladesh.
It's pointless.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-03-26 21:21:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Fuck you.
No, really.
Fuck you.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-03-26 21:20:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-03-26 21:13:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
there seems to be an obligation to take a side on this useless debate. you either have to support the troops no matter what or if not, morally condemn them.
what happened to not giving a shit about troops? why can't we get back to that?
can't we all agree on something like hating people who hand out parking tickets and loving nurses?
--------
NO we don't want to talk about canada again!!
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-03-26 21:18:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
although i wouldn't say they kill people for money,
i think their actions are wrong,
and because of that we shouldn't support,
their reasons for their actions shouldn't come into it。。
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-03-26 21:13:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
there seems to be an obligation to take a side on this useless debate. you either have to support the troops no matter what or if not, morally condemn them.
what happened to not giving a shit about troops? why can't we get back to that?
can't we all agree on something like hating people who hand out parking tickets and loving nurses?
Submitted by Spuds002 (user info) at 2007-03-26 21:02:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-03-26 20:58:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
fuck off and die
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-03-26 20:56:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i agree 100%.
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2007-03-26 20:45:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
their = there
forgiveness please
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2007-03-26 20:44:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sacrilicious
Almost all of my previous posts are about the justification for violence or how violence effects things. Am I a pacifist? No, I just think their is something wrong with the idea of invading other countries and remaking them in our image, I think violence is a last resort. Do I think the military should be disbanded? Yes.
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2007-03-26 20:30:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
So then, "sword" (a weapon), I just took about 45 seconds to review your user history, and it seems your posts, at least the 2 or 3 I bothered to look at, are ripe with violence. Are you a pacifist? Do you believe the entire military should be dismantled?
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2007-03-26 20:26:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sacrilicious
The point I am trying to express is that the troops are responsible. When you join an army you don't become a mindless automaton. You still have intelligence, sentience and on a real level freedom of action.
Why I don't support our troops is because they have willingly joined an organization, for cash rewards, that expects them to kill other human beings and violently impose their will on others. These activities, regardless of the danger inherent in performing them, do not deserve mine, nor anyone's respect. After they join this organization, the army, our troops do almost universally meet the army's expectations of them. Why should I or anyone else support or respect them? I not only think the government is wrong for starting this war, I think the individual soldiers are wrong for fighting it.
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-03-26 20:24:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-03-26 20:23:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why? Are they drunk again? Just lean them against something and get them some water, theyll be fine.
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2007-03-26 20:21:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Realpolitik
Are you trying to equate my argument to "soundbites"? I don't understand you I am afraid. Perhaps when I go to the library to check out a book on geopolitics I will also get one on conversing with brain-dead morons.
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2007-03-26 20:20:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How does one "support our troops" exactly?
It's basically rhetoric, is what it is. Can I oppose a war without holding the men and women who serve in the military responsible for it? Absolutely.
Can I detest blind, kneejerk patriotism while still appreciating the sacrifices of the troops? You bet.
But can I define what "supporting the troops" means, in some tangible way? Beyond believing it is just a meaningless and overused response from people who really mean to emotionally manipulate a nation of people to believe that if they oppose a military action of the government, they are being disrespectful to those who serve in the armed forces? Nope.
I have personal friends and family who have/do serve in the armed forces. Some of our very own uberers are serving as we speak. And I can very much oppose the actions of my government while in no way disrespecting the people I care about and all those who serve.
Your argument sounds silly, because you imply the troops are the ones making the decisions. You should be complaining about the people who send them to fight- the ones voted into office for some godforsaken reason.
Submitted by MidnightToSix (user info) at 2007-03-26 20:17:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
To counteract the simpleminded responses. Worship of the military can be credited to the Romans, before that it was viewed as a necessity.
Submitted by Realpolitik (user info) at 2007-03-26 20:13:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Go read a book on geopolitics dumbass. Soundbites do not a foreign policy make. I bet you have never even heard of Clausewitz!
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-03-26 20:06:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
This would have been a -2 except I have a soft spot for the use of the word 'death' as a verb.
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2007-03-26 20:03:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
moneyshotforyou
An Ad Hominem argument: an interesting approaching to flaunting your more mature sensibilities.
Submitted by moneyshotforyou (user info) at 2007-03-26 20:00:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I am guessing you are about sixteen and emo.
Submitted by Director (user info) at 2007-03-26 19:53:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I LOVE ROCK AND ROLL, SO PUT ANOTHER DIME IN THE JUKEBOX BABY! I LOVE ROCK AND ROLL, SO COME AND TAKE THE TIME AND DANCE WITH ME! YEAH ME!