Supporting the Troops = Supporting the war?

[J-Man]

I support neither the war, nor the troops, as the troops have willingly joined the army, and as everyone knows, the sole goal of an army is to kill people. And I don't like killing.

But any good soldier will tell you that it's about 'protection', not 'to kill people'. That's the difference ... a good, intelligent soldier doesn't want to fight ... who the hell would want that ... all soldiers I know acknowledge having very bad allergies to flying bullets, schrapnel and bombs

So the US troops are protecting the American people by killing Iraqis? How logical.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I support neither the war, nor the troops, as the troops have willingly joined the army, and as everyone knows, the sole goal of an army is to kill people. And I don't like killing.

But any good soldier will tell you that it's about 'protection', not 'to kill people'. That's the difference ... a good, intelligent soldier doesn't want to fight ... who the hell would want that ... all soldiers I know acknowledge having very bad allergies to flying bullets, schrapnel and bombs

So the US troops are protecting the American people by killing Iraqis? How logical.

I would hope that most of the soldiers would choose to be at home ... if you actually read my post I made the argument that a good, intelligent soldier doesn't want to expose themselves to danger. You shouldn't blame soldiers for the actions of their politicians.

Ask yourself the question whether you truly think any person other than a psychotic individual would willingly kill if they were placed in a position in which they could avoid it?

And my argument didn't even cover the large group of soldiers who *wouldn't* choose military service unless it was their only choice. In the US you can be fired without reason or redundancy pay.... and then you're given 6 weeks to find another job befoe welfare no longer pays for your family's rent and food.

 

[sirdapfrey]

I support neither the war, nor the troops, as the troops have willingly joined the army, and as everyone knows, the sole goal of an army is to kill people. And I don't like killing.

I don't know what it's like in your country, but here most people don't join the military with a goal of killing people. The military's goal is not to kill. Yes, some members of the military do end up killing while in service to their country, but that doesn't mean that is the purpose of said military. All your post serves to do is exclaim your ignorance of the matter.

Note: This is not a comment on whether you should or should not support troops and/or war.

 

[MattyDienhoff]

I support neither the war, nor the troops, as the troops have willingly joined the army, and as everyone knows, the sole goal of an army is to kill people. And I don't like killing.

Actually, no.

In most kinds of military action (especially in modern times), killing the enemy is one of many means by which to achieve a goal, not the goal. (Except perhaps in cases of genocide, I'm not talking about executions, I'm talking about actual warfare between two armed factions, with the goal being the invasion and occupation of an area, or defense, or peacekeeping, whatever it is) And while I'm sure there are soldiers out there who actually enjoy killing, I believe they are in the minority. As for anyone else, if they can achieve their objectives without having to engage with the enemy at all, I'm sure they would do so gladly, but war is not usually that easy.

Either way, simply killing the enemy's soldiers off is a very inefficient way to win a war. The key is to eliminate the enemy's means to wage war, to eliminate their ability to fight effectively. To destroy their supply lines, their communications, their factories, et cetera.

"Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter."
- Winston Churchill

 

[sneakypenguin]

I support the atlanta braves but I hope they lose the world series. This seems to be some peoples view, I support the troops but I hope they fail in iraq. Personally how can you support the people and not their job?

 

[Zveroboy]

[user]Gladion[/user]

Riddle: Which country am I talking about? Hints: It's a very rich one, it's located in eastern asia, it's been nuked in WWII and, most importantly, has no fucking army since then.
Last hint:
„Article 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.“
Yeah, I gave away the answer, but my point is that the military might not be as important as you convince yourself it is. Okay, some countries really need an army, but there are reasons for that and those countries are responsible for them themselves (mostly).


Edit: "unneccessary brutality" sounds very funny.

Hmm where is that article from, for as far as i know the Japanese has both a army, a navy and a air force. Even though they are named the Self-defense force they are still a army.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I think this about sums up my feelings on war and those who start them.

Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of deaths construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds, oh lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait till their judgement day comes, yeah!

Now in darkness, world stops turning
As the war machine keeps burning
No more war pigs of the power
Hand of God has sturck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees, the war pigs crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings
All right now!

 

[Canebrake]

I wouldn't say i support wars,or necessarially this one.
I did find that the media bashing it to hell reminded me how much the media's opinion usually ends up being the general census.*


And in my opinion you can support the troops but not the war.
"I don't support the war you gave your Life for,but God bless you for your sacrifices.

I just wish that i could better compensate you for what you gave,instead of a pitiful paycheck to your widow and a peice of metal. You earned more of my Respect than anyone else in the world.
~Semper fi"


That,my friends. Is supporting the troops.

---------

Since when is de-throning a tyrant a bad thing?
Screw the oil,i think when we can share the gift of freedom it's hard to go wrong.

-Canebrake

 

[dangerousdave_42]

I think this guy sums up what I think about it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnxOIg_6DTs&feature=channel_page

 

[goodman528]

yes.

 

[Specter_]

That's why I believe that if any political leader wants to start a war, that they should do frontline tours in the country they want to invade.

While this obviously is a very good idea, I do think that every last politician would die after a 5 kilometre march with battlegear (which in itself would probably be good).

I would hope that most of the soldiers would choose to be at home... if you actually read my post I made the argument that a good, intelligent soldier doesn't want to expose themselves to danger. You shouldn't blame soldiers for the actions of their politicians.

Ask yourself the question whether you truly think any person other than a psychotic individual would willingly kill if they were placed in a position in which they could avoid it?

And my argument didn't even cover the large group of soldiers who *wouldn't* choose military service unless it was their only choice. In the US you can be fired without reason or redundancy pay.... and then you're given 6 weeks to find another job before welfare no longer pays for your family's rent and food.

I would hope that even the US military does not let psychotic, kill-happy thugs join their ranks.
But while I do think that all soldiers would like to be safe at home, everyone who joins the military and expects to not go into an armed conflict is in my eyes an idiot.
That aside, what about those soldiers who joined after the war in Afghanistan and Iraq started? Do you think they can be blamed for their politicians decisions? Because even the dumbest recruit in 2005 would have known he goes to either one of those countries.

 

[Gooble]

Hell no. Not the soldiers fault they're getting sent to some random corner of the earth to die pointlessly. But if they are going to get sent there, they should have the best and most appropriate equipment, supplies and health facilites, and when they get back should be treated by both the people and the state as heroes, not just left to rot.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

That's why I believe that if any political leader wants to start a war, that they should do frontline tours in the country they want to invade.

While this obviously is a very good idea, I do think that every last politician would die after a 5 kilometre march with battlegear (which in itself would probably be good).

I would hope that most of the soldiers would choose to be at home... if you actually read my post I made the argument that a good, intelligent soldier doesn't want to expose themselves to danger. You shouldn't blame soldiers for the actions of their politicians.

Ask yourself the question whether you truly think any person other than a psychotic individual would willingly kill if they were placed in a position in which they could avoid it?

And my argument didn't even cover the large group of soldiers who *wouldn't* choose military service unless it was their only choice. In the US you can be fired without reason or redundancy pay.... and then you're given 6 weeks to find another job before welfare no longer pays for your family's rent and food.

I would hope that even the US military does not let psychotic, kill-happy thugs join their ranks.
But while I do think that all soldiers would like to be safe at home, everyone who joins the military and expects to not go into an armed conflict is in my eyes an idiot.
That aside, what about those soldiers who joined after the war in Afghanistan and Iraq started? Do you think they can be blamed for their politicians decisions? Because even the dumbest recruit in 2005 would have known he goes to either one of those countries.

What does a US Army recruit earn? 14 k/year, not sure if that includes the danger pay of being sent to a conflict to fight. (ref. http://www.us-army-info.com/pages/ranks.html )

So effectively, you get 50 dollars a day .... for 12 hour patrols, unhealthy food, and base medical care.

Now the way I see it ... who the hell would want *that* job unless they were desperate? I mean ... My rent is 160-220 USD / week (depends on market currency trading) ... rent ... alone, for a studio apartment 6 kilometres from Central station in Sydney.

In the US ... jobs are going, fast. You're starving ... landlord breaking down your door ... home and car repayments, electricity, water, school fees, possibly a huge student loan.

You can certainly blame politicians for the economy, and you really can't blame soldiers for signing up when it's a choice between living in the gutter and having to serve.

Addendum: lol ... and look at what a private/PFC earns regardless of 2 years service ... or 6 years service ... not a freaking change! So Basically the soldiers remain eternally poor <.< I'd make more if I lived solely on welfare. The biggest problem I see about this though, is that you're givinng guns to people who are being treated like shit ... and paying them dirt .... does anybody else other than me see that as a fairly dangerous thing to do?

Woot! I make more than a 4 yr serving Lieutenant, or a 2 yr serving Captain! XD And I get to stave off my allergies to bullets and bombs <.<

Oh, and for some strange reason the link isnt working but the website is still up, so you may have to manually type it in.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

OH yeah just for interesting reading, and weakly uphold that the average soldier is a decenbt individual (well, normal in psyche and mannerisms). This is from a Military enelistment ADF concerning the prerequisites of military service:

7. Moral character. Persons entering the Armed Forces
should be of good moral character. The underlying purpose of
moral character enlistment standards is to minimize entrance of
persons who are likely to become disciplinary cases or security
risks or who disrupt good order, morale, and discipline. The
Military Services also have a responsibility to parents who expect
that their sons and daughters will not be placed into close
association with persons who have committed serious offenses or
whose records show ingrained delinquency behavior patterns. The
Military Services are responsible for the defense of the nation
and should not be viewed as a source of rehabilitation for those
who have not subscribed to the legal and moral standards of
society at large. Moral standards of acceptability for service
are designed to disqualify the following kinds of persons:

lol ... Im not copying and pasting that 5 page long decree ... but you can view it at http://www.us-army-info.com/pages/enlist.html#req under 'Do you meet the requirements?' subsection.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

Definitely not. In the U.S. the shameful treatment of the Vietnam vets seems to have led to a general resolve never to let that sort of thing happen again, which might be why

...people who say it's not a just war attacked for not supporting the troops

-by some.
Only I haven't seen it happen that way here in the U.S. There's a lot of arguing over the war, but no one is marching around calling the troops baby-killers- at least, no one that matters. It happens, but not on the scale it did thirty-five years ago. I'm glad for that.

I've seen it happen, it hurts my heart to hear it.

 

[Pseudonym2]

I've never been able to figure out what the non sequitur "support our troops" means. Make sure the hospitals are running? Give them armor? Don't force more tours of duty than they signed up for? Make sure they don't get raped? I think it means having a yellow ribbon bumper sticker. Since I don't have one, or a car for that matter, I must be a Godless commie.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Support our troops: I.e. don't insult them when they get home, throw rocks at the Westboro baptists...etc....etc.