Topic from another webboard I frequent Why shouldn't we blame the troops for the war?

[OrangeEmpire]

Everyone seems to "Hate the war, but love the troops!"

But why?

If it wasn't for potentially violent people signing their brains away to whatever whim some present or future politician may have, there'd be no wars.

That's what "The Troops" are: People who decided they'd act violently towards whoEVER some stranger may want them to.

They willfully trade their morals for a license to kill.

If there were no soldiers, there'd be no war.

The rich men would simply have to duke it out themselves, instead of using our poor to go fight the rich guy on the other side's poor, meanwhile destroying everything in their path (civilians ALWAYS suffer more in war, thanks to soldiers).

If a rich guy had a bodyguard who killed whoever the rich man said, would you find HIM as respectable? Why not?

Where's the accountability?

Often when discussing the Iraq debacle with soldiers here and at other sites, I have been struck by their refusal to question the rationale for invasion. They will say that the reasons for war are immaterial and now they just want to do the job and protect their brothers in arms. I don't think much of this defense, as one must surely know that to join the US military is to be sent to do unpleasant things. Often illegal and immoral things. So I believe those that join the US military bear some responsibility for where they find themselves and what they find themselves doing. After all there is no draft, it is a professional army. They are mercenaries for the US government.]

as one must surely know that to join the US military is to be sent to do unpleasant things. Often illegal and immoral things. So I believe those that join the US military bear some responsibility for where they find themselves and what they find themselves doing.

"Often?" "One must surely know?" Really? Is there no alternative than the illogical false dilemma you presented above? Isn't it true there have been occasions when the U.S. military has not been sent to do unpleasant things, or illegal and immoral things? Yes this is a true statement. Isn't it also true the U.S. military has been deployed to endeavor upon noble, honorable, legal and moral causes? Yes this is a true statement as well. So, one must surely know that to join the U.S. military is to be sent to do honorable, moral, legal, and noble things.

It is also "surely known" they may never be deployed at all. So those who join must surely know they may never see combat.

However, I reject your assumption they "surely know" they will be sent to do unpleasant, illegal, and immoral things (assuming for a moment whatever conduct you are talking about is illegal, immoral, and unpleasant). Those signing up for the U.S. military are not prophets and they are not Nostradamus. Nor do they possess a crystal ball. So I am unsure how you believe they "surely know" they will be deployed to do unthinkable things when they join. I qualify this position to those men which joined during times of "peace" when there is no indication of imminent combat. Those which joined the military before 9/11 and before President Homoerectus Ignoramus Unintelligus Non-Speakitus sent the U.S. military into Iraq could not have even remotely foreseen the future events involving the U.S. military in Iraq.

Yet you condemn this segment of the military, the pre-9/11 as "mercenaries for the U.S. government" demonstrating your disgust for the U.S. and its foreign policy has so obscured your rational thinking as to defy logic.

Furthermore, I reject your assumption they understand the U.S. military to engage in "immoral and illegal" activities. If they have no such perception or understanding, then they cannot be held responsible for what they are doing in Iraq, since your argument fundamentally rests upon an assumption they "surely knew" the U.S. military they were joining engages or will engage in "illegal and immoral" activities. Lacking this "knowledge" requirement destroys your argument. I seriously doubt those enlisting in the U.S. military have the "knowledge" that the U.S. military was or is in the business of doing illegal and immoral things.

My goodness, those with a strong disgust and hatred for what the U.S. is doing in Iraq apparently go to illogical extremes to condemn its participants. I hate the fact the U.S. is in Iraq but I am not about to abandon all logic and assert the U.S. soldiers are "mercenaries" and responsible for where they are presently located and what they are doing.

They will say that the reasons for war are immaterial and now they just want to do the job and protect their brothers in arms.

There is some truth to this statement. You cannot effectively fight a war, ANY WAR, no matter how noble, honorable, moral, or legal if the soldiers are too busy questioning the war itself and defecting. A military is no good if the soldiers are refusing to engage in combat because they are too busy "questioning" commands.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

And it keeps going.....

All I'm saying is no violent people = no violence.

You should NOT kill each other.

And I mean all soldiers in all armies.

I mean soldiers as a CONCEPT.

For instance, look at what RavE said. I said my tribe would NOT live in fear, and he said I just killed the tribe. Not the other tribe who irrationally decided to vote for fear and death and went looking for it.

See how brianwashed we all are?

No...I do not see any "brainwashing." Your logic leads to the inference the northern army was "immoral." Your logic leads to the inference the U.S. forces fighting in Europe during WWII were "immoral."

Your logic would result in the inference that those armies collected together to defeat a racist tyrant, where the tyrant and his military engages in acts of genocide, mass murder of civilians, has invaded and overthrown the neighboring and sovereign state governments, and is intent on dominating the world, are immoral. This is an untenable proposition.

Killing is not always immoral or wrong.

So, no I do not see any brainwashing here at all.

Soldiers never are at a loss for doing things we SHOULD consider "amoral".

Unless you think that being on "God's side" excuses burning down Atlanta, firebombing Dresden, etc.

First of all, I am not at all sure the northern army was really responsible for the burning of Atlanta. There is currently some evidence repudiating such a contention and the History Channel is going to provide this evidence this Sunday night.

Let's assume Sherman's forces did burn Atlanta. You assume such an act is "immoral." Support your assumption with an argument. Furthermore, even assuming the burning of Atlanta by Sherman's army was "immoral," this does not mean the northern army was immoral as the northern army included more than Sherman's army.

In regards to firebombing Dresden, once again this was done by the U.S. Air Force, a specific squadron within the U.S. Airforce, and specific pilots. The U.S. military involved in the campaign to liberate Europe included more than the U.S. Airforce, especially more than those FEW PILOTS which conducted A FEW BOMBINGS. Since the U.S. military includes much more than the U.S. Airforce, specifically more than a FEW SQUADRONS engaging in particular missions, then focusing upon the conduct of the "FEW" and making conclusions about the "WHOLE" is illogical and fallacious.

You have made a compelling argument as to how a particular squadron within the Airforce did something immoral but this cannot logically permeate to the ENTIRE U.S. military force in Europe, much less the Air Force itself. Even more troubling is the difficulty in concluding those in the squadron which did the fire bombings were "immoral." Does one wrong act make one immoral? How many "wrong" acts have you committed Basil? How many does it take to become "immoral"? Or is it more correct to say they committed an "immoral" act but are not necessarily "immoral?"

Was Sherman and his entire army "immoral" because of their one act?

As I said before, the logic of your argument really is not very strong in this context.

Do you know WHY the U.S. military and the allied forces decided NOT to prosecute the average German soldier in the concentration camps?

Thoughts?

 

[CSpindizzy]

Well considering these men and women are subject to the commands of the CiC and funding of Congress. We live in a country where the military is under civilian control and do not engage in combat unless the bureacrats say so. These men and women are there acting on standby 24/7 to defend our nation and are often subject to incompetence from the civilian leadership. You especially cannot fault the very large majority of the military for strategy issues we've faced in Iraq. What does it gain to "hate" the 19 year old PFC from farm country who only wants to serve his country and ensure it is defended?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Well considering these men and women are subject to the commands of the CiC and funding of Congress. We live in a country where the military is under civilian control and do not engage in combat unless the bureacrats say so. These men and women are there acting on standby 24/7 to defend our nation and are often subject to incompetence from the civilian leadership. You especially cannot fault the very large majority of the military for strategy issues we've faced in Iraq. What does it gain to "hate" the 19 year old PFC from farm country who only wants to serve his country and ensure it is defended?

The guy who started this topic is a former Marine who found enlightenment.

Good times!

 

[volinbham]

The rich men would simply have to duke it out themselves, instead of using our poor to go fight the rich guy on the other side's poor,

Wouldn't the rich guys be soldiers then? :crazy:

If there were no soldiers, there'd be no war.

Brilliant! How about these:

If there were no sun, there would be no sunburn...

If dogs didn't eat, we wouldn't have to pick up their poop...

If people didn't have hands, we wouldn't worry about losing one glove out of a pair...

OE, you're in an unfair fight on that board.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

He is actually one of the tame ones. There are a lot of wack jobs on the board which is one of the main reasons why I go.

When I first signed up for the board my avatar and signature were about Lewis "Chesty" Puller. I got banned that day because of it.

Speaking of which, this is a movie of our enlightened brother.

www.basilfilm.com

www.myspace..com/basilfilm

JOB Teaser

 

[OrangeEmpire]

His last post.....

Soldiers do what they're told.

When you give up your right to decide your own life, in the interests of violence, you are at least amoral to me.

That is how I FEEL. Arguments come as a way of defending/describing how you feel.

I've presented mine, and I think you understand it.

And I'm glad others sympathize somewhat.

But I lament that so many choose fear.

If no one chose fear, there'd be nothing to.

It starts with you.


Be brave.

Nice!

 

[volfan2024]

Well considering these men and women are subject to the commands of the CiC and funding of Congress. We live in a country where the military is under civilian control and do not engage in combat unless the bureacrats say so. These men and women are there acting on standby 24/7 to defend our nation and are often subject to incompetence from the civilian leadership. You especially cannot fault the very large majority of the military for strategy issues we've faced in Iraq. What does it gain to "hate" the 19 year old PFC from farm country who only wants to serve his country and ensure it is defended?

Bureaucrats rule the world no doubt.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I love idealists. We could altogether disarm and become the peace spouting, weed smoking, hippie types that patrol those boards as an entire nation. Problem with that is: they'd no longer get to enjoy their communion on the peacenik board because they'd be ruled by some innately nasty, egotistical, power hungry despot that would preclude such things as free flow of information.

 

[MG1968]

That is how I FEEL. Arguments come as a way of defending/describing how you feel.

as opposed to arguments based on facts.

 

[sea of orange]

Lets get rid of the U.S. military and see what happens. I will bet that that guy will change his mind real fast.