supporting the troops

[Zero]

Fair enough. I can't realistically change the way humans behave, I understand that, and I understand the sense of loyalty that comes with a military career. I still think that it constitutes a form of weakness as concerns human society, however. I mean, remember the Nuremberg Trials? "Befehl ist Befehl" didn't do anyone any good - nor should it have. I think people have largely forgotten that these days.

[Kindrd]

[quote="Zero"] I still think that it constitutes a form of weakness as concerns human society, however. quote]

This is how positive things get done as well. Its just a human instict to conform to the norms of society or to conform to not conforming. People will always do this, its in our DNA to find a group. People justify the rest. I think an effective military has to act without question to win. I see Zeros point though.

[Zero]

Yes, but you have to differentiate between obeying strategic and tactical orders. I don't disagree one bit that group-cohesion is absolutely critical in tactical situations, but following an order to drop a bomb in the middle of a "situation" and following an order to deploy somewhere when you're far removed from any sort of situation are very different circumstances. The former grants no time for reflection - the latter does.

The Nazis were hung at Nuremberg not so much for the genocide, but principally and foremost for the crime of "Planning and Waging an Aggressive War". Whatever the problems in Iraq, it didn't take a genius to understand that the war was an aggressive war - an invasion of a sovereign nation which had not threatened the US in any way, shape, or form. Under international law, as established after WWII, it was every soldier's responsibility to refuse to go to war under those circumstances and they are all, under international law, culpable for warcrimes. "I was only following orders" was rejected as a defense in Nuremberg and that law stands today.

[TexanNC]

I think everyone should support the troops. Like the war we are in or not, one of these days we may be in a conflict where we actually depend on them for our protection. I think merely having a strong military is a deterrent to some countries so in that aspect they're doing a very important job. I do think they have been used as a political tool and this annoys the hell out of me. There is no one that deserves more respect than our armed forces. And I agree that posting up a yellow ribbon just to make a statement is one of the worst and most widespread instances of politicizing our military.
I'm currently applying to officer candidate school for the US Coast Guard. I know its not the front lines of Iraq but I like to think I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I've always wanted to join the coast guard so its not about not being on the frontlines or anything like that.
I think everyone should support our men and women in uniform and not just post up a sticker or flag. Too many take them for granted. Its all too easy to look at Iraq and Afghanistan and be sick of them. These are well intentioned people that have gotten caught up in a situation the govt. doesn't know how to get them out of.

[RealmofOpeth]

I think everyone should support the troops. Like the war we are in or not, one of these days we may be in a conflict where we actually depend on them for our protection.

I'll start supporting one of those days we are 'in a conflict where we actually depend on them'.
In Iraq, we don't. It's nothing personal, but not supporting the troops fighting something futile helps discourage from continuing it.
I see no sense in unconditional support. Very little in life is worth being considered unconditional.
Not even love for my family or a significant other. If they treat me like shit, there's a condition I won't love them for.
If the military is being misused, and people keep joining or have no intentions on getting out, why support them?

I think merely having a strong military is a deterrent to some countries so in that aspect they're doing a very important job.

No disagreement there. I support the troops that are doing their job defending the nation, regardless of a war being fought currently or not. But supporting the troops moreso, or particularly the ones over there, because of a war I find to be bullshit, is just pointless to me.

I think everyone should support our men and women in uniform and not just post up a sticker or flag.

Well, we already do in a sense, with taxes. It's the extra-support that I'll not be giving for a mission that is going nowhere. If it's for the betterment of our country whilst not screwing over others (which happen to instigate future problems if we do), I'll support them. If it's the opposite of that, I won't. And I'm with you on the stickers/flags. Pure fairweather-patriotism. It's just like the surge of tommy hilfiger clothing. just a banner to try and look cool while having zero substance. I doubt many of those 'patriotic' sticker toters knows the constitution that defines their republic and how violated it has become.

Too many take them for granted. Its all too easy to look at Iraq and Afghanistan and be sick of them. These are well intentioned people that have gotten caught up in a situation the govt. doesn't know how to get them out of.

I don't see much taking for granted going on..other than what may be misconstrued as such when referring to people who are pissed off with government policies. I was thanked in public, many times, despite I was only in the air force. If it's anything, its too many people gushing their support.
The military members may be well intentioned, but that doesn't mean they're not ignorant. Part of that ignorance is fed by the unconditional and widespread and excessive support that the public gives. Despite the public's opinion might be in the minority for support for the war, the praise for the military helps coax people into joining as if support for the war was at an all time high.
Hell, I'm sure some join even though they personally don't like the war, but are so brainwashed from the rest of society's pampering and cheering, that helping fight the war they hate is somehow transformed into good anyway.
Of course, there are those who are career military, and I feel bad for them for that is what they have built their life around. But when push comes to shove, it's about values and convictions. I could've easily stayed in if I just thought my values could take a backseat to my way of life. I had much better financial/health security when I was in. I wasn't poor and disadvantaged like many people claim the military are. Being single, making 40k a year, full benefits and other perks isn't bad at all without a degree. On top of the aforementioned overall praise (the best being a chick magnet and cops giving you a break, both relatively) and other kickbacks found throughout society by being in the military (discounts, etc) . With that, it also tells you that not everyone in the military (lest not you forget a lot of military jobs are desk jobs and other cushy civilian-like stuff) is some brave hero or badass. I certainly wasn't. But I was giving logistical support to the mission, and that's something I didn't want to have anything to do with. So I left..and Air Force is the branch out of them all to stay in. meaning had I been in an actual combat position on the frontlines of a war i hated, i'd be more disgusted with myself.
If and when it's going to be virtually gauranteed that the current and future missions are clear and honorable, I could see myself joining again. But with the crapshoot given from the nature of the military itself and especially the type of establishment having a stranglehold on America for doing whatever it pleases, that obviously is a virtually oxymoronic concept.
I don't really see anything honorable or respectable about people who join when they know they don't have a clue what they are sent to do. Not so much as which particular things they are expected to do or places they'll be sent, but the end result, if it is bad or good. The public has this massive hard-on for this, and I find it to be extremely cheap because it deifies ignorance and servile behavior as a form of bravery rather than whether or not the ostensible purpose of protecting the country and preserving freedoms is actually being followed through. But of course they never forget to lay claim to it as though they always are.

[RealmofOpeth]

I don't care what a person's job is - I have nothing but contempt for human beings who only "do what they're told to do".

In the military you have to do what you're told. A army of free thinkers, is a army defeated before it even hits the battlefield. You do what your told, or you die. Those are the only 2 options.

Let there be no doubt that an efficient military and mission does not have room for an open forum of its constituents to chew on the matter.
But that's quite a double edged sword that I don't think you're at all aware of.

[RealmofOpeth]

one can balance the chain of command with a judicious application of a sense of justice and law.

... which would be illegal in every country of the world, I guess.

The Iraq-war is senseless in every regard, no doubt, but I don't see that the current situation gives any soldier the right to refuse the service, legally.

If you're talking about deserting and about living on the run for the rest of one's life, then it's another topic. I've seen a documentary about vietnam-deserters, some weeks ago on TV. These people still live underground! Even in Germany, you won't find a single "monument of the unknown deserter".

Cheers!

well, i don't know where anybody is really suggesting desertion. I don't suggest it. What I do suggest for those who hate the mission is getting out of the military as soon as legally possible, or better yet, not joining to begin with.
I did my job and didn't refuse orders once. But there's no part about being in the current situation of the US military that requires you to do it with a smile on your face or that you had to join in the first place or that you can't get out at the end of your term (lest there be some form of ridiculous stop-loss BS).
There are other ways to get out of the military. Medical problems. Win the lottery. Be flamboyantly gay.

[chainsnuser]

well, i don't know where anybody is really suggesting desertion. I don't suggest it.

...
There are other ways to get out of the military. Medical problems. Win the lottery. Be flamboyantly gay.

Oh, is it so easy now? Well I can only speak about my own military service, which was back in 1988/89, at the end of the "cold war". The German army at that time was about as big as the U.S. army is today, though the population of the former West Germany (FRG/BRD) was only a fifth of the U.S.-population.

So, I had a bunch of comrades with health problems or rich parents and also some "queens in green", who really weren't cagey about their sexual orientation, were always around.

The main difference, I guess, is that Germany has a compulsory military service, while the U.S. has an army of volunteers.

I totally get your point about quitting service legally, but I don't think, that a soldier, who is currently serving in Iraq, has a realistic chance to do so.

To sum it up: Supporting the U.S. troops surely means to do everything to bring them back home as soon as possible. The Iraq will have to face a civil war anyway. After that civil war there probably will be another Saddam, and hopefully he is as contra-terrorist as Saddam really was, despite of the lies, spread by the current U.S.-government. The presence of U.S-troops only prolongs the miserable and uncertain present situation of that country.

BTW, whatever the real reasons for that war were, they will not be accomplished. There will not be democracy and freedom in the Iraq, at least not during our lifetime. The country is not made for that at the moment. And also American oil-companies will not make profits in such an unstable country. The whole war in Iraq is just an incredible waste of U.S.-tax-money. Nobody profits, apart from a few arms manufacturers maybe.

Cheers!

[RealmofOpeth]

The main difference, I guess, is that Germany has a compulsory military service, while the U.S. has an army of volunteers.

Yep, that's my main contention. If we were screwed into having compulsory military service, then my contention is with it being compulsory (and therefore some with society not changing the government to get rid of it), not the people affected by it. and I would support the guys affected by it being compulsory, whilst at the same time trying to get rid of the law.

But with volunteers, it's their choice. If they're that ignorant they think that they're gonna save the day or that they're just gonna skate on through without doing something for the mission, well, then, they can think whatever they want, I won't stop them, but they're not getting my support. What I would give them is pity for they have been misled, and a hope they get an education on the matter.

To sum it up: Supporting the U.S. troops surely means to do everything to bring them back home as soon as possible.

Well I find that to be a 'shade', or an aspect of many, of support. That's the only shade I do understand. I'm for bringing them home, so I guess in that regard, I support the troops. However, for many, it was their choice to go there. Maybe not wage the war, but their choice to join, therefore, knowingly surrendering their choices to those who do wage the war. For those who have gotten 'trapped' or tricked, or whatever, I feel bad for them and support them for them to get out of the situation asap. But a lot of people who say support means bring troops home asap, they don't know that a lot of troops think it's just fine and ****in dandy that we stay there for another 100 years like McInsane suggests.

After that civil war there probably will be another Saddam, and hopefully he is as contra-terrorist as Saddam really was, despite of the lies, spread by the current U.S.-government.

why hopefully?

The presence of U.S-troops only prolongs the miserable and uncertain present situation of that country.

yep and dare i say much worse in total than whatever happened under Saddam. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some units that are instigating troubles, false flagging, to try and give us an excuse to stay there. There was a report about SAS members dressed in arab clothing posing as terrorists, shooting people in Basrah. Of course that got swept under the rug like it was no big deal. Shit like that should be major headline news and as present in the mainstream consciousness as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, if not more.

And also American oil-companies will not make profits in such an unstable country.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that the OPEC cartel and our oil companies is not only sitting pretty, or at least not ridiculously threatened due to the supposed wartime danger to oil refineries and pipelines, but uses that as an excuse to jack up prices through the roof. because they know we'll believe it and we have no choice in the matter. not only that, even if our oil companies don't make any money from the oil itself, they know they will get subsidies from the government, like halliburton is with its no bid contracts. a further waste of tax money.

[chainsnuser]

After that civil war there probably will be another Saddam, and hopefully he

is as contra-terrorist as Saddam really was, despite of the lies, spread by the

current U.S.-government.

why hopefully?

Good question!

But well, first the Iraq has become a refuge for terrorists, what the country never was as long as Saddam was in power. Second, most dictators will fight terrorists as an unwanted opposition or power-factor, but there are some, who in fact support terrorists. Just think of this freak:



Cheers!

[Zero]

A refuge for terrorists? I don't believe that for a minute. That is just newspeak for "our excuse to continue attacks". Most of the real terrorists are funded and organised by the US government itself, the rest are just desperate people trying to fight off what they rightfully see as an invading foreign force which is destroying their country. I don't blame anyone for that.

[RealmofOpeth]

After that civil war there probably will be another Saddam, and hopefully he

is as contra-terrorist as Saddam really was, despite of the lies, spread by the

current U.S.-government.

why hopefully?

Good question!

But well, first the Iraq has become a refuge for terrorists, what the country never was as long as Saddam was in power. Second, most dictators will fight terrorists as an unwanted opposition or power-factor

good point. Saddam had the wahabist sunnis (al qaeda) hung in public and kept a rather secular government as far as Islam standards.

but there are some, who in fact support terrorists. Just think of this freak:



Cheers!

is it because Qadafi is regarded as a terrorist supporter because of the plane over Lockerbie bombing? There's a couple of ex-MI5 agents that say they were to have him assassinated but they were going to frame him first with local terrorist bombings or something of that nature.

[RealmofOpeth]

A refuge for terrorists? I don't believe that for a minute. That is just newspeak for "our excuse to continue attacks". Most of the real terrorists are funded and organised by the US government itself, the rest are just desperate people trying to fight off what they rightfully see as an invading foreign force which is destroying their country. I don't blame anyone for that.

yeah...'refuge' is probably not the right word. more like target. and by terrorists, i would think of those who are religiously motivated. as about anybody anymore is 'terrorist' when there's that ridiculous 'with us or against us' bullshit mentality.
of course there's a couple factions of terrorists in iraq.
there's the wahabists, or dubbed al qaeda. (extremist sunnis, more deserving of the terrorist label)
the iraqi resistance (shia and sunni)
iranian militias (extremist shia)
iraqi resistance is made up of baathists, sadaam loyalists, and various others who are extremely patriotic to iraq and want their soveriegnty back and want to shove out the invaders. that would include the US, the iranians and the wahabists. then the other factions fight about everyone else as well.
but there are also times where each faction cooperates with the US or with each other to gang up on whatever they want to fight at the time. from what I've heard, the resistance wants to cooperate with the us to get the iranians and alqaeda out, but they also want to get rid of the us afterwards. so who knows. it's a ****ing free-for-all basically, because of our decision to go in there. the main objectives of the iranians and the al-qaeda is not necessarily to fight us, but to establish their own version of strict islamic government, which is what sadaam didn't allow.

[OrderOfSolve]

So.........Uh.........What's your favorite brand of Snus???

[Kindrd]

Most of the real terrorists are funded and organised by the US government itself,

Yea, we Americans are evil alright. Our Government is just a weak cover for Satans minions. Our companies rape the world. Come on. The world should stop thinking their shit don't stink and work on their own problems. Most of these Governments are using Anti-Americanism to deflect attention away from themselves anyway.