It’s entirely obvious that Southerner is a biased denier.
Outside of the battlefield they will not. That is a mistake you are making. You want proof. When they come home they dont kill when someone tells them to. Its much more complex than that.
Some do not fit the bill of “reluctant warrior”, there is no denying that. But many do. They have been fooled into believing they are protecting their friends and family from a hostile force. So yes they are reluctant warriors. They were not raised to be killers and were not killers at home.
Maybe, maybe not. That is a broad brush you are using. You claim that they have no problems killing “the enemy” who according to you is anyone they are told is the enemy. If this is the case why are these butchers coming home with major mental and emotional problems. Obviously taking the life of humans (designated enemy or not) is not the equivalent of a bug. Your characterization is just false.
Do they really? Primarially? How do you know this? There are tens of thousand of reservist and national guard serving tours in afganistan and iraq who make a ton of money in the private world. So they have had to give up a great deal of benefits and money to serve. Yet they do. So if its not primarially for the apparently excellent pay and benefits, they why do they?
I do not claim that all american soldiers are just honest, good guys, trying to make the world a better place. I do claim that putting all soldier in the same bucket is based on lack of information and an understandable bias.
lol, and its obvious that you are closed minded incapable of seeing the shades of gray that exist in reality.
I’m so closed minded that I’m a voluntaryist along with countless other highly irregular views. But, it’s good that you don’t deny being a biased denier. We can aptly toss this eternal skeptic routine regarding the military in the jingoism bin.
Lol just because your views arent main stream doesent mean you cant be closed minded. That is obvious in your case.
Nothing I can do to change your mind or even get you to see the possibility that the world is full of gray.
I see your point of view and I agree to an extent. But you are too rigid to see anything other than what you want to see and what you want the “bad guys” to be. It makes it real easy for you dosent it.
Mon. 10/04/05 20:40 EDT
.post #42
…and “the battlefield” always seems to include villages and innocent civilians, including babies…which means they are murderers.
I don’t see any “gray area” here.
They have a license to murder, so they murder. I don’t see how you can justify murder, no matter how “gray” you try to make it…but by all means, keep trying. It makes the discussion more interesting.
edit: Fuck The Troops
Nice to see we are keeping the discussion nice and civil.
Once again. All troops dont kill innocent civilians and babies. So this is a mischaracterization meant to illicit an emotional reaction. A cheap tactic used by advocates of the state.
For some reason no one here wants to make any distinctions. War is a horrible thing. The only good choice is to not go to war. Everything else is horrible. In most every war of modern times the soldiers who did the fighting had nothing to gain from the war. Most did not want to go to war. Most veterans wont even talk about what they have seen or done, much less are proud of killing. They may be proud for other reasons but your average soldier does not rejoice in all the death they have seen.
Its very clear cut when we talk of wars with a draft. The wars going on now are no doubt less clear. If what yall say is true, how do you explain the christmas truce of WWI. These are bloodthirsty killers according to you. Yet they laid down their arms played soccer, sang songs, and refused to fight. It was not untill they were threaten with death and imprisonment that they began to fight again.
And as you said to me in another thread it only takes one exception to disprove a point. The christmas truce disproves yours.
Mon. 10/04/05 21:52 EDT
.post #43
We are…those weren’t my words, but rather the title of a blog post, which I linked to.
Click on Fuck The Troops, and you can read both the blog post and the ensuing discussion.
No, what I said was …one example doesn’t prove the general case. One counter-example, on the other hand, can disprove it.
I try to choose my words carefully, but then you just misquote me. That’s not fair, and it’s not serious discussion.
Take some time and try to understand the important difference between a “point” and “the general case,” and please try to use as much care in quoting as I do in composing.
All I’m saying is that, insofar as soldiers kill innocent civilians and babies, those soldiers are murderers. How does the “Christmas truce of WWI” possibly “disprove” that? My statement is not a general theory, and not even a “point”; it’s a definition.
Any person who kills an innocent person is a murderer.
Nothing “gray” or “theoretical” about it.
It is you who does not want to make distinctions. You consistently talk of soldiers as a massive unitary category. That is not the case. A German soldier crossing over into Poland on September the 1st 1939 is not in the same category that the Polish defender is in.
I support the Polish troops, I don’t support the German ones.
Mon. 10/04/05 22:18 EDT
.post #44
Precisely, and this is an act of discrimination, which the admonition “Support The Troops” is designed to short-circuit.
“Support The Troops” suggests that there is no difference between soldiers that willingly murder and soldiers that object and resist;
it suggests that there is no difference between invading soldiers and defending soldiers.
All are, somehow, “equally deserving” of our “support.”
And what is a battlefield? Is Baghdad a battlefield? To six million people it is a home. Battlefield is everywhere the Pentagon says is a battlefield. Wherever their foot sets down where they are not wanted is a battlefield. You asked if they are a threat to you or me. About you I don’t know, but I don’t live in Washington DC, so I, I have no guarantees my town won’t be declared a battlefield or even a “free fire zone” one day.
Iraq body count begs to differ.
That’s a great bullshit throw away line. Rape is a horrible thing, but…
What? We have an all volunteer army. People join the army for a reason, usually to get college funding, or some sort of salary.
How noble of them.
All troops may, at some point in time, kill civilians and babies. Also, who is guilty, and who is innocent? The man who goes to a far away land in order to kill Iraqis for college money is innocent, but the man who picks up a weapon and aims it at foreign intruders who frequently destroy his property, kill his friends and family, is somehow guilty.
Because they are guilty of atrocities and they know it.
He assumes that everyone should know what he knows and draw the same conclusions. Unfortunately, we all dont have the information, we trust different sources of information, etc. that would mean that others could draw the conclusion that the war is just. This is not my opinion but a large portion of the population believe it is. So right there not so cut and dry.
I certainly did not mean to misrepresent you. If you only meant specificly and purposely killing innocent civilians and children would make a soldier a murderer, then we are in complete agreement. However, your second paragraph seemed to be more broad.
In addition the entire post was not directed at you. I guess I should have made a separate post.
I have made distinctions in several posts.
" do not claim that all american soldiers are just honest, good guys, trying to make the world a better place. "
“So put those thousands on trial. Not the millions of average foot soldiers who were forced into service by the extrodinary circumstances created by hitler and his group of thugs.”
"Yes there are cases where it is very simple to see who is guilty of a crime and who is not. Other times guilt or innocence is cloudy and obscure. "
As you have stated before some cases are easy to determine. Of course others are not. Who were the aggressors in WWI?
Yes it is glad we agree.
Currently yes. Vietnam- Draft, Korea -Draft, WWII- Draft, WWI- Draft, Civil War- Draft; My discussion here is not confined to the current military situation.
Not meant to demonstrate nobility. Meant to illistrate that few of them are proud of killing. Which is an idea floated around these parts.
My discussion is broader than just iraq. The line of thought I am opposed to is that all soldiers engage in an “unjust war” are murders.
So if they signed up to kill and feel that the enemy is nothing more than a bug… then there would be no nightmares. So painting the soldiers are uncaring murders is not accurate.
Is a murderer any less of a murderer if he regrets it? The fact that they regret it is immaterial. The point is that people are trying to separate the state from the soldiers who obey the orders of generals, politicians, etc. But the state is not some mystical abstract force; it’s an organization which is comprised of many different components: the politicians, the generals, the foot soldiers, the school system, the courts, ect. Thus there is no difference between the politicians who declare an unjustified war, those who voluntarily go and fight it, and the propagandists who brainwash the public into accepting it.
The fact that a draft is no longer necessary to carry out wars only reveals how effective statist propoganda really is. Now the draft complicates the question, but it’s an interesting one to investigate.
Nightmares do not equal remorse or caring. Dreams can not be controlled, they come from a place that is deeper down than where their dehumanisation of their enemy but also of the populace resides.
Besides vets` dysfunctionality has as much to do with the tax exerted by constantly being in a situation where you feel in danger, with grief for their own and with seeing ugly scenes as they have to do with them blowing away a few “hajis”.
Lets talk about actions rather than people for a change. What sort of a crime is it to kill an enemy soldier in an unjust war?
Yes we are all part of the state. Unless you are posting from prison for standing up for your principles.
In my opinion what they mean is “I’m too cowardly to speak truth to physical might so I will go along with it.”