NationStates Jolt Archive

Why are people demonized for not supporting the military(or at least in America)? Seriously, I was speaking out against some of the horrid things it has done, and is continuing to do, and I was labeled a terrorist sympathizer. Since when does dissent make me an Al-Qaeda lover?

I asked why it was okay to support people to kill, or torture innocents. Or why it was OK to support the killing of anyone period. They responded with the usual "Fight for freedoms" crap that's always thrown out. Then I also heard the notion that as far as torture is concerned, they are following orders. Well so were the Nazi soldiers at Dachau and Auschwitz, so where the Argentinian soldiers that kidnapped and killed 10,000-30,000 young people, so are the Sudanese militias that have killed upwards of 400,000 people. So don't give me the following orders bologna.

So why exactly is it wrong that I don't agree with an institution of murder?

So why is it exactly wrong that I don't agree with an institution of murder?

Because murder is illegal killings, and an institution of something illegal is just to wacky for you?

I think the problem is that we associate the actions of individual with the actions of he organization. Are there problems in that organization? Yes, most definately, but that does not change that it is the individuals in the organization making the wrong choices, not the organization as a whole.

It is neither to be praised or criticized more than it warrants.

Well in the U.K yesterday I got a lecture about how the army is crap followed by the question of “why would you want to go to some filthy Arab country to get shot?” considering this was on my Birthday before I was going to go out you can see it either swings one way or the other

But I must say I do not support our troops when they are in the wrong though supporting killing is a different thing entirely since it’s a job someone has to do and in the rush of combat your not thinking about what you are doing (otherwise you wouldn’t/shouldn’t be able to do it)

Since it is peoples families, their friends, risking their lives in some far away place, people just have to believe that they are there for a meaningful cause. Otherwise they would realize that their loved ones were dying for nothing. That would be intolerable to think of, so they must put a blindfold on to the realities of what is going on and anyone who tries to take that blindfold off their eyes will be snarled at, questioned why they didn't support what their loved ones were risking. Shutting their brains down is simply easier. So, the military can do no wrong, and their loved ones are possibly going to die for something important. Convincing them otherwise is impossible or they will have to face that painful reality that they might lose someone for nothing.

Major guilt trip from vietnam, where we spit on soldiers, called them baby killers, and generally treated them like shit, even if they were perfectly honorable, good people. I think its wrong to take the actions of an individual and apply them to an entire organization, one bad apple does not ruin the bushel.

The war criminals should be punished, but we needn't punish the innocent soldier just because he wears the same uniform.

So why exactly is it wrong that I don't agree with an institution of murder?

They murdered all those innocents so you could have the right to disagree with them dammit! Heil Bush!

They murdered all those innocents so you could have the right to disagree with them dammit! Heil Bush!

http://www.voxfux.com/images/bush_fascism.jpg

Sieg Heil!

Because there's a difference between murder and killing in war.

That, and the fact that the military protects the freedoms Americans enjoy.

Well in the U.K yesterday I got a lecture about how the army is crap followed by the question of “why would you want to go to some filthy Arab country to get shot?” considering this was on my Birthday before I was going to go out you can see it either swings one way or the other

But I must say I do not support our troops when they are in the wrong though supporting killing is a different thing entirely since it’s a job someone has to do and in the rush of combat your not thinking about what you are doing (otherwise you wouldn’t/shouldn’t be able to do it)

I always say fight the enemy in there own homeland if at all possible. It is best they don't fight in yours. The thing is that the British and American troops along with the rest of the allies are not wrong. The West did not start the radical islamist on the path of jihad against the West. So I believe it was a bold move to take the fight into the middle east and keep it there for the most part. Bush and Blair should be commended for keeping the fight in the enemies own territory.
As far as it being the job of someone to defend ones nation. I believe it is more of a duty then anything. At least that is why I did it. I didn't ever refer to the army as a job. As far as taking someone else's life. You do think about it to a great degree. Even though they are the enemy they still have family and friends that are affected as your own would you if you were killed. Although the rush of combat does dull the nerves whilst in the midst of it. But the reality does come to ones self after the fact. War is a bad deal all around. But until the day ALL people realize it is a dumb thing to do. A nation will always have to prepare for it if they like it or not.

http://www.voxfux.com/images/bush_fascism.jpg

Sieg Heil!

You yet throw yourself further down that path of stupidity. When are some people going to figure things out?

You yet throw yourself further down that path of stupidity. When are some people going to figure things out?

Welllllllllllll????????

You can't really compare the two so you are right.

Hitler was a far better orator.

That the military is under obligation to perform their duties is no excuse for the brutal and twisted acts they sometimes commit. The military also has a long history and to concede reality, they play an important role in human civilization. They are the ones trained to die in order to protect us. There isnt a really any possibility they could be done away with in the near future.

That anyone would use these arduosly conditioned young men for false or personal reasons, knowing that they are trained to obey- should be considered an act of treason.

I think that Hitler/Bush comparisons are very valid, as long as you look at them in their relative conditions.

Hitler was elected in a state that was very unstable after ww1, a stage ripe for such an extremist to come into power, and allowed him to push in extremist policies.

Bush came in after the whole monika lewinsky thing. Hardly as much lee-way there, but that and a few other things allowed him to get into power.

Hitler used events in his nation(I'm rusty on this, was his consolidation of power after the reichstag burning?) to consolidate his power, and further his policies. Bush used 9/11 in the same way, regardless of who caused each respective incident.

Hitler is comparable to bush, you just have to realize that when comparing, remember that hitler was much more extreme than bush, a good part due to circumstance. If bush had free reign, or the political lee-way to get away with the things hitler did, who knows?

I agree that using hitler references often are just emotionally-loaded statements, but a real comparison is not an apples to oranges affair.

Though I think apples and oranges can quite easily be compared.

I really gotta stop de-railing this thread.

Because there's a difference between murder and killing in war.

That, and the fact that the military protects the freedoms Americans enjoy.

When since 1945 has the military had to fight to protect the constitution(which is their job, ya?)?

Well, I really don't think that Bush would burn/do creepy experiments on/gas/otherwise massacre millions of people, but there are some comparisons that can be drawn, since both tend more towards authoritarianism and suchlike.

I really hate it when someone gets called a 'terrorist lover' or somesuch... but it also bothers me when people daemonize the military for things it is ordered to do... such as invade Iraq. Seriously, that one isn't the soldiers' fault. On the flipside, it isn't the fault of the entire military that a relatively small number of Reservist MPs did that stuff in Abu Grahib, so again we can't blame all of them.

Feh, I'm drunk. I can't argue politics/defend an opinion drunk. So I'll stop.

When since 1945 has the military had to fight to protect the constitution(which is their job, ya?)?

http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,rec_step08_swearing_in,,00.html


The Oath of Enlistment (for enlistees):

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The Oath of Office (for officers):

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance tot he same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."


At least get it right....:rolleyes:

Because there's a difference between murder and killing in war.

That, and the fact that the military protects the freedoms Americans enjoy.

But, as someone said before, we still think the holocaust was wrong, that was killings in war, and we say Saddam was wrong for gasing the kurds....

I think that Hitler/Bush comparisons are very valid, as long as you look at them in their relative conditions.

Hitler was elected in a state that was very unstable after ww1, a stage ripe for such an extremist to come into power, and allowed him to push in extremist policies.

Bush came in after the whole monika lewinsky thing. Hardly as much lee-way there, but that and a few other things allowed him to get into power.

Hitler used events in his nation(I'm rusty on this, was his consolidation of power after the reichstag burning?) to consolidate his power, and further his policies. Bush used 9/11 in the same way, regardless of who caused each respective incident.

Hitler is comparable to bush, you just have to realize that when comparing, remember that hitler was much more extreme than bush, a good part due to circumstance. If bush had free reign, or the political lee-way to get away with the things hitler did, who knows?

I agree that using hitler references often are just emotionally-loaded statements, but a real comparison is not an apples to oranges affair.

Though I think apples and oranges can quite easily be compared.

I really gotta stop de-railing this thread.

Yeah, but no-one accused hitler of organising the wall street crash,

And when we declared war on Nazi germany it had only just taken back the land it had before the first world war, and a lot of the people in those countries were german and happy about it, although not very much in poland

That said Bush is still much worse than Hitler was, and most of the Hitler comments dont have any reasoning

That the military is under obligation to perform their duties is no excuse for the brutal and twisted acts they sometimes commit. The military also has a long history and to concede reality, they play an important role in human civilization. They are the ones trained to die in order to protect us. ...

... from other military. See how that goes?
I daresay that people who object to the military don't just object to the military of one country, but are happy with all other military institutions around the world.
Apparently, most people who are not anti-military didn't think things through.

But, as someone said before, we still think the holocaust was wrong, that was killings in war, and we say Saddam was wrong for gasing the kurds....

Attrocities, massacres, genocides, the killing of prisoners and civilians and such are never right. The fact that we and our soldiers know and believe this, in my opinion, makes us more "honourable" than our usual foes at present. But in the end, we do things which are wrong too, at a much smaller scale. The differance is that our soldiers will get court martials for doing it, not medals.

Thought experiment: you're a long way from home, missing almost everyone and everything you once considered your life, facing death daily, you're sitting in the bunker at night guarding a severely wounded prisoner who set off and IED and killed the only man in the platoon you consider a friend.

I've never been in that situation, but I can't confidently say I wouldn't kill the guy, and I think many attrocity whiners might well do the same.

But I digress. I presume "killing in war" refers to firing on armed men who want to kill you. A legal action.

Yeah, but no-one accused hitler of organising the wall street crash,

...What?

And when we declared war on Nazi germany it had only just taken back the land it had before the first world war, and a lot of the people in those countries were german and happy about it, although not very much in poland

So you're saying the Prussians had a right to the lands of Poles and Czechs and others? And the nazis, a worse government in every way, shape, and form, had a right to France and Austria, too. Does that mean we can have India and Australia and Canada and Singapore and the U.S back now?

That said Bush is still much worse than Hitler was, and most of the Hitler comments dont have any reasoning

Don't get me wrong, I hate the monkey faced idiot, and I'm very much Godwinian when it comes to Nazi comparisons. But comparing them is and insult to 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, Ukranians, etcetera, and many Americans, British, French, Polish, Italians, resistance members, gays, gypsies, and communists who I dont have the figures for who were murdered by a madman who wanted to destroy everything they were prepared to fight for.

Speaking of Godwins law, this thread dies. Now.