Why I don't support the troops.

Post Reply New Topic

Not really true about Vietnam. France was trying to be imperialistic and sucked at it, so we took over for them.

Sort of like how you are trying to make sense in
this thread but suck at it so I am taking over for you?

Yes, exactly like that, actually. Carry on.

ah. as i understand it, it went as follows: vietnam wanted independence from french imperialism. they approached the us for assistance several times and after being refused eventually turned to china and russia, china in particular offering assistance. fearing the proliferation of communism, the us strategically set up a situation whereby they could go invade. the arbitrary distinction between north and south vietnam had only existed since 1953 or 54, i think.

so this being the case, i probably worded my last post ambiguously, and should probably have said, rather than there being no reason for vietnam, that it was started under false pretenses.

Aren't most wars?

fair point. they most likely are. there is always a lot more involved than your average member of the public gets to know at least.

Because you're ungrateful.

(Wow, that was easy! )

You sit back and enjoy your right to complain in a free society, ignorant of the lives of America's soldiers that were, and are, willingly sacrificed to give you the right to sit there and whine while you're still ranching your pimples.

Spoken like a good conservative parrot.

If he doesnt justify the death spiral of middleclass America, with a heavy dose of rightwing republican rhetoric, his guilty conscience will have him buying carbon offsets again.. its sad

Who exactly is "he" is this post? Can't be referring to me, since I'm not a right-winger.

i think he may be referring to the parrot guy.

Ahh, this thread brings me a whiff of nostalgia from my middle school years, when war was BAD and politics were simple. Of course, I got over all of that in my first year of high school, my high school being an alternative school run by aging hippies. Nothing teaches you the fallacies of pacifism quite as quickly as being surrounded by old hippies and their young proteges. Many of the people I went to school with held opinions identical to the OP's, and at about the same age. It seems to be a stage among some people, some of them outgrow it, some don't. But I digress...

What really bothers me about the original post is the mischaracterization of our troops as either sadistic bullies or the refuse of society. I think someone's been watching too much of a certain morbidly obese film maker of dubious "documentaries" lately... When I was in gunsmithing school, I was in classes that where often 30% or more current or former military, and there wasn't a sadist or stewbum among them. A few people who lacked the mechanical aptitude to work on guns, yes, but no psychos. I've also got some friends in the guard, mostly in the tech end of things. They have very well paying day jobs, but wanted to serve their country as well. The military is far from homogeneous, your small experience aside. Killing is not what the military is about. It can be part of their job sometimes, but it is not the purpose of having armed forces.

If you'd smeared a race or nationality with the same type of ignorant generalizations you applied to our troops, the howls of outrage would be much louder still. That they haven't been louder says more about the political makeup of this board than anything, but that's a whole other can of worms. Just like society, our troops are a mixed bag, to expect perfection of them is not fair. You should not pass judgment upon them because they've made the choice to fight.

No doubt the military is a mixed bag where (as many of the incidents of "collateral damage" and "strenuous interrogation" indicate ) sadism is no more uncommon there as anywhere else in life. To belong to an organization whose purpose may be determined by irresponsible politicians and whose mission is very frequently involved with horrifyingly death threatening circumstances is in no way a easy life. To choose to live that way of life with the trust that the national policies will offer an honorable time is perhaps being too trusting as there are no doubt very intelligent, sensitive and highly skilled people there whose intentions have been perverted by being placed in impossible circumstances.
And within military structure there is no way a decent person can satisfactorily object to the stupid and brutal actions that are required by superiors to carry out. The huge current suicide rate and shredded marriages of returning veterans has indicated that surely too much has been asked of these people who have been and are being treated shoddily. Unfortunately people have not been able to sensibly separate support for the individuals who have been so badly misused from the foolish and destructive policies that is the root of the problem.
In a terrible way, just as brutal terrorists use innocent civilians to shield their excesses, politicians are using relatively decent military people to shield their reprehensible policies.

so what is the purpose?

Way to make unfounded assumptions about my political views. I see you are still sadly operating under a false dichotomy of liberal vs conservative. And I'm the one who believes politics is simple. Anyways, I am not a pacifist by any means, as other posts of mine in this thread have shown clearly enough. Not my fault if you're too lazy to read.


1.) The first category, I believe I may have phrased it a bit too strongly and led some to misinterpret my meaning. I'm referring to those who take a romantic view of the military or glorify warfare. Really, you can't deny that some of that attitude is a major part of US military, especially if you look at their recruiting: I've been shown several recruiting propaganda films and every single one of them has shown clips of stuff getting blown up, emphasizes a sense of power, etc.
2.) I wouldn't characterize that second group (the one recruited by the economic draft) as "the refuse of society." I would characterize them as people who got screwed by the system and have no other options.


Not only no, but hell no. I can't stand Michael Moore.


OK, fair enough. Perhaps my limited experience is insufficient to make such a claim. But I have met several people who match the descriptions I gave. BTW, "former or current military" people don't always bear much resemblance to the person who enlisted. Many join for different reasons, but after their experiences in the military, certainly will put a certain face out to the public, and it doesn't always reflect their original motives for enlisting.


I don't think it's even necessary for me to refute such an absurd statement.


Hm... are you saying I shouldn't judge them for their choice to fight, or that because they've chosen to fight, I should not judge them? Your syntax is unclear.

Really, this thread was mainly an objection to constantly parroted calls I keep hearing to "support the troops" and the expectation that one never criticize members of the military. Blind, unquestioning hero-worship of someone simply because they happen to be in the military is ridiculous, but that's what is expected in our civil cult. Jingoism just doesn't hold much water with me.