Supporting the Troops = Supporting the war?

[captain awesome 12]

Would you rather them get drafted, or just plain having no army?

In my Utopic world, there would be no need for an army.

This. If nobody had an army then there would be no wars.
Either that or just strait nuclear holocaust.

That isn't true at all. Even if there was no war, there'd still be people that hate you. The only way to prevent war is to have no hate, but there always will be because of people's beliefs. The people we're fighting now aren't an organized army, yet they still fight. There's more to war than just having a military. There's a fanaticism that runs deeper, an idea, and as V tells us, "ideas are bulletproof!"

 

[new_age_reject]

Would you rather them get drafted, or just plain having no army?

In my Utopic world, there would be no need for an army.

This. If nobody had an army then there would be no wars.
Either that or just strait nuclear holocaust.

That isn't true at all. Even if there was no war, there'd still be people that hate you. The only way to prevent war is to have no hate, but there always will be because of people's beliefs. The people we're fighting now aren't an organized army, yet they still fight. There's more to war than just having a military. There's a fanaticism that runs deeper, an idea, and as V tells us, "ideas are bulletproof!"

Of course the source of all conflict is hate, but not all conflict is war and not all armies are organized. According to a quick bit of google-magic, an army is 'a large number of people united for some specific purpose' and in this case, that purpose is war.
Admittedly war isn't just one army vs another but you can't say that a little bit of hatred in the playground is war.
However, the need for me to argue my point against yours is a little lost with your reference to V, which is an astounding piece of work.

 

[kdragon1010]

Yeah you can support the troops and be against the war. Hell most of us are against it ourselves.

 

[McClaud]

Not all conflict is war.

People like to take a conflict and slap the word "WAR" on it all the time, which just makes it harder for people to actually understand who, what and why they are fighting.

 

[captain awesome 12]

Would you rather them get drafted, or just plain having no army?

In my Utopic world, there would be no need for an army.

This. If nobody had an army then there would be no wars.
Either that or just strait nuclear holocaust.

That isn't true at all. Even if there was no war, there'd still be people that hate you. The only way to prevent war is to have no hate, but there always will be because of people's beliefs. The people we're fighting now aren't an organized army, yet they still fight. There's more to war than just having a military. There's a fanaticism that runs deeper, an idea, and as V tells us, "ideas are bulletproof!"

Of course the source of all conflict is hate, but not all conflict is war and not all armies are organized. According to a quick bit of google-magic, an army is 'a large number of people united for some specific purpose' and in this case, that purpose is war.
Admittedly war isn't just one army vs another but you can't say that a little bit of hatred in the playground is war.
However, the need for me to argue my point against yours is a little lost with your reference to V, which is an astounding piece of work.

Remember remember the fifth of November...

Just saying, you confirmed my point, which was saying that eliminating militaries doesn't stop war.

 

[new_age_reject]

Would you rather them get drafted, or just plain having no army?

In my Utopic world, there would be no need for an army.

This. If nobody had an army then there would be no wars.
Either that or just strait nuclear holocaust.

That isn't true at all. Even if there was no war, there'd still be people that hate you. The only way to prevent war is to have no hate, but there always will be because of people's beliefs. The people we're fighting now aren't an organized army, yet they still fight. There's more to war than just having a military. There's a fanaticism that runs deeper, an idea, and as V tells us, "ideas are bulletproof!"

Of course the source of all conflict is hate, but not all conflict is war and not all armies are organized. According to a quick bit of google-magic, an army is 'a large number of people united for some specific purpose' and in this case, that purpose is war.
Admittedly war isn't just one army vs another but you can't say that a little bit of hatred in the playground is war.
However, the need for me to argue my point against yours is a little lost with your reference to V, which is an astounding piece of work.

Remember remember the fifth of November...

Just saying, you confirmed my point, which was saying that eliminating militaries doesn't stop war.

Well it doesn't on a smaller scale, but large scale wars spanning continents, it does... Kinda.

 

[Necrophagist]

I support our troops by being against the war. It's a pointless conflict that is killing people for no reason. I have friends in the military who are against the war - will anybody try to say THEY are against the troops?

 

[captain awesome 12]

Would you rather them get drafted, or just plain having no army?

In my Utopic world, there would be no need for an army.

This. If nobody had an army then there would be no wars.
Either that or just strait nuclear holocaust.

That isn't true at all. Even if there was no war, there'd still be people that hate you. The only way to prevent war is to have no hate, but there always will be because of people's beliefs. The people we're fighting now aren't an organized army, yet they still fight. There's more to war than just having a military. There's a fanaticism that runs deeper, an idea, and as V tells us, "ideas are bulletproof!"

Of course the source of all conflict is hate, but not all conflict is war and not all armies are organized. According to a quick bit of google-magic, an army is 'a large number of people united for some specific purpose' and in this case, that purpose is war.
Admittedly war isn't just one army vs another but you can't say that a little bit of hatred in the playground is war.
However, the need for me to argue my point against yours is a little lost with your reference to V, which is an astounding piece of work.

Remember remember the fifth of November...

Just saying, you confirmed my point, which was saying that eliminating militaries doesn't stop war.

Well it doesn't on a smaller scale, but large scale wars spanning continents, it does... Kinda.

True, but the transcontinental wars of previous centuries are over now, and unless China, Iran, or North Korea does something stupid to the rest of the world (or vice versa) those are over. Conflicts are much more small scale now, and aren't fought in the open. I believe the movie Body of Lies captures how conflicts are fought with a fair amount of accuracy.

 

[new_age_reject]

Would you rather them get drafted, or just plain having no army?

In my Utopic world, there would be no need for an army.

This. If nobody had an army then there would be no wars.
Either that or just strait nuclear holocaust.

That isn't true at all. Even if there was no war, there'd still be people that hate you. The only way to prevent war is to have no hate, but there always will be because of people's beliefs. The people we're fighting now aren't an organized army, yet they still fight. There's more to war than just having a military. There's a fanaticism that runs deeper, an idea, and as V tells us, "ideas are bulletproof!"

Of course the source of all conflict is hate, but not all conflict is war and not all armies are organized. According to a quick bit of google-magic, an army is 'a large number of people united for some specific purpose' and in this case, that purpose is war.
Admittedly war isn't just one army vs another but you can't say that a little bit of hatred in the playground is war.
However, the need for me to argue my point against yours is a little lost with your reference to V, which is an astounding piece of work.

Remember remember the fifth of November...

Just saying, you confirmed my point, which was saying that eliminating militaries doesn't stop war.

Well it doesn't on a smaller scale, but large scale wars spanning continents, it does... Kinda.

True, but the transcontinental wars of previous centuries are over now, and unless China, Iran, or North Korea does something stupid to the rest of the world (or vice versa) those are over. Conflicts are much more small scale now, and aren't fought in the open. I believe the movie Body of Lies captures how conflicts are fought with a fair amount of accuracy.

True, most conflicts are only fought along borders or inside single countries today. The next transcontinental war will probably be the last.
Alas, I have not seen that film so I cannot make fair comment.

 

[captain awesome 12]

Would you rather them get drafted, or just plain having no army?

In my Utopic world, there would be no need for an army.

This. If nobody had an army then there would be no wars.
Either that or just strait nuclear holocaust.

That isn't true at all. Even if there was no war, there'd still be people that hate you. The only way to prevent war is to have no hate, but there always will be because of people's beliefs. The people we're fighting now aren't an organized army, yet they still fight. There's more to war than just having a military. There's a fanaticism that runs deeper, an idea, and as V tells us, "ideas are bulletproof!"

Of course the source of all conflict is hate, but not all conflict is war and not all armies are organized. According to a quick bit of google-magic, an army is 'a large number of people united for some specific purpose' and in this case, that purpose is war.
Admittedly war isn't just one army vs another but you can't say that a little bit of hatred in the playground is war.
However, the need for me to argue my point against yours is a little lost with your reference to V, which is an astounding piece of work.

Remember remember the fifth of November...

Just saying, you confirmed my point, which was saying that eliminating militaries doesn't stop war.

Well it doesn't on a smaller scale, but large scale wars spanning continents, it does... Kinda.

True, but the transcontinental wars of previous centuries are over now, and unless China, Iran, or North Korea does something stupid to the rest of the world (or vice versa) those are over. Conflicts are much more small scale now, and aren't fought in the open. I believe the movie Body of Lies captures how conflicts are fought with a fair amount of accuracy.

True, most conflicts are only fought along borders or inside single countries today. The next transcontinental war will probably be the last.
Alas, I have not seen that film so I cannot make fair comment.

I wouldn't doubt it; the war to end all wars?

 

[Specter_]

Not all conflict is war.

People like to take a conflict and slap the word "WAR" on it all the time, which just makes it harder for people to actually understand who, what and why they are fighting.

I'd like to ask you to elaborate that statement, because as far as I'm concerned "war is the reciprocal and violent application of force between hostile political entities aimed at bringing about a desired political end-state via armed conflict." (wikipedia) or "armed fighting between two or more countries or groups" (Cambridge Dictionary)

 

[Rolling Thunder]

The British Army: 95 years without the use of chemical weapons.


Look, I hate to be a prick, but the purpose of a soldier is to fight, kill and die for his nation. He is a tool of the state, an instrument of it's will and, as such, objecting to the fact that the state see's fit to put him in danger is rather like objecting to a firefighter being asked to go into a burning building. Yes, you may object to the wars, but you cannot object to the state using soldiers to prosecute them outside of the general objection to war. And yes, I support both the war and the soldiers. The war is their to remind the Middle East that we are in charge, and will not tolerate actions against our nations. I support the soldiers because a man who spends his life getting shot at is a better man than I.



Please note: The opener is made in the assumption of the army being proffessional and voluntary. Conscription is an unacceptable impingement upon the freedoms of the people, and must be opposed.

 

[Rock Avich]

Woo Go troops...

... Can anyone really say that without feeling tired of the phrase "Support our Troops?"

I know I am. Maybe we can spice it up? Maybe say something new and exciting.

It would take the BORING out of the statement at the very least.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Hmmmmm, I believe in militaries, but not wars. Wars start because there's people willing to start them. Having no military would just mean that the people who DO want to start them will beable to run amok.

Besides, any effective soldier fights to end war, not because they are enamoured to war (not always true technically ... but being a soldier and being a political insurgent are two different things in my opinion :x)

So it's not the problem that lie with soldiers, but generally lie with those who *aren't* soldiers.

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

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[Rock Avich]

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

Everyone's allergic to bullets and such. Just some of us are smart enough to stay away from it.

Though then again, I am a coward who's allergic to anything remotely harmful, so disregard my opinion on war.

 

[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

Everyone's allergic to bullets and such. Just some of us are smart enough to stay away from it.

Though then again, I am a coward who's allergic to anything remotely harmful, so disregard my opinion on war.

Yeah, everybody is allergic to bullets n.n But like anything you're allergic too, you avoid, and so you should. I think it's a good mentality for soldiers to have and I think most do ... I think its politicians, or high ranking military figures wanting to be politicians ... that start wars.

Which is why I think politicians who start wars should fight in them :x Then politicians would realise that they are allergic to bullets too and can suffer with their troops

 

[Joselyn]

Not at all
Troops are people, a war is not

On a totally unrelated note, I would like to compliment your avatar...I absolutely love CTR...when I was younger .....of course...

 

[sirdapfrey]

I don't agree with people joining the army.

Do you not agree with people joining the army at all? Or did you mean you just don't agree with people joining just to go to "The War?"